korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[TinCow]

Originally posted by Argos65987
Back onto the original topic -

I was thinking of maybe battles fought during the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans during WWI. Bedouin horsemen with swords fighting Turk infantry. I can't seem to find any specifics or statistics (if anyone can, please help me out). The closest I came to anything concrete was a battle fought at Aqaba (in modern day Jordan) where the Arabs captured the city (a supply port) from the Turkish garrison. It was in July of 1916 or 1917 and the Arabs were led by a man who later was named King Faisel I. Although TE Lawrence was there I don't think there were any British troops. If anyone can find concrete stats, this may be the closest example of a tech backwards group beating a more advanced force.

This is true, except that the Arabs did have many guns. They had been supplied by the British for some time before this attack. In fact, after the taking of Aqaba the Arabs were given massive amounts of supplies, essentially turning them into a modern (at the time) light cavalry army. The technological boundary was more in getting the Arab army to learn how to use the weapons, not in supplying them.

[Spatzimaus]

This one isn't a technology difference one:

Eban Emael
It was a Belgian fort, designed to be the centerpiece of their defenses, on a bluff overlooking the intersection of two rivers. 77 German troops (paratroopers and combat engineers) flew in at night on gliders, siezed control of several of the gun towers, and turned them around to surpress the garrison; in the end, 1200 Belgians surrendered, and the Germans only lost one or two men.

The problem with these whole Spearman vs Tank scenarios isn't so much that they wouldn't happen in the real world, because in the real world these situations just wouldn't come up in the first place. In Civ3, when you reach the end of an upgrade line (Swordsmen, Longbowmen, Cavalry, Ironclad) you often keep them around; after all, many governments have plenty of free units, and the republic/democracy only have to pay 1 gold per turn to maintain them. Besides, they help for suppressing revolters in new cities and add another defender to buy time, so why get rid of them?
In the real world, though, we would never accept this. When horse cavalry were used in WW1 (and even WW2), they suffered horrendous losses to machine gun-equipped infantry. No one in their right mind said "nah, let's keep them around anyway, they'll help suppress rioters" once they saw what happened on the battlefield.
In Civ3, though, there's just no motivation to disband them. If you let Cavalry upgrade to Tanks (which is the progression many units went through, but for game balance purposes this might be a bad idea), Ironclads to Destroyers to AEGIS, and make Swordsmen and Longbowmen upgrade to, say, Musketmen, this wouldn't happen as often, but it still doesn't change the basic situation.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Zachriel


A very good, well explained post. Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

I have played board games since about 1970, including a game called Strategy I. They were a lot of fun, but I do not miss the arithmetic.

YES! But there's still nothing like a good board wargame.

[GePap]

KOrn:
Dien Bien Phu should certainly not be on this list. Again, the Viet MInh were a trained, organized military force just like the French, they outnumbered the french, they occupied better positions, and they had greater firepower. How could they then possibly be seen as the inferior force? The french got themselves into Dien Bien Phu precisely becuase they belive that the Viet Mihn were a bunch of inferior guerrillas who would never get the upper hand over them- thus they could not figure out the danger of basing their forces in a valley deep into enemy held land because they discounted the ability of the Viet Mihn to bring into position the firepower they did (hauled howlitzers piece by piece up mountanous jungles). This is another case of hubris in the part of an european force fighting an non-european force(like at the Tushima straits)

[bork]

Dutch republic vs Spain
16th/17th century
In the 16th century7 provinces united and stood up against their ruler: the king of Spain.
In that time of age Holland was non-existing on the worldchart. Spain was the leading country.
The Dutch were technology and numerous behind. The had a civ-tactic of buying: weapons, technology and soldiers (mercenaries).
In other words They bought their fightingpower. This combined with new tactics. The Dutch king William of Orange the First and his brothers invented en developed the strategy of forming a double organised line of musketman (1 row standing and one on their knees) against the attacking enemy. note: this method was used centuries afterwards btw.
The war lasted for 80 years (with a 12 year break) and the Dutch became an independed Republic (with also a King btw??) of the seven united provinces.
So the used gold (generated by trade and raids against merchant ships (legal piracy, ordered by the King) to buy manpower and technology to defeat their rulers!

[Argos65987]

OK, I think I found a battle that meets the criteria. I had never heard of this until today but: The Battle of Courtrai (or the Battle of the Golden Spurs) July 11, 1302.

To quote:

"Early morning July 11th 1302, some 9.000 Flemish soldiers wait for the attack of a French army of knights. Most of these soldiers are simple commoners, workmen and farmers. France annexed Flanders two years before and tried to submit the Flemish towns. The Flemish people however, conscious of their own valour, resisted and stood up against the French aggressor. That struggle in 1302 is remarkable for two specific reasons: from a social and from a military point of view.

The uprising originated from the people themselves, without being provoked by a lord (the Flemish count and his most important lords were in French captivity). Only when the uprising became widespread, the count's relatives who still were free rushed in to aid. But in the first place this was a struggle of people against a lord (the French king), not the struggle between two lords.

The battle itself was extraordinary too. For the very first time in recorded history an army of footmen will beat an army of knights. The Flemings got a victory nobody would have dreamt of. Warfare would never be the same since that day. "

I believe it fits because the size of the forces were comparable and the French army was tech superior.

You can read more here: Battle of the Golden Spurs

What do you all think?

[Trifna]

Upgrade [not last version, see further thread] of what I found in Britannica encyclopedia. What is not in what I said but would have been interesting simply are things I didn't found in Britannica (such as weapons used). Infos that have an asterisk (*) next to it are from people on the forum.


-Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Thermopylae
August, 480 BC
Greek (300 Spartans, their helots and 1100 Beotians) vs Persians
Greek lost: all
Persians: considerable losses

Notice: Persians won but it was a good resistance for the Greeks. The troops I named here (Greeks) are what was used to let all the others escape.


Salamis
480 BC
Persians (800 galleys) vs Greeks (370 triremes)
Persians lost: 300 galleys
Greek lost: 40 triremes

Notice: Greek lured Persians in the narrow waters of the strait of Salamis where the massed Persians ships had difficulty maneuvering.



-Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Isandhdlwana
January 22nd-23rd, 1879
Zulu (20 000 men) vs British (1700 men)
Zulu lost: 3000 to 4000
British lost: 1580

Notice: Zulu advanced unnoticed
My comment: This is partly because they attacked all at the same time (stack unit someone? )


Battle of Adwa
March 1st, 1896
Italy (14 500 men) vs Ethiopia (100 000 men)
Italian lost (killed, wounded or captured): 70%
Ethiopian lost: not said

Notice: Italian columns were disorganized and Italians lack adequates maps of the area. Part of the Italian losts are due to a retreat in difficult terrain, harrassed by hostile population.
My comment: Seems partly due to terrain and number of men all there at same time (almost 1:7 ratio)


Dien Bein Phu
November 20th* to May 7th, 1954
France (15 709 men*) vs VietMinh (socialists Viets) (40 000 men)
France troops*: tanks, artillery and air support
VietMinh troops*: guns (light to heavy), anti-air, mortars
France lost*: 1800 killed, 5000 wounded
VietMinh*: 8 000 to 12 000 killed, 15 000 to 30 000 wounded


Notice: French (fortified) taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Heavy artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.


Little Bighorn
June 25th, 1876
USA vs Amerindians (cleary overwhelming Americans)
American troops: cavalry
American lost: more than 200 (they only talk of Custer's 7th cavalry who was completely vanquished)

Notice: Part of the cavalry was surprised to see some encampment where they weren't thought to be and it caused some problems to the tactic. Unaware about it, the other part of cavalry arrived alone with the group they were supposed to attack. Lost of strtegic edge that they thought they would have (river). Amerindians were alerted of Custer's attack because of other attacks they already had (Custer is the one that was surprised to see some troops where he didn't thaught). Other than Custer's 7th cavalry, the other retreated (they had attacked before him).
My comment: Here again we see a common factor: more troops at the same place. Also terrain advantage/disadvantage that got a place.


Spartacus
71 BC
Rome (8 legions=54 000 men*) vs Spartacus (ultimately, Spartacus had at least 90 000 men)
Spartacus lost: erm... alot including 6000 crucified

Notice: They lost this battle (and died), but they also beated 2 consuls in 72 BC it is said. But I'd say they were the ones with more troops, and not the romans. 90 000... Not every consul has 50 000 men, no? Notice that not all slaves are combatants.*


Agincourt
October 25th, 1415
French (20 000 to 30 000 men) vs English (5900 men)
French troops: many of the troops were mounted knights in heavy armor
English troops: 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers
French lost: 1500 knights and 4500 men-at-arms
English lost: less than 450 men

Notice: French unwisely chose a battlefield with a a narrow frontage of only about 1000 yards of open ground between the two woods, making large maneuvers almost impossible.




Similarity: more troops on the winner's side at the same battle at the same time. (stack unit someone? )
Not surprising, since one strategy is trying to catch the opponent's troops by little parts.

That's what I found. You guys should all look at getting this encyclopedia. Encarta is peanut compared to it. It's marvelous


About Napoleon in Russia, I read about this war and I know that troops were frozen (winter). Many died because they hadn't enough supplies or from frost. All this not helping morale to make things worst. I guess going from France to Russia in winter is a great change of temperature...

[Grrr]

The Battle of "Gate Pa" is probably the battle which made the greatest impact in the history of the New Zealand Wars. In an effort to cut off reinforcements and food supplies which where filtering through to the Maori rebels in the Waikato area, the British sent their troops to Tauranga, where Gate Pa was situated, in order to attack the fortress.

Gate Pa was situated near the entrance of Tauranga Harbour, and was so named because of a gate which was nearby, and which bordered on land bought by the Church Missionary Society.

Around 200 warriors from the Ngai-te-Rangi tribe were in place one side of the "pa", and around 35 warriors, mainly from the Ngati Koheriki tribe, reinforced the other side. The chief Rawiri Puhirake was in charge.

On 28th April 1864, the 43rd British regiment attacked the Pa. 1.700 soldiers armed with a strong artillery train : 8 mortars, 2 howitzers, 2 naval canon and 5 Armstrong guns. The Armstrong gun was a relatively new weapon, having been invented in 1854. The British troops knew by this time that an extremely well fortified Pa, even manned by armed Maori warriors who were numerically inferior in number, was not a future battle to be taken lightly.

General Cameron was in charge of the Imperial troops. The soldiers opened fire on Gate Pa, and during a short time bombarded it heavily. The following day the troops bombarded again, for a longer period, and this time succeeding in breaking opening a large point of entry to the pa. Cameron then sent an elite assault force to penetrate the breach opened up during the bombardment.

The assault force was made up of the 43rd Regiment and a naval brigade, an approximate total of 300 men. The party advanced, succeeded in entering the pa, but within ten minutes were forced to rapidly withdraw, leaving around 100 dead and wounded soldiers inside the "pa".

The British had thought their previous heavy bombardment had taken effect, owing to the fact that there had been little response fire from within the pa. However, on entering via the breach, the British troops found themselves being fired on at very close range from Maoris in hiding.

A reinforcement group of soldiers was sent to relieve the trapped assault force in the pa. However, the reinforcements found themselves caught up in the retreat from the pa by the first assault force. From two separate areas of the pa, the Maoris were firing on the two groups of troops, who were by this time caught up in the deadly crossfire.

During the night the Maoris, who had not suffered a particularly heavy loss due to their well-planned strategy, evacuated the pa, taking with them the abandoned British weapons.

After the battle of Gate Pa there was much controversy about the defeat of the elite Imperial troops, heavily armed and far superior in number to the Maoris.

This shows what a few warriors of a backwards civ can do!

[Akka]

Originally posted by Trifna
Dien Bein Phu
May 7, 1954
France (not said) vs VietNam (VietMinh--> socialists Viets) (40 000 + heavy artillery)

Notice: French taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.

Again, the Viet-Minh were much more than 100 000, not just 40 000.

Spartacus
71 BC
Rome (8 legions=?) vs Spartacus (ultimately, Spartacus had at least 90 000 men)
Spartacus lost: erm... alot including 6000 crucified

Notice: They lost this battle (and died), but they also beated 2 consuls in 72 BC it is said. But I'd say they were the ones with more troops, and not the romans. 90 000... Not every consul has 50 000 men, no?

8 legions are 54 000 men. I would add that though the Romans were better organized and trained into battle tactics, they were NOT having any tech advantages, as all used same weapons.
I would add that though the slaves were about 100 000, there was a lot of non-combattants (children, women) and many that were not trained to fight.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

8 legions are 54 000 men. I would add that though the Romans were better organized and trained into battle tactics, they were NOT having any tech advantages, as all used same weapons.
I would add that though the slaves were about 100 000, there was a lot of non-combattants (children, women) and many that were not trained to fight.

Battle tactics are part of technology. For instance, the phalanx is not just a bunch of spearmen, but a philosophy of combat whereby no one will desert his comrades. Modern armies call it "unit cohesion," and that along with the concept of "pitched warfare" were Greek inventions.

Specifically, Legions were definitely not just a bunch of swordsmen. Each Legion was an entire self-contained army consisting of sword, spear, archer, bombard, engineers, horse, messengers, surveyors, supply, etc. They could build a ten mile road and a fort each day, as they advanced into enemy territory. They had catapults, ballista, etc. They had an extensive system of inventory, manufacture and supply. They also had organized battle tactics, such as the infilade, which Spatacus lacked. And a professional system of leadership.

Spartacus was able to destroy more than one Roman force because they initially did not consider him a credible threat; he led a rabble. The first cohort did not bother to build a fort and was consequently ambushed. With the first victory came more followers.

Gladiators, as a rule, do not make good soldiers. To be a good soldier means to have faith in your leadership, to be loyal to your comrades, and to believe in something greater than yourself. To be a good gladiator means to be ruthless and selfish for personal survival.

[korn469]

Akka le Vil

where do you get the 100k+ numbers from?

a number of sites say around 50k
here is one from cnn
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war.../11/spotlight/


this one says 40k troops, and 30k support personal
http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/exp...v1n2-art2.html

this site says 70k
http://ebooks.whsmithonline.co.uk/ht...4/M0000934.HTM

more on this subject a little later...

[Trifna]

This kind of historical data base we are doing here should maybe put in annexes of The List. What do you think about it Korn? We would only put the final result (what I'm intending to do with my post). It's the kind of data that can be useful to Firaxis or anyone looking at the combat system.

Maybe it would also be useful (because of Civ III's combat system) to say who attacked who (done it in "a vs b" but it's not always clear).

[Grumbold]

The Italian campaign of 1896 and the battle of Adwa are certainly good examples of the value of accurate intelligence. I would not attribute it as a technological victory though. The Ethiopians had overhauled their economy and introduced a new mechanism to support their troops and imported over 100,000 rifles, 5,000,000 cartridges and a detatchment of artillery. The new system was ideal for rapid mobilisation and allowed them to raise their army fast when it was needed. Unfortunately the system was not geared toward mobility so they were not able to follow up their shock victory by reclaiming Eritrea, leaving the situation primed for the next Italian invasion in 1934.

[Zachriel]

"The fall of Dien Bien Phu shocked France and brought an end to French Indochina."

Certainly at the time of the battle, the French and Western world considered that the Vietnamese were "inferior" forces. Amazingly, the Americans stumbled into the same situation. They beat Hitler, didn't they? Just move a couple of mechs in there and that's all you gotta do, right?

Not.

Don't just move a couple of units into battle without forethought. Plan ahead. Respect your enemy. Use overwhelming force when possible, at least 3-1 on "easy terrain" and 10-1 against fortifications. Expect losses.

[Akka]

Originally posted by korn469
Akka le Vil

where do you get the 100k+ numbers from?

a number of sites say around 50k
here is one from cnn
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war.../11/spotlight/


this one says 40k troops, and 30k support personal
http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/exp...v1n2-art2.html

this site says 70k
http://ebooks.whsmithonline.co.uk/ht...4/M0000934.HTM

more on this subject a little later...

I guess that it's a little hard to get real numbers, because of lack of informations and different way of couting troops. On of the main difference is that even if you consider that the Viets had no more than 50-60 000 soldiers trained and equipped, they also had 75 000 people to carry supply, weapons, ammo and the like. So you can consider that either they were only 50 000 if you restrict to the fighting teams, either 125 000 if you expand to all the men that participated to the battle in any ways.

http://www.wargame.com/articles/nam/nam1.html
"(a) Giap would accept the challenge with four divisions, regular troops trained and equipped by the Chinese; (b) they would be supported by some 200 artillery pieces, carried in sections on the backs of 75,000 coolies up the jungle trails and installed in well-camouflaged positions"

http://orbat.com/site/data/historica...enphu1954.html
"General Giap had approximately 100,000 troops - including women soldiers - combat and support"

http://www.hanoitravel.com/hanoi_history.htm
"Nevertheless, in the following weeks and months Vietnamese troops under General Giap prepare to attack Dien Bien Phu. With the help of up to 200,000 porters, the Viet Minh manage to transport heavy artillery up the mountains surrounding the valley of Dien Bien Phu."

[Sikander]

I agree that methods of warfare are technology. One of the main reasons that the Spanish did so well against the Aztecs was that their weapons were designed to kill, not to subdue. The Aztecs were used to warfare for the sake of capturing prisoners, where the opposing armies would line up opposite each other and pummel away with clubs, darts and stones until one side or the other paniced. They were no match for the discipline and combined arms of the Spanish, especially since their own superstition undermined their morale. By the time they began to realize that the Spanish were not superhuman most of their allies had deserted them, and quite a few had joined the Spanish. Additionally, Cortes was no dummy, and modified his own tactics as well, making very good use of the light naval cannon he had to rip bloody holes in the enemy lines.

A force which is formed on the principles of total warfare will have a huge advantage over a force formed on the principles of ritual warfare.

Europeans were also very adept politically. They knew that their very presence meant that whatever equalibrium there had been in a region previously was gone. There arrival spurred countless deadly wars as native peoples fought for access to European goods (e.g. North America, West Africa) or sought goodwill and protection in exchange for military or logistical assistance in a case where the Europeans engaged in combat with another local people. This was the truest form of leverage used by the Europeans to take over most of the known world in a few centuries, with military technology being the smaller lever which moved this larger one.

I agree with most that the battles of Port Arthur, Tsushima, Dien Bein Phu, and the massive Chinese offensive in Korea in 1950 were all between opponents who were fairly equivalent in terms of weapons tech deployed, and thus are merely just good examples of another way one can underestimate an enemy, which is to say the Westerners in these instances underestimated the enemy's battle capabilities in terms of doctrine, technology and logistics.

I disagree with those who rate the Mongols of Ghengis Khan as technologically primitive. Consider the fact that I consider superior doctrine to be a tech advantage, and the fact that the Mongols possessed an unrivaled military machine capable of completely routing an enemy force from anywhere in the world while outnumbered. The central Europeans were lucky that Ghengis died when he did, for no one was able to stop the screening force sent to cover the approach of the Mongol main body (they though the screen was in fact the main body, and there was plenty of panic as it crushed two attempts by large forces to beat it). The Mongol method of warfare was IMO the most sophisticated the world had seen up to that time, and was only surpassed in it's effectiveness by Napolean's.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sikander
I agree that methods of warfare are technology. One of the main reasons that the Spanish did so well against the Aztecs was that their weapons were designed to kill, not to subdue.

The concept is referred to as "pitched warfare." It was invented by the Greeks and independently derived by the Zulus. It would certainly qualify as a technology.

[Zachriel]

The more "primitive" form of warfare is referred to as "skirmish warfare."

The bravery of the individual combatants is the issue with skirmish warfare. Battlefield organization is usually quite weak, and battles are not always resolved by everyone jumping into the middle.

Think David and Goliath.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Sikander
I disagree with those who rate the Mongols of Ghengis Khan as technologically primitive. Consider the fact that I consider superior doctrine to be a tech advantage, and the fact that the Mongols possessed an unrivaled military machine capable of completely routing an enemy force from anywhere in the world while outnumbered.

I suppose it all depends on what you include or exclude. If doctrine and training is 'tech' then the slave revolt and Germanic destruction of the legions are good examples, as would be the battles that ensued during the development of more and more advanced phalanx tactics in ancient Greece. If training and doctrine are not considered tech then the Mongol defeats of knights are possible candidates.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Grumbold


I suppose it all depends on what you include or exclude. If doctrine and training is 'tech' then the slave revolt and Germanic destruction of the legions are good examples, as would be the battles that ensued during the development of more and more advanced phalanx tactics in ancient Greece. If training and doctrine are not considered tech then the Mongol defeats of knights are possible candidates.

Well, they are referred to as hordes. Settled peoples of the time considered them barbarians. Nevertheless, their battlefield techniques were superlative. They mastered the horsearcher, requiring large, strong horses, the stirrup and extensive training.

[Trifna]

I guess that it's a little hard to get real numbers, because of lack of informations and different way of couting troops. On of the main difference is that even if you consider that the Viets had no more than 50-60 000 soldiers trained and equipped, they also had 75 000 people to carry supply, weapons, ammo and the like. So you can consider that either they were only 50 000 if you restrict to the fighting teams, either 125 000 if you expand to all the men that participated to the battle in any ways.

Let's take only fighter teams. Because we are talking of what attacks

Do you know if the number of death and wounded included only fighting teams?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Trifna
Let's take only fighter teams. Because we are talking of what attacks

Do you know if the number of death and wounded included only fighting teams?

The definition of a soldier is actually somewhat gray. Non-military personnel were used to transport supplies, including weapons. Many military personnel did not have uniforms or insignia.

[korn469]

ok the main reasons that i think that both Dien Bien Phu should count is the follow reasons

first a little history of Vietnam

1802: After pushing back the Tay Son with the help of French mercenaires recruited by Jesuit Pigneau de Behaine, Nguyen Anh (the only survivor from the massacre of the Nguyen by the Tay Son brothers) changes his name to Gia Long and starts the Nguyen dynasty. The capital of the unified country is now Hue.
1858: The French navy attacks Da Nang.
1867: Cochinchina (the South) becomes a French Colony.
1883: Tonkin (the North) and Annam (the Center) become French protectorates.
1887: Creation of the Indochina Union, Cochinchina, Annam, Tonkin, Cambodia, and latter Laos.
1932: Bao Dai, the last emperor, begins his reign as an infant.
1940: Invasion of Indochina by Japan. The French administration collaborate and continue to run the government.
1941: Ho Chi Minh starts the Viet Minh. Leninism is thought of as an ideological weapon to serve Vietnamese nationalism against French colonialism.
1945 (March 9): The Japanese end up French authority. (Aug 19): The Viet Minh starts a general popular insurection. Bao Dai abdiquates. (Sept 2): Ho Chi Minh declares independance in Hanoi (US agents stand at his side) (Sept 23): The French authorities reoccupy the South.
1946: After the failed Fontainebleau conference between Ho Chi Minh and the French government, notably about the question of the status of Cochinchina, and the bombing of Haiphong (6000 killed), the war between the French troops and the Viet Minh for the control of Vietnam begins.
1954: The bulk of the French army is defeated at Dien Bien Phu (this is the first time in history a colonial power is militarily defeated, a massive decolonization follows worldwide). At the Geneva conference, the country is partitioned at the 17th parallel as an interim stage. The North becomes the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a communist state supported by China and the USSR (the strict communist ideology began to prevail at the 2nd congress of the Vietnamese labor party in 1951)

So Vietnam never had independence and the Viet Minh were a guerilla army supported by the Communist Government of China, which had only been in power for 5 years in 1954, and out of those 5 years had been fighting against US forces in Korea for over two of them

Although both France and Vietnam had been occupied in World War 2, but it was France that took part in the Marshall Plan, not Vietnam so industrially the French government was in much better shape to fight the war in Vietnam

The French had complete Air Superiority at Dien Bien Phu and all they had to deal with was Viet Minh AAA (which proved too much)

The Viet Minh were using 105mm howitzers captured by the Chinese from the US during the early part of the Korean war, and in 1954 the French still had a 5:1 advantage in terms of artillary
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet3.html

Although France had basically lost the war before Dien Bien Phu even took place, the French still had technological superiority over the Viet Minh and if they had been less arrogant and better lead they should have won that battle as well

as for the nature of non combatants it's fine to list them but i do think a differnce between them and front line troops should be made

that being said, does anyone disagree with the following statement?

that the french had betwwen 10-16k troops at DBP
the Viet Minh had between 40-50k troops and about 35k support personale

[Trifna]

I think that VietNam may have an importance when looking forward to a good battle system because of a particularity: environment. It shows at which point results of battle may be different. Same for Russia, same for Iroquois and other Amerindians in eastern Canada and certainly many other cases. They normally should be the more extreme results for battles implicating similar troops.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Zachriel


The definition of a soldier is actually somewhat gray. Non-military personnel were used to transport supplies, including weapons. Many military personnel did not have uniforms or insignia.

Well here we are talking of a military unit against annother. Thus, we need to consider what is military only (in the perfect case). This is to know what it does when we have cavalry vs tank, etc., so we can have a better idea of battles.

Right? Wrong?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Trifna


Well here we are talking of a military unit against annother. Thus, we need to consider what is military only (in the perfect case). This is to know what it does when we have cavalry vs tank, etc., so we can have a better idea of battles.

Right? Wrong?

If we're talking about units against another, then Dien Bien Phu would be :

French :
1 elite infantry
1 artillery
2-3 bombers
1-2 fighters
1 veteran infantry
1 regular infantry

Except for aircrafts, all are fortified on a jungle tile with a fortress.

Viet-minh :
10-12 infantry units (most are conscripts, some are regular, one or two are veterans).
3-4 artilleries
2-3 fighters (as there is not any anti-air unit, they just symbolises the AA guns).
All of them are fortified on mountains tiles.

Then, Civ3-wise, this is a perfectly normal situation with not even enough tech difference to justify a lower tech level unit. When we think about it, what make people jump are not infantry defeating infantry, not even riflemen defeating infantry, it's pikemen defeating tanks or longbowmen defeating infantry. And not even with 7 to 1 advantage in numbers, but a mere 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1.

Seems that after 4 pages of historical examples, we are to the final conclusion that NEVER EVER such abnormal results happened.

[Trifna]

Seems that after 4 pages of historical examples, we are to the final conclusion that NEVER EVER such abnormal results happened.

In fact, I didn't even thaught we would find any exemple. just needed to prove it and, since we're at it, make a database that can be used thereafter.

About how to count number of men in an army, I don't wanna transfer in Civ terms since we want to evaluate Civ in comparison to History. But (ideally) more in term of number of men of each group. I think that we have a large enough database to say that a lower unit has great disadvantage except if there's a whole bunch (since number of troops is annother factor). What I'd try to do now is having enough data to evaluate at which point a certain type of unit could beat annother.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Seems that after 4 pages of historical examples, we are to the final conclusion that NEVER EVER such abnormal results happened.

We must be a special subset of the Civ community.

What about the Zulus v. British at Iswandland, the loss of the U.S.S. Cole to a small boat, the loss of a B1b Bomber in the recent conflict in Afghanistan?

As far as the number of people in each unit, that will vary considerably. Napoleon fielded a million man army. The U.S. with a much larger population fields an army with far more firepower, but only composed of a few thousand soliders.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Zachriel


We must be a special subset of the Civ community.

What about the Zulus v. British at Iswandland, the loss of the U.S.S. Cole to a small boat, the loss of a B1b Bomber in the recent conflict in Afghanistan?

As far as the number of people in each unit, that will vary considerably. Napoleon fielded a million man army. The U.S. with a much larger population fields an army with far more firepower, but only composed of a few thousand soliders.

Look the thread a little up. Zulus v Briish are included. Now, ook at numbers...
For Napoleon, they generally had similar weapons as I know.
For the rest, you should give more information: maybe useful. Maybe they had anti-air against the bomber, maybe they were armed pretty well in ure boat, etc.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Trifna


Look the thread a little up. Zulus v Briish are included. Now, ook at numbers...
For Napoleon, they generally had similar weapons as I know.
For the rest, you should give more information: maybe useful. Maybe they had anti-air against the bomber, maybe they were armed pretty well in ure boat, etc.

No the bomber just had mechanical problems. But it was lost in combat just the same. The boat was just a boat filled with explosives which they acquired from us, but the Cole was destroyed just the same.

You can explain away the bad results, but the bad results are still there. When John Paul Jones captures the frigate with a merchant vessal, of course mistakes were made, but Jones still has the ship, the victory and the glory.

Of course, the Zulus outnumbered the British on the battlefield, but isn't that the point. The British split their forces. The men were still dead. The unit still destroyed.

Indeed, you always try to destroy your enemy "in detail," meaning piece by piece. Why do you want to fit reality into this jaundiced view that the technology is the only relevant factor?