Quote from: Logi on August 04, 2010, 03:09:11 PM
I can put up 1 mil vs 1 corp per battle. Match that and the strain on your logistic supply.

Yes you can and the result is you loose the battle very badly.  Russians and Later soviets tried mass attacks with poorly equipped / little to no training troops.  Or sent out troops with orders to pick up a rifle from when someone else was killed.  Some times even sent out with pikes.  The results were... poor...

The Japanese planned the same for the defense vs. Operation Olympic, the results would have been brutal; for the Japanese.

Such troops I might add are horribly vulnerable to chemical weapons attack.  Plus have all sorts of problems in terms of command and control.

To be very blunt you could chuck a million men a 50K corps and I would expect the corps to hold and take only light losses while the million man mass attack is crushed.  Not all of the million would be killed its hard to cram people tight and ones in the back will refuse to advance into the kill zone.

What you are hoping for is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
(Wiki grossly understates the losses for the zulu's by nearly an order of magnitude)

What you will get is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift

The Zulu Impi despite his primitive tech was a professional soldier, an iron age soldier mind you but a soldier.  They would be far more capable in terms of willingness to take losses and ability to maneuver than peons with pikes.  Worse you aren't facing Martini-Henry Single Shot rifles and Congreve rocket's. 

I am sorry Logi but if you really think this strategy is viable its not. 

Michael 
     

If you plan the occasion. We will see then. Until then, I don't really care.

It is not a concern of mine until presented.

We do have N-verse accounts of the effectiveness of human wave attacks. I racked up 10-1 kill to loss ratios defending Shanghai and Hong Kong. And then the Chinese had heavy artillery support and rifles. Send 'em in without rifles or artillery support and it will be a massacre. Semi-autos + MGs + gas = very effective population control.

Who said anything about without rifles?

And you do notice your examples are city battles.

Also..

QuoteI don't really care.

Quote from: Logi on August 04, 2010, 04:16:02 PM
If you plan the occasion. We will see then. Until then, I don't really care.

Logi I am trying to help you if you choose to ignore it or think I am giving you bad advance that is your choice but I am trying to provide you with realistically information. 

Michael   

Quote from: Logi on August 04, 2010, 04:16:02 PM
If you plan the occasion. We will see then. Until then, I don't really care.

It is not a concern of mine until presented.

Planning cannot overcome Reality... I saw this firsthand in Iraq.
No matter how well planned (and they were) the Iraqi strategies were, and no matter how well thought out the Insurgent's tactics... neither force can hold a candle to the few US military in the area. The Iraqi regulars spent months preparing defensive positions that generally lasted minutes. The insurgents- in spite of outnumbering us early on, never facing us in direct combat unless trapped, and having the ability to hide among the populace- can only inflict pinpricks but never gain ground.

NOTHING can make up for good training and good equipment in battle.

No matter how many young men the RRC or MK squanders, the Mass Attack strategy would not work against a dedicated, prepared, provisioned enemy.

QuoteLogi I am trying to help you if you choose to ignore it or think I am giving you bad advance that is your choice but I am trying to provide you with realistically information.

Yes I choose to ignore it. I know the risks well enough and do not need ten people repeating the same thing over and over again. It goes beyond advice into the annoying zone.

I do not need advice for things I know.

QuoteNo matter how many young men the RRC or MK squanders, the Mass Attack strategy would not work against a dedicated, prepared, provisioned enemy.

If there is a problem, is the provisioned part.

---

I will kindly now ask everyone to shut up about this. This has gone on long enough. I don't need this advice for I get it enough already. I do not need repeating posts about the same thing, which I have said is considered spam in my eyes.

You all made your point. Now be done with it. I do not fancy having pages on a thread devoted to people saying things that the recipient already knows.

Dude, chill out. Seriously.

I am "chill", I am just slightly annoyed at all the repeating posts on something I know.

My wife and my mother had a conversation like this last night, only about whitewater rafting.  They could've gone back and forth all night, but I eventually said, "Okay, ladies, let's move on to a new topic."

Ah, whitewater rafting.......

And that was only part of what I did on my version of the Bataan Death March, Rocky.  ;)

Which is lovely, as you didn't engage in alternating monologues about it with my wife.

Fine you don't want advance, no problem.  My mistake.

Michael

I am rather curious to see how both sides react to the flooding, because it makes it hard to cross the river now.  Sort of relegates that front to being a static front with occasional raids across.  Thats what I'd do at least.  Why risk several corps in a massive cross-river assault when your supply lines will be tough to manage if you succeed? 

If you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that non of the 2 beligrents have any advantage on the offensive military part.

But as the MK is the instigator, and able to take some precautions ,and the RRC is the aggressor, in an offensive, unaware.

I think the move was logical.  At least it buys time for the MK to mobilise all the troops in reserve or in pure "peacetime active status" to wartime .