Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Defeat of Armies Keywords: Study on defeated armies Message-ID: <1991Mar1.051840.28033@cbnews.att.com> Date: 1 Mar 91 05:18:40 GMT References: <1991Feb26.011946.5763@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb28.050206.6884@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: University of Pittsburgh, CIS Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" In article <1991Feb28.050206.6884@cbnews.att.com> ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > > >From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) > [ Argument that generally less than 30% of the troops are in combat.. therefore, when 30% are incapacitated, fighting power drops] > >If the support troops get their "fair share" >then an army's combat potential isn't hurt nearly as much. > >(Source, _How to Make War_, author forgotten for the moment.) >From a naive view point, I'd think that if support troops are killed, and support operations disrupted, armies will not function even if combat troops are available... lack of food, water and ammunition. Also, wouldn't technologically sophisticated forces be more vulnerable to support troop casualties since the ardware needs more maintenance, spare parts etc? -Han kim