Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Defeat of Armies
Keywords: Study on defeated armies
Message-ID: <1991Mar7.012957.29764@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Mar 91 01:29:57 GMT
References: <1991Feb26.011946.5763@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar4.205706.5907@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa.
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)

> From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
> Some armies' doctrine and training is superior to others at enabling and
> encouraging cut-off elements to keep fighting.  An example is discussed in
> the book "Death of a Division" (can't recall author), which goes into the
> Wehrmacht idea of a "wanderkessel," a group of isolated troops still doing
> their thing.  But we wander into soc.history territory's kessel...

  I recall an article I read a while back that attempted to analyze what
  impact casualties had on defeat - and if casualties didn't have an
  impact - what did?

  I'll dig it up for the details if you want - but, the essense of the 
  article studied about 80 modern battles from WWII to the present day.
  
  "Excessive casualties" only accounted for 12% of why a force was defeated,
  lost, or gave up.  33% of those that 'lost' were "outmanuevered".  And
  the fact that they had been outmanuevered, were cut off, and 'tactically
  defeated' caused their downfall.  

  In a word, what defeated the Iraqi Army was "Manuever", "Deception", and
  "Air/Naval/Arty bombardment" - with Manuever and Deception the coup de
  grace (sp?).  They lost the will to fight.  Which is, bottom line,
  the Infantry's mission:  Close with and destory the enemy('s will to fight).

  mike schmitt