Rank those seven attributes according to their importance in the history of warfare:
>Logistics
>Luck
>Morale
>Physical Fitness
>Strategy
>Tactics
>Technology
>>293944
I say logistics and technology increases the odds in a statistical manner and the other aspects just adjust the margins
>>293944
1. Technology.
2. Logistics.
3. Strategy.
POWER GAP
4. Everything else,
1.kewl hats
>>293944
What's the difference between logistics and tactics?
>>293983
This desu
inb4 the victor gets to decides which hats were cool
1.Natural resources and raw materials
1. logistics (and industrial and economic output by extension)
2. strategy
the rest is down down down below these
>>293986
tactics: how your guys move and shoot and do stuff on the battlefield
logistics: how you get men with guns in the first place, keep them supplied with guns, move them around, feed them, clothe them, make sure they don't run out of ammo in the middle of a conflict and so on
What would you put leadership under. Luck?
>>293944
1.Technology
2.Strategy
3.Tactics
4.Luck
5.Morale
6.Physical Fitness
7.Logistics
>>294010
We're not talking about the modern era, where logistics and technology are the deciding factors.
In history, logistics and production were much simpler, so they means a lot less.
>>293950
No strategy? The big thing I see with that is the Iraq invasion by the US (if thats historical enough to discuss here). Baller technology, solid logistics, but the disregard of the Powell Doctrine meant no long term strategy. I guess the same could be said about Vietnam desu senpai. We didn't have a clear victory strategy until we launched the Invasion of North Vietnam, and by then we had lost too much support back home.
>>294030
important question here
Tactics and morale above all else. One of the reasons the Vikings fucking rekted everyone was because of all the stories and rumors spread of the Vikings viciousness. It wasn't an accident, the Vikings knew the way the enemy saw them would deciding factor.
>>294047
Fucking norseboos, why bring up the Vikings? They barely accomplished anything in warfare from a historical perspective, their strategy was entirely based around raiding civilian populations, or extorting payment from cities with the threat of violence.
Vikings lost to literally everyone in large scale military engagements, which is why they didn't cement a hold on Britain or Ireland.
tactics = logistics = strategy
technology
morale = physical fitness
luck
>>294047
>One of the reasons the Vikings fucking rekted everyone
except they didn't
>>294067
But they did cement a hold in Ireland. In fact the original Viking settlements of Dublin, cork, limerick, Wexford and Waterford are still the main cities and economic centers of Ireland today. They had military success but a lot of their achievements come from an ability to trade long distance and be crafty diplomats.
Lets look at some great triumphs and blunders in the categories
1.Logistics
Half the German army freezing in WW2 comes to mind. Shit's boring but important
2. Luck
Kinda hard to quantify, The entire Spanish Armada getting shrekt by a random ass storm is one of the bigger examples I can think of.
3.Morale
Important in keeping long wars and having a population willing to keep taking casualties. Way more important in recent wars as opposed to ancient due to journalism and propaganda.
4.Physical Fitness
People can only get so good, becomes more a matter of how much your average man can be supported. I would consider for the most part to be logistics.
5.Strategy
Again, could easily be considered part of logistics. Either way it has enabled small armies to topple huge ones, physically frailer armies fight tougher ones, and is what made men famous.
6.Tactics
Good on the small scale, leads to a definite advantage, but history has shown that a shitty army with bad equipment can still come out on top if they use what they have well and can minimize the enemies weapons effectiveness.
7.Technology
Same as tactics more or less
So I would say
1.Strategy
2.Logistics
3.Moral
4/5 tactics/technology no order
6.Fitness
Luck is too much of a variable to quantify, it can be anywhere on the list.
>>293944
Luck and circumstance decide everything, including who has the best strategy and tactics, technology etc.
>>294039
Historically, food insecurity was a big problem even for civilians. I'd argue it was more important.
>>294106
I'd put Technology first. Technology determines transport, communication, food preservation, medicine, cartography, and many other vital military things. It's not just having better weapons.
If you know how to breed, shoe, and tack horses, and other pack animals, you can now carry more supplies, send messages faster, have quicker scouting parties, and move troops faster.
Technology
Strategy
Logistics
Morale
Tactics
Fitness
>>294113
>muh fortuna
>>294141
Doesn't mean much if the people you are using that technology against doesn't want to be occupied. England would still own half the world if all they needed was better stuff than the enemy.
>>294098
Brian Boru says otherwise.
Vikings didn't hold onto anything. They couldn't even hold colonies against the Skraelings.
They were absolutely terrible in 'warfare', and were never anything beyond pirates and skirmishers. They had strengths, but warfare wasn't it.
>>294030
Because morale comes later alphabetically t b h
>Mobility
[power gap]
>the rest
Take a lesson from Genghis
For all the techfags: see Vietnam and almost any successful guerrilla operation in the last 200 years.
1. Luck (campaigns are won only if the conditions that enable them to be won are there, from the very beginning)
2. Strategy (even with the bestest troops, logistics and strategy, you can't do shit if you don't know what you're supposed to do in the first place)
2,5. Technology
3. Logistics (shit logistics=GG)
3,5. Numbers (this is according to the time and place actually, even today)
4. Morale (how big of a problem you are goes up according to the difficulty of taking you down for good)
5. Tactics (this might equalize numbers or otherwise enables you to be gudder everytime)
5,5. Technology
6. Physical Fitness ("it's not the size of the manlet in the fight, but the size of the fight in the manlet" t. sun dzu. Of course this plays a non-negligible role in certain circumstances, especially in special operations I'd say, and a certain minimum level is necessary)
Technology: the importance of it depends on the objective and time frame, I think.
>>293944
>Niggas forgetting Political Will
>>294983
Never.
>>293990
the victor gets to decides which hats were cool
>>294039
Logistics are even more important the longer you go back.
That supply line fail? Well, you doomed the army. Literally.
For example, there is campaigns which failed due small supply line disruptions. A example is Carolean Death March. Another is every invasion of Russia.
There is also another issue: Theoretically you can just steal the enemy tech, or ductape together gear that is in the same general league.
And since the list didn't mention anything of note, producing weapons falls under Logistics.
Strategy without logistics is dying of lack of food, or running out of ammo, unable to even scavenge anything.
Logistics without strategy is zerging stoneage people, but they steal your tech, and shoot you.
>>294037
that would be correct if you put logistics first and everything else one place lower
>>294037
>t.general
Noone will fight on an empty stomach and with wet socks.
1.logistics
2.leadership
3.technology
4.mental and physical state of the army
5.tactics/strategy
6.whatever else
>>294348
For all the monkey romanticizers - see colonization of Americas
>>294106
the spanish armada was doomed to failure the moment it got organized. they had more clergymen than naval officers. and those naval officers were not competent and they had outdated ships compared to english and the dutch
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BaQtQfL.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>293983
Fuck off Gaben
1. Direction
2. Concentration
3. Distribution
4. Determination
5. Suprise
6. Endurance
7. Mobility
8. Offensive Action
9. Security
>>295041
>Being this autist.
The question is on the macro level.
>>294160
The fact that England even had an empire was totally reliant on shipbuilding technology. Sure, you can look at Isandhlwana and say that it proves technology doesn't matter since assegais beat rifles, but the British and Dutch wouldn't have been in South Africa in the first place without their technology.
>>293944
Logistics
Strategy
Morale
[POWER GAP]
Tactics
Technology
Luck
Fitness is part of logistics desu.
>>293944
luck morale and logistics cause all the other ones
>>295062
>luck morale and logistics cause all the other ones
You can't produce a good commander and general in a factory.
>>294182
Except Normandy, and Russia, and Sicily, and Naples.
>>293944
I served in the Finnish army and I can relate to the picture :DDD
>>295041
this triggers my autism, i need 10 items
>>293944
Today?
1. Legitimacy
If people really, really don't want you there - you'll have to leave sooner or later.
>>295066
>based Normans are the same as smelly Vikings
If anything, interbreeding with the French is what made them stronger, as history shows with France's war record.
>>293944
Logistics
Technology
Strategy
Tactics
Fitness
Morale
Luck
Luck > Logistics > Strategy > Tactics > Morale > Technology > Physical Fitness
Luck can change the tide of the battle (Mongol vs Japs)
Logistics makes or breaks a stomach. Strategy makes or break a war. Tactics breaks or makes a battle. Technology can be overcome but is good to have. Physical fitness is necessary but not as important as others.
>muh luck
You can go back through history and would "literally" find 1/1000 battles won through luck. They only stand out because they are famous for the circumstances that occurred. Also these 'lucky' wins tend to be between two factions more or less evenly matched in the other categories.
And Technology is easily more important than you rate it. Why do you think the European powers were able to create vast empires within such a short space of time?
>>295679
>>295684
>Why do you think the European powers were able to create vast empires within such a short space of time?
With luck. The power vacuum left by the mongols. The ease of access to classical greek works and indian works. Luck.
Luck isn't simply surviving against overwhelming odds, but its a deciding factor in battle of equals.
>>295706
I think you are autistic. The OP is talking about warfare, not the entire history of the human race.
1. Logistics
2. Tactics
3. Technology
4. Morale
5. Physical fitness
6. Strategy
Luck is way too variable for a list
>>293944
1. Logistics
2. Technology
3. Tactics
4. Strategy
5. Morale
6. Luck
7. Physical Fitness
1.Morale
1. Logistics
2. Strategy
-Tactics
3. Luck
4. Morale
6. Phys
7. Technology (only this low to an extent, if the gap is huge then this would be higher)
>>295031
Germs did all the heavy lifting.
>Strategy
>Technology
>Tactics
>Logistics
>Luck
>Physical Fitness
>Morale
1. Technology
2. Logistics
3. Morale
GAP
4. everything else
>Logistics
>Strategy
>Morale
>Technology
>Tactics
>Physical Fitness
>Luck
>>295679
Luck doesn't 'win' you everything but the rub of the green is definitely important. Things can and most often do go wrong so having a run of events that don't go wrong is pretty important.
>>295957
Morale is quite important. High morale is key to combat effectiveness. If you're cold, wet, tired, hungry and you just want to go home being a phys ninja and having gucci kit isn't going to help when you need to go and stick a bayonet in someone's eye
>>295980
Right, but I ordered them by how much these aspects supposed to stand up to stress and disorder
Bad morale can change quite rapidly if you unexpectedly defeat an enemy. Strategy however is one of those things where commanders invariably keep denying they're doing anything wrong. It's something that is notorious for not being able to stand up to a lot of disorder, so it becomes the most important
>>295980
People are always going to do their best to defend themselves no matter what the circumstances are.
>>293944
Only logistics, strategy, and technology matter. Luck, morale, physical fitness, and tactics are only there to make sure the troops carry out the strategy.
>>294106
half the german army freezing in WW2 was because hitler ordered them to stay in stalingrad when everyone was begging him to retreat
and then he acts surprised when the russian winter wipes out his eastern front the fucking retard
Strategy is obviously most important. How can you win if you don't know the conditions of victory? Strategy is why Britain survived WW2 and Napolean lost. The British strategy was never to defeat Germany militarily, it was to hold out long enough for the U.S. join the war. Napoleon's end goal was to establish allied governments across Europe, but his strategy of conquest created enemies and installed rivals to power.
>>298620
rignt, because they didn't have the logistics to get them the winter clothes they needed.
1. Technology matters in every part of warfare because anything more advanced than foraging and throwing rocks at the enemy had to be invented.
2. Strategy makes sure you know what to do with that technology.
3. Logistics makes sure your strategy can be fulfilled by the soldiers.
4. Morale makes sure your soldiers will follow orders, so everything else is dependent on it.
5. Tactics is what makes sure the strategy can be fulfilled by the soldiers.
6. Physical fitness gives only a minor bonus, and has mattered less and less since the beginning of warfare.
7. Luck is only for those who don't have the advantage in the first three.
The last four determine whether or not you win battles, but the first three determine whether or not you win wars.
>>298690
By that point, they didn't. Their horses had starved and were eaten, and the trucks had either been destroyed or weren't built for Russian winters. When the winter ended, the mud that remained locked supply lines for another few months.
anyone who doesn't put logistics at #1 doesn't know that they're talking about
>>298746
What's the point of having well-fed troops if you don't know where to send them?
>>298752
Literally, as long as logistics aren't disrupted, it doesn't matter where to send them.
>>298752
What's the point of knowing where to send your troops if you can't even get them there?
>>293944
Tech, Logistics, Strategy, Tactics, Morale, Luck, Fitness.
>>298789
Good strategy takes into account your logistical capabilities. If you know you don't have the supplies to go through a desert to cut through enemy lines, then you don't fucking go through the desert.
>>298707
>Vietnam War
>1. Technology
Americans had the overwhelming advantage
>2. Strategy
Americans had no longterm strategy
>3. Logistics
Americans had overwhelming logistics
>4. Morale
Americans had 0 morale
>5. Tactics
Americans had overwhelming tactical advantage
>6. Physical fitness
Americans were physical fit, much better than the starving/maltutritioned vietcong
>7. Luck
Americans had no such luck.
>no luck, no morale, no strategy
This broke America.
>All these people putting tech above logistics and strategy.
>implying you can win wars just because you've got the biggest, badest toys around.
What are you guys? The modern US Military high command? baka.
>>298820
To be fair, technology refers to more than just weaponry/armor, it would also refer to other things such as transportation, production, medicine, etc...
>>298807
Logistical capabilities dictate what strategies are possible. Don't get me wrong, the 2 are very close in importance, however. Neglect either and you will lose.
>>298819
>Americans had no such luck
This might just be hindsight. Luck usually affects small things like "this battle was lost because the artillery didn't hit the right targets" or "my gun jammed right when the other guy saw me." Luck is a lot harder to quantify when you go to the strategic level.
>>298836
Yeah, at this point it seems like we're arguing about whether the chicken or the egg came first.
>>298833
>transportation
>production
that's logistics.
1. Manly Virtue
2. Technology
3. Strategy
4. Luck
5. Tactics
6. Logistics
7. Morale
8. Physical Fitness
>>298850
Yes, but the modes used (ie cars and trucks vs horses and wagons) fall under tech.
>>298855
>manly virtue
The Athenians called, they want their ideals back.
>>298819
>no longterm strategy
they had a strategy. inflict an unsustainable amount of casualties on the VC, prop up the South Vietnam army and gov't until it could hold its own, and destroy all VC caches and hubs.
Granted, it wasn't a very good strategy (in hindsight), but it was a strategy.
>>293983
GERMANY WON WW1
>>298861
If tech is so important, then how come illiterate 3rd world guerillas in Toyotas can beat much more technologically superior foes?
>>298855
>manly virtue
>>298894
The technological difference between ISIS and the Iraqi army is not that large. In terms of mobility, they're both using the same gasoline and diesel powered engines. They both have firearms, and a bullet fired from a 70-year old AK is just as potent as a modern M16. The Iraqis have an edge in armor and air support, but urban warfare negates both of those advantages.
Which reminds me, why isn't terrain one of the attributes in OP's list?
>>298913
terrain can usually be lumped in with tactics.
>>293944
Numbers
>>298620
Wrong-ish.
First time the winter really bit Hitler in the ass was in the Moscow offensives in 1941. It was the hellish kind of cold that completely froze tanks, MGs, and Wehrmacht troops, while Soviet equipment could generally function since they developed lubricants that resisted cold more effectively.
Germany consistently got destroyed every time Winter came around, yet they never made any marked improvements upon their logistical systems. It wasn't entirely their fault, since Partisans were gleefully blowing up rail networks, and the Eastern front was a MASSIVE theater of operations.
>>298707
The guerrilla wars of the 20th century and today show a technology disparity isn't a death sentence as long as the disparity isn't too wide.
Honestly, "Technology" in this context is kind of a vague catch-all that feeds into and borrows from everything else.
>>295679
Luck can be anything even before the battle has even started. The greatest generals had luck.
"War consists of nothing but accidents, and a commander should never overlook anything that might enable him to exploit these accidents. The vulgar would call this luck, but in fact it is the characteristic of genius." - Napoleon
>>299104
He is obviously referring to tactics in that quote.
>>293944
Logistics
Strategy
Morale
Technology
Physical fitness
>>293944
The results of battles ARE determined by God, but also by preparation, numbers, the absence of disease, and the availability of water. One cannot maintain a siege with the enemy behind. How many battles did God win for the Muslims before I came... that is, before God determined that I should come?
>>299145
God seems to favor the well-supplied, well-prepared, and well-led.
>>299149
>>293944
>technology
>provisions (food and fuel and ammo)
>tactics
>morale
>training
>luck
>>294106
Nigger technology is THE most important thing.
All the others pale.
>>299119
Luck can be a lot of things. For Napoleon it was said as an insult to him but it was really his tactics and how bold he was.
>>299176
>what is Custer's Last Stand
>what is the Vietnam War
>what is the Iraqi army fighting ISIS
>>299176
That's why Germany won both the world wars
>>299280
>Nazi Germany
>technology
If their garbage was technology, this is a clock.
>>299289
>technology that loses isn't technology
whatever man
>>299280
>implying ME262 were any close to being really efficient
People forget that almost every huge empire had considerable tech advantages, from the makedonian to the pike and shot formations, all technological improvements of warfare were a tremendous advantage. It's even such that blunders like the Vietnam War are the examples of the other failures, but not the other way around.
>>299314
Are you saying Germany did not have a technological advantage?
>>299339
What? From where did you infer that?
>>299359
So then homogeneity would be a big downfall of technology wouldn't it? No technology is so grand it can't be worked around or copied in some respect.
>>299377
This is a reflect of information sharing TECHNOLOGY. See how much it matters?
>>299395
Not necessarily. Arms are sold all the time. Unless you count stuff like trading technology as well.
>>293944
1.Strategy
2.Morale
3.Tactics
4.Logistics
5.Technology
6.Physical Fitness
7.Luck
>>293944
>Morale
Uniquivocally #1 starting in the 20th century
>Technology
>Strategy
>Logistics
>Luck
>Tactics
>Physical Fitness
>>299280
Germany was not particularly technologically advanced in WW2. It did not have the bomb, in jet propulsion the allies were close behind (if memory serves, the first British jets flew sorties only days after the ME262 had first been deployed in combat), they did not produce penicilin, their electronics and radar were lagging behind, allies had superior artillery related technologies (fuses, calculation tables), allies had better overall mechanization and motorization of forces...
>>299532
Germans just had better military engineering because they had been putting more money into it for longer than the US at the start of WWII. In everything else the US was at the same level or ahead so by the time the war was over the US was designing better aircraft than the Germans ever did.
>>299532
They certainly did before the turning point of the war in 1942. The allies pulling ahead in technology was just icing on the cake. Technology couldn't save them from old fashioned manpower.
>>293944
1. Swag Uniforms
2. Baller Hats
3. Mad Strats
4. More Mans than the other guy
5. Bigger Guns
6. The high ground Anakin
7. Not attacking Russia in the Winter
>>299923
You forgot >Land war in Asia
>>299899
>They certainly did before the turning point of the war in 1942.
Huh? If anything, that's where they especially didn't. The early panzers were pretty much inferior to many of the allied tanks. The panther would be deployed in 43+ and the tiger was by no means a technological marvel - it was a heavy and for a while quite successful tank but not a technological advancement.
>>299928
Don't forget >Water war with Britain
>>299931
The tanks still favored Germany, especially in the eastern front. Also German airplanes were head over heels better than early ally planes.
>>300095
>The tanks still favored Germany, especially in the eastern front.
I really do not think that is the case. Certainly the T-34 was not a marvellous piece of actual engineering given its mechanical troubles, but it was a superior tank to anything the Germans had at the outset of Barbarossa both in terms of armament and armor. Same - double so for armor - goes for KV-1. Obviously the likes of T-26 existed in large numbers but then we just get back to the issue of Germany still fielding the likes of Pz2 and the Pz3s only having a 37mm gun and the 4s the short 75. Portraying German armor design as advanced - especially early war tank design - just doesn't make sense. It would take clashing with the Soviet tanks for the 3 and 4 to get upgunned, and then a further two years for a superior response in the Panther.
>>300111
In the context of this thread it would not have been "technology" that allowed Germany its gains in Barbarossa, but "strategy" (and, conversely, poor morale and tactics/leadership on the side of the Soviets). Tens of thousands of men were getting encircled, cut off, bypassed, rendered out of supply by swift and decisive operational action, not by blowing them up with bigger guns on the ground.
>>300111
The early t-34 did not have that impressive of armaments. The German's had superior ammunition and access to assault guns until America was able to get russia on it's feet with a fleet of trucks and trains. In a 1vs1 german tanks would win. They were better armed and better trained. I know that war does not work that way, hence my point going all the way back to disagreeing with >>299176 is that having better tech does not make your victory a sure thing. Having a smarter doctrine (aka strategy and logistics) is what matters.
1. Stability
(powergap)
the rest
>>300155
>In a 1vs1 german tanks would win
>against a t34
>in 41
top kek desu
>>300155
I really cannot agree. It might have not been particularly impressive, but it was certainly better than anything the Germans had mounted on a chassis at the time - remember, we are still talking about a time period when they employed the 37mm guns as primary armament on Pz3s and the short 75 with poor penetration ability on the Pz4s.
As for assault guns, well, yes, they did have them, the obsolete PzJg with its 47mm gun, the StuG which like the Pz4 did not yet have the long 75, and the Marder would not be deployed until later in 1942.
Better trained they were, but better armed or armored they weren't. And yes the T-34s and KV-1s were only a fraction of the Soviet armored power at the time of Barbarossa, but still their numbers reached some 1500 units at the outset of the invasion - but over half the German forces were not even Pz4s and 3s, both inferior machines to the above Soviet tanks.
bump
good bread
Resources
Logicistics
Lay of the Land
Tactics
Logistics
Strategy
Technology
Morale
Tactical superiority can't make up for a deficit in strategy, look at the Germans in WWII and Americans in Vietnam.
>>293944
1. Luck
2. Logistics
3. Strategy
4. Tactics
5. Morale
6. Technology
7. Physical Fitness
Everyone seems to place technology on top. "Technology" means nothing.
Nazi Germany had kewl airplanes, rockits, assault rifles and experimental tanks. None of this mattered. Technology needs to be used in certain ways, alone it is nothing.
>>298893
The French cuirassier corps (who fought at the Marne) would like you to reconsider your statement.
>>300155
>T-34
>the tank that would bumfuck German armor until it broke down or ran out of fuel in the outset of '41
>inferior to German tanks
lol.
The Soviet military in '41 had some pretty good gear. They just had no fucking clue how to use it.
>>303117
then post a '41 version with the 75mm cannon and different turret
>mfw these plebs not picking morale as #1
Also the fact the numbers are not a factor is problematic. Because you could have better everything than the enemy but without enough men it won't matter.
>>293944
1. Logistics
2. Strategy
3. Morale
4. Tactics.
Classic example of morale (and tactics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret
Pretty much routing due to a single death.
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Jakob_an_der_Birs
We fight until the last man.
>>303187
>Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (1405–1464, later Pope Pius II, until 1439 participant in the Council of Florence), described the battle in vivid detail, telling how the Swiss ripped bloody crossbow bolts from their bodies, and charged the enemy even after they had been pierced by spears or had lost their hands, charging the Armagnacs to avenge their [own] deaths.
No source but that sounds pretty badass.
>>303117
>1 man turret syndrome
>shit crew arrangements all around
>no turret basket
>Down's Syndrome tier Quality Assurance and crew training
Nah.
