Excellent point………….

His points are so good that the North which were the more industrialized states defeated the South cessasionist states;) and the south was defeated with the more progressist ideas industrialization brings the South wanted slave and human power, the north freedom equality and industries

For a long time European armies won regardless of technology. Consider Napoleons invasion of Egypt: according to his own account (confirmed by every other) the average Mameluke soldier was better-armed than the average French soldier. Napoleon reckoned they even had better individual skills. He claimed that any 3 Mamelukes were worth 5 Frenchmen. But he also reckoned that a French army of 10000 could defeat any number of Mameluke troops, due to its organisation & discipline. Not heroism (the Mamelukes were more heroic), not individual skill, not superior weapons: industrial warfare, if you like. Mass organisation, & superior tactics. Same with the British in India. Their guns weren’t significantly better than Indian guns in the 18th & early 19th centuries, when they conquered most of the subcontinent, but their tactics & organisation were.

You insist on missing the point. You seem to be deliberately avoiding any attempt to understand what you’re being told. It isn’t just individual skill. It’s systemic. How skilled are your ground crew? How good is your logistical organisation? How good are your procedures? And resulting from that, what proportion of your aircraft can you actually put in the air? Will their weapons work? These are all down to human factors.

Then, there is the matter of how good the opposition is. If the USAF had pilots unable to use its hardware effectively, whether through lack of skill or inappropriate training (it’s not just how much training, it’s what training), or the human pyramid which they’re at the top of didn’t work effectively, then yes, it could be defeated by an opponent with inferior weapons. But if the F-22 works, & if it is flown by a competent pilot, then it will almost always (one can never say absolutely always) beat MiG-21s. Note the ifs. You have been consistently ignoring them up to now.

Technology isn’t irrelevant (the straw man position you are arguing against), but nor is it, by itself, decisive. It needs the ability to use it effectively.

Are you unaware of the history of Israel from 1948 to 1973? Always outnumbered, always outgunned, never with a significant technological edge (& quite often technologically behind its opponents), but always victorious. Can you not see the significance of that?

BTW, could you please stop wasting bandwidth? Too many pictures which add nothing to the meaning of your posts, take time to load, & waste time scrolling past. If you want to post lots of photographs, open a “my favourite photos” thread or something.

more ways of defending and avoiding a real fact, technology is the main factor in a war, why?

tell me why the arab armies of the 10th century were as good as the European armies? and later on were uncapable of defending them selves in the early XX century, answer superior science and technology in the X century the Granada khalifate and the arab lands were ahead in science and math to the Europeans but by 1900 it was the opposite the Europeans were more advanced in science and math than the arabs, why the native americans were defeated and the Europeans conquered the Americans and Africa? by the ways were the Indians the nation that started the industrial revolution or the british?

Why the most wealthy countries invest more in weapons and science and technology?
tell me why? why the US invests more billions of dollars than any other country in high military technology?

ah i see you think the americans are not aware of that, or are you aware that they are not willing to sell the F-22 to any one? i see, you are not aware why china is betting into getting the second largest military budget in the world, why Russia still continues trying to match the US and China?

technology already equals better trainning since already to use an F-22 you need several sciences and technologies

ah by the way read History, Israel has been defeated in the past, by the Romans, Babylonians, Greeks and were subjugated to many other nations and empires but the current Israelies are more science literate than the arabs and have a more advanced society in technological terms, in fact israel has one of the highest scientist/inhabitants rate of any country, when Israel was defeated, Ignorance and injustice reigned in Israel, modern Israel is not like that but a nation with a will to live and with scientific and technological knowledge

The claim about best weapons is nonsense, as longer as your own main ones are not obsolete. Number one is how they will be used and to have the tactical surprise before your enemy has any chance to recover. That did work in 1967 f.e., when it did not work in 1941 f.e.. 😉

Of course here we have some of typical mixture of heroism with feeling of superiority.

The germans did not have superior weapons all the war niether you can say Israel does not produce its own weapons and that the Israeli weapons are inferior to the Arab weapons in fact Israel is rated as one of the industrial powers in military technology and the only military industrial power in the middle east, examples Python V, IAI Kfir, Lavi, Arava and the latest G550 AEW platform.

Example given

Battle of Britain and allied air offensive:

The germans failed to create similar types to the B-29 and P-51 class aircraft in 1940 and for most of the war that remained the same with the exception of the Me-264 and He-177 that never were deployed in the same way of the B-29, their He-111 and Me-109 never reached the technological levels of the P-51 and B-17 and B-29, germany lost the air war for England and lost the air war for Germany


This is a good example germany not all the time got the best weapons

The Battle for Russia was the same, on June 22th 1941, Germany had superiorty in weapons, the Russians had mostly obsolete weaponry in June 1941, by 1942 the situation started to change and by 1944, basicly they were a match or had superior weapons to the Germans.

List of weapons
I-16

This early Russian fighter was no match for the Me-190 and FW-190.
later the Yak-9 was a match for the German aircraft

another fighter that was as good if not better to the Luftwaffe aircraft, was the La-7

while the Germans had in principle good tanks and used the tank and dive bomber combination never got a weapon combo like the T-34 and Il-2

That is the reality by 1944, germany was out gunned, outsmarted and most important the Nazis were frankly impopular.

If you do a war remember you need popularity among the civilians to help you with the war effort

This was true in 1419 when Cortez defeated the Aztecs, and now if you want to win you need the civilian populations to help you, Hitler with his policies of killing the “non aryans” (the non germans) created hatred against the German army and few allies through out occupied Europe

Modern airwars are not inmune to this if you are going to bomb a country make sure to present it as a liberation act, so the civilian population will let you do it no matter what happens, collateral damage, civilians dead or frankly abuses and war crimes

You really don’t get it, do you? The Wehrmacht beat the British & French in 1940 although the British & French had more men, more & better tanks, more & as good aircraft, etc., etc. African troops trained by the Germans proved themselves superior, man for man, to British, British-trained Indian, Belgian, S. African & Portuguese troops in WW1 – with equal or inferior weapons, fewer of them, & a precarious supply situation. Finns slaughtered better-armed Russians & Ukrainians in 1929-40, but the Russians could beat Romanians who were better-armed than the Finns. Etc, etc, etc. There’s no reason to think any of these groups was cleverer, as individuals, than any other, but some of them definitely fought better.

Why? Because of training, leadership (itself largely a product of training), motivation – all human factors. The best weapons in the world are useless if poorly used.

Weapons make the difference, when all else is equal. Make Israel & Syria swap weapons, & set them to fighting, & all the smart money would still be on Israel. Not because Israelis are individually cleverer than Syrians, but because their military system, its organisation, training, etc. is superior.

That is just a typical excuse to claim heroism in wars
wars are evil in nature and are unfair too
and this is because of this In war and you know it get the best weapon, do not let you enemy to outgun you in fact do not let him make weapons and you will conquer him any day, let him fight you with arrows when you fight him with cannons, let him fight you with rocks and while you fight him with guns, let him fight you with slings and you fight him with tanks in few words if he fights you with his hands fight him with a sword.

This is the truth, weapons are what makes a better army, ah i forget probably you think the Russians did not have better weapons than the germans or the germans better weapons than the british and french in 1940, the reality man only when two armies have similar weapons tactics will affect the results otherwise everything will depend in superior weapons.

I am not trying to say that Argentinian pilots were bad or inept. You should read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He talks explicitly about the differences in training of Argentinians and Brits, which led, in a large part to the success of the British.

but honestly do you think the argentinian pilots flying harriers versus the British pilots were going to lose?
Each air force has to fly the aircraft they use in the best way they can, equipment influences the tactics you use.

The air force with the best equipment always wins, by best equipment you can say also producibility and performance including weapons and avionics.

because at the end in a war you have basicly humans with the same capacity and IQ that are basicly only different by the weapons they use and the experience they have using them.

If you have a interceptor without agility you won`t use as a dogfighter and viceversa you won`t fly a dogfighter without BVR weapons as an interceptor with BVR weapons of 150km of range

So let me get this right. You argued earlier that is equipment that made the difference.

Now you are saying that it is training. Which is exactly what I was trying to tell you. And the winner is not always the one with the better equipment. The first kill of Gulf War I was by an EF-111 without offensive weapons against a Mirage F1. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of a pilot in a more advanced aircraft getting shot down by a less advanced aircraft.

I will only say this once more. It is the pilot, his training, his support and his command structure that make the ultimate difference.

Besides, if the Argentinians had Tu-22M’s don’t you think the British would have thought of a way to neutralize them? There is a counterpoint to every point.

Entropy

I do not argue the fact training is a part of the equation niether tactics, but i will tell you this the best equipped air forces in the world are from the most wealthy countries, the best equipped air forces in the world have the best training, why? because the best equipped air forces made their own equipment and they know their equipment

If you read about the combat history of the XX century air war, you know very well the best air forces always have participated in wars.

Always have the best equipment and are always the most likely to use it.

How many times Angola has been involved in air war? how many times the USAF has part taken in a war? the Russian air force? the Luftwaffe, RAF, the Bolivian air force? powerful air force are always well equipped and trained and do war very often

With this i can say to you the Argentine air force was well trained but lacked good equipment to match the Royal navy Harriers they did built many combat aircraft and ended up in war, because militarism at the end culminates in war.

Since Asia is making lots of new combat aircraft and they have plans of expansion and many cultural and economic conflicts they are the most likely countries to be involved in war in one way or other.

By the way the EF-111 is the better fighter flying low since it has a TFR that allows it to hugg the terrain and has VG wings to aid it, so to say the Mirage F1 was the better aircraft is unaccurate

Ohh man, that truly takes the cake!! 😮 😀

No wonder ther have been more murders in Mexico than in Iraq this year if thats your average cop! I thought they were parkig lot guards or something, too lazy to foot patrol. Well Mexico is truly nice country so I´ll stop my sarcasms here.

Sorry dude, I just had to..

Man comparing mexico with Iraq is one of the most foolish comparations i have ever seen, Mexico has a crime rate of horrendous proportions, that`s true, Mexico has a terrible murder rate and one of the most corrupt police systems in the world, a terrible kidnap problem, that`s true, but compare Iraq to too Mexico is a hypocresy since you know perfectly since 1991 millions of people have suffered a problem in Mexico have not and you have to prove the number of civilinas killed in Iraq are more than the number of people who have died in mexico by a Crime related deads, you can not compare Mexico to Iraq, you can compare Mexico to Brazil or Russia but to Iraq is just plain foolish, Iraq has a civil war mexico just a crime wave.

See Iraq Monthly table

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Jan 3 576 1017 1423 2795 741
Feb 2 584 1184 1447 2492 976
Mar 3976 956 772 1765 2569 1537
Apr 3437 1251 1014 1589 2418 1259
May 545 619 1222 2095 2733 758
Jun 593 832 1214 2425 2085 669
Jul 648 754 1433 3149 2536 582
Aug 791 823 2165 2742 2324 585
Sep 548 941 1321 2405 1221 28
Oct 488 930 1199 2917 1189
Nov 479 1532 1192 2966 1039
Dec 525 904 981 2657 899
12,035 10,702 14,714 27,580 24,300 7,135

already in 2008 more than 7000 poeple have died and they are not counting all the deads see:

Gaps in recording and reporting suggest that even our highest totals to date may be missing many civilian deaths from violence. See Recent Events for as yet unpublished incidents, and read About IBC for a better description of the project’s scope and limitations.

now see mexico

Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told Radio Formula that 1,378 people have been killed so far this year, compared with 940 in the same period last year.

Medina Mora broke that silence, saying 4,152 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and declared war on drug cartels that controlled entire regions of Mexico. About 450 of those were police, soldiers, prosecutors or investigators

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-05-23-mexico-homicides_N.htm

of course ignorance is what you are spreading, since ignorance is what you like US data proves you are just lying

the real dead toll is 8:1 in Iraq`s favour so even with as much crime we have in mexico, in fact more than 8 iraqi civilians died at least for each and every Mexican killed in the period of december 2006-sep 2008 and only in 2008 it has been 7:1 so in 2008 around 7 iraqi civilians died for 1 Mexican

and to prove your your ignorance i will give you this data

The FBI reported 15,707 murders around the country in 2007, down 1.7% from 15,972 in 2006. In New York City, murders dropped to 496 in 2007, from 596 in 2006, a 17% decrease that accounted for about 38% of the nationwide decline in homicides. Crime dropped 2.7% in New York City overall in that period

In the US the number of people murder in 2007 http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mayor-city-drives-drop-in-us-murder-rate/86396/

see this data
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2008/09/32283.php

So you assestment is a baseless one the real murder rate for Iraq is higher than the claimed 24 murders for each 100000 inhabitants for Mexico
2008-09-16 | Iraq is the most dangerous country in the world. With at least a million civilians killed since the illegal invasion in 2003, the daily toll of death and destruction outstrips any other country, however much the mainstream media peddles George Bush’s propaganda that his “surge” is working. Journalist Patrick Cockburn, described recently the all too frequent reality for the Iraqi people:

“A car bomb exploded in the Shia market town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, killing 32 people and wounding 43 others. “The smoke filled my house and the shrapnel broke some of the windows,” said Hussein al-Dujaili. “I went outside the house and saw two dead bodies at the gate which had been thrown there by the explosion. Some people were in panic and others were crying.” (See http://tinyurl.com/5tgp9d )

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=5156&blz=1

China is not idiotic enough to retake Taiwan by force. It is like killing the hen with golden eggs. China did show patience with Hongkong for good reasons and will do something similar about Taiwan. 😉

But they are doing a really good work threating to do it and have kept the island where they want