Anyway. This topic is not rational enough tho have a debate on the numeric superiority...

its about proper analysis, not about the topic title

again, its meaningless if you look at mass as single vector in warfare.  capability gap, doctrine difference, force availability, logistics, attrition issues, service synergy etc...  theatre etc... all impact on the event.  mass on its own is meaningless

Excuse me? Did i ever said that mass on its own was enough? does my plan reflect that? I told you many time that I think all these issues where important:

 

I said:

 

Remember?

 

Please, we are saying almost the same thing here. The only difference is i believe that number is an important factor, and you don't seem to think it should be considered in the balance. Is it too hard for you to recognize that number is an important factor?

 

Ps: it have been ridiculous from start, look the title.

 

You now what?

 

Take my analysis, play the modern side and show us how they could stop my plan. Show me how number can be excluded from the equation.

 

I wont even contest it, cause I know how i would stop it, and it is possible. but not without considering the number.

 

It would be more constructive than calling me a troll.

you have ignored every single operational and technical factor and treated it lightly by countering with issues of luck and morale.

operational art is about planning.  the fact that you want to inject luck and morale as ways to deal with a systems based force, one that conducted the first information based war, that conducted the first space based input of command, one that was based on the first proper delamination of an enemy by targeting their C3 structures (let alone C1 structure) shows either complete ignorance or contempt of the analysis of modern warfare.  that makes you a troll.

people have made the effort to show how and why and you persist in injecting falacious throw away commentary about striking first, pre-planning etc and ignored the fact that you have to breach and contain the ISR before you can even get your planes fueled and moved - let alone mission planning issues.

quite frankly every comment made to date by you shows no appreciation of what is involved, and persisting with silly throw away lines does make you a troll.  others are  and have been helpful.  you clearly are not and are intent on being visible on here rather than taking heed and absorbing the info given to you in good faith.

demonstrate that you understand what is involved before asking others to give you more answers.  I'm happy tp participate, but I'm not going to give what is clearly a teenage type fantasy more oxygen than it remotely deserves.

I wont even contest it, cause I know how i would stop it, and it is possible. but not without considering the number.

when someone makes claims like the above and yet has not demonstrated any comprehension of what the issues are involved and has not been able to answer simple rhetorical questions - then that brings their competency and knowledge immediately into doubt.

Others might have the patience to play games on here - I don't.  

Once more, demonstrate some degree of competency or find someone else who's prepared to wade through the nonsense that you're trying to impress upon as considered analysis

For someone who declared that they know zero about the military and technology and wanted to learn off others, you're not showing too many smarts in achieving that objective..

operational art is about planning.  the fact that you want to inject luck and morale as ways to deal with a systems based force, one that conducted the first information based war, that conducted the first space based input of command, one that was based on the first proper delamination of an enemy by targeting their C3 structures (let alone C1 structure) shows either complete ignorance or contempt of the analysis of modern warfare.  that makes you a troll.

 

I didn't try to "flame, disrupt, antagonize, provoke and/or abuse"  you on purpose. If i left you that impression, well, I am sorry. But I have to say that you left me that impression to.

 

I did have consider your argument and try to built a plan for the WW2 side that could counter it. In fact, thats You that gave me the only reasonable reason that could let the ww2 to take off even modern side have all the intel that could prepare them to face it. I took the political will from your list. persistence and disruption was also in the list, thats probably the only three things in that list that could help ww2 side to achieve victory. and I have adapt my plan around them.

 

I don't have the impression that you have consider my argument with the same attention. You almost said that number didn't mater, wich was kind of disturbing for me. Correct me if i am wrong, but the vector you talk about multiply the power of your force.  An enemy that is weaker in all vector still have a chance if they have enough force to bring back the balance.

The reason people are becoming frustrated with your position is that you aren't actually taking any notice of the technical points people are being kind enough to supply. There's an old saying that quantity has a quality all of it's own and it's certainly true that having more aircraft than the other side is usually a *good* thing.

 

What the posters on this thread are trying to get across to you is that there's no way for the 1945 side to bring those numbers to bear on the problem. The 1990's guys have too many advantages. A lot of these advantages are often called "force multipliers" - they're things that make your existing force more powerful or effective. 

 

A good example of a force multiplier from the time would have been the use of radar by the British in the battle of Britain - using the Chain Home system of radars, they were able to bring fighters to bear directly on incoming bomber streams and attack them.

 

Without that, they'd have had to mount airborne patrols, using more aircraft, and also burning more fuel, meaning that their force of fighters could do the work of a much larger force. 

 

It's a simple example and one I need you to think about - the 1990 force is *stacked* with similar examples. All these advantages mean that the modern day airforce can do much more with far less. A single strike fighter can perform a single mission with a pair of guided bombs, self escort to the target and precisely hit a target that would have taken a dozen B17s.

 

It used to take about 200 bombs dropped to hit one target, now it can be done with 1 weapon with a second weapon as backup.  

 

That's the reason people are discounting the numbers side - the modern force can do much more with less.

 

Your example plan of how the 1945 side could prevail didn't really take any of that into mind and relied on a Pearl Harbour style level of surprise. No-one's saying that it's not possible to invent a set of preconditions that would let the 1945 side win - we're just saying that the conditions will have to be very silly indeed. Mass outbreak of sleeping sickness, Martian war machine on the pitch, that kind of thing,

 

 

Ian

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your response StobieWan.

 

I reiterate the fact that I don't claim the superiority of the WW2 side. It might not have been very clear, But I did notice of the technical points that have been said, I just didn't contest them. I fact. What i did contest, was the fact thats was impossible to the WW2 side to win. I recognize that it need a damn improbable scenario and very specific condition to be possible. I can understand that saying ww2 still have a chance to win probably left the impression that i know zero about the military and technology.

 

If someone have a plan that is less improbable then mine, let me know.