Common themes in battles won and lost

Carriers in WW2 are an interesting topic, but since we only heard about battles involving the big carriers, the value of "escort carriers" is something I don't know much about. I know some were sunk. It seems once they started escorting transport and supply ships our loses of those dramatically dropped.

Probably one reason for BIG carriers is that the cost difference between those and smaller carriers probably makes the smaller carriers disproportionately more expensive per aircraft given both require the identical electronics and other equipment, plus much of the same personnel - and about the same number of support and defensive ships.

Navies and shipping companies realized the economy of scale always favors bigger ships long ago - plus the longer a ship is the faster it can go ("theoretical hull speed"). Speed is more a factor of ship length and shape than the size of the engines when it comes to displacement hulls. Fuel consumption and range also disproportionately increases favoring the bigger, longer ship. If I recall correctly, the range and fuel consumption reduces by a factor of about 1/3rd per tonnage as the length and size increases, while the speed increases at the same time.

 

In WW II FDR's policy of going with the pocket carriers made the most sense re the Pacific and Med and the capabilities of the enemy. As weaponry advanced in power and ranges, it was less and less important how big they were, so size was seen as an advantage, also the right policy for the times; the type of missions and needs changed and expanded so more flexibility is needed. They don't all need to be 'super carriers', but super carriers are more efficient than a horde of small carriers, certainly more intimidating by far, considering the enemies they're mainly designed to be used against. At least that's my take on it. You're right, those carriers can haul a whole lot of eggs more efficiently than a bunch of little baskets.

 

The "numbers vs. quality" argument has been one around forever with U.S. weapons procurement. I heard it explained years ago by a Pentagon official about why the so called "gold plating" of weapons that is insisting on all sorts of bells and whistles added to every platform purchased.

I think the argument was about tactical fighters. The Pentagon guy basically said, "sure, we could buy 1,000 fighters of lesser capability for the same price as the 300 superfighters we want to buy, but we know if that happens we'll never get 1,000 fighters. It is much easier for Congress to simply start cutting the budget by cutting the number purchased off the top. We'd end up with 800 fighters of lesser capability. Then 700, then 600, then 500, pretty soon we're down to not many more average warplanes than the 300 superfighters we wanted."

 

The Zulus occupied parts of compound, and parts of hospital, Zulus and Brits did meet in hand to hand, all Brits had some sort of wounds, many wear killed by stabbing.
Zulus estimated numbers is 3000-4000 troops, Brits – 150\(136).
Zulu losses are around 400 (Brits slaughtered the wounded), Brits lost 10-15 men. These are the same 10% for both sides.

Before the battle Zulus marched 30 km, they had little or no food as wear not resupplied for two days.
Before the fight Brits had 20000 rounds , after the battle they had 900. The battle lasted for 10 hours, if the battle would last one more, the Brits would be gone.

Idiocity:
- The Zulus attacked immediately from march. If they would wait for 5 hours, they would have their rest, their recon and they would attack at night negating effectiveness of range.
- Zulus attacked in small numbers in order of battalions, not simultaneously but one after the other. Negating the effect of Quantity, allowed Brits to aim 100 rifles at 600 enemies.

Unfortunately Idiocity prevails above Quantity, Quality, and Quantity and Quality combined. This is the ultimate singularity of the universe. No matter how good your army is, no matter how effective you are, Idiocity can beat you any time. This is why, when we compare forces, techniques, equipment, history, we do not want to use examples where one of the sides showed clear Idiocity and screwed themselves. Because otherwise, from the point of view of formal logic, you are basing your conclusions on Idiocity. Basing your conclusions on idiocity, is an idiocity square .

Correct. Doesn’t it work vice versa?
Relying on superior equipment tends to require enormously greater “Quality” if the “Number” of troops and/or equipment is inferior. ?
Now extreme or top “Quality”… What drawbacks does it bring us?

It was in the field manuals of majority of armies when the calibers wear around 7.5-6mm and the mag held 5 rounds. Kar 92 had a sights setting till 1500m, if my memory serves me right. The archers wear using this method like forever…

In Custers stand, he was wiped out by an enemy that had a 12 times more troops. They wear cheaper but more numerous. Why are you looking only at your side of the story?

It is based on the fact that biomass in form of grass on the plains, rotates faster than biomass even in the middle of Rain Jungle. Mongols wear nomads, horses. Best mobility of the time allowed them to amass and support a huge army in a very fitting conditions. They wear no scholars, or weaponsmiths…

Again. Does “Quality” and “Top equipment” have drawbacks? Whos force a 1 million dollar worth is more combat capable? Korean, Chinese, US? (Taking in account that we use current equipment, wages, costs? )

Oh. Do not listen to Idiots…
And “quality” does matter, it is the second part of equation. No one is saying that it does not.