Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 3793861" data-attributes="member: 94">Incorrect, the Lanchester model is applied to real combat in the real world by military planners, with varying degrees of complexity and success.Of course it can.In fact, it does not disregard frontage at all. In any engagement where the attacking force is unable to bring its entire force to bear, you would treat it as multiple engagements with a divided force, or an engagement between asymmetrical forces: adjust the model and continue.This is a classic example of asymmetric warfare: The paper that you cite spends most of its time explaining the vast technological advantage enjoyed by the conquistadors despite their vast numerical disadvantage. It is foolish to assume that 30,000 Incas could bring to bear the entire force at once, even with missile weapons, against 200 Spaniards. You are forced into a model whereby 200 Spaniards (with a significant technological advantage in offense and defense) engage a much smaller force of Incas who are replaced at regular intervals by significant reserves. Not only is it feasible for the smaller (and asymmetrically higher quality) force to win such an engagement, they quite obviously did.That Spanish steel weapons proved more deadly to the Incan padded armor, and particularly that Spanish steel armor proved all but invulnerable to primitive Incan weapons, raises the quality of Spanish troops to previously unseen levels with respect to their foes. At the moment I can think of no other conflict in history where two conflicting peoples were separated by so vast a technological advantage (certain Civ4 games I have played notwithstanding).Before dismissing Lanchester out of hand I would recommend that you actually read both the paper that I linked, as well as the one you linked. With all due respect, you do not seem to have read either.</blockquote>

Verification