"Leadfoot" wrote:

How about First generation technology vs third generation technology i.e if
numbers are equal being at least two generations ahead in technology is
required.

Now that is an interesting proposition. Apply it to infantry. If it is at
night, one generation seems plenty especially if it is a generation without
night vision and one with ;-)

By day, I think I'll take training over tech. If all my guys are riflemen who
can hit a body cavity at 600 yards and there is open ground, I'll take trained
riflemen with M14's or M1's. (And will somebody PLEASE make a good SAW and LMG
in something like 6.5mm? Enough with these .22's!)

For armor, I'll take tech. Fast target aquisition and first shot hits with fast
cycles are crucial. The USSR was pretty put out that the US M1 crews had a high
(90%?) first shot hit rate versus a USSR 30%, plus we could do from a moving
the tank with a traversing the tube and get off about three shots to their one
IIRC. Computers can really help. In this case, Warsaw looked like it would
absolutely HAVE to have a 3 or 4:1 numerical advantage in opperational armor
just to deal with opposing armor. This doesn't even count infantry and
hellicopter launched anti-tank weapons. And how many could an F-18 carry with
that cool ground vehicle motion detection RADAR mode? I forget the acronym.

-- Charlie Springer