Didn’t Poland have some cavalry when Hitler invaded?
They did. So did the Germans.
So did the Americans.
In terms of Civ 4, the greatest gap between two civilizations was in the immediate post-war era. While the Soviets had a huge army (and the Chinese were much underestimated), only the US retained an army, plus a huge navy plus of course The Bomb.
Hard to imagine anyone I would rather have such huge power than good ol’ Harry Truman.
I disagree with this assessment. The difference between early guns and bows, etc is large, but remember that pikes were still an important part of warfare well after the advent of gunpowder.
However, in the Gulf War, while the technologies were related, the T-72 was not even able to penetrate the armor of the Abrams. Thermal sights and recon technologies, while not firepower per se, operated as force multipliers. Most of their air defenses were unable to successfully engage UN air power, and the troops were more or less defenseless against helicopter and air power in the field.
Training and discipline were certainly lacking, and played a large part, but the 30-40 year technology difference was pretty decisive.
Your point about the NTC OpFor boys is accurate, but they cheat. The OpFor “uses” the top of the line Soviet weaponry, and they count hits as being more lethal than they would be from Iraqi units. What’s more, the OpFor guys know the terrain, and they get a massive numerical advantage and they are well-practiced.
The lethality difference per unit in the Gulf was really high, which I think is a better metric than “technology”. There might be some colonial actions that feature as big a disparity, but the Gulf war would rank near the top.
At the battle of Cajamarca, a Spanish force of roughly 150 killed over 6000 incas while suffering only one injury to their side. Nothing in the Gulf even remotely compares.
Gulf War casualties caused by enemy combatants among coalition forces were 190. The best estimates of Iraqi fatalities are 20,000-35,000. And that was a (somewhat) trained and equipped military.
ETA: And that’s for an entire campaign, not a single battle. Most of the battles of Gulf I had zero coalition casualties. If you want to count single actions, there are plenty of instances in the Gulf where a few men killed hundreds of Iraqis. Think helicopter pilots.
Ewoks vs Empire.
<SLAPS wierdaaron with a Wet Trout>
Never mention those hairy lil cannibal bastards in my presence again!
For those quoting the Spanish conquest of south Amercia, surely the north American indians were no better equipped thatn their southern counterparts 300 years later against the far more advanced US Army?
My WAG is that technology improved similarly for both groups. Plains indians had adopted horses wholeheartedly, and picked up guns when the could. At the same time, the US cavalry had better guns, and more of them.
Not only that, but the Plains Indians had evolved some resistance to European diseases by then.
Japan and the US at the end of WW II. We (the US) evolved an entire new class of weapons. We went from chemical driven explosive reactions to Nuclear Fission. The atomic weapons had not only overwhelming blast (and blast driven fragments) but radioactive and thermal effects driven at near the speed of light.
Yeah, but you only had two of those - with more in the works, admittedly, but the truth is Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a bluff. There were no more after that, at least for a few months.
Besides, it’s not like the US was racing ahead of Japan throughout the war. Both were pretty much matched for the duration (with even a small advantage to Japan in terms of submarine technology - the Long Lance torpedo was incredible for its time, while the US struggled with its torpedo detonators until after the war). In terms of Civ IV, it’s just that the US teched up to Rocketry a few turns earlier than Japan, and whipped or drafted a couple of ICBMs :D. Hardly a tech gap, more of making the most out of whatever break you got.
That was not necessarily true in 1876 at Little Bighorn; the debate continues: http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/06/dayintech_0625/
If it makes you feel any better, the odds are that they are all dead.
I’m no expert, but I’d say that the Plains Indians had the advantage from shortly after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, when horses were released onto the Plains, until the advent of repeating weapons.
An archer on horseback can fire an arrow every two seconds while mounted. Also, some Indians (Commanche, if not others) had adapted their saddles to allow them to ride while hanging off one side, hiding behind the horse. Finally, and depending on the tribe, their lifestyle was more or less based around performing as light infantry–ranging over great distances, scouting and making hit and run attacks.
On the other hand, a conquistador or settler may or may not have had a single shot rifle which they probably couldn’t fire from horseback, that they would certainly have to dismount to reload, and which could fire a bullet every fifteen seconds or so.
Yeah, if the settlement of Australia or Tasmania count as war, they would be it, simply because the Australian aborigines and the Tasmanians had practically nothing ub the way of technology and no concept of war for conquest (there’s one exception, can’t find a cite right now, but some aborigines got hold of a ship and raided…Tasmanians? I don’t recall clearly, but I think Jared Diamond described it).
The Plains Indians, with horses, metal tomahawks, bows, rifles, and sometimes repeating rifles, and a firm concept of what all-out war meant, were orders of magnitude better equipped to face their persecutors.
I suspect you are thinking of the near-extermination of the Moriori of the Chatham Islands by Maori raiders from New Zealand.
Does the Cold War count?
While everyone with a political agenda likes to take credit for the fall of the Soviet Union it probably had more to do with a technological gap.
1.) The Soviets were plowing an inordinate amount of their resources into the military instead of the needs of the civilians. Most of these resources were plowed into development of technologies that were based on the mechanical model as opposed to the electronic model.
2.) The ruble was not recognized as an international currency because the Soviets were artificially inflating its value. The international bankers refused to recognize the ruble because it was artificially valued. (Secondarily, that created a huge black market which is the topic for another thread.)
3.) Western private industrialization and innovation let to huge advancements in computer technology and the development of technologies based on electronics.
4.) The leap in development that the “Western” countries made due to advancements in electronics and computer science jumped them far ahead of the Soviets in a short period of time. That is why the USA won the “space race” or the “moon race” even thought Soviet rocket science may have been ahead of the US on a mechanical level.
5.) When the Soviets realized that they were behind the West in computerization they realized that in order to catch up they would have to buy the technology from other countries.
6.) Because their currency was so overinflated they couldn’t buy what they needed and essentially went broke trying to compete.
7.) The Soviet Union collapsed. They went broke. Their investment in technology had taken them down a wrong path from which they couldn’t recover. The condition of their civilian population was a mess. Therefore, although it was a “cold” war it was a war they lost for technological reasons.
My over-simplified take on the matter. Now flame away.
A lot of Iraqis would like to talk to him about that, I’m sure.
More to the point, what’s his take on the early part of World War II? Was the invasion of Poland ‘real’ in his model? How much effective resistance is required to turn something into a ‘war’ in Baudrillard’s mind?