Given a particular game (whether it be chess/war/motor racing etc.) and that the game has specific rules or set parameters that you must abide by (for example in chess, the rook can only move left or right but not diagonally), which has a greater chance of prevailing, a better strategy or numerical strength?
For example in chess you can think of it as:
The White Team: Greater number of pieces but less of complete strategy
against
The Black Team: Less pieces but a better overall plan.
Which team succeeds?
I remember seeing an interview with a German pilot from WW2 ravaged Berlin (the interview was conducted post-1990). He was commenting on the significance of the sizeable Russian forces at the time, and how they eventually led to the German defeat. I remember him saying that “even with the far greater tactical superiority of the Germans, we were no match for the superior numbers of the Russians. For every one plane we had, they had 16. It was hopeless.”
It got me thinking, is this statement true? Obviously there has to be a balancing act between the superiority of the strategy/plan and the quantity of the opposition. It is made very difficult because whilst we would class one as qualitative (i.e. how good is your plan?) the other we would class quantitatively (how many are there?). This presents a problem.
Can you think of any examples of superior strategy overcoming a numerically superior foe? Or the other way round? On cumulative balance, which one of the two wins out? Is there any particular reason for this?
[If you find it difficult to understand the term “numerically superior”, remember that it doesn’t have to be applied to “numbers of people”. In motor racing for example, a car which can churn more horsepower out of it’s engine can go faster than the others. I would classify this (for the purposes of this argument) as “numerically superior”. However there have been incidences in racing where the slower car on the day has won the race due to some astonishingly good use of tactics.]
Roberto Duran vs. Sugar Ray Leonard, for the welterweight title back in the 80s. Leonard was bigger, faster, and a harder hitter. Duran suckered him into standing still and trading with Duran. Duran won in fifteen rounds.
Roberto Duran vs. Tommy Hearns. Hearns was much bigger, and a much harder hitter. Duran got knocked out in two rounds.
It depends.
Tactical or strategic superiority gives you an advantage. It does not guarantee victory. Greater numbers gives you an advantage. It does not guarantee victory.
Superior tactics often means arranging things such that a smaller, but more mobile force, can attack a larger force so that the smaller force can bring greater numbers to bear at the point of contact between the two forces. If you are leading a squad of a dozen people, and attacking a defensive line of a hundred which is spread out over a mile, it is relatively easy to concentrate your attack so that your dozen can overwhelm the five or six in front of you before those at the ends of the defensive line can come to their aid. This is especially true if you can pick your point of attack.
Military types always prefer to attack when they have all the advantages - locally superior numbers, superior logistics and supply chains, better equipment and morale, etc.
I’d say, generally, that numerical superiority, especially a deeply committed numerical superiority, wins out. Whatever side can just keep throwing an inexhaustible supply of men and hardware at a cunning foe will eventually win the war (but not necessarily every battle).
A prime example of strength of firepower and tactics over a superior number would be that of the successful defense of Rourke’s Drift by 90 British soldiers against approximately 4,000 Zulu warriors. I understand that the movie is a fairly faithful representation of history.
Hundred Years War, Battle at Crecy. The English were outnumbered by about 3-1, but poor decisions cost the French the battle, and inflicting minimal (only about 100) English casualties.
Gary Kasparov (probably the strongest ever chess player) recently took on Terence Chapman (useful junior chess player 30 years ago - now a millionaire businessman) in a 6 game match in London.
Kasparov, with superior strategic and tactical skills, gave Terence 2 pawns start each time.
Kasparov scraped home 3.5 - 2.5, but said he found it a great strain.
(Of course all his experience is with equal forces.)
I am certain that many thousands of players could beat Kasparov with say a knight start.
(And if you want another military massacre - how about Agincourt? Superior technology, plus a muddy field.)
glee should also have mentioned Kasparov vs. Deep Blue:
Deep Blue evaluating millions of positions a second (pretty much relying on 100% brute force) vs. Kasparov’s 3 positions evaluations a second (pretty much relying on 100% tactics).
Roarkes drift: flip side is Islandhwana (better armed British annhilated by main Zulu force)
I would say you have to separate strategy from tactics - tactics may let you defeat superior numbers once, twice, always, but without superior strategy (and grand strategy) it may not result in victory.
Since the firepower age began numbers began counting for a lot more - as long as those numbers could be brought to bear. A mobile army takes things the other way - superior numbers right here right now, regardless of the global picture - until the other side gets mobile too.
I don’t think this question can be answered one way or the other. If the tactics are sufficiently better (especially with a tech edge as well) then tactics win (think Barbarossa through 43- Germans able to surround and defeat much larger Soviet forces). If the tactical edge is minimal (or there is no strategic edge) then all will come to nought (Eastern front 43-45).
I referee freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling at various levels. Sometimes we’ll see a match (most strikingly in the heavyweight class, where high schoolers between 215 and 275 pounds compete) where a wrestler with excellent technique will intentionally gain weight to compete in a higher weight class, particularly if he’s scouted it and knows that there are much larger but less able wrestlers there.
Generally, the smaller, more technical wrestler wins the match, but when you get toward the extremes - closer to the 60-pound weight differential, or roughly 25-30% of the smaller wrestler’s body weight - the larger wrestlers start to simply shut down the better wrestlers and end up winning because of some lucky or forced technique that they had no right to be able to score with.
Alternatively, wrestlers with excellent technique are able to best enormous weight disadvantages. This article discusses America’s Chris Taylor (412 pounds), who competed before the heavyweight limit was instituted (it stood for a long time at 130 kilos/286 pounds, but was recently dropped to 120 kilos/264 pounds). It discusses the 231-pound Alexander Medved, widely regarded as one of the best freestylists ever, besting Taylor three times on the international scene. This is a 78% weight differential. I don’t know of any higher weight differentials that resulted in consistent wins for the smaller man. (The article also has an incredible photo of 300-pound West German Wilfried Dietrich throwing Taylor overhead. Everyone should see it.)
It’s my theory that it’s a sliding scale. The best wrestlers seem to fall apart above a 60% weight differential. Wrestlers with less developed technique are neutralized at a lower differential, of course. I’d assume that a similar finding could be made for a quantification of “Tactics” against sheer numbers.
(Please note, I’ve done no scientific research. I’m only reporting on anecdotal evidence.)
And, of course, I mess up the numbers. The best wrestlers fall apart around a 30% weight differential, in my experience.
Just for the record, the 197-285-pound differential in college is around 45%, but the results there would be skewed. Wrestlers with poor technique generally don’t compete in American college wrestling because they get weeded out by intense college sports programs, as in any sport.
Most battles fought by Hannibal of Carthage, Alexander the Great or Genghis Kahn – they all usually fought battles where they were outnumbered by their adversaries, often by large amounts, but still won almost all the time. Speaking in general terms, the advantage of superior strategy, tactics or morale has eroded over time, particularly since the industrial revolution and the age of mass armies where a single battle is no longer as decisive and the ability of nations to sustain lengthy wars has led to the side with the larger factories having a greater advantage.
Hmm, I see MMI has beat me to mentioned Isandlawana in relation to Rourke’s Drift. While the movie Zulu is pretty accurate as far as movies go in relating the battle of Rourke’s Drift, it was more an example of foolhardy Zulu tactics than superior British ones. The Zulus who fought at Rourke’s Drift arrived late at the scene at Isandlawana, and didn’t participate in the battle. Not wanting to miss their chance at glory, they decided to attack the British at the missionary outpost, which the British had fortified themselves in. The Zulu should have known better than to attack Europeans in a fortified position, they had learned the lesson fighting the Boers. As a result of these experiences, doing so was something their commanders were told never to do, but their desire to get their share of the victory got the better of them.
More examples - several Israeli battles in 1967 and 1973.
However, we should differentiate between tactical superiority, which is the provence of commanders, and superior training and morale. As a rule of thumb: heroic assault = superior field commanders; heroic defense = superior solders.
Well, here is a farely recent case of tatics beating better equipment and numerically superior forces during the Libyan invasions of Chad that is interesting - in March of 1987, the Libyan main airfield of Wadi Doum, guarded by a minefields, 5,000 men, tanks, armored vehicles, aircraft, was captured by a ** smaller ** Chadian force consisting of * pick-up trucks * with machine guns and anti-tank missles in the back.
That’s true (although Kasparov drew the rematch).
Other man v computer chess matches show that humans who specifically prepare and play an ‘anti’ computer strategy 9basically avoiding tactics) do better.