Poll: The most important aspect in a battle

[Caliostro]

Assume you have one hundred soldiers, completed basic training and equipped with standard issue weaponry, and are fighting one hundred generic enemy soldiers in a generic environment. You can improve one aspect of the upcoming fight:

It depends a lot on where we stand as is. Not a lot of information is given right now so it depends on other variables:

Intel
You can learn more about the enemy strengths and weaknesses.

What kind of Intel do we have as of right now?

Do we have any kind of basic intel? Do we know who the enemy is, and whether or not they're going to fight us with a similar force? Or do we have absolutely no idea whether they're sending a junkie with a pocket knife or an entire world's worth of troops, tanks and whatever else they can grab.

If we have 0 intel (we just know we're going to be attacked), then give me intel first and foremost. I know what we have, even if what we have sucks, now I need to have an idea of what they have to see if there's any point fighting or if we might as well leg it.

Training
Advance your soldiers past basic training, make them ready for anything that could happen

How "basic" is their basic training, and how much would this training improve them?
Are we talking about "saturday morning villain grunts" that are a step bellow storm trooper in the original trilogy? Would this extra training basically turn them into Warhammer 40k's space marines or 300's Spartans where each single man is worth an army? Then this becomes very important, maybe the most important depending on Intel. An army that can't fight isn't an army, it's target practice.

On the other hand, if by "basic training" you mean "basic military training" where individuals are very competent soldiers, just not specialized in anything in particular, then this isn't as important.

Equipment
Allow your soldiers to choose thier own weaponry

What weaponry do they have? What weaponry would be available?

Are they fighting with sticks and stones and can choose anything from AK47s and M16s to Steyr Augs, P90s, AA-12s? If they're egregiously under-equipped then there's no point getting more or better soldiers if they have nothing to fight with. If they have decent weaponry (like, standard issue M16s or M4A2s) then it's not that as pressing an issue.

Supplies
Your soldiers have enough medical supplies and ammunition to last for months

What kind of supplies do we already have? How long do we expect to fight?

If we have no supplies at all and expect to fight in "siege" mode, the previous point applies. What's the point of having great guns or more soldiers if they'll starve to death by the end of the week? Do we, on the other hand, have limited but sufficient supplies to last through the conflict we're expecting if we ration them? Then this is more of a commodity than anything.

Numbers
Gain an extra one hundred soldiers

What kind of enemy are we facing?

If we're fighting 100 enemy soldiers, doubling up our forces might be sufficient to end the conflict swiftly with our victory. If, on the other hand, we're already outnumbering the enemy, or if we remain outnumbered, then doubling our numbers becomes less important than, say, getting better equiped or trained soldiers.

Support
Artillery, bombing run, trebuchet, anything that does not actually enter the battlefield, like a tank or helicopter would

What kind of artillery do we have? What kind of artillery can we request? What kind of enemy are we fighting? What kind of terrain are we fighting on?

We have nothing at all, and are fighting outnumbered and outgunned, then give me a well timed B2 carpet bombing to level out half the enemy army or more. Sustained artillery fire can be instill fear in your enemies, but it depends on how effective they can be.

On top of this we have to consider what kind of time period and fighting you're referring to (for instances, artillery becomes less effective once you consider heavy melee-based fight, as friendly fire would negate a lot of it's effectiveness).

There's a LOT of information one needs to take into account before making such a decision. It's never a clear cut "this is always better!". It's all situational.

 

[JEBWrench]

Logistics. Getting all your well-armed, well-informed, well-trained troops is more essential than anything else.

 

[the_tramp]

Intel - Intel is useless unless they have the necessary skills to take advantage of the new information

Training - Very useful as a skilled person will be able to expect the unexpected so won't need the extra intel

Equipment - It would make things worse because everyone won't know what everyone else is using so can't be mobilised

Supplies - An infinite amount of medkits won't heal a bullet to the head so this will likely not be used to it's full extent

Numbers - What is the nature of the battle? Back in medieval times etc this would decide it but today with all of the technology available then it's unlikely to make much of a difference

Support - One well placed bombing run could kill them all so is effective.

Support, whilst theoretically the best it depends upon the frequency and type of support. I think I'm going to have to go with better training overall.

 

[Caliostro]

I think this pole is missing one of the most important parts of war: motivation. Don't believe me? Then look at Vietnam. The Americans had the tech, the training, the supplies, the men, everything. What did the locals have? Bamboo tools. Who won that one?

How about Japan in WW2? It took two nukes to stop them.

Or more recently? Afganistan and Iraq. Those rebels, for the most part will be badly supplied and ill-trained, are still hitting way above their weight.

Trying to defeat an enemy that wants you dead, and will go to any lengths to achieve it requires more than just a few boots on the ground.

In both counts (Vietnam and Afganistan/Iraq) America had one major disadvantage it stubbornly refused to accept: tactics.

Guerrilla warfare is infernal to fight because there's no clear cut enemy line. Enemy is everywhere and nowhere. Specially if they have the population's aid. In "traditional" warfare it's much simpler: "Enemies over there, kill'em all. If you can't advance on them, level the place!". In guerrila warfare 80% of the fight is knowing where and when you're fighting. Numbers, equipment and training mean nothing when a single guy with an AK can sneak up behind an entire squad with easy.

 

[DazBurger]

Numbers does alot, but not all.

Ever underestimate the power of guerilla warfare.

But I still pick numbers. I can add the tactics my self.

 

[DSK-]

Sun Tzu states that "All warfare is based upon deception".

 

[Nickolai77]

Tough one between intel and support. I voted intel in the end, because a well-placed ambush or timely tactical move can swing the odds of battle in your favour. Assuming a generic enviroment involves a big of high ground, hills, rivers, trees etc, there is plenty of scope for strategty.

As for general importance in warfare, support is about as important as intelligence. Support opens up all sorts of tactical options about how one may wish to conduct combat. Training and Equipment are of vital importance, but subordinate to intel and support. The SAS may be the best trained soldiers in the world, but if you have the intel as to where they are, and the support necessary to get your troops to a desired location, all the training in the world won't save you from a well prepared enemy. Finally, numbers. Numbers are important alone can be important, but unless you have other factors in your favour then you won't win. Besides, there are some instances when numbers can become a hinderance.

 

[Totenkopf]

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

I know it's a quote, but do you know the band Sabaton? With that quote their song "The Art of War" starts. Just saying...

OT:
I vote training. The early success of the Wehrmacht in the Blitzkriegs was almost solely based on the excellent training the soldiers and officers received.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I know it's a quote, but do you know the band Sabaton? With that quote their song "The Art of War" starts. Just saying...

No, and I'm pretty sure that Sun Tzu is more well known.

 

[Sigel]

Intel as long as that included an excellent form(s) of communication. Amateur soldiers throughout history have made the long standing mistake of putting weapons adquisition before communications.

Edit: just read DazBurger's post on Finland. Holy Shit, go Finland, the dark horse of war.

 

[kurupt87]

Six fields, I gave each a value of 1, giving a total of 6. So, we have two forces with an arbitrary value of 6. Increasing something can give a possible extra unit, giving a them total of a possible 7. The thinking involved is that which of these values are important enough to give an entire unit and which give only a fraction.

Seeing as both forces are equal in every way at the start, any increase in any of the fields will result in a victory for the force with a value x>6 (theoretical excercise, at 6 they'd behave identically with perhaps assured mutual destruction).

Based on all of this, the only value that I can see as being worth a whole unit would be numbers, it is after all double what you start with so it's logical too. All the other fields there wasn't really enough information to make a decent decision. Intel is good, but what type? Supplies are good, but in a battle of attrition numbers are better and can also be used offensively; I'd also assume a certain amount of supplies are present anyway. Equipment gave me pause, but again its vagueness put me off; what is the comparable equipment? Swords vs guns? 1920s weapons vs 1940s? 2009s vs 2010s? Training was the biggest contender, but again a lack of detail made me shy away from the concrete advantage given by numbers.

I'll stop there, I've written waaay to much already.

 

[hermes]

As Zapp Branigan would say

The key to victory is the element of surprise. Surprise!

How about

Few people know killer robots has a limit of 10.000 kills, so I just send wave after wave of my soldiers until they overflow and shut down

So, I go with numbers.

Seriously now, I choose support, although I would like to know how much support I can call... Night bombing would reduce the enemy lines, lower morale and exhaust them both psychologically and physically.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Intel is the strongest force here.

It can turn the outcome of a total defeat to a glorious victory.

 

[SnipErlite]

Training - Inferior numbers can dominate if they are skilled enough.

 

[ace_of_something]

if i have missed any, just quote any part of this and tell me. Please don't just say it, as i may not notice

None of those things matter

Spoiler: allow the Joes to elaborate for you

Obviously since knowing is half the battle that's what you should really focus on.

 

[Harrowdown]

Numbers, based on the situation you describe.

I'm not exactly sure what a generic battlefield is, so i'm gonna guess you mean a flat field or something. 100 troops each side is a skirmish, not a war. Consequently, you won't need many supplies. This is no war of attrition. Intel is out too, and support will probably just get in the way. Standard issue will kill as good as whatever pimped out assualt weapons you seem to be proposing, so it's really down to training and numbers. This whole question is kind of irrelevent anyway. It sounds like your only understanding of warfare has come straight out of an FPS. Modern day wars just aren't fought like you describe.

 

[Malifact]

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery wins wars.

Numbers, Training, Artillery. In order of importance.

 

[Kukakkau]

"The sinews of war are money and yet more money"

Whichever side has the most money and supplies headed their way is likely to come out on top

 

[Frybird]

Since letting soldiers choose thier own weapon is probably not a good idea, i voted for Training, at least for this particular situation.

Equipment would've won if it had meant that my hypothetical soldiers would get clearly superior weapons (that they also can use, of course)

 

[||XIII]

Considering that your 100 soldiers can follow orders and shoot in a straight line, I'd say that good intel would leave most of your men alive. It'd allow you to out maneuver your enemy, setting up ambushes in ideal positions, and steering clear or flanking any enemy ambushes. Of course, if the fighting had already erupted, I'd have to go with either training or support, which would depend on how the enemy is organized.