Is it because a gun can attack from a surface?

Isn’t it because it has high lethality?

Because weapons like swords and spears don’t allow close encounters, the one who gets hit first ends up losing unilaterally.

Range and mobility! It’s all about range and mobility!

The Lanchester’s laws date back to World War I.

The gun has an excessively fast kill speed.

>>19

It’s a battle of 50 to 100.

Chiba has no chance against 50, but in COD, I feel like there’s a small chance…

>>7

When I checked, it said “primary” for the bow and arrow, but which one is correct…?

But what if we launch a missile?

In primitive combat, would it be impossible for the side with fewer numbers to win unilaterally through encirclement and annihilation?

>>9

Does having a bow and arrow mean it is no longer primitive?

>>9

Military strength is a vector quantity, and since the army is proportional to the square of the speed, there are historical examples where battles fought by smaller, more mobile units have outmaneuvered and defeated larger forces, as wise people from the past have noted.

>>9

If you’re prepared for a siege extermination, it might actually lead to greater damage, and there’s no point in thinking too much about that part.

The commander says that since we’ll annihilate the encirclement, 90 out of 100 will survive in a 50 vs. 100 situation! Once they start executing the plan based on that assurance, I can only feel that we’re going to lose.

>>9

It seems quite difficult for the side with fewer troops to achieve complete annihilation; they would need to effectively divide the opponent in order to succeed.

In the past, there was a story where 100 people surrounded and defeated 5,000 in a siege attack! It was said that they won! That work received a lot of criticism.

In the first place, surrounding and attacking by the majority is what encirclement and annihilation is.

If the numbers are equal, surround; if it’s double or more, encircle. That’s the usual principle.

However, our army is different!

The firing rate differs by dozens of times between a bow and a machine gun, so it’s not even comparable.

When I look up “Lanchester,” there’s nothing but business-related topics, but are we fighting wars in business?

>>14

“Unless special factors (equipment, tactics, terrain, etc.) are considered, having more numbers will always lead to victory. Therefore, let’s identify and utilize the factors for winning.” This is used in situations where small and medium-sized enterprises win against large businesses in the business world.

>>14

Both will die if they lose…

Basically, it feels like when one person dies, they take another person with them…

But what if there were 100 John Wicks?

But if it’s led by Alexander the Great, the minority side will win decisively.

There are countless terrible books that claim to apply strategies from Sun Tzu’s Art of War or Clausewitz’s theories of war to business.

If you think seriously, you can say that if you can defeat one person in close combat, you can create a situation of one against many from there, which makes my brain hurt.

>>24

Any big man can be killed by three people if they charge at him together! The Romans who came up with this idea are clever.

H-Hmm.

There are many examples of military-related books being disguised as business books because they don’t sell well.

>>29

There are many business books that say things like “Learn from Sun Tzu!”

>>29

In overseas, what is the title of this category like the Book of Five Rings?

14 people died in a 100 to 50 situation.

It’s 86 to 50, which means 17 deaths.

>>33

Of course, the attack power decreases because the number of people has decreased.

Is it the case that the difference in the number of casualties increases sharply when the difference in numbers is greater because guns have a higher lethality?

>>34

Isn’t it because the casualty rate was low when they faced each other?

>>34

The key is not the killing ability, but the ability to coordinate and unleash rapid-fire attacks, which can be close to a frontal assault.

>>122

The expression “can be killed probabilistically” makes it a bit unclear, doesn’t it?

A sword is a weapon that the user uses to kill a target, but a gun or cannon can kill anyone within that range.

I think the above was more like a primitive situation, as if we were repeating a one-on-one duel a hundred times.

If it’s okay to surround and beat someone up in a club fight, it should have become the following formula.

>>36

There is also covering, you know.

If we split into an attacking team and a defending team with a 2:1 ratio, the losses on the side with 2 would likely be smaller.

With the current performance of weapons, will it go cubic? Or will it become independent of the number of troops?

Nico has this face, but probably completely understands.

Yomi doesn’t understand at all.

How accurate is this calculation?

>>39

It has been used since 1914 until now.

Let’s make sure to prepare at least this many people, or let’s not engage in battle from the start, since it leads to this situation based on a simple formula.

Mirror Duel

There’s no excuse not to use tactics like this.

Why am I giving this lecture to the Huntress…

>>43

I am here to explain that since your fighting style is primary, you need to properly utilize tactics and terrain to win.

>>51

I thought the Huntress was tier three, but considering her durability, she might be tier one.

The calculations were all included in the milk clam.

Thankful.

If you really want to win consistently, gather more than your opponent.

In modern warfare, isn’t a preemptive strike overwhelmingly advantageous?

>>46

It’s advantageous, but if things go wrong, nuclear weapons could come flying from nowhere.

But in close combat games in Chiba, it’s common for A2 vs B4 to have zero damage for B.

>>47

It is something that cannot be directly applied as it is greatly influenced by individual capabilities.

The fewer people there are, the more it depends on individuals.

Exchange ratio problem

If we can successfully divide the enemy’s power according to the second law as per some professor’s complete copy of the milk shell, then…

It said that you can win even with a small number of troops.

No matter how primitive the weapons are, you can fight two against one.

Is it possible to get hit so neatly, just halfway like that?

>>55

It’s a brawl that ignores tactics…

There are countless cases where tactics or individual skills can be overturned.

It must be primitive because it doesn’t take that into account.

>>59

Soldiers with exactly the same abilities don’t just face each other and brawl head-on.

That said, it would serve as a basis for calculation.

It’s like a middle schooler who keeps saying it’s impossible even though the question states to ignore resistance.

But I feel like I often see stories set in the past where a large group defeats a small one individually! Is this Alterios calculation really correct?

>>62

There must be a proper reason for defeating a large number of people with a small force.

The division of forces was not a foolish strategy.

>>64

In short, if having a larger number wins, why is reducing the number not considered a foolish strategy?

>>75

Whether you distribute it or not, in the end, the one with the higher total wins, so doesn’t that mean the result doesn’t change?

>>78

Napoleon during his generalship won consecutive victories by localizing and dividing an enemy of 60,000 with his own 40,000 troops, turning them into a majority.

>>82

One of them is either wrong or exaggerating!

>>83

Isn’t it because guns had already appeared during Napoleon’s time?

>>106

The opponent wanted to surround Napoleon, so they crossed the mountain to divide the soldiers. As a result, they left about 6,000 in the rear, bringing Napoleon’s forces to 34,000 against the enemy’s 30,000, and won.

The enemy in the rear retreated upon hearing that the main force was pushed back.

First of all, do you not know that it’s assumed both sides’ soldiers have the same abilities as the enemy?

There is indeed a phase where arrows are shot in a flurry between groups, and while it may be secondary at that time, that phase won’t last forever.

In the first place, even if it’s surrounded, the actual part that faces it won’t turn into a one-to-many situation.

There are many heroes in history who have anecdotes of defeating a larger number of opponents with a small force, but…

The calculation in the thread image is based on the premise of the same ability.

To win 100 vs 5000, one side would need to have a super weapon or something at that level.

>>76

Lanchester ray!

>>76

Chest Infinite Gatling!

If the abilities are the same, having a greater number is advantageous.

You’re explaining the effectiveness of tactics and strategies, right?

It feels like the damage is less than 50 when it’s 100 to 50, intuitively.

If you do it, there will be damage of about 50, so the strategy is that the training level of the soldiers is important, that’s the story.

>>81

It means that if you don’t think about anything, the advantage of numbers is weak.

In reality, if you had overwhelming numbers, you wouldn’t suffer equal losses to the enemy in primitive combat, but this is an analogy to show the superiority of numbers in modern weaponry…

In actual battles, the majority side tends to naturally surround, so it would likely be more advantageous than calculated.

Perhaps there are not many people researching the first principles that rarely occur in modern warfare.

>>87

Just like in Black Hawk Down, even modern weapons would get overwhelmed if there are too many enemies.

The value of the denominator makes a big difference, so it’s not very reliable.

If we surround them, we’ll be strong! Honestly, I don’t really believe that.

In the end, neither side has engaged the enemy outside of the front lines, so I think it’s almost a one-on-one situation.

But there may be an effect of intimidating the enemy army.

>>89

I think it’s a disadvantage that the military has to be forcefully divided into multiple facets when it fundamentally faces forward.

It seems that motivation is quite important; it’s said that without it, you will definitely collapse.

>>89

In response to such questions, the concepts of internal and external operations were born.

>>89

Sieges in large-scale battles change the number of troops at the front line.

Basically, the one being surrounded cannot fight back, and multiple people from the surrounding side will end up beating one person.

Ordinary people, when faced with a two-to-one situation, can only quietly take a beating without being able to mount any significant counterattack.

>>96

Isn’t the side with 2 against 1 really outnumbered?

>>97

If it starts as a two-to-one situation, over time, the number of people on the advantageous side will increase.

>>89

You can really feel this when playing FPS games.

Even if outnumbered, those who surround their opponent will win decisively.

>>127

The ability to respond to movements changes depending on whether you can see what’s happening behind you while moving forward simply or if you can keep all opponents in your line of sight.

Even if you don’t hit the one you aimed for, you might hit the one next to it.

>>127

Isn’t that a discussion about the second law?

>>89

Sieges are often used with the purpose of cutting off supply routes.

If you have the advantage, the basic straightforward approach is the strongest.

>>138

Siege is the correct approach.

In a situation where there are significant differences in the skill levels of individual soldiers, if they are picked off one by one, the side with the larger numbers must utilize their advantage; otherwise, they could be reversed.

>>91

Alpha and beta in the thread image include that.

Destruction from a complete encirclement and pursuit after leaving a partial escape route.

I wonder which one is more efficient.

>>94

It depends on what the strategic objectives are.

The first thing that must be made clear in army tactics is whether the objective is to crush the enemy’s fighting strength or to seize territory.

What was born from creating a numerical advantage in the situation is Goryokaku.

Simply surrounding it won’t guarantee a win.

It ends up being like offering your neck to an opponent in a square formation.

But there are no heroes in the world of guns, but in the world of swords and spears, heroes will clear everything away.

If you use a bow and arrow properly, you can achieve results equivalent to a gun.

As expected, guns are overwhelming.

>>102

The difference in the duration of training…

>>104

Burst fire and accuracy are on a different level…

If you don’t think about anything, it will turn out this way, so let’s strategize wisely to gain an advantage.

Since Napoleon is not reproducible, I will not think about it!

Napoleon’s military and soldiers were stronger than those of other countries at the time, aside from Napoleon’s own brilliance, because the exceptions were too great.

The study of war is about figuring out how to defeat that incomparable genius Napoleon.

Ordinary people find that much more helpful.

It’s an army built on nationalism…

The general is also excellent, so of course they are strong.

In the case of armies, it’s not really necessary to kill 50; if you reduce their number by around 20, it becomes clear that they are at a disadvantage and will flee.

There’s no way we would fight until we both are truly wiped out.

People who feel like they are playing a one-to-many battle game.

>>114

A weakling that is as strong as the difficulty level of Dynasty Warriors!

Isn’t it a discussion about battles between ships?

“Can we really trust what this intellectual guy is saying? We can do it.”

>>116

(Deruha continues to win consecutively at a 1:6 ratio due to the difference in skill level.)

Are cavalry vs infantry calculated including the number of horses?

In SLG games, it becomes boring when the long-range units are the strongest and can attack unilaterally without receiving counterattacks.

The Gundam wars involve close-quarters combat with visual range, so both sides are inflicting significant damage on each other…

>>124

After all, it’s best to annihilate by firing stakes unilaterally from a distance!

In primitive combat, where there is no difference in skill, it becomes a one-for-one exchange, while in modern combat, probability theory gains prominence.

>>128

So, as a premise, we need to assume we have the same strength for now.

I don’t really understand, but wouldn’t it be fine to just kill everyone I see?

Side attacks are really strong, right?

Shooter T thinks that if it’s a fight to the death, just recognizing that there are enemies on the side will greatly limit movement.

>>131

Especially in the era of dense formations, even if the front line was desperately fighting, those in the middle or back could only gather information to the extent of saying, “Oh, it seems like the people in front are doing their best…”

If you are suddenly attacked from the side or from behind, even though you don’t really understand what’s happening, you might feel like you’ve been suddenly assaulted! This can cause mental turmoil to spread…

First, it becomes crowded, and it’s difficult to move, resulting in simple movements.

If an attack aimed at an ally is redirected at me, I cannot evade it.

On the other hand, the side that is enclosing can take evasive actions, and they are in a state where any attack can hit the opponent.

Napoleon and his SSR generals advance dispersedly to reduce logistical burdens while simultaneously appearing at the designated battlefield to join forces, making it not useful as a reference.

>>137

It is so unhelpful that they assume all fighter pilots are aces.

Because it’s a simple model, each person will have stable output until death, regardless of whether there are many or few people.

If all that’s going to happen is annihilation, it feels like engaging in a primitive battle is just a waste.

>>143

By the time it reaches that point in modern times, it is already too late.

Bringing in unfounded elements in this kind of discussion can lead to serious problems, right?

My ship is not heavily damaged, so it won’t be critically damaged.

So, since we can attack, the assumption is that we can sink the opponent!!

Like those that actually get sunk…

I thought this was about the community, but it turned into a serious discussion about something else.

>>146

Is it something like a secondary rule?