The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So, looking at the figures it all seems clear that the Allied troops have more men, technology and training. But does it help?
Ok, they out-number the Iraqi troops by about 100,000 but still. In one way they are much more powerful. Think about it in this way;
The Allies have - 350,000 troops
The Iraqis have - 250,000 troops
Percentage of troops The Allies are willing to lose - 0.5% (?)
Percentage of troops The Iraqis are willing to lose - 30%
Those percentages were completely made up, but you get my drift. Is a larger army better than a small army even though the smaller one is willing to lose more men and therefore take more risks in its tactics?
Thoughts?
Ok, they out-number the Iraqi troops by about 100,000 but still. In one way they are much more powerful. Think about it in this way;
The Allies have - 350,000 troops
The Iraqis have - 250,000 troops
Percentage of troops The Allies are willing to lose - 0.5% (?)
Percentage of troops The Iraqis are willing to lose - 30%
Those percentages were completely made up, but you get my drift. Is a larger army better than a small army even though the smaller one is willing to lose more men and therefore take more risks in its tactics?
Thoughts?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> They may have
> the numbers, but they don't have the spirit.
Yes, they may have the numbers. The numbers of people willing to fight and die for Saddam most probably outnumber the amount of people the Allies are willing to lose.
> They may have
> the numbers, but they don't have the spirit.
Yes, they may have the numbers. The numbers of people willing to fight and die for Saddam most probably outnumber the amount of people the Allies are willing to lose.
Clutch own all they bases
"Nothing is at it seems
When milking cows in Milton Keynes"
"Nothing is at it seems
When milking cows in Milton Keynes"
A large percentage of the Iraqi army are only fighting because they are told to fight, not because they believe in the causes of it. That's why you're seeing troops of 8,000 surrendering. They may have the numbers, but they don't have the spirit.
cookie monster wrote:
> Whilst Saddam doesnt giveadam (do you see?) about how many men he
> loses, the soldiers dont want to die, thats why they surrender instead
> of fight.
What about his core army? you know the ones hell-bent protecting Saddam? They're probably ready to all kill themselves.. I'm sure they outnumber the amount of casualties that the Allies are willing to sustain.
> Whilst Saddam doesnt giveadam (do you see?) about how many men he
> loses, the soldiers dont want to die, thats why they surrender instead
> of fight.
What about his core army? you know the ones hell-bent protecting Saddam? They're probably ready to all kill themselves.. I'm sure they outnumber the amount of casualties that the Allies are willing to sustain.
It's my understanding that the allies have around 250,000 troops in the region (another 100,000 support personnel), while the Iraqi army numbers about 400,000 troops. I could be wrong as I haven't counted personally, I sent my butler Rumsfeld to do it.
Whilst Saddam doesnt giveadam (do you see?) about how many men he loses, the soldiers dont want to die, thats why they surrender instead of fight.
So, looking at the figures it all seems clear that the Allied troops have more men, technology and training. But does it help?
Ok, they out-number the Iraqi troops by about 100,000 but still. In one way they are much more powerful. Think about it in this way;
The Allies have - 350,000 troops
The Iraqis have - 250,000 troops
Percentage of troops The Allies are willing to lose - 0.5% (?)
Percentage of troops The Iraqis are willing to lose - 30%
Those percentages were completely made up, but you get my drift. Is a larger army better than a small army even though the smaller one is willing to lose more men and therefore take more risks in its tactics?
Thoughts?
Ok, they out-number the Iraqi troops by about 100,000 but still. In one way they are much more powerful. Think about it in this way;
The Allies have - 350,000 troops
The Iraqis have - 250,000 troops
Percentage of troops The Allies are willing to lose - 0.5% (?)
Percentage of troops The Iraqis are willing to lose - 30%
Those percentages were completely made up, but you get my drift. Is a larger army better than a small army even though the smaller one is willing to lose more men and therefore take more risks in its tactics?
Thoughts?