Between attrition (lost in battle), needing to leave troops behind to control conquered territory, and longer supply lines, shouldn’t the armies have gotten significantly thinner and weaker.
In: 247
Think of things in terms of how they would be if the world was perfect. You have an army, of young healthy brave soldiers lined up in their finest uniforms on the parade square having travelled across the land to their muster points Now think about what happens if part of that nations territory has been taken. The warehouses of uniforms, weapons and ammunition are lost. The paperwork saying who has what and who needs what is lost. The roads to the muster points are blocked. The trains are no longer running. The smaller groups cannot come together to form a group large enough to defeat the invasion and if they encounter the enemy, are destroyed. The farmers cannot bring in their crops in the occupied areas. The crops may be burned and lost entirely. The stability of the system has declined. What is going on with the invaders? On their land, the stability and efficiency of the system is still near 100%. New soldiers arrive unhindered. The trucks and trains run on time. The quartermaster sits in his office, with his paperwork. The ability of a nation to conduct warfare depends on having a more effective force than its opponent, either due to efficiency or mass.
Latest Answers