Does Size really matter?

[shabzy]

We had learned that Islam spread during the early days, some with military campaigns against the odds compared to the size of the enemy. Some of the odds were like 10:1 against the Muslims/Sahabas in number and equipment.

The most famous of the generals that led the muslim army was Khalid bin Waleed who never loss a single battle with the muslims, tallying over 100 campaigns.

In modern day warfare are there any such accounts where battles have been won against such odds with such remarkeable leaders/generals?

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Many, and for many (and different) reasons. A popular example is that of the Finns against Russia.

 

[Sugarcane]

damn..... dude your title is misleading

@Topic --- You can't compare today's Muslims with legends

 

[Armstrong]

Wars are won or lost because of a plethora of strings stretching in every probable direction. History is riddled with examples of smaller armies surmounting seemingly impossible odds and massive armies succumbing to ones much lesser; yet all of those armies have something distinctive about them which makes or breaks them at the end. However, the assumption is that if you've got superior training, technology, logistics and morale - you have a distinct advantage over your adversary and should win. For example - if Abu Jahal was manning an M60 against the bows and arrows of us Muslims at Badr, we can be reasonably sure on whom to place our bets. However, if the fool instead of using the gun to mow us down used it as a metal club to bludgeon us...the actual results would be much different. So whats on paper...stays on paper but if you've done your homework there is that much more chance for things to work out for you.

 

[Moorkh]

Morale and bravery are poor substitutes for numbers.

the only true substitute is technology

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Technology is the new equalizer for the 21st century---. The technology is the force multiplier in the projection and implementation of power.

In modern day combat---there are two things running side by side----first---he who can reach his opponent from the farthest without having most of its assets challenged--and the second thing attached to this and the most important one is the open supplyand production lines under all conditions---once these two conditions are met, then the out come is predictable.

That is why the mantra of 20th century was---don't start a war with the united states---you can't reach its assets---you cannot stop its production lines---you will lose in the end.

Understand the power of technology---the simplest assault rifle changed the face of combat in this world----an ordinary man became an extra-ordinary person once handed this weapon---the AK47----.

 

[Rafi]

Hi,

Technology is the new equalizer for the 21st century---. The technology is the force multiplier in the projection and implementation of power.

In modern day combat---there are two things running side by side----first---he who can reach his opponent from the farthest without having most of its assets challenged--and the second thing attached to this and the most important one is the open supplyand production lines under all conditions---once these two conditions are met, then the out come is predictable.

That is why the mantra of 20th century was---don't start a war with the united states---you can't reach its assets---you cannot stop its production lines---you will lose in the end.

Understand the power of technology---the simplest assault rifle changed the face of combat in this world----an ordinary man became an extra-ordinary person once handed this weapon---the AK47----.

That is true, but don't discount asymmetric warfare, example Iraq, a 1,000 dollar IED, takes out multi-million dollar Abrams tank out, same is happening in A-stan, a multitude of unwashed illiterate cavemen armed with AK's and RPG's are winning a war with one of the most powerful military machines in the history of the world.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Oh no size does not matter cuz its the way how you use it. with a tiny size, zaid hamid can lead his men on horses to victory against all odds

 

[Desi Guy]

Size LOL man you need to change the thread title !!
it makes me think of this 8========D

 

[livingdead]

^^^ Let ladies of this forum express their opinions.

 

[Desi Guy]

^^^ Let ladies of this forum express their opinions.

 

[W.11]

^^^ Let ladies of this forum express their opinions.

im looking forward to their opinions too

 

[SherAli]

The original Futuhat of Islam will never be seen again ... it is the first and last time in history that a force that is completely outnumbered, outgunned, and surrounded manages to conquer the largest territory to date

In the Battle of Yarmouk the Muslims were outnumbered 10:1 ... in the Battle of Firoz where there christian Arabs, Roman trash, and Persians united they were outnumbered like 15:1 ... and they were far inferior in technology as well ...

Some will point out the Mongol conquests as something similar but the Mongols had the Mongol bow, the most superior missile weapon to date ... their conquests were not permanent and they were eventually conquered by Islam

 

[illusion8]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-epic-military-last-stands-6.html#post2683639

 

[graphican]

We had learned that Islam spread during the early days, some with military campaigns against the odds compared to the size of the enemy. Some of the odds were like 10:1 against the Muslims/Sahabas in number and equipment.

The most famous of the generals that led the muslim army was Khalid bin Waleed who never loss a single battle with the muslims, tallying over 100 campaigns.

In modern day warfare are there any such accounts where battles have been won against such odds with such remarkeable leaders/generals?

A recent example of defeat of size is US/NATO defeat against Afghans. History is full of evidences in which giants got defeated by few forces. Even outside Islam you will find such examples.