Disciplined, veteran soldiers

Depends on the kind of war being fought. Most people will put logistics on the top but this is based on the assumption that it is a 20th century style total war. If you're fighting a limited war or guerilla campaign where attrition, industrial output, and manpower aren't the end all be all of conflict then troop quality and/or leadership and strategy can be far more important.

>far more experienced soldiers than the US, and some absolute genius commanders
We trained our men, and they were WELL trained and disciplined, from top to bottom. The most illdisciplined thing that happened was Patton slapping a man.

>blah blah blah
>If your enemy has crushingly superior logistics and manufacturing capabilities, you lose, no matter what advantages you may have.
Wrong. All of those advantages were put to use. because not even the Soviets, in their most desperate hour, were so shit that the Nazis were worth ten to one. It was 3 to 1, at the worst hour after the first 3 months of Barbarossa. After that, and especially after Case Blue failed, the Red Army was consistently at least 85% as good in battle as the Axis forces.

RAF? Were equal, and in many cases, BETTER.

USAAF? Equal, or in many cases BETTER. Outliers don't win wars, and what happened in both the RAF and USAAF was that the average level was maintained at parity and then rose. After the Battle of Britain, the RAF was, simply, BETTER than the Luftwaffe. When the USAAF arrived, they performed equally, or BETTER.

The Nazi soldier was not in fact an invincible super man compared to their adversaries. The Soviet-Allied soldier was not a braindead untermenschen in comparison. They fought very well with what they had, and eventually, they fought better.

You want a good example? The general consensus is that the Iraqis were so shit under Saddam that the Wehrmacht of the Fall of France is considered to have a fair match at defeating him, with the forces of Barbarossa having overmatch capability.

All thanks to the sheer uselessness of everyone below the highest officer class.

>We trained our men
Training is not the same thing as experience
>The general consensus is that the Iraqis were so shit under Saddam that the Wehrmacht of the Fall of France is considered to have a fair match at defeating him, with the forces of Barbarossa having overmatch capability.
According to fucking who you retard, Deadliest Warrior?
>because not even the Soviets, in their most desperate hour, were so shit that the Nazis were worth ten to one
So in otherwords, a practically untrained army was able to use sheer manpower and logistics to overcome its crippled officer corps and the fact it relied on mass conscription with little to no training to beat back a well trained and disciplined veteran force? Meaning, manpower and logistics do indeed trump training and experience both.

>RAF? Were equal, and in many cases, BETTER.
>USAAF? Equal, or in many cases BETTER
Largely due to superior equipment. It turns out having radar in your plane is an absolutely crushing advantage. Also having fuel helps.

>excellent leadership and strategy
>Iraq

1. excellent leadership and strategy
2. disciplined, veteran soldiers
3. large storages of high-quality supplies and good logistics
4. vast reserves of soldiers

Attached: von lettow vorbeck.jpg (2057x3331, 985K)

>practically untrained army
Wrong. The Soviets, unlike the Germans, had trained up vast reserves in the interwar period, and the infrastructure around them. The Soviets also weren't arming a bunch of morons, aka McNamara. And the Soviets were able and willing to address weaknesses, deficiencies, and change plans and tactics when one wasn't working.

That the Soviets themselves later refused to train their men to the highest quality that they could is an indictment on the post Stalin Soviet system. They entirely focused on forging massive, unwieldy hammers of men and steel.
>Largely due to superior equipment.
And better trained. And the men were of parity in terms of quality.

>Training is not the same thing as experience
Experience is the easiest thing you can acquire in war. You acquire it by default. The Green Boys become accumulated extraordinarily quickly.

But hey, bring up the ACW. While ignoring everything McClellan did to reforge the Union Army. And that the men in question were not nearly worse enough in quality.
>According to fucking who you retard, Deadliest Warrior
Every expert that ever analyzed the Iraqis. Especially the most well-known "Arabs at War". Aka, a doctrinal fucking thesis as to why Israel survived and why the advance into Iran stalled out almost immediately.

The General Staff was well-educated and knew what they had and understood its capabilities and planned accordingly.

>leadership and strategy
>logistics
>vast reserves
>disciplined soldiers

Leadership and strategy are the most important. You cannot win a war with dumb leaders and no clear goals. If you have the right leadership, supplies can be obtained eventually either internally or externally (allied nation).

Logistics are critical to having a force that's capable of fighting. No weapons means no effective fighting force.

Vast reserves of manpower are more important than disciplined veterans. Your manpower will eventually create its own veterans over time.

Sweet.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g
Now imagine thats the entire military.

I'd say if you allow 1914 tier trench warfare to happen when you have modern armor you are not very good at leadership.

Quantity is its own quality. I do appreciate the need for disciplined veterans, but having a big pool of manpower to draw from is extremely valuable. And like I said, veterans will emerge from future conflicts.

Its excellent leadership when you accept that thats all the men under your command are capable of thanks to a combination of their own stupidity and severe structural problem in how the army can operate. The only alternative for Iraq would have been a military half that size, with reasonably intelligent men, commanders that allow and encourage initiative and don't horde knowledge. The closest they ever got was the Republican Guard.

Vast reserves of soldiers are the ONLY thing required for victory. All doubters or naysayers shall be consider subversives and summarily executed.

>>excellent leadership and strategy

>>large storages of high-quality supplies and good logistics
>>disciplined, veteran soldiers
>>vast reserves of soldiers

>leadership, as it fixes bad soldiers
>soldiers, as quality beats quantity
>logistics, it being a crucial thing
>reserves, you shouldn't be banking on losing tons of men in the first place

I back this up with examples like Rhodesia, where small highly trained and well led groups with poor logistics still btfod commies by the thousands.

>disciplined, veteran supplies
>excellent storages of soldiers
>vast leadership
>large reserves of logistic