If expensive and cheap had a fight, who would win?

#21
Dolly Parton said of herself it costs a fortune to look this cheap


And Mountbatten said to Ghandi it costs your supporters a fortune to keep you poor


Then there are people who really have money but say things that sound like "I'm mean to say". Why be mean unless you disguising how much money you got ? And their fecking homilies. "Buy cheap pay dear". Oh so you should save up and never be able to afford anything then. Feck em "Buy dear and cop a CCJ" way to go with that one. Then they see a dent in yer motor "OOh that looks expensive". No it fecking doesn't it looks like a dent. "if you have to ask you can't afford it". That's presumptious that is. I might want to know how much it is worth before I nick it.

I suppose I don't have a concept of property, cheap or expensive. Me Romany culture see




Hope this is helpful
 
#23
Its all about degree.

AK47 vs M16 - AK wins (you get 20 AKs and the M16 man gets slotted after killing 3 or 4 of the enemy at most)

AK47 vs MLRS - MLRS wins (all the thousands of AK soldiers get caught in the 'grid square removal' and end up in little steaming bits)
 
#24
roguetrooper1981 said:
On a slightly more serious note, you could use the US performance in the two Iraq wars as the counter-argument - The expensive option; buckets of airpower, high-tech armour and smart munitions, wiping the floor with the decidedly more numerous and cheaply equipped Iraqis.

Cheap normally wins because it's simple and easily replaced.
On the other hand, the US performance in SE Asia can contrast that: loads of high tech, relatively unsophisticated enemy, massive casualties inflicted but nonetheless a definitive home win.

And I'd argue that the jury's still out on whether the Iraqis have been defeated.
 
#25
roguetrooper1981 said:
On a slightly more serious note, you could use the US performance in the two Iraq wars as the counter-argument - The expensive option; buckets of airpower, high-tech armour and smart munitions, wiping the floor with the decidedly more numerous and cheaply equipped Iraqis.

Cheap normally wins because it's simple and easily replaced.
We won those wars????????????

In purely Blitzkrieg terms maybe......................
 
#26
Dragstrip said:
suits_U said:
Dragstrip said:
Anyone for Stralingrad?
Whats that then?
A little known village in Eastern Europe, somewhere near to Stalingrad. Now, Stalingrad on the other hand; that's a place of note. One of the bloodiest battles in human history took place there (Jul 1942-Feb 1943). c.1.5 million casualties. Basically the Russians, with their numerical superiority, whooped the Germans, who had significant technological advantages.

Expensive and cheap having a fight. You decide which side was cheap; the Russions (of whom 1.12 Million were killed, wounded or captured) or the Germans (0.75 million)? To answer the question you need to define 'cost'.
Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up for me.











WAH!!!
 
#27
Smartascarrots,

I have a different perspective on the SE Asia wars. The Western forces (first France, later the US and some allies -notably Australia) won most confrontations. This was because of a highly sophisticated military apparatus. Man for man the Vietnamese infantry might be able to hold its own against a solely infantry US / AU unit. However the western forces didn't fight as Inf alone. They had loads of artillery in FSB's, they had airsupport (with all procedures therefore) and naval gunfire support. This won the fight every time.
This was enabled by a highly effective logistical operation that made transport and consumption of sort of goods and personnel possible.

To a lesser degree this same goes for the French who with a much smaller margin of superiority did an astounding job in SE Asia.

However. When there aren't any targets this sophisticated army cannot fight. The enemy using cheap materiel and little support has such a small footprint that he cannot be found. Since the enemy isn't stupid and has an independent will, he will not fight you when he doesn't want to. He knows he will loose. The relative bodycounts of all phases of the SE Asia conflict show this.

The enemy cannot win, but he cannot be knocked out of the fight either. He can drag the conflict longer than the Western homefront is willing to shore up some backwards country far away. This last reason is why Western powers loose against cheap armies. We, the soldiers, practically always win the firefight. Our politicians then go on to lose the war because they bungle the oh so important PR front.

Just my tuppence worth...

Kaye.


PS: We practically always win the firefight when our masters do not tie our hands behind our backs with strange and awkward ROE's and MOU's and do not let politicised generals handle our air support.
 
#28
If you're talking about Expensive.....in this case BA.........versus cheap....in this case.........XL.....then expensive wins, as cheap goes bust.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#29
suits_U said:
Dragstrip said:
suits_U said:
Dragstrip said:
Anyone for Stralingrad?
Whats that then?
A little known village in Eastern Europe, somewhere near to Stalingrad. Now, Stalingrad on the other hand; that's a place of note. One of the bloodiest battles in human history took place there (Jul 1942-Feb 1943). c.1.5 million casualties. Basically the Russians, with their numerical superiority, whooped the Germans, who had significant technological advantages.

Expensive and cheap having a fight. You decide which side was cheap; the Russions (of whom 1.12 Million were killed, wounded or captured) or the Germans (0.75 million)? To answer the question you need to define 'cost'.
Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up for me.

WAH!!!
Hmm. I was thinking more along the lines of Prada vs Primark, but Stalingrad will do.

"The man with the rifle shoots the rifle. When the man with the rifle is killed, the man behind the man with the rifle picks up the rifle...The man with the rifle shoots the rifle. When the man with the rifle is killed, the man behind the man with the rifle picks up the rifle..."

Nikita Khrushchev. Who didnt do Prada. Or BA.
 
#31
Kaye said:
Smartascarrots,

I have a different perspective on the SE Asia wars.
Fair one, but military action is not carried out in isolation, nor is it a deed in and of itself. The ultimate test of whether the US military was successful in SEA can be measured by how many 'Republics of' they left behind versus how many 'People's Republics of'.

The operation can't realistically be said to have been a success if the patient died.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#32
smartascarrots said:
Kaye said:
Smartascarrots,

I have a different perspective on the SE Asia wars.
Fair one, but military action is not carried out in isolation, nor is it a deed in and of itself. The ultimate test of whether the US military was successful in SEA can be measured by how many 'Republics of' they left behind versus how many 'People's Republics of'.

The operation can't realistically be said to have been a success if the patient died.
It can in the case of my dear departed Auntie, The Dowager Duchess of XXXXXXXXXX.. Even if the 18th Century ‘Holy Grail’ tapestry proved to be a fake and the pile was rotten with decay. My second cousin Hannibal was the surgeon. He did his best he said.

Ah, SE Asia and the French. At the end of WW2.

Hang Ze SS Chermans? Expensive and messy.

Or bike them out to the war zone and set them on the Cong? Cheap and effective. Even if the Cong sussed it and offered them resettlement in East Germany. Where they went straight into Stasi.

Cheap wins.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top