Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
This reminds me of what I read about the German army in (surprise!) WW2:

'Green' units were assigned especially simply tasks at first (if the situation allowed for it). A Battalion was tasked with what would be a veteran company's task, a green company would do what a veteran platoon would and so on.

I do also remember having read that a study of historical battles showed no significant correlation between numerical superiority (of an army) and victory (in battle).

It seems to be of much greater importance to fight when the opponent isn't really ready for a fight (that's another way to look at the topic of tactical surprise).
It all makes sense to use these rules of thumb or assumptions during basic and routine training.

It is folly to assume that we can present a blank tactical canvas during training and let commanders at every level exercise their initiative. Further when in times of total war when officers are being produced via a conveyor belt (90 day wonders) and experienced NCOs are produced in weeks rather than years they will need every crutch they can lean on.

If we look at the abject failure of Brit and US troops to adapt to the type of warfare required in Afghanistan we should not look at the use of rules of thumb (like 3:1) in their training but rather go look elsewhere...

And yes Fuchs you are correct, adapt to the enemy and the theatre. Let the decision like in your example be enforced just like Slim did in Burma. It gets a little more tricky in insurgency scenarios where more skilled leadership is required in depth... this may be lacking in most armies.