[thechat] Lanchester's Law: Too Few American Soldiers

[William Anderson]

Chris Marsh wrote:
> [..]
> > > > A maths professor explains why the US probably hasn't sent enough
> > > > > troops to Iraq, which is possibly why it's progressing slower
> > > > > than expected.
> > > >
> > > > But if you send twice as many troops, you're giving
> > > > the enemy twice as many targets to shoot at, and
> > > > you can expect twice as many deaths.
> > >
> > > Not if you stack 'em up one behind the other ;)
> >
> > So you're basically saying they always ride single file, to hide their
> > numbers?
>
> Nice by-product, but I was really getting at the fact that the enemy
> would only have one target at any one time if all troops positioned
> themselves behind the guy in front of them. Of course I was being
> facetious, so am completely aware of the enormous, gaping flaws in this
> logic.

Sorry, I was merely paraphrasing Obi-Wan from Star Wars episode IV, not
trying to make any particular point ;)

--
_ __/|   ___  ___ __ _________ "When Microsoft Office is your only hammer,
\`O_o'  / _ \/ -_) // / __/ _ \ pretty much everything begins to look like
=(_ _)=/_//_/\__/\_,_/_/  \___/ a nail. Or a thumb." -- Rob Pegoraro
   U - Ack! Phttpt! Thhbbt!     neuro at well dot com  http://neuro.me.uk/