Are statistics a good way of determining who won a war?

coffee with colm · 31-07-2015 12:25pm #1

Having analysed statistics from the Provisional IRAs campaign against the British, I see that Nationalists outkilled Unionists at a ratio of around 3:1.

Are statistics ever away of determining who won a war because this to me looks like a clear military victory?

There seems to be a lot of debate as to who won the war but I think it needs to be said that the Ira of the 1919-1921 period never accomplished the Republic but yet this war is considered a military victory for the IRA of that period.

I think the same can be said for the PIRAs campaign.

boombang · 31-07-2015 12:27pm

The notion that anybody could "win" the troubles astounds me. Everybody looses in war.

riffmongous · 31-07-2015 1:00pm

Nonsense, I'm not even going to comment on the Troubles, but for a different example the US:North Vietnamese kill ratio was huge but in the end the US couldnt sustain the homefront pressure from their casualties while the North could

ChicagoJoe · 31-07-2015 1:22pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Nonsense, I'm not even going to comment on the Troubles, but for a different example the US:North Vietnamese kill ratio was huge but in the end the US couldnt sustain the homefront pressure from their casualties while the North could

This about sums it up - "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." Ho Chi Minh

North Vietnamese tank breaking down gate of the US Embassy in Saigon April 30 1975.

ChicagoJoe · 31-07-2015 1:33pm

coffee with colm wrote: »

Having analysed statistics from the Provisional IRAs campaign against the British, I see that Nationalists outkilled Unionists at a ratio of around 3:1.

Are statistics ever away of determining who won a war because this to me looks like a clear military victory?

There seems to be a lot of debate as to who won the war but I think it needs to be said that the Ira of the 1919-1921 period never accomplished the Republic but yet this war is considered a military victory for the IRA of that period.

I think the same can be said for the PIRAs campaign.

Did Britain defeat the IRA during the 25 years or so of the conflict ? Well clearly the British are in occupation of the six counties, but then it could equally be said that the alleged winner doesn't end up having to share power with the very people who they said for decades " over their dead bodies would they even speak to " never mind share power with.

riffmongous · 31-07-2015 2:06pm

Imo, (and this is off-topic, but I guess the thread will probably be anyway) the whole conflict is still going on, only the form has changed from physical force to political, thankfully.

Fratton Fred · 31-07-2015 2:46pm

coffee with colm wrote: »

Having analysed statistics from the Provisional IRAs campaign against the British, I see that Nationalists outkilled Unionists at a ratio of around 3:1.

Are statistics ever away of determining who won a war because this to me looks like a clear military victory?

There seems to be a lot of debate as to who won the war but I think it needs to be said that the Ira of the 1919-1921 period never accomplished the Republic but yet this war is considered a military victory for the IRA of that period.

I think the same can be said for the PIRAs campaign.

Germany suffered about 1/3 of the losses of the Soviet union. Who would you say lost that?

ChicagoJoe · 31-07-2015 3:07pm

In the American Civil War the North lost more men than the South but the good ol' boys from Dixie are still not over it

http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html?referrer=https://www.google.ie/

riffmongous · 31-07-2015 3:07pm

The Rhodesian Bush War is another big example, the death rate was about 10:1 with some units like the RLI managing 40:1 or something like that iirc.

DarkyHughes · 31-07-2015 5:50pm

The Vietnam war must be the most obvious example (in our life time anyway) of statistics not mattering in a war. Just under 60,000 Americans were killed in the war & the lowest estimate on the Viet Minh side is around 800,000 & with the highest being 4million.

The IRA had a lower death toll for both the "Troubles" & War of Independence.

Markcheese · 31-07-2015 5:51pm

If you want but I'll be passing centra carrigtohill anyway

DarkyHughes · 31-07-2015 5:59pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Imo, (and this is off-topic, but I guess the thread will probably be anyway) the whole conflict is still going on, only the form has changed from physical force to political, thankfully.

The INLA haven't gone away that's for sure. There was 50+ INLA members dressed in full paramilitary uniforms marching through Derry & fired shots over the coffin of the mother of a INLA hunger striker just last week.

Snickers Man · 31-07-2015 6:20pm

coffee with colm wrote: »

Having analysed statistics from the Provisional IRAs campaign against the British, I see that Nationalists outkilled Unionists at a ratio of around 3:1.

Are statistics ever away of determining who won a war because this to me looks like a clear military victory?

There seems to be a lot of debate as to who won the war but I think it needs to be said that the Ira of the 1919-1921 period never accomplished the Republic but yet this war is considered a military victory for the IRA of that period.

I think the same can be said for the PIRAs campaign.

If statistics are your favourite way of determining the outcome of a contest may I suggest you develop an interest in cricket?

Keplar240B · 01-08-2015 7:33pm

What do we mean by military victory?
One should consider the possibility that a theory of victory requires a theory of defeat
balance the positive payoff against the negative payoff. Another problem is that victory suggests an endpoint and success and afilure may only be appreciated with hindsight. Victory has to be judged by political rather than purely military criteria.
Also the questions of morality of winning and about how the conduct of war influences outcomes.

Manic Moran · 12-09-2015 10:07pm

Late arrival.

They're not good ways of telling who won a battle, either. Take, for example, the battle of the Atlantic. If the Allies didn't sink a single U-Boat, and the U-Boats sank a third of the transports and half the escorts, who won?

The answer is "Did the Allies get enough materiel across to England to sustain itself and launch a counter-invasion?"

It's a yes/no question, no statistics from the battle itself are involved.

Markcheese · 12-09-2015 10:43pm

Statistically the Soviet Union lost the Second World War - unfortunately for the Germans the soviets kept going anyway - and unfortunately, the soviet people statically lost most and kept loosing -

goose2005 · 13-09-2015 9:16pm

i suppose it has to do with what the aim was to start out with. The PIRA's aim was a united Ireland, its aim wasn't to kill as many Protestants as possible. It set out aims in the 1970s and few of them were ever achieved.

tac foley · 14-09-2015 9:16pm

Whose hand holds the sword, and who owns the neck it rests on.

tac

Are statistics a good way of determining who won a war?

Comments