That says 3 to 1. Which is the traditional ratio quoted and the one I am familiar with. You claimed 9 to 2, which is significantly higher, 50% higher.

But even at 3 to 1, you are misapplying it. The 3 to 1 comes from the idea that a dug-in, fortified defender can hold off 3 attackers. It should be obvious that there is an advantage in defense;

Two trenches with 12 men in each, 100metres apart in a field. One side is tasked with climbing out, crossing no man's land, and taking the opposite trench. The other staying put and defending from cover. All things being equal, would I would expect the defenders to win that engagement. I know what side I'd want to be on. Even if the defenders only had 5 or 6 men, should be straight forward. But 2 or 3 men, and they're odds slip. That's the 3 to 1 ratio.

But it applies on a engagement level. Not a total level. The Taliban were out numbered 3 to 1, so in a all out tete-a-tete, the Afghans should have blown them away. But this wasn't an all out battle. A larger army spread out to defend a broader area, could be defeated at individual waypoints and a force that is totally smaller in size. Numbers are one part of the picture.

As an example, you are the data in the first post you linked to:

[img]http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CAA-Battle-Outcome-vs.-Force-Ratio.png[/img]

When the attackers outnumber the defenders 3/1. They won 74% of the time.

When the defenders outnumbered the attackers, from 3/2 to 3+/1, the defenders only won 50% of the time. Hardly uncommon for the smaller force to win, in that sample of nearly 600 engagements.

So no. the smaller not NEED a numerical advantage of 9 to 2, or 3 to 1. A 3x numerical advantage simple makes it probably that they will win. It is still very possible for the smaller side to win.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not in anyway across the logistics of withdrawing a force of that size. I don't know what is optimum. But from this vantage point, I don't see any possible way that a withdrawal could have happened that wasn't a clusterfcuk. Pull out quickly and suddenly, and the standing army are left largely scrambling holding their flutes. A slow, staged withdrawal, sees the power balance shift slowly and predictably - until the last fraction of US forces left are is a really compromised spot verses a the Taliban (who are not bothered about sticking to the terms of the deal).

Maybe there is a really obvious optimal way to do it. But it that is the case, why didn't the military experts making this decision do that. And we should be really clear on that. The president is the commander in chief, ultimately signing the order. But people don't actually believe that they have any real input in military strategizing. Actually on that note, the high ranking military chiefs and advisors who oversaw the deal, are the same officials in office that oversaw the withdrawal. Theres really no logical reason to believe what happened this month is any different to what was planned last year.

So what exactly are you criticizing, specifically what actions, or in-actions of the Biden administration? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Trump had no part it in. The wheels have been in motion for 18-24 months. This is a new plan that Biden made up recently. In fact, two months ago Trump was claiming it was all his plan that couldn't be stopped.

Would Trump get more of a rinsing in the left wing media than Biden is currently getting. Possibly.

By the same token, the right wing media, pro republican and/or pro military observers didn't say a word when Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Do you honestly think that if Biden did the same they same pass would be given to Joe?. Not a fcuking hope. Negotiating with terrorists, specifically the terrorists that caused 9/11, there would be all sorts of soap boxing.

I was using an over simplified version. Which was broken down a nine man section can expect to overcome a two man trench, armed with similar ordnance, similar motivation and training. With time to prepare defences.

there have been documented cases where two mean have defeated a full platoon of 31 men. Armed only with rifles against an attacking force armed with anti tank, heavy machine guns and 60 mm mortars.

its all relative, and each context is different

Who was supposed to secure the airport? Many of the locals trying to flee where the police and military who were supposed to be the security.

Those climbing on to the plane. Who do you think is fleeing Kabul?

The Afghan military are multiples the size of forces pulling out. They are the ones supposed to be providing security. Fleeing wasn’t anyone’s plan.

Similarly with the translators, if the Trump administration promised them safety. Which agreed method of safety did the Biden administration fail to provide?

Biden’s “minions” that fcuked this up, we’re Trumps minions planning it 12 months ago. Same people. Same plan. Same result.

Ok, the ratio to defend according to the us military is 1:3 and the ratio to attack is 3:1. So who wins in those ratios?

Not as user friendly

Much less traffic on it

Keeps logging me out and then not recognising my password , I have to click forgot password every time

I'll continue to use it allright,

It's kind of depressing looking at some of them foreign based forums when you see what they have available to them

Apart from still walking about with your face muzzle for the near future/indefinately.. Whats also the betting NONE of this Covid legislation will be repealed off the statue books either,and like the offences against the state act,will be renewed in perpetuity?

Add to the list of sleepy Joes messes.

Refusing to allow either civilian or military contractors or personnel to work or service the critical air support of the Afghan army that could have made all the difference to stop the advance. The Afghan army has been modelled on the US army where air cover plays a critical role. Without air cover, they weren't going to do much of a fight.

The poor SOBs were trying to fix and replace and update avionics electronics with Zoom calls to the State bound technicians. Try working on a 5 million dollar Blackhawk engine assembly like that...So at least the slight good thing out of that will be the avionics and engines and the like will be high tech junk sitting on a runway within 12 months. That's if they don't crash land the rest already. They have apparently belly-flopped 3or4 of the Blackhawks so far.

According to the New York times of 26th July The Taliban were in contact with the US govt, and offered them control of Kabul until today! As they knew it would descend into a lawless panicked mess that they couldn't police and would have allowed an orderly evacuation. The Biden admin categorically refused this offer. end result there are still over 5thousand US citizens stuck in this utter clusterfuk and having to rely on their own initiatives to get home and out of this situation as the US govt has dumped them.

The US and the West no longer "own the night" as that state of the art NV and thermal gear will soon be reverse-engineered and mass-produced by China and Russia. Not to mind the ECM countermeasures and surveillance drones. Think of it this way lads.Abdul Abu the goat herder in Khander is now better equipped in night vision and thermal equipment, that we would have to drop at least 7Gs to own here and do a BS load of paperwork to import and own,as well as with a new M4 assault rifle,that we could only dream of owning...And the senile moron in the White House is still braying on about gun control,and that you need nukes and F15s to take down a govt...

Considering they have now left the C Ram system [Counter Rocket and Mortar] that was protecting Kabul airport from further mortar attacks and "disabled " it...THAT will be the rare prize Going by pics from the Daily Mail it looks like they did a good job on the combat aircraft in disabling them.