Has A Soldier's Equipment Ever Proven Decisive?

[Terence]

True. maybe it would be better to think of a single battle. Although the Isandlwana example shows that even superior weapons aren't always decisive if the enemy has the advantage of numbers, or perhaps terrain or even tactical surprise.

[Ironduke]

One of the most famous examples would be the Prussian Dreyse breech-loading "needle gun" vs. Austrian muzzleloaders in the 1866 Austro-Prussian war.

[Bowman]

Roman Times - use of "phalanx" tactics utilizing the short sword, short spear and large shield was decisive.

Agincourt - The English use of the longbow to defeat the French was decisive.

WWI - Use of machine gun hampered all attacks and was decisive in blunting the attack strategies of all combatants.

Gulf Wars - Allied utilization of night vision equipment and GPS was decisive.

- just a few thoughts -

[Stan187]

Hoplite armor and long spears proved decisive against lightly armoured Persians several times.

Prussian breech loaders vs muzzle loaders

Swiss helberds and pikes proved decisive against Austrian knights (OK, terrain helped as well)

Pike when used correctly also allowed Swedes and Spaniards to carry the day

Archery with superior bows allowed Mongols to defeat enemies more then ones. Ditto for english with longbow

Correct use of RPG-7 allowed Chechens to win New Year's battle

Use of MANPADS by Mujahedeen forced Soviets to change their doctrine and limited their air mobility

NVG allow user to operate at night as well

-More than correct use of RPGs, a proper laypout for fighting and urban battle in general helped the Chechens. And Russian lack of preparedness. Plus, they were using much more than just RPG-7 anyway.

As far as MANPADS, the Mujahids brought down more aircraft with heavy machine guns.

[JAD_333]

Hannibal did wonders with elephants. Alexander found them formidable but was able to overcome them.

How about the flamethrower. Really helped against Japanese holed up in caves on Pacific islands.

Most of Germany's wonder weapons were either impractical or too late. The 80mm (or was it 80 cal)big bertha took 2 weeks to set up and wore out a barrel every 100 shells. Their giant tanks sank into dry ground...etc.

The crossbow and all sorts of seige weapons made a difference in their time.

Even something simple like flintlocks on British naval cannon in place of match and tub made a big difference.

But as some have mentioned, skill and training often makes the difference.

The Knights Templar during the later crusades had somewhat conventional equipment, but were so well trained and fearsome that they routinely attacked and won even when outnumbered 20 to 1.

British naval captains who regularly drilled their gun crews with live ammo
did better in sea battles.

Interesting subject, Terence.

[Bowman]

Can an elephant be considered personal equipment?

[JAD_333]

Can an elephant be considered personal equipment?

If it looks like a horse?