Compounding interest is one of the most unintuitive features of human existence. Many a fortune has been lost by gambling on big returns, instead of patiently accumulating the steady returns of interest. Similar dynamics make warfare unpredictable. Small advantages compound into larger ones, sometimes creating runaway victories over closely-matched opponents.
Great post. The way an attritional struggle betweeen even seemingly closely matched enemies can suddenly hit a slope for the loser, and the loser’s fighting capacity seems to slide right off the table, is an observation which is historically well founded, but it nonetheless seems counterintuitive, the way die continuous events often do. The disintegration of the Germans in 1918 was a shock to everyone involved, but particularly for people back on the homefront. The people actually close to the fighting could probably feel that the breaking point was approaching. On this model that breaking point was bound to happen. Of course lots of mistakes were made, but the basic logic that it was a slugging match and the Allies simply had more men and materiel meant the question was not if but when that collapse what happen.
Great post. The way an attritional struggle betweeen even seemingly closely matched enemies can suddenly hit a slope for the loser, and the loser’s fighting capacity seems to slide right off the table, is an observation which is historically well founded, but it nonetheless seems counterintuitive, the way die continuous events often do. The disintegration of the Germans in 1918 was a shock to everyone involved, but particularly for people back on the homefront. The people actually close to the fighting could probably feel that the breaking point was approaching. On this model that breaking point was bound to happen. Of course lots of mistakes were made, but the basic logic that it was a slugging match and the Allies simply had more men and materiel meant the question was not if but when that collapse what happen.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3281