Scale of battles

[Lugi]

I've just bought myself a book about battles of world war II. One thing that got my attention was battle of Iwo Jima. It's an island south of Japan, it covers a total area of 21 km^2. What surprised me is that the garrison of this island consisted of 20'000 men. The USMC invaded them with 70'000 soldiers. In PR we have got Operation Barracuda (about 2 km^2), with about 200 soldiers guarding the island only (thats max if we count the respawns as reinforcements). I know that in modern times you're probably using fewer people in the fight, but my question is: which maps are closest to reality if we're talking about scale of battles, number of soldiers compared to the area of the map?

[hobbnob]

I think the closest to reality in terms of soldier numbers would be Basrah. You wouldn't get thousands of insurgents tooling up in the city, and it was uncommon to have a large amount of armour or troops going in either.

[Sgt. Mahi]

Yeah I think the insurgent maps are those who come closest to r/l scale battles but in most cases it would probably be more like 100 blufor guys against 32 insurgents if the attack is a planned one of course.

[killonsight95]

I often see most PR maps with a sotry line of the firts confrontations between forces on those maps, and PR2 will consist of more full blown assaults of the reaction force

[Triggerfinger]

Russia vs. Militia are also quite "realistic" as there were/still are little fire fights going on in the forests and some urban areas.
Also Insurgents, Taliban and Hamas as they often fight with few people amonst them.

[maniac1031]

Ramiel would be the most accurate as it is supposed to be the 1993 battle of Mogadishu where the un had 190 Troops to the militants estimated 2000-4000 troops.