twilight2000-digest Saturday, July 8 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 155 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: # of divisions in the world Re: # of divisions in the world Re: Canadian C& Assault Rifle stats Combat comparisons and Light Tanks (again!) [Fwd: Fwd: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease?] RE: # of divisions in the world Missle Defense SV: MOUT in T2K Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: # of divisions in the world Re: Missle Defense Re: [Fwd: Fwd: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease?] RE: # of divisions in the world Re: # of divisions in the world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:23:22 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world > It would seem to me to be the opposite, that in open terrain the high tech > forces would be at an even greater advantage. In the open is where the > additional range of modern weapons, better mobility, better C3, and air > superiority of modern armies would seem the most decisive. The jungles, > mountains, and cities are the places that infantry in the defense could be > effective even against a technologically superior opponent. I think we seem to be missing a point about the infantry here. EVERY arm of the military is there to support the infantry. No position can be held without infantry there. Sure I'm going to get posts about this tank division and that tank division, but how many of those tank divisions didn't have people on the ground?. The technology gap only determines who will take the higher number of casualties to some extent ie Gulf War. As is stated above the more close the country is the greater the advangtage infantry will have eg Vietnam. The US forces were technologically superior to those of the NVA and VC, however the US still lost. The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you don't just have to cause casualties. Being able to harass an enemy constantly so that they are tired and their morale levels are low will turn the tide of battles also. This can be seen in the Gulf War as well. Low morale caused large number of surrenders from the Iraq troops. > Of course, I would think that one of the main reasons the cities were so > defendable in WWII in Europe was that so many structures were built of > stone. Every house could provide useful cover. I don't recall hearing that > in the pacific theater the villages and towns provided the much tactical > significance. Maybe they did and I just don't know. Do any of the WWII > history buffs out there know? Anyway, it seems to me that bad terrain would > seem to help level the technological playing field, not open terrain. As stated by Jim MOUT will always disadvantage the attacker. Also areas such as Manila (mentioned in Jim's post) rely a lot more on concealment rather than cover from fire. The individual skills of the soldiers can be a major factor is this type of engagement. To date I am still to hear of an organised force that were better than the Japanese at jungle warfare. I'll try to dig up some photo's of the Kokoda Trail as it is today. My younger brother walked the trail, hopefully it will be able to give you a better idea of the terrain that will be found in that area. > Can you imagine the looks on the commanders faces when they see that > all the 'new' tanks they are getting are Patton tanks ... Depends :) If you are running low on tanks, you'll get your hands on anything you can *lol* Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:36:41 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world >I think we seem to be missing a point about the infantry here. > >EVERY arm of the military is there to support the infantry. No position can >be held without infantry there. Sure I'm going to get posts about this tank >division and that tank division, but how many of those tank divisions >didn't >have people on the ground?. The technology gap only determines who will >take the higher number of casualties to some extent ie Gulf War. As is >stated above the more close the country is the greater the advangtage >infantry will have eg Vietnam. The US forces were technologically superior >to those of the NVA and VC, however the US still lost. Exactly, as long as the technology confers a decisive advantage. The Gulf War, as I recently read again, had a very generous setup: - -- Iraqis used tanks armed with homemade (ie. Iraqi) ammunition, as opposed to the superior Soviet shells (don't laugh, the Sovs actually make a decent shell compared to Saddam's tech boys ;), thus making their cannons all but ineffective against modern M1 armor; - -- flat, open desert meant the M1 crews could take advantage of their superiority in cannon range and optical targeting system range to shoot the Iraqi tanks before they could see the Americans; - -- the Iraqi forces had nothing newer than a T-72 among them, and they had older tanks mixed in, too. The Allied forces had more modern tanks, including better ability to fire while moving, acquiring the target, and evading enemy fire; - -- the Allied forces had an enormous advantage in terms of air superiority and artillery fire support for the infantry forces, denying both air cover and effective fire support to the Iraqi troops. >The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you don't just have to >cause casualties. Being able to harass an enemy constantly so that they >are tired and their morale levels are low will turn the tide of battles >also. >This can be seen in the Gulf War as well. Low morale caused large >number of surrenders from the Iraq troops. > > > Of course, I would think that one of the main reasons the cities were so > > defendable in WWII in Europe was that so many structures were built of > > stone. Every house could provide useful cover. I don't recall hearing >that > > in the pacific theater the villages and towns provided the much tactical > > significance. Maybe they did and I just don't know. Do any of the WWII > > history buffs out there know? Anyway, it seems to me that bad terrain >would > > seem to help level the technological playing field, not open terrain. > >As stated by Jim MOUT will always disadvantage the attacker. Also areas >such as Manila (mentioned in Jim's post) rely a lot more on concealment >rather than cover from fire. The individual skills of the soldiers can be a >major factor is this type of engagement. To date I am still to hear of an >organised force that were better than the Japanese at jungle warfare. > >I'll try to dig up some photo's of the Kokoda Trail as it is today. My >younger >brother walked the trail, hopefully it will be able to give you a better >idea of >the terrain that will be found in that area. Exactly. You can't effectively clear out a city block of enemy infiltrators, saboteurs, or infantry troops with an MBT... not and hope to have the block relatively intact for use afterwards. Let's face it: unless your goal is the annihilation of your opponent's civilian living accomodations, businesses, and economy -- not just denying economy to your enemy, but making it unavailable to your own occupation forces -- you don't want to go blowing up every building you come to. What does that mean? The poor, bloody infantry has to go door-to-door, searching every building, checking for grenades, traps, and mines, and taking heavy casualties. Anyone remember the bloody battles the Germans and Russians fought over Stalingrad? That's what it comes down to in city fighting. In fact, in a city environment, you might find that the old super bazooka or the German panzerfaust (I think that was the one the Russians turned into the RPG-x system) is just as effective as an M72 LAW, at least when used to mess up the tracks or road wheels on an M1 Abrams. They don't call it 'mobility kill' for nothing. > > Can you imagine the looks on the commanders faces when they see that > > all the 'new' tanks they are getting are Patton tanks ... > >Depends :) >If you are running low on tanks, you'll get your hands on anything you can >*lol* Yeah, a Patton or even a Sherman tank is better than a truck with an MG, when it comes to fighting a modern MBT ;) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:38:49 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Canadian C& Assault Rifle stats >Has anyone modified the M16A2 stats to fit the Canadian C7 Assault Rifle? >The C7 is quite different in a lot of ways. It has NO 3 shot burst, but >instead has fully automtic and ALL are equipped with a 4X Elcan scope. The >Canadian version of the M249 SAW is designated the C9 and also has the 4X >scope on all of them. Would like to get my hands on any new stats if >someone >out there has them. Cheers all! Well, aside from the scope, it sounds a lot like the newer M16A3/A4 variants, which are going back to the full auto option. Aside from weight, I'd use whatever data you have for the original "rock-and-roll" M16. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:04:32 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Combat comparisons and Light Tanks (again!) >Yeah, a Patton or even a Sherman tank is better than a truck with an MG, >when it comes to fighting a modern MBT ;) When you think about it, the Sherman 'only' weighs @30t, while the Abrams weighs 70t. It's a lot easier to build a bridge that'll take a 30t vehicle and so on. At Monte Casino the Germans had trouble deploying heavier tanks (what few thay had) and had to rely on the more agile Mk 3's and Stugs. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 08:54:58 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease?] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------284248468F393C5455FF301E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Craig S. Gulledge "If you hear a redneck exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" Stay out of his way. These are likely the last words he will ever say." - - Rule #8 from "Advice for Moving to Texas"- - --------------284248468F393C5455FF301E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from hotmail.com ([209.185.131.158]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:15:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 88418 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jul 2000 13:16:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000708131607.88417.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 24.26.231.186 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 08 Jul 2000 06:16:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [24.26.231.186] From: "xxx xxx" To: CSGULLEDGE@satx.rr.com Subject: Fwd: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease? Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 08:16:07 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Return-Path: michell04@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 >From: "Sceptre One" >Subject: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease? >Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:27:53 CDT > >A woman was very distraught at the fact she had not had a date >nor any sex in quite some time. Afraid she might have something >wrong with her, she decided to employ the medical expertise of a >sex therapist. > >Her personal physician recommended Dr. Wang, a well-known Chinese >sex therapist. So she went and saw him. Upon entering the >examination room, Dr. Wang took one look at her and said, "OK, >take off aw your crows." > >She quickly disrobed and stood naked before him. "Now," said >Wang, "get dow on knees and craw reery, reery, fass away from me >to the other side of room." > >Having done what Dr. Wang said, "Okay, now turn around and craw >reery, reery fass to me." > >Once again she obliged. Dr. Wang slowly shook his head, "OK, your >probrem vaywe, vaywe bad, you have Ed Zachary Disease....worse >case I ever see... that why you not have dates, that why you not >have sex." > >Confused, the woman asked, "What is Ed Zachary Disease?" > >Wang replied, "It when your face rook Ed Zachary rike your ass." > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - --------------284248468F393C5455FF301E-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:32:43 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world > From: Ballistix > > I think we seem to be missing a point about the infantry here. > > EVERY arm of the military is there to support the infantry. No > position can > be held without infantry there. Sure I'm going to get posts about > this tank > division and that tank division, but how many of those tank > divisions didn't > have people on the ground?. The technology gap only determines who will > take the higher number of casualties to some extent ie Gulf War. As is > stated above the more close the country is the greater the advangtage > infantry will have eg Vietnam. The US forces were technologically superior > to those of the NVA and VC, however the US still lost. > > The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you don't just have to > cause casualties. Being able to harass an enemy constantly so that they > are tired and their morale levels are low will turn the tide of battles > also. > This can be seen in the Gulf War as well. Low morale caused large > number of surrenders from the Iraq troops. > Hmmm. I had to disagree here, on several points. For the military objective of holding territory, yes, every arm of the military supports the infantry. But that's not the only kind of military objective. Granted, it's one of the most common objectives, but not the only one. You mention that the tech gap ONLY determines the casulty ratio ... that's a big only. Casulty ratio in many scenarios and battles is the primary objective to begin with. And if you have a casulty ratio over a thousand to one (as in the gulf war), the difference in magnitude starts to become a difference in kind. Since we are talking about military stuff, I have to differ on the Vietnam comment also. Militarily, the US won a very decisive victory in Vietnam. Politically, we suffered a very decisive loss. By virtually any possible way of counting, the US dominated in Vietnam. Except, of course, in morale and support from home. In those categories we sucked really bad. In fact, we sucked so bad, we quit all together. Tactically and strategically we performed very well and won every major engagement. Even the Tet offensive, which is now seen by many as the turning point, was one of the greatest military victories the US had the whole war. We won every single battle decisively. But it made no difference, because our hearts were not in the fight. So the deciding factor in Vietnam was the politician and the protesters back home, not the infantry man ... As far a your criteria for winning battles, I'd say that causing casualties is enough most of the time. But of course it depends on the objective. If your objective is to hold a bridge for 12 hours no matter what, then even if you only have 1 demoralized soul standing on the bridge with nothing but rocks to throw. If he is there on the 12th hour, then you can chaulk it up as a win. For long range strategic goals, casualties may not be enough. But tactically it is, most of the time. When all the enemy is dead, you've won. It doesn't matter what the morale of the enemy is (or even your own for that matter). Of course, it might matter for the next battle though ... My point here is that morale is primarily important (tactically) because it affects the forces ability to inflict casualties. Lots of people tend to think tactically, and attempt to apply those principals to strategic goals, or vise versa. But that just doesn't work. And if you throw in political goals, then it becomes either hopeless or laughable. The difference in size becomes a difference in kind, and thus ... lots of principals just don't scale properly anymore. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:41:34 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Missle Defense This could be considered a bit off topic, but I think the crowd of people is right to pose this question to. I was wondering what some other opinions are. Everyone I know seems to think the ballistic missle defense the US is working on is a bad idea, except me. All the reasons I'm hearing in the news media sound stupid to me. They even had a Russian general on TV this morning, and I though his arguments didn't work. Since I seem to be so vastly outnumbered in my support of the idea, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share their reasoning. I'm not looking to try and take people's arguments apart. I'm just trying to see if there are any arguments against it that make any sense to me. Or whether I can feel justified in thinking that everyone else is just nuts. Or heck, someone might even convice me to change my mind, who knows? Anyone willing to put their 2 cents in? Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:18:51 +0200 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6ppen?=" Subject: SV: MOUT in T2K > Urban combat never seems to happen in T2K games, and it's obvious why. >The burden on the GM would be huge - mapping and describing a city for the >PCs while keeping track of a 3D landscape is almost unthinkable. Has anybody >pulled it off? Not in a big city. Right now the PCs in my campaign are fighting over a small village in northern Poland. It's house-to-house action and they fucked up last session. Take the building intact and try to take prisoners. What did they do? Blew the whole thing up... They'll be going in the front line for the next assaults. /Mathias *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 13:29:14 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Missle Defense I'm with ya, Walt, I've always supported having some sort of ABM system. I have a few old Popular Science magazine from 1967 and 1968 where they had that same debate then about the ABM system, then known as Safeguard, Sentinel, or plainly as "MacNamara's Shield." Back then, they had two types of missiles, one based on the Nike called The Spartan that would intercept ICBM's further out and anohter called The Sprint for closer, incoming ones. There is even an artist's drawing of it that is reminisent of Ronald Reagan's SDI system that was proposed 15 years later in the early 1980's. I know there was an ABM treaty in 1972 which Nixon signed with Brezhnev which, IMHO, was a stupid thing to do, but then again, I remember "Chuck's Law #1 - Treaties are made to be broken." B-P Then I have the addendum to "Chuck's Law #1" called "Correllary to Chuck's Law #1 - Just ask any American Indian." B-P I just think it's stupid to limit defensive systems that way. My opinion, we should have had an ABM system since the late 1960's or early 1970's, but that's just me. I had to chime in saying that "you're not crazy" for advocating an ABM system and that you have a kindred spirit in that thought. I think there are more on here who feel the same way too. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:17:08 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 10:41 AM 7/8/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >This could be considered a bit off topic, but I think the crowd of people is >right to pose this question to. > >I was wondering what some other opinions are. Everyone I know seems to >think the ballistic missle defense the US is working on is a bad idea, >except me. All the reasons I'm hearing in the news media sound stupid to >me. They even had a Russian general on TV this morning, and I though his >arguments didn't work. > >Since I seem to be so vastly outnumbered in my support of the idea, I was >wondering if anyone would be willing to share their reasoning. I'm not >looking to try and take people's arguments apart. I'm just trying to see if >there are any arguments against it that make any sense to me. Or whether I >can feel justified in thinking that everyone else is just nuts. Or heck, >someone might even convice me to change my mind, who knows? > >Anyone willing to put their 2 cents in? > Well, there are three big reasons: 1. There's a good chance it won't work. They still haven't made one that will defeat a warhead with a decoy. This is potentially overcomable, but if you get an opponent with more than a handful of warheads, the costs get prohibitive. 2. Even if it works, there's a good argumetn that it's pointless: if someone wanted to use one or two nukes as a terrorist measure, rather than many of them as a weapon of war, it's much easier to smuggle them into the country and emplace them by hand (say, as a car bomb) than it is to put then on top of missile. Mind you, the missile is quicker, but I'm not sure how much (if any) difference that makes. 3. This is really the most important reason. We have a treaty with the Russians (and yes, treaties made with the USSR now apply to the Russians--the Congressmen who say otherwise have nothing to base their statements on), called the ABM Treaty, which says that neither said can protect more than _one_ site in its country (it used to be two), presumably the capital or an ICBM field. Note that the ABM Treaty limits each side to one small geographical area, not to a number of missiles that can be shot down. Why is this so important? In fact, if you look up the history of SALT, the first nuclear arms control treaty, you'll find that both it and the ABM Treaty were signed in 1972, and that in fact the ABM Treaty was a necessary condition for signing SALT. The reason for this is that both sides see nuclear weapons as a deterrent: the other side is afraid to bother you as long as you can launch your own. However, if one side thinks is can use its own nukes while preventing hte other side from hitting with _its_ nukes, then the chances of nuclear war, in theory, go up astronomically--deterrence is no longer in effect. Therefore, before the two sides agreed to limit their weapons (and then reduce them under the START treaties), they wanted assurances that the weapons remaining were enough to create deterrence; if either side had developed a country-wide ABM system, this would not be the case. Note that this is the same reason that in the START treaties the two countries drastically cut back on multiple-warhead weapons: if each ICBM carries 12 warheads, for instance, you can knock out all the enemy's nukes with your own and still have 11/12 of your force left over for his population. Likewise, this is why civil defense measures (building shelters and training people to use them) are considered destabilizing. On the flip side, it's why missile subs are considered good for deterrence, because they're so hard to kill (which, you'll note, makes the USN's 1970's and 1980's strategy of hunting down Soviet boomers highly questionable). Now, of course, this isn't a big problem if the ABM system we build can handle only a few missiles, but as the number of nukes gets smaller and smalelr (we're working on START III right now), the difference between a threatening and a non-threatening ABM system gets smaller. But more importantly, if the technoloy is scalable, then if we develop this and the Russians don't, we could always suddenly decide to increase the system by, say, a factor of 10 or 20, which they simply couldn't match until they'd developed one of their own. This is a _really_ scary proposition for them. Note that the Russians' counterproposal offers to give us the things we want, while addressing the above concerns: they want a system (for the benefit of themselves, too) that targets the weapons of particular threat countries on launch, and therefore can't be used to defend against Russia (or against the U.S., for that matter). Even if you don't personally believe any of the above, the Russians do believe it, and breaking the treaty will irritate the hell out of them. And morally, they'll be completely in the right, because we'll be the treaty breakers--and how can we criticize their breaking international agreements in places like Chechnya if we don't uphold international agreements ourselves? So we end up looking bad, we piss off a country with whom we already have delicate relations, and (see #1 and #2 above) we accomplish very little in the process. So why bother? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:50:45 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world > You mention that the tech gap ONLY determines the casulty ratio ... that's a > big only. Casulty ratio in many scenarios and battles is the primary > objective to begin with. And if you have a casulty ratio over a thousand to > one (as in the gulf war), the difference in magnitude starts to become a > difference in kind. No it isn't. When a division or a battalion is given orders, they don't get a statement saying we want you to kill 8000 people. They get given an area of operations. The unit must then conduct successful operations within that area. This does not always co-incide with inflicting a high casualty ratio. An example of this would be a unit designated to hinder supply lines. You may blow every bridge between the enemy and there supply centers without inflicting a single casualty. The other difference is how you call it a casualty. Is the US still using the casualty to shots fired ratio like they were in Vietnam?. > Since we are talking about military stuff, I have to differ on the Vietnam > comment also. Militarily, the US won a very decisive victory in Vietnam. > Politically, we suffered a very decisive loss. By virtually any possible > way of counting, the US dominated in Vietnam. Except, of course, in morale > and support from home. In those categories we sucked really bad. In fact, > we sucked so bad, we quit all together. Tactically and strategically we > performed very well and won every major engagement. Even the Tet offensive, > which is now seen by many as the turning point, was one of the greatest > military victories the US had the whole war. We won every single battle > decisively. But it made no difference, because our hearts were not in the > fight. So the deciding factor in Vietnam was the politician and the > protesters back home, not the infantry man ... So do you have the statistics to support these facts?....Remember that the casualties inflicted is not the ratio described above. If you did accounting the same way the Australian forces did in Vietnam I think you would come out with different figures (ie it isnt a casualty unless you can walk up to the dead body and kick it). I cannot see how the US's involvement in Vietnam which centered around the support for a corupt government and ultimately failed constituted a victory. I acknowledge that the US did indeed halt the Tet offensive and win a number of battles against the opposition forces. But the US forces were demoralised by their enemy. The courtmartial of the US Lt demostrated the effect of a lowered morale after constant casualties were inflicted by unseen enemies. > As far a your criteria for winning battles, I'd say that causing casualties > is enough most of the time. But of course it depends on the objective. If > your objective is to hold a bridge for 12 hours no matter what, then even if > you only have 1 demoralized soul standing on the bridge with nothing but > rocks to throw. If he is there on the 12th hour, then you can chaulk it up > as a win. For long range strategic goals, casualties may not be enough. > But tactically it is, most of the time. When all the enemy is dead, you've > won. It doesn't matter what the morale of the enemy is (or even your own > for that matter). Of course, it might matter for the next battle though ... > My point here is that morale is primarily important (tactically) because it > affects the forces ability to inflict casualties. One demoralised soul standing on a bridge throwing rocks constitutes an ineffective soldier. Not a good example. have you ever heard of anyone completely killing an enemy???. I heard of many surrenders by enemies but never an enemy completely wiped out. To achieve a surrender then you have to affect the morale to the point that the enemy believes that they have no other option other than surrender. It also affects the civilian population. While one may inflict heavy casualties upon a military force you may still lose, Afganistan is a prime example. > Lots of people tend to think tactically, and attempt to apply those > principals to strategic goals, or vise versa. But that just doesn't work. > And if you throw in political goals, then it becomes either hopeless or > laughable. The difference in size becomes a difference in kind, and thus > ... lots of principals just don't scale properly anymore. So strategic and political goals are not the same?....Or do you believe strategic goals are only a small part of the political goals?. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:57:39 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense My question would be why do you need the defence system if you are going to dismantle the nuclear arsenal?. I know this may seem stupid but it's simply the arms race deal over again. It's a tit for tat thing. The russians for example do not want to reduce the number of missiles they have if the US will be able to shoot down the remaining ones if it ends up that they launch. So basically they offer the missile reduction as a bargaining chip to stop the research on the system. The US given it's greater technology base will use this to gain what ever political advantage it can with the other nuclear powers. I believe that developed countries have more to fear from internal strife created by the disgruntled population of their own country than they do from nukes now days. That's my 1/2 cent worth cos I'm a cheap bastard Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:58:08 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: JOKE: Ed Zachary Disease?] Craig Gulledge wrote: Sorry about the post, sent to wrong group. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:12:28 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world >> big only. Casulty ratio in many scenarios and battles is the primary >> objective to begin with. And if you have a casulty ratio over a thousand to >> one (as in the gulf war), the difference in magnitude starts to become a >> difference in kind. > >No it isn't. When a division or a battalion is given orders, they don't get >a statement saying we want you to kill 8000 people. Yes, you are correct, US Army Operations Orders generally do not explicitly define their objectives in terms of casualties. What I was trying to say is that accomplishing most military objectives involves causing casualities on the enemy, so it's related in that way. The idea I was disagreeing with you on is when you said "The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you don't just have to cause casualties." My point was that, you may not have to, but you CAN win by JUST causing casualties. > The other difference is how you call it a casualty. Is the US still using > the casualty to shots fired ratio like they were in Vietnam?. That is taken out of context more times than I can think of. That number was some accounting genuises idea of taking to total number of bullets shipped to Vietnam and dividing it by the estimated casualties inflicted from gun fire. The media loves to talk about that number, but I think it's pretty worthless. > > So do you have the statistics to support these facts?....Remember that the > casualties inflicted is not the ratio described above. If you did > accounting > the same way the Australian forces did in Vietnam I think you would come > out with different figures (ie it isnt a casualty unless you can > walk up to the dead body and kick it). I guess I should have decided to either ignore your statement about Vietnam, or be prepared to defend my own counter statements. I don't have a definitive essay ready, but I can give you a couple numbers. Vietnam was a long complex war, and what I am trying to say is simply that: the US successfully acheived it's tactical and strategic MILITARY goals quite well for the entire duration of the war. At the same time it failed miserably in its political goals. Casualties in the Vietnam War (from http://www.war-stories.com/BodyCont.htm): Republic of Vietnam Casualties: KIA 223,748 WIA 1,169,763 MIA/POW ? USA Casualties: KIA 58,169 WIA 304,000 MIA/POW 2,494 Australia Casualties: KIA 423 WIA 2,398 MIA 2 Canada: KIA 39 WIA ? MIA/POW 7 New Zealand Casualties: KIA 39 WIA ? MIA ? NVA and Viet Cong Casualties: KIA 1,100,000 WIA 600,000 MIA/POW ? Soviet Union Casualties: KIA 13 WIA ? MIA/POW ? Also, there were about 2,000,000 civilian casualties in the war. > I cannot see how the US's involvement in Vietnam > which centered around the support for a corupt government and ultimately > failed constituted a victory. Are you asking me to defend the political motives and goals of the US during Vietnam? Not a chance ... but remember you are talking about a political victory, not a military one. > But the US forces were demoralised by their enemy. The courtmartial of the > US Lt demostrated the effect of a lowered morale after constant casualties > were inflicted by unseen enemies. I don't think the morale of the US forces that were actually over there played a large role. I think the morale of the politicians and the US public played a FAR larger role. > > have you ever heard of anyone completely killing an enemy???. I heard of > many surrenders by enemies but never an enemy completely wiped out. The Alamo, Little Big Horn, Isandhlwana, Tarawa Atoll? > To achieve a surrender then you have to affect the morale to the > point that > the enemy believes that they have no other option other than surrender. > It also affects the civilian population. While one may inflict heavy > casualties > upon a military force you may still lose, Afganistan is a prime example. Afganistan is just like Vietnam. The Russians just didn't want it bad enough ... > So strategic and political goals are not the same?....Or do you believe > strategic goals are only a small part of the political goals?. I was probably not very clear. Stategic MILITARY goals are different from political goals. Yes, I do believe there can be big picture goals of the military that exist seperately from the politicans who start the wars ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:34:29 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world >>> big only. Casulty ratio in many scenarios and battles is the primary >>> objective to begin with. And if you have a casulty ratio over a thousand >to >>> one (as in the gulf war), the difference in magnitude starts to become a >>> difference in kind. >> >>No it isn't. When a division or a battalion is given orders, they don't get >>a statement saying we want you to kill 8000 people. > >Yes, you are correct, US Army Operations Orders generally do not explicitly >define their objectives in terms of casualties. What I was trying to say is >that accomplishing most military objectives involves causing casualities on >the enemy, so it's related in that way. The idea I was disagreeing with you >on is when you said "The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you >don't just have to cause casualties." My point was that, you may not have >to, but you CAN win by JUST causing casualties. A thought here, the WW1 battles were thought winnable through attrition but weren't, in fact that idiot Moltke (y) thought he could win at Verdun by "Bleeding the French White". He did blled them white, but he bled himself white as well. Attrition battles, while out of vogue now, are still a viable tactic but you want to have the support of your own people. A lot of people ceased to support the Coalition after the 'Road of Death' from Basra photo's were released (people who are not students of warfare do not realise that the majority of casualties are casued in the retreats, they think 'Hey, he's lost. Leave him alone.') My only view on Vietnam is that Militaries should have a clause in their contracts that say "I refuse to engage the enemy if you ask me to win and then order me not to." >> have you ever heard of anyone completely killing an enemy???. I heard of >> many surrenders by enemies but never an enemy completely wiped out. > >The Alamo, Little Big Horn, Isandhlwana, Tarawa Atoll? Tarawa Atoll is a study in poor planning if anyone wants to look into it. The guy who came up with the first plan got sacked for having such a great idea anf the marines took appaling casualties, they used his plans later and the guys who ripped them off got promoted. Now there's a career plan! >> To achieve a surrender then you have to affect the morale to the >> point that >> the enemy believes that they have no other option other than surrender. >> It also affects the civilian population. While one may inflict heavy >> casualties >> upon a military force you may still lose, Afganistan is a prime example. > >Afganistan is just like Vietnam. The Russians just didn't want it bad >enough ... A thought, both Vietnam and Afghanistan are a case of being unable to strike the enemies supply area. The US and China/USSR couln't hit the other when they supplied the proxy soldiers with arms over the borders. It's an elegant way of neutralising strategic airpower. (I hope Ballistix added the GST to his 0.5c) Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #155 *************************************