My brain, being the odd little realm it is, was pondering last night on the
issue of training vs. experience. I began to notice a shortcoming in most game
systems, both wargames AND RPG's. I noticed that few if any distinguish
between skills/abilities/quality that a unit/character STARTS with
(through
natural ability and/or training) and those that have been improved by
experience. Once a character has progressed, it's all just 1 number. Even
in SG/DS this is a problem. Notice that unit quality seems to be more a
reflection of experience than training.
Now, I will admit that experience is more important - at least, that's
what I've been told by everyone who's "Seen the Elephant", and I trust their
judgement. But the underlying training is also important. The question is HOW
important? Is a veteran unit with no training better than a green unit
with Elite training? Who is better in battle - a green graduate of BUDS
or Hereford, or a 3rd world milita vet who's managed to stay alive against
other rabble for months or years? and how is this reflected? Maybe there
should be TWO parts to quality - Unit Experience
(Green/Blooded/Veteran/Grognard) and Unit Quality
(Rabble/Militia/Regular/Elite). In addition, maybe the experience should
weigh in on morale as WELL as on ability. Let me create an example:
Let's imagine a conflict involving the US Army. Let's further imagine 2 US
units entering a battle in this conflict. One unit is Elite - Say
Rangers -
but green. They've never seen battle, but they have exquisite training.
Let's say the other unit is a regular light infantry unit. They have less
elite training, but they've been in combat for a while, and so when their
experience is factored in, they're comparable in fighting ability to the
Ranger Unit (for arguement). Thanks to a good R&R, strong leadership,
etc.,
their morale is also just as high as the Ranger unit's. The question is, when
these two units come into contact with enemy fire, despite having the same
"Quality" and morale, will their reactions be the same?
I know the panic rule deals with part of this, but IIRC, it applies to "Green"
units only. However, since any unit above "Green" are considered to be
experienced, this does not allow for better trained but inexperienced
units to experience the same effects. If I'm remembering incorrectly, please
remind me.
Either way, I'm wondering if maybe the dual designation of both experience AND
quality might not be a plausible house rule. Thoughts?
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 27-Dec-01 at 16:34, Don M (dmaddox1@hot.rr.com) wrote:
> One example pops into mind right off a newly formed but trained Roman
I wouldn't call that a training versus experience situation. That's more
superior doctrine, tactics, and technology. If your opponents don't understand
formation fighting all the experience in the world, or all the training in the
world, isn't going to save them.
Reminds me of a sci-fi book I recently read. The Roman legions were
kicking butt because the were soldiers. All their opponents were warriors.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:00:58 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Notice that unit quality seems to be more a
Depending on the war, that -- historically -- has been the case. We have
the infamous cases in World War II of Russian tankers thrown into tanks after
72 hours of training, we have World War I British pilots taking to the air
with as little as 2 hours flying time (and less!), and these are in eras where
they bothered to train the soldiers in the first place!
> Now, I will admit that experience is more important - at least, that's
> judgement. But the underlying training is also important. The
> other rabble for months or years? and how is this reflected?
Oh, this gets to be a VERY complex issue. One thing few game systems ever
model is that veteran troops have a tendency to not want to fight. They have
learned how to survive. A recent issue of North and South magazine termed the
situation during the American Civil War in 1864 as "quiet mutiny", where
everything from companies to whole regiments would spontaneously go to ground
when ordered into the attack. Veterans of many a fruitless and bloody charge,
they simply refused to go forward. Green troops just don't do this...
Modelling it in a game is difficult. For my ACW version of Stargrunt, I did an
equivalent of a Panic test, but with the numbers sort of inverted so that
Veterans are more likely to fail than regulars.
To get back to the question of training versus experience, nothing compares to
the experience of combat. No matter how well trained, you will never know how
you'll feel when a shell takes off the top of your best friend's head until it
happens. However, where training comes in are in those moments when you act by
instinct. When fear grips and your mind goes numb (due to, for instance, your
best friend losing most of his head), your mind blindly follows its neural
pathways. Intense training means that you'll end up following how you were
trained. You'll discover later that you DID go to ground the way you were
taught, you DID lay down suppressing fire, and you DID move as you were
taught, even though you weren't conscious of it.
Training, intense training, is one of the things that came out of studies into
the Second World War. Modern weaponry has gotten pretty complex, too, which
requires more training just to operate it effectively. There's also more of a
need to be "combat ready" at a drop of a hat today, and training methods are
the only way to get close to that.
> Let's imagine a conflict involving the US Army. Let's further imagine
Well, that's the problem, they won't be. Depending on what you mean by
"fighting ability", you'll find that the Rangers still have an edge. They are
more proficient at more weapons, in different terrain, in different tactics.
They have had intensive training in things the other unit will never have,
even with all their experience.
The other fallacy is that all combat at the squad level is the same. It isn't.
Some troops are intended to take positions, some for holding positions, and
some are intended to work in reconnaissance. Each type of troop will fight,
even at the squad level, in a different way. There are common tactics
employed, but they will be done differently. This is one reason you can't
equate different types of troops. This is also one reason you can't just fill
depleted Ranger units with men from experienced combat units.
But I see what you're saying. You're suggesting, for instance, that both units
are put into a similar tactical situation with similar tactical requirements.
I'll take that as a given...
> Thanks to a good R&R, strong leadership, etc.,
There are a lot of factors to say which would be more effective. Yes, they
would be probably equally effective, though with different deviations from the
norm. The Rangers may freeze, particularly if they lose a leader. On the other
hand, their training may kick in and they may not be as scared as they really
"should" be, and they could be far more effective. During D-Day, for
instance, many of the units were deliberately chosen for not being experienced
as they were less likely to go to ground when the fighting started. They were
excellently trained.
The problem seemed to be one of leadership. Inexperienced troops, when they
lost a leader, had a hard time recovering from that. They would hang around
not knowing what to do. If someone grabbed them and moved them, then they
would move heaven and earth, but they needed someone to tell them. This is
seen in the ACW right on up, but it's particularly noticable during
D-Day.
This leadership question is sort of used in the games, but not as "accurately"
as it could be.
> I know the panic rule deals with part of this, but IIRC, it applies to
That's correct, though it's unlikely that a well trained unit would "panic"
regardless of its state of experience. It would most likely go through a
"suppression" result. To model this for specific scenarios, I'd let the
quality indicate training and maybe have a "panic" test resulting in extra
suppression counters when a unit is first fired upon, if they are
inexperienced by greater than Green.
> Either way, I'm wondering if maybe the dual designation of both
I think that might be a good idea, if you want to model that. My suggestion is
above!
> At 04:39 27/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
I'd say that the training also constitutes experience as well, just a
different 'type'. The Roman legionaries are experienced in fighting in close
order formation for example.
----- >
> I wouldn't call that a training versus experience situation. That's
All of witch you can't have without training, their technology was still on
par.
If your opponents
> don't understand formation fighting all the experience in the world,
I disagree there are to many examples like Teutoberger where linear
> Roger Books wrote:
> I wouldn't call that a training versus experience situation. That's
Ummm.... wouldn't an understanding of formation fighting suggest training?
At least as I was trying to define it - a knowledge of tactics, an
instilled discipline, etc...
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> I'd say that the training also constitutes experience as well, just a
Training may be a FORM of experience, but it's not quite the same. It covers
the "How TO," But doesn't cover the "Will I?" for instance....
> Brian wrote:
I think sufficient training and practice will cover the "Will I?" part, as
described by earlier posters.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> >Notice that unit quality seems to be more a
> with
True.... but it still doesn't deal with the fact that the two are separate
issues. A unit with poor training but experience MAY be better than a trained
unit with no experience, but there has to be a point where a lopsided
difference in training and discipline will outweigh a less lopsided difference
in experience, and vice versa. Plus, two units with equal training will be
weighed based on differences in experience, and again vice versa.
> >Now, I will admit that experience is more important - at least,
> have
I was thinking that would be the case. Veterans would be less likely to
panic when things weren't as bad as they seem, but more likely to recognize
it's time to get while the getting's good.
> To get back to the question of training versus experience, nothing
All the more reason BOTH training and experience should be factored
individually
> >Let's imagine a conflict involving the US Army. Let's further
> less
I know they won't be, IRL, that's why I added the Caveat "FOR ARGUEMENT". I
probably shouldn't have used RL units as the example.
> But I see what you're saying. You're suggesting, for instance, that
Yes, with similar skills and tactical knowledge.
> I'll take that as a given...
Thank you.
> >Thanks to a good R&R, strong leadership, etc.,
> they
Maybe we can fix that...
> >I know the panic rule deals with part of this, but IIRC, it applies
Unless, as you mentioned, it lost it's leader.
> It would most likely go through a
That sounds like an issue of SG terms vs DS terms. There is no "Suppression"
result in DS.
To model this for specific scenarios, I'd let the
> quality indicate training and maybe have a "panic" test resulting in
Thanks, I'll consider them when I do the homework.
Probably a better way to look at this is to focus on leadership. In your
example, the Rangers train chain of command, and all (tab wearing) rangers
have been in positions of leadership. Your Vet squad is still made up of
survivors, but taking charge is not necessarily a survival trait.
What I mean to say is the Highly Trained Squad may have a greater chance of
someone taking charge and continuing, while the Been There Done that may find
the foxhole is a little deeper once the leader is hit.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> True.... but it still doesn't deal with the fact
Point of fact: many Iraqi units, especially Republican Guard units, had many
years of combat experience fighting against Iranians and Kurdish insurgents.
Almost none of the members of the US forces in the Gulf had any combat
experience whatsoever (senior officers had mostly been junior officers in
'Nam, but that was all up at General level). However, when it came right down
to doing their job, the Iraqi's experience was completely irrelevant because
they were not fighting the same
kind of war. However, the US/UK/Everyone else except
the Syrians and Egyptians had enough training that was relevant to the
situation at hand to pretty much mop up.
It's not just experience, it's what you're experienced
_at_. Experience gunning down teenagers running
straight forward across an open field while you sit in a bunker does not
translate well to a battle of maneuver between tank units.
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't call that a training versus experience
Uhhh... You can't use doctrine, tactics, or technology effectively if you
don't train your happy butt off.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Either way, I'm wondering if maybe the dual
There's plenty of badly trained troops who fight like fanatics.
Japanese troops (especially when loaded on sake), Islamic Ghazis, most Ottoman
Turkish troops (Janissaries were good, as were some of the Sipahis).
On the other hand, some experienced troops lost their offensive spirit
altogether, like British line infantry in late '44 and '45.
> -----Original Message-----
> Derek: Or the Americans in Vietnam ;)
According to a general quoted by Tom Clancy, his Vietnam experience is what
led him (the general) to establish and TraDoc (training and documentation).
You are speaking of General Donn Starry, who commanded the 11th Armored
Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam, and was later as a 4-star general the
commander of TRADOC, the Training and Doctrine Command.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 04:28 28/12/01 +1300, you wrote:
Oh no! you've done it now:) In days of old, mentioning 'Tom Clancy' as a
'reference' was a guaranteed way of sending John Atikson off frothing at
the mouth <very large GRIN>.
Seriously though, from what I have read the US Army had a major morale
problems in the 70's which required a major effort to correct (one reference
went so far as to state that in some formations officers needed protection
from their own men).
But as John pointed out in his example of the British infantry such doldurms
can happen to anyone's army. The Soviet Union in WWII found itself with a
morale problem in it's officer corp as a result of Stalin's purges. One remedy
was to ship in gold braid on the next convoy from the UK:)
From: Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com>
> Oh no! you've done it now :) In days of old, mentioning 'Tom Clancy'
as a
> 'reference' was a guaranteed way of sending John Atikson off
Mentioning *anything* is a way of.... yes, yes, I know, I'll pay for
On Romans vs. Germans/Gauls
[quoted original message omitted]
Karl
As we do not know that much about the Gauls or Germans, it is difficult to
judge how much experience or what kind of training they had.
Perhaps so but allot can be ascertained by the methods and evolution of the
Roman units that were said to have adopted many of their enemies tactics and
weapons.
The battle of Teutoburger Wald was more of a large-scale ambush in
terrain
where the Romans could not deploy properly. Plus, the battle-site has
been found and the Germans had prepared the area with field fortifications.
Remember, too, that their leader, Arminius, had served as an officer in the
Roman army, as, probably, did some of his men. However, they can not have all
been trained in the Roman manner.
I think that we are confusing types of training for the generic term training.
There are many cases were well trained units were outclassed by their
opposition because the enemy used completely unknown methods.The advantage
(over time) to disciplined trained units is their adaptability. In fact when
you look at history it is the people that stick to the one tried and true
method no matter what, usually suffer defeat at some point. This can of course
happen to trained units also (Little Bighorn, Isandhlwana) but in the norm the
better trained and equipped units win. This is also apparent with battles
involving troops of the same tech level. The excellent troops of the British
Expeditionary Force in the skirmish before Mons gave their opponents an
agonizing encounter with British rapid fire marksmanship. Sadly these fine
troops were wasted and were replaced by half trained conscripts directly
leading to more losses. I do believe that training can overcome most obstacles
and a well trained unit is it's own best morale builder. I say this knowing
full well that training is but one fascit to the morale of a unit and there
are many others as a leader that you must deal
with....
> KH Ranitzsch wrote:
> On Romans vs. Germans/Gauls
The Roman army was marching along a narrow road through marshes... well, I
guess you could call a march column "linear" of sorts, although it is
perpendicular to what is normally meant by a "linear formation" <G>
Later,
> much about the Gauls or Germans
While all this is fascinating, it's wandering off from SG.
I'd say "experience" prepares you for situations you've already survived,
while "training" helps you adapt to new situations. You could, if you were
sufficiently motivated, say "this unit is d6 in cities, d8 in mountains, d10
in forest or jungle, d6 in peacekeeping operations" and so forth, but why
bother? Unless you're in a campaign, you just rate the unit for how effective
it will be in that scenario.
While all this is fascinating, it's wandering off from SG.
Laserlight the voice of reason.....interesting...) We do tend to wander a bit
largely because most see the relationships in warfare age to age but, yes time
to return to point.
I'd say "experience" prepares you for situations you've already survived,
while "training" helps you adapt to new situations. You could, if you were
sufficiently motivated, say "this unit is d6 in cities, d8 in mountains, d10
in forest or jungle, d6 in peacekeeping operations" and so forth, but why
bother? Unless you're in a campaign, you just rate the unit for how effective
it will be in that scenario.
Good point there on Experience Vs. Training it would really be best played out
in campaign, or if your really twisted and maintain unit histories......)
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Point of fact: many Iraqi units, especially
You're illustrating the point I was trying to make. The question now is how to
reflect it in a game.
> John Atkinson wrote:
But did they fight EFFECTIVELY? You've brought up the Experience Vs. Morale
issue, not Experience vs Training....
> Don M Wrote:
> Good point there on Experience Vs. Training it would really be best
Which is probably the reason I brought it up, since I was an RPG'er before a
wargamer, campaigns are something I enjoy.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >There's plenty of badly trained troops who fight
After a certain point, quantity and fanaticism take on a quality all their
own.
But I'm a bit confused. I'd been reading this discussion as reflecting the
fact that FMA unit quality reflects both effectiveness and morale. Thus in the
"real" world you might have Ghazis that fight like Green troops but are as
motivated as Elites. So you roll a d6 for anything that is soldier skills
(taking position, firepower, close combat) but d12 for morale checks. What
exactally did you have in mind? As far as game terms, you have morale, and you
have ability to do their job (soldier skills). Both are affected heavily by
both training and experience. There's also tactical ability of their chain of
command, but that's reflected by the player, not the dice. That's also
affected heavily by training and
experience--which is why I've met a tanker who does
well with Dirtside but not so good with Stargrunt.:)
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> I think that we are confusing types of training for
Or the situation is not that which they trained for. A bunch of SEALs got
their heads handed to them because they tried to pretend they were
conventional light infantry and sieze an airport in Panama.
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Oh no! you've done it now :) In days of old,
Not as good as way as misspelling my last friggin' name.
Anyway, TC is a fictional author. He makes a lot of assumptions that aren't
warrented. But I'll buy him as quoting DuPuy accurately, especially seeing as
how it accords with some other references.
> Seriously though, from what I have read the US Army
Yeah. I've heard stories--and found some seriously
creepy documentation.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > On the other hand, some experienced troops lost
Different case--due to the inadequacies of the
training system, the low quality of the conscripts,
the lack of adequate long-service NCOs, and a
rotational system designed (apparently) to destroy the fighting soldier's
morale, the US in Vietnam never had
"experienced" troops or units in-country. And still
managed to never loose a fight. The Brits had units which had been fighting
almost continuously since 1940.
In a message dated 28/12/01 22:34:21 GMT Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:
> Different case--due to the inadequacies of the
I imagine that could drain anyone's fighting spirit.
> --- WJAL21@aol.com wrote:
> > managed to never loose a fight. The Brits had
The interesting thing is that it did so unevenly--some
units could and did fight agressively, others failed to do so.
In short, there's no way to predict what combat experience will do to a unit's
motivation. The only
way to tell is hindsight of history--a unit that wins
is described as being "battlehardened veterans" even if high losses meant that
almost none of the original troops are still in the unit. One that looses is
described as being "exhausted mentally and physically" even though they are
mostly green replacements that havn't been shot at either. Functionally
identical
histories up to that point--the only major
differentiation is how they perform in that particular battle. A lot depends
on leadership, on prior training, on the army's ability to rotate units back
to a quiet area, etc.
I think it's actually 3, and yes it does.
David
> -----Original Message-----
I think John's point was that the british units had been in almost constant
combat without losing morale.
Changing the subject, does anyone else get the cold shivers thinking
about India-Pakistan 2 happening Right Now of all times ?
> WJAL21@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 28/12/01 22:34:21 GMT Standard Time,
Wow.... if I had known what a can of worms I was opening, I would have done it
sooner. I'm kinda proud of the discussion I touched off. Let me see if
I can summarize some of the points made/argued so far, and see if people
agree. Then I'll see if I can incorporate them into gaming system(s):
1. Training outweighs experience when facing a situation outside your
experience. 2. Experience outweighs training in matters of covering your
posterior. 3. Training and Experience combined kicks said posterior.
4. Well-trained rookies may or may not freeze up, but if well-trained
enough, their training takes over. Veterans are less likely to freeze up, but
more likely to decide it's time to go. 5. Experience is more accurately
reflected on the individual, not unit, level.
Any other points?
> Michael Llaneza Wrote:
Actually, according to John, some did. But it took a lot longer than it
took US units in Viet Nam. His point was probably more along the lines of "You
never can tell," although many factors weigh in.
> Changing the subject, does anyone else get the cold shivers thinking
Yeah, that's JUST what I asked Santa for.
Yeah, it creeps me out. Not out of any awareness of any "prophesies" (are
there any?) but more out of the knowledge that they both have the capability
to make each other glow...
1a. Confident units with a "can do" attitude are also likely to handle new
situations well. Training will still tell if they suffer reverses. For an
interesting look at "can do" units, look at PJ O'Rourke's "Give War A Chance,"
which are his Gulf War dispatches for Rolling Stone. he was very favorably
impressed witht he attitude of all the US troops in
the region. Of course, these units also count as well-trained, so it's
hard to analyze.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Wow.... if I had known what a can of worms I was opening, I would have
> done it sooner. I'm kinda proud of the discussion I touched off. Let
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
A lot of them did. Among some line units of British infantry there was a
strong desire not to be the last Brit killed in WWII. Which made them almost
useless in a standup fight.
> a lot longer than it
That's the short version.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Training outweighs experience when facing a
Yeah.
> 4. Well-trained rookies may or may not freeze up,
Generally.
> 5. Experience is more accurately reflected on the
That depends. A handful of experienced troops in leadership slots at low
(fireteam, squad, platoon) level can carry rookies through some serious crap.
And a major factor in training is building unit cohesion, so you learn to
count on your buddies.
Which adds tremendously to combat ability--because the
primary cause of troops going to the ground and not firing effectively is a
sense of isolation.
> --- Michael Llaneza <maserati@speakeasy.net> wrote:
My point was that much of the British line infantry
_had_ lost morale.
> Changing the subject, does anyone else get the cold
My only objection is that there are US troops in
Pakistan. Therefore an I-P rematch (they are actually
up to 4, IIRC) is NOT going to happen because the minute the Indians kill
Americans their entire country gets turned inside out. So they won't do it.
> > Changing the subject, does anyone else get the cold
I'd say just one--with hot and cold phases, going back to whenever the
Partition was. 30+ years IIRC.
> is NOT going to happen because the
It would be nice if all the world were logical and reasonable, wouldn't it?
From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> 5. Experience is more accurately reflected on the individual, not
No, because the veterans will, if possible, take the new guys in hand and pass
along their experience. If the new guys are fed in while the
unit is on the front line--eg American policy in WW2--then they may
not live long enough to learn anything. Jim Dunnigan's book Dirty Little
Secrets of WW2 says that being a replacement was substantially more dangerous
than being an infantryman who was part of the unit when it was initially
formed.
Training, after all, is "passing on experience" in a formal,
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:09:18 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Changing the subject, does anyone else get the cold
Oh John, I only wish I could agree but the level of intensity of the desire to
1)Get even (disregarding if it's not the people who actually did this attack
on parliament) and 2)Get the Kashmir thing over (well it appears some people
still haven't learned such things are 'never over'
until both sides quit (Alsace-Lorraine) yet) that I see in reports
makes me think it's not IF they go official but When and what ROE...
Having two daughters from India and some professional second hand interest in
the region (a little North and West for me) has made me keep an ear to the
ground and I think those crazies really think they can do this and keep it
'contained'! What idiots!
Gracias,
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:42:05 EST WJAL21@aol.com writes:
Actually neither case sounds like a way to run an army - except into the
ground. But most cases of an army disintegrating or becoming
ineffective operationally are a result of either blind indifference to some
facet of reality or complete disregard for the fact that your army is staffed
by mortals.
Gracias,
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:10:43 -0800 Michael Llaneza
> <maserati@speakeasy.net> writes:
The thought of self lighting stages, cities, vallies for Sitar performances
upsetting you? Yeah me too. And don't anyone try and tell me that either "Why
do you Think it's called the 'Indian Ocean'?" or "Islam's flagship state in
South Asia" would hesitate to fling the big uglies around if they thought they
could get a moral victory by doing so. "Moral" victory, Lord, that makes a
macabre use of that word...
And I think it is India-Pakistan IV actually although II and III lack
some of the coverage I got...
I have enough trouble working on phase II at work without having coworkers
drug off what we are doing to deal with that mess. Guess India figured
"...since the neighbors are doing it..."
Two crisis at a time is enough thank you very much.
Gracias,
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:22:36 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
Yeah, don't get involved in a firefight...
> Oh John, I only wish I could agree but the level of intensity of the
It is an almost 1950s mentality on both side with years of religious
intolerance on top of it.............Add to this that one side will be
reincarnated and the other gets a host of virgins in paradise and you have all
the makings of a
Glow-in-Dark
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> A lot of them did. Among some line units of British
Not quite true. In defence they were very tenacious, nearly impossible to
shift from their positions. Trouble is, towards the end of the war they were
nearly impossible to shift from their positions when attacking too. As the
Wargames Research Group puts it "In the early
days, British Armour had more dash than skill - later
they had the skill, but had lost the dash." Getting 90% losses four or five
times in a row will do that to the survivors.
Some UK Divisions were also completely inept in almost every way. They spent
literally years training in the UK, then were found to be valueless when first
put into battle in 1944. Most of these were broken up and used as
replacements - it was a leadership problem as much as
anything, though many were also quite unfit due to poor
pre-war diet, not a few were discharged as unfit for
service (!!).
Maybe 20% of the UK army was hopeless. Another 20% was
absolutely elite - and these few units were used again
and again and again in attacks, and were rebuilt many times over. The rest
tended to be very good in defence, good in attack when supported by sufficient
artillery, but not very imaginative nor consistent in performance.
You've also got to remember that there were quite a few
non-UK divisions in the British army (eg the Poles), plus
> At 02:19 28/12/01 -0800, John ATKINSON wrote:
> Not as good as way as misspelling my last friggin'
So I'm slightly dyslexic, but you'll live. At least no one can misspell your
name the way that someone misspelt Oerjan's once:)
> > Seriously though, from what I have read the US Army
Yep, using tanks to police company lines at night sounds pretty creepy to me:)
> I joined in the 70s I didn't see it, heard many stories but for the
> At 02:32 28/12/01 -0800, John wrote:
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
And the point is?
> At 03:26 29/12/01 -0600, you wrote:
You think just the media despises the military? Try society in general
:)
Lock up your daughters and your livestock [hopefully the soldiers don't
have the same use in mind for both;)]
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Oh John, I only wish I could agree but the level of
Unfortunately, India is going to get dismantled--if
Afghan bandits could clean house with US air support, then what will Pakistan
do? On the other hand, the Pakis (from what I can tell) are the ones who are
reacting in this, while the Indians are going psycho. What in hell do they
think they are going to gain by attacking Pakistan while we're using it as an
airstrip? I mean, it might have made sense last
year, but this is NOT the time to accidentally drop bombs on airbases we're
operating out of. This is not going to be pretty, and the bad part is, we'll
be operating on the side of what I consider the bad guys.
> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> It is an almost 1950s mentality on both side with
You misspelled "1050s" on the religious intolerance but their nuclear
warfighting doctrine makes our 1950s doctrine look positively realistic. And
we at least had the excuse of total ignorance about little factors like
fallout.
> years of religious
Hey, if it weren't for the fact that Americans are going to be caught in the
middle, I'd have a case of beer and watch the Six Minute War with mild
amusement. Sort of a final chapter to the boneheaded history of English
Colonialism (granted that the English have
done better than some other colonialists--but feeling
good about comparisons to Imperial Japan, Leopold of Belgium, and the Spanish
Inquisition mean you're in the wrong category to begin with.)
If only we could get Syria and Iraq to nuke each
other--now that's a fireworks show I could appreciate.
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 22:34:27 -0600 "Don M" <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> writes:
<snip my earlier drivel>
> It is an almost 1950s mentality on both side with years of religious
Ever notice how quickly 'tolerance' becomes either "You can't tell me mine
isn't perfect... nyah, nyah, nyah..." or "...well, everybody but
"X"..."?
Wait a minute! "...1950s mentality..."? I was born in 1950! But then I *am*
mental according to some of my coworkers... Okay, I'll give you that one.
<grin>
Add to this that one side will be
> reincarnated and
Maybe the 'leaders' of both sides will all come back as goats at a similar
event you've imagined. Now that's eternal justice! 8^)
Don't get depressed. After every war there is a peace. So far.
Now, I'm getting depressed. Time to change subject. 8^(
Gracias,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 10:49:42 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
John, this is geopolitical ( of which I know some from work)! You want
rational?
Hmmm, assuming last time(s) as a model, and the US gets left out of the
fracas (realistic? I think India thinks it's possible - stupid idea #2)
I think it's India making headway then getting pushed back over the
starting line then grinding out a stalemate - assuming conventional only
and 'no price is too high' casualty mindset. Don't you love all the caveats?
As for "...What in hell do they think they are going to gain by attacking
Pakistan while we're using it as an airstrip..." - They aren't thinking
John, they are emotionally reacting to violation of their government and
national self image. Three letters - E-G-O. Or maybe a justified sense
of outrage for such an attack on a democratic (+/-) government. Or (my
theory) both.
In my opinion, they think they can dismantle the terrorists, punish Pakistan
(okay a few crazies are thinking 'defeat' or 'destroy') for it's affronts to
India, and the world will excuse them because they are 'fighting the war
against terrorism'! And this is insane before we start using scenarios
involving WMD stuff.
As for 'bad guys' - Well, John this is a real life version of the
Tuffleyverse, strictly IMO, played out for our benefit. There may be bad guys
here but are there any good guys? I think not.
Gracias,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 17:09:37 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Did we? Or we just accept what we wanted to hear and discount the rest?
> years of religious
John, my Cherokee great grandmother is quoted in family oral history as saying
something very, very similar. Guess it depends on where you sit
in the equation. <grin> But she had no qualms about what to do with
people atttacking her America - She'd be more then slightly militant
about what we should do with Al Queda - "Execution first, trial
afterwards" to quote the Quenn of Hearts.
> If only we could get Syria and Iraq to nuke each
We all have a list like that John in our deepest unconscious mind. But I
think I'll pass on a live-fire of WMD demonstration if at all possible.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> As for 'bad guys' - Well, John this is a real life
No, but the idea of defending yet another Islamic state pisseth me off
heavily. I mean it was bad enough defending the Bosnian Muslims and the
Albanians in Kosovo. But Pakistan? Unfortunately they are too convenient right
at this moment to permit India to smack them around.
> Glenn M Wilson Wrote:
> >Any other points?