What are the main provisions made by the Mercenaries Guild?
I'll suggest: The Mercenary Guild acts as a sort of mutual insurance company
for merc units. A unit posts funds as a bond with the Guild and agrees to
abide by the code of conduct. In return, the Guild pays, if needed, for ransom
(based on the higher of claimed or functional rank), repatriation, or burial.
The Guild does not investigate transgressions (eg killing prisoners) by units
not under bond at the time, but will post allegations and their source. It
does investigate violations by a unit under bond at the time, if the opposing
side (or anyone else) pays for travel and expenses (which are so minor in
comparison to the expenses of fighting a war that this is almost never an
issue). If a unit is found to have violated the Mercenary's Code, the bond is
forfeited. There is no other penalty and the unit may post another bond then
or later if it wishes (and may lose it again, too).
In addition, the Guild may act as arbitrator in contract disputes,
clearinghouse for new contracts, etc.
Suggestions, additions, amplifications?
Have you read the GURPS Traveller supplement called "Mercs"? It addresses some
of the issues you've described here.
-- Rick Rutherford
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> > What are the main provisions made by the Mercenaries Guild?
Also, I
> could see privileged contracts for certain arms manufactures to have
Group bargaining power, I can see. Having an entire planet set aside seems a
bit excessive. I'd think an area the size of, oh, say France, would be plenty.
> And will expressing abide by the rulings of the local authorities.
The Guild
> would function at the will of the great powers.
Well, that's a little tricky, because the Great Powers aren't any more to be
trusted than anyone else.
> There should be a penalty if a significantly aggregious violation is
increasingly larger bond required
> suspension of Guild rights for a
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Group bargaining power, I can see. Having an entire
This ain't Battletech. Merc unit's _goals_ may
include a landhold, but it's going to be pretty rare.
> Well, that's a little tricky, because the Great
Most likely, more than a few of the merc units will be front units for some of
the major power's intel agencies. Others will be a way for smaller nations to
defray operating costs and gain operational experience.
Most likely, truly independant mercenary units will be
extremely uncommon--operating sophisticated equipment
will take too large a support base. It's not like the Middle Ages where the
largest operating expenses are food and fodder, and the most sophisticated
supplies required are arrows.
> Most likely, truly independant mercenary units will be
Yes but there are two factors that you over look one, They will be paid far
more then a few coppers for their services.Like any other business success
drives the market. Two, the great powers will find the deniability aspect
impossible to resist, and may be willing to pay in equipment ect.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Most likely, more than a few of the merc units will be
I've been batting my ideas for the AstroTurks(tm) around with Mr.Maddox. I've
patterned their attitudes towards the military loosely on the Modern
Turkish attitude - Military held in high regard. To have a
son/husband/etc
in the Army or to BE in the Army is a high honor. To fail as a soldier,
especially as an officer, is a disgrace. The AstroTurks will have stringent
requirements on their Army. Anyone who can't quite make the grade is given the
option of joining a turkish Merc unit. In this way, the Merc units provide my
future Turkey with extra income, and allow the merc members to avoid the
disgrace of discharge. Furthermore, the regular army watches the performance
of Merc members, and any who acquit themselves well are "invited" back into
the regular army. This means that both training and
experience are in good supply in the future Turkish military.
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 08:23 PM, Don M wrote:
> Yes but there are two factors that you over look one,
I gave this a little thought, and while I certainly can't predict the future
any better than the next bloke...
Take a look at mercenaries today vs. even as little as 200 years ago. The
units are smaller, more independent, and in many cases as little as 1 man, a
situation which never would have come to pass in earlier times.
It would seem to me that technology has shrunken their organizational size.
There is no reason, as you point out, that this might not reverse due to
increased demand in the future. However, deniability would become less and
less of a factor as size increased. The payment would become correspondingly
larger and easier to trace as the unit's size increased.
Likewise, payment by equipment would also be fairly easy to trace.
It's possible that mercenary companies could be supported by a government and
become valuable for their skill, as has been suggested by
many sci-fi authors, but I can't imagine that they would be allowed to
grow too large, as then they would clearly be seen as a threat to the major
powers and eventually eliminated of subsumed.
My 2 cents.
> I gave this a little thought, and while I certainly can't predict the
The resent hay day was the 50s and 60s where units became rather large This
was a direct result of the vacuum of colonies come governments and of course
the cold war.When I look at the Tuffleyverse I see cold war in spades! With a
Alien threat bolted on, and with the vastness we are playing with there is
lots of room to do about anything.
> There is no reason, as you point out, that this might not reverse due
> and less of a factor as size increased. The payment would become
All governments lie deniability is a must that will never change.As for the
equipment who is to say you supply them with your own. I can think of a few
scenarios where say a NAC hired unit supplied with ESU arms attacks an FSE
outpost, ensuring some get away.....Where did they get this equipment you ask?
Off the battlefield or from third parties ect.
> It's possible that mercenary companies could be supported by a
> grow too large, as then they would clearly be seen as a threat to the
I would think that also, that has always been the risk of being a merc.
> On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:27 AM, Don M wrote:
> All governments lie deniability is a must that will never change.As
I think that the deniability issue is still a difficulty. Setting the money
tracking issue aside and concentrating on equipment:
Getting large quantities of another country's arms would probably be
traceable, and mercenaries would probably be looking for newer designs
rather than cheap knock-offs (i.e. M-4s instead of AK-47s).
While possession of the arms isn't positive proof, it's a pretty strong
indicator that may provoke action anyway.
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> I think that the deniability issue is still a difficulty. Setting the
While I won't argue this point with you, I might argue that reduced
deniability might not be an issue in the future. Governments, especially on
other planets, might just need a better army than they can scrape up. They
don't care if anyone knows who sent that force in, they just want a good
force. They're on a planet with a small population base, but rich in capital,
so they buy the army they can't raise.
> While I won't argue this point with you, I might argue that reduced
They
> don't care if anyone knows who sent that force in, they just want a
A very good point that I had forgot, in fact it is done on earth today. The
Kuwaiti army is hired in mass from Pakistan with only Kuwaiti officers.
> All governments lie deniability is a must that will never change.
But there are also "legitimate" military operations, and in the high days of
the mercenaries (from the Condottieri, Swiss and Landsknechts to the Hessians
employed by the British against the American Rebels) most of the use of
mercenaries was official and acknowledged. The main reason for their use was
that governments could not afford to maintain such expensive forces in
peacetime. So they were employed only when a war was up. If peace broke out
somewhere, they would move to some other war. The loyalties of such mercenary
groups lay with their (temporay) employer, not with their nation. While they
properly paid, they fought well (at least
the beter units did). But if their paymaster went bankrupt - "No Money,
No Swiss".
Could well be a model for the Tuffleyverse, especially for the smaller powers.
Greetings Karl Heinz
A la Hammer's Slammers from David Drake or the Dorsai from Gordon Dickson. In
both cases the justification for mercenaries was that they brought experience
and equipment that the hiring government could not provide on its own. It
seems reasonable that an agricultural world would not have an extensive
military tradition that would provide whole units on demand, perhaps not even
equipment. One question might be how specialized is equipment in the future.
In WW2 the Russians were able to convert tractor works into tank factories,
carpenter shops into shops
that made parts for aircraft - would a future tractor factory be able to
make hover tanks? An electronics factory IR gear or ECM suites? Would a
fertilizer factory be able to produce propellents or ammo? Or would these be
highly specialized items made at only high tech worlds? If so, then it would
make mercenaries much more plausible since your average
farmer/factory worker/programmer would not have the time or inclina!
tion to train in using a weapon that he may or may not use in his lifetime.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
I think this depends on what the black market is like. If there is a lot of
traffic in military grade equipment, then the original manufacturer doesn't
mean much. For instance, if you find someone with
an AK-47 or RPG, does that mean they are directly supported by Russia?
Even if the serial number of that weapon can be traced to a factory outside
Moscow, the prevalence of Russian weapons is so great that almost anyone can
get one.
Who is to say that in the future the French (i.e. FSE) aren't willing to sell
arms to the highest bidder? The French obviously have no problem selling
equipment to both sides of a conflict.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
From: B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com>
> A la Hammer's Slammers from David Drake or the Dorsai from Gordon
Of course, that does raise the question of where the merc units get the funds
to pay for something a government can't afford. Corporate units, perhaps, or
big loans. Maybe merc units have a loan insurance officer instead of a
political officer... "Major, stop that pursuit!" "But we have the enemy right
where we want them!" "Yes but you're risking MCr50 if they counterattack!"
> On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 12:24 PM, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> The loyalties of such mercenary groups lay with their (temporay)
This would seem to me to be a better model/argument than the deniability
one.
LaserlightWrote:
course, that does raise the question of where the merc units get
> the funds to pay for something a government can't afford. Corporate
Perhaps a certain amount of coverage for losses is written into contracts,
especially for units with a more solid reputation. For new units trying to
break into the game, that's part of the motivation for performing well
> K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> But there are also "legitimate" military operations, and in the high
employer,
> not with their nation. While they properly paid, they fought well (at
This is exactly the model I was thinking of.
As an ironic OT aside, I read somewhere that most of the gold plundered by the
Spanish in the Americas went to hire mercenaries necessary to fight European
wars because the Spanish Army wasn't available to fight, they were off in the
americas plundering gold. Talk about a bloody viscious circle.
But the point of hiring mercs is that you aren't buying the equipment, you are
renting it. It is far cheaper to rent than to buy. In addition you are hiring
people to run the equipment for you. It's like hiring a plumber to install a
sink for you. You hire him because he has the specialized equipment and the
skill to use them, and although expensive, it is much cheaper than buying all
the tools that he uses and learning all his skills. It would be rare but not
unheard of to offer a plumber equipment as well as paying him for his
services. It is assumed that you get what you pay for, and if you are paying a
premium for mercenary services, then I would assume that they are covering
basics like ammo, fuel and their own equipment.
You could work this angle in that maybe a planet has light industrial and
might offer something like trucks, cargo movers, fuel, food or something like
that as partial payment if they didn't have enough cash.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> Having an entire planet set aside
OK I do agree that continents etc are probably way big enough if productive,
but too play devils advocate... with a whole arm of the galaxy to play with,
why be stingy? Imagine how annoyed the mercs are gonna get when the KV trash
their world or (whether on a continent or planet) maybe they end up being
employed by the PH to work against humanity.... (thinking of Milo Minderbinder
bombing his own troops....)
G'day,
> Getting large quantities of another
Assuming the mercs (and independent corporations they may do business with)
don't get so big they can start constructing stuff for themselves.
Cheers
> >Having an entire planet set aside
a) do we have the whole arm of the galaxy? Here we are only 15 parsecs or so
away from Terra and we have Phalons, Kra'Vak and Savasku to deal with.
b) how many planets already have Earth-compatible atmospheres, ecology
etc, and how many are fixer-uppers? If you have to spend 50 years and
a mint to terraform a planet, you're not going to lightly turn it over to
someone else. c) why not be stingy? You can always spend the rest of the
planet to pay off someone else. A megacorp, another merc group, etc. Several
someones, in fact. This is what happened with Cibola (which is owned
by the AE--or at least that's what they say--occupied by New
Hindustan, several megacorps, IF and PAU colonies, and some irritated
KV).
d) the mercs may not want land--they may want cash to send home (eg
the Gurkhas).
> B Lin Wrote:
> But the point of hiring mercs is that you aren't buying the equipment,
And that expertise is where the expense starts to get near that of buying the
equipment. Remember, my premise is that Mercs will be hired by nations with
few men but plenty of money.
> It's like hiring a plumber to install a sink for you. You hire him
True, but you still have to pay for the sink. That's why the plumbers invoice
will list parts as well as labor.
> It is assumed that you get what you pay for, and if you are paying a
That supports my first point - you're paying a PREMIUM (your words) --
which means if you're too poor to buy a tank, you're probably too poor to rent
a merc tank and it's crew.
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> >It is assumed that you get what you pay for, and if you are paying a
> >It is assumed that you get what you pay for, and if you are paying
This isn't necessarily the case, because: a) the labor may not be that
expensive compared to what your citizens
produce (a doctor making $100/hr will do better to pay the plumber
$75/hr to install the sink)
b) you may be able to buy/rent the tank, but not the assembly line and
tooling to produce it etc c) the political situation may go sour quickly and
you need those troops next month, not next year (I can learn to install a
sink, but not tonight).
d) there may be non-economic reasons (your religion forbids you to
bear arms but you need self-defense forces, for example)
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
I'm not sure I agree with the part where expertise is the bulk of the expense.
In most cases today, the operator of the equipment is the
cheapest part - i.e. F-16 pilots probably only cost a few million to
train, while their planes are 25-40 million each, cost $500,000- 1
million to fire a missile and probably a few hundred thousand dollars in
maintenance. The pilot himself is probably making less than $40K a year.
Assuming as similar ratio in the future, the personnel cost for high tech
equipment will be low compared the cost of purchasing the unit. So
if you can rent the unit for 1/10 or 1/3 of the purchase cost, you come
out way ahead.
The situation changes if you are engaged in a long-term battle. After a
point it becomes more cost-effective to buy/build the device and train
your own personnel. ( A comparison would be renting a car - $200 a week,
but if you went at that rate for 5 years = $52,000, whereas you can own
for $400/month x 5 years = $24,000) But if you only needed the car for
a week or two... Plus maintenance, insurance...
--Binhan
G'day,
> a) do we have the whole arm of the galaxy?
I meant us as the people making up the fictional setting - we don't know
how common habitable sites will be like, what level tech will be like, whether
FTL will ever get invented etc etc, so why be stingy?;)
> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> A la Hammer's Slammers from David Drake or the
Actually, Slammer's had equipment and experience.
Dorsai had experience and training--their main weapon
was a "Spring-rifle" that sounds like it could be
turned out for about $25 (Canadian), and which was identical to the weapons
used by local militia.
And the only reason the Slammers had the equipment they did was because they
were essentially deserters from Neu Frisian service. IOW, it still took a
fairly wealthy nation to initially bankroll the purchase.
To run a mechanized (or God forbid, aviation) unit takes massive initial
outlays in capital. You won't get a regular business loan for this due to the
a) the sums involved and b) the risk. Which means that at least for initial
outlays, the mercs are going to need the backing of either a major megacorp
(if you background provides for such) or a large nation.
There will be a large market for light forces,
trainers, and specialists--that's no question. But
heavy force "independants" will be nothing of the kind. They may be regular
forces leased out to other nations (I believe that's the NI and SK model) or
they might be subsidized by a nation as a really cheap way of getting good
quality reservists. IE "You can take whatever contract you want as long as it
isn't against us, and if we have a crisis you have to terminate your contract
and come back to defend the old home soil." This allows for good incentives
for recruiting (20 years, and you get a plot of property in the outback and
citizenship), a safe place to rest and refit, and subsidized weapons
purchases.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> the mercenaries (from the Condottieri, Swiss and
Well, the Condotta were not to be trusted--just ask
Milan about Sforza. The Hessians employed by the British were of questionable
reliability. Many (Most?) of them ended up settling in the US with American
women. Of course, that's because they were
not getting any extra pay--the blood money for those
regiments went to line the pockets of the (insert correct title here, Elector?
Duke? Prince?) of Hesse.
> Laserlight Wrote:
> This isn't necessarily the case, because:
None of which actually refutes my point, which is that Customers of mercs are
going to TEND to be states who can afford their price, and need their
services. Whether it's for deniability, expertise, or because they need a
force NOW, the economics are going to favor the Mercs, who will, especially if
they're an elite unit, be able to command the price they want, including some
sort of insurance against loss of equipment.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> if they're an elite unit, be able to command the
1)You can't get blood from stones. If you're charging more than your customer
can afford, you're what's technically called "unemployed."
2)WTF sort of IDIOT would insure combat equipment? You'd have to be a moron,
or charge the sort of rates that make it uneconomical. Remember, insurers have
to turn a profit too. I'm sure we've got an insurance business profession on
the list (we seem to have everything else) would could discuss this better
than I do. But the whole basis of insurance is that you want to be charging
more than you're paying out. This works if you've got 100,000 people paying
$100 a month and paying out $1,000,000 to the 10 people who die that month.
But the frequency of combat losses (what percentage losses does the average
Dirtside II game
inflict? Frequently in excess of 80%--often in the
space of one or two turns) make the premiums more or less the equivelant of
buying a couple tanks a month.
3)Shall I bring up the question of life insurance? You also need to have some
sort of feeder of
replacement troops in--and trained ones, too.
> John Atkinson wrote:
Not if there are other customers out there that CAN afford you. There will
definitely be an entire supply/demand dynamic. Mercs won't work for
less than $X, customers won't pay more than $Y, in between the two is where
you'll find most contracts.
> 2)WTF sort of IDIOT would insure combat equipment?
Let me clarify what I meant. IF a merc unit is an armored unit, and IF it's
good enough to command these sort of contracts, I'm sure they will contain one
of these clauses:
A) Customer shall supply us with tanks (Least likely) B) Customer shall
provide us with replacement vehicles equal to X% of combat losses C) Customer
shall pay us Ungodly sums as our normal fee, which will likely take into
account risk of loss.
> 3)Shall I bring up the question of life insurance?
That is an interesting issue.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> They may be regular forces leased out to other
This would also include Turkish Mercenaries -- In addition, as I pointed
out before, this also provides the Turks with a way of refining those officers
who can't hack the formal training process, but shine in combat.
Brian B2 said:
> None of which actually refutes my point, which is that Customers of
No, they won't be able to command their price unless they're a unique unit.
The hiring government or megacorp will issue a request for
proposal and select the most qualified bidder--not necessarily low bid
but that will certainly be a factor Competition between units will keep the
prices down to what the market will bear.
You may also see units signing retainer contracts--"we'll work on other
contracts when you don't need us; but when you do need us, we're available at
these specific rates and a 2 week delivery time", or something similar.
Merc Units will also have to deal with grudges. I'm sorry, but if someone ever
shoots at me, they'll have a hard time earning my trust in a future conflict.
--
Best regards,
Flak
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocites.com/flakmagnet72
> Friday, January 04, 2002, 3:14:34 PM, laserlight wrote:
lqn> Brian B2 said:
> None of which actually refutes my point, which is that Customers of
lqn> No, they won't be able to command their price unless they're a unique
unit. The hiring government or megacorp will issue a request for
proposal and select the most qualified bidder--not
lqn> necessarily low bid but that will certainly be a factor Competition
between units will keep the prices down to what the market will bear.
lqn> You may also see units signing retainer contracts--"we'll work on
other contracts when you don't need us; but when you do need us, we're
available at these specific rates and a 2 week delivery lqn> time", or
something similar.
lqn>
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
> 2)WTF sort of IDIOT would insure combat equipment?
In real life terms, losses of 2-3% are acceptable, 5-7% high and 15% can
be sustained for one or two missions. Games would play much differently if the
commanders are required to keep their losses "reasonable". In real life, I
suspect much of the maneuvering is simply to get to the most advantageous
range (i.e. you can fire, the enemy can not) inflict as many casualties you
can before receiving any, then getting away. Of course Assault will be
different and be much higher in cost.
Would players out there play differently if they had a loss restriction placed
on them (perhaps some sort of exponential victory point cost? Maybe like the
first vehicle x 1, the second x2, the third x4 the fourth x8 etc.?)
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
Seems to be, Hammer aside, that most Merc units would be Mechanized Infantry
followed by Motorized Infantry or Light Armor. The (Heavy) Armored unit would
be rare (and beaucoup expensive) and only extremely
rare specialists would be Airborne/Air Assault/Space Assault units - and
probably reinforced company in size in those special cases... My dos centavos!
I guess "Leg" Infantry would be inexpensive (comparably) but
part of that would be paid by requisition or issue of local transport -
say on that farming planet with a Tractor Factory...
Gracias,
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:42:05 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
Only this time the "natives" are better armed, led and organized!
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:40:52 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> This is exactly the model I was thinking of.
Bloody? Viscous? Was that an intentional attempt at a pun disguised as a
mis-spelled word - visicious?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:04:18 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes: <snip>
> George Gush's old book on renaissance warfare says the French
But did it work?
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:44:47 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes: <snip>
> d) there may be non-economic reasons (your religion forbids you to
A Hammer story IIRC had this kind of setting (involved something about alien
crystal artifact cities or such?)
From: B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com>
> In real life terms, losses of 2-3% are acceptable, 5-7% high and 15%
Losses in terms of what? Is this infantry platoons or divisions (divisions
obviously lose a lot lower percentage as a lot of their manpower is not in
contact)? Losses per day, week, what?
(I have Trevor Dupuy's book on attrition, so I can probably look up the
answers, eventually)
I agree that players characteristically accept vastly higher losses than a
real commander usually would.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:12:06 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> From: B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com>
Could that be partially a result of the rules or the mind set that a "kill" is
total destruction ("Mission Kills" are 'kills' too at least in Air Combat.)
> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> In real life terms, losses of 2-3% are acceptable,
Sure. Out of a DIVISION. If a division take 15%
casualties the infantrymen are _ALL_ dead. In a
platoon, you can't take less than 3% casualties (30 guys, 1 death) and can be
wiped out in less than 10 seconds in the right circumstances.
As a side note, during a deliberate breach, casualties of 50% among your
engineers is excellent, 80% is acceptable. 100% is not improbable.
> commanders are required to keep their losses
I "suspect" that historical analysis does not bear this out except in special
circumstances. If you have the firepower advantage you might take these
casualties. Loosing battles is a lot more costly.
> Would players out there play differently if they had
This is a bit unrealistic based on the levels of command involved.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Which brings up the question of whether wargames
Sure. Where in the Tuffleyverse have we seen such hellacious disparities in
technology, training, and total firepower??
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not if there are other customers out there that CAN
Can the average nation afford enough to make it worth the while of an armored
unit? IMNSHO, while the
various colonies are going to be resource-rich, they
are going to be capital-poor and hard cash-poor.
Mercenaries can't be paid in lumber or crops. Diamonds are a possibility, but
only for highly organized units with support assets capable of marketing them.
> A) Customer shall supply us with tanks (Least
If customer had tanks, customer would be driving them into combat.
> B) Customer shall provide us with replacement
Interesting, but if you start loosing tanks you're going to face getting your
contract terminated so that your fee doesn't blow the budget. They are going
to have to be paid in cash or barter, since actual tanks aren't going to be in
the customer's inventory.
> C) Customer shall pay us Ungodly sums as our normal
It's going to cost a lot more than most people can afford. Think about your
average politico's thought process: You can afford a light infantry brigade,
or a company or two of tanks. What are you going to choose? Hell, a properly
used light infantry brigade can throw around a company of tanks. Oh, and the
light infantry brigade can recruit from locals and produce spare parts for
it's weapons in the local machine shop. Every final drive, track shoe, road
wheel, etc is going to have to come in from
off-planet.
I see light armor, but the only MBTs for rent are going to be subsidized by a
real nation.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Bloody? Viscous? Was that an intentional attempt at a pun disguised as
The answer is C, unintentional misspelling of Vicious - we both screwed
it up.
Brain B
All points well made. I can buy the necessity for subsidization. In the long
run, my only real point was that when merc set their prices, they arte going
to factor in the risk of loss of equipment as well as loss of life. All of
these things will be factors in the mercenary economy, and much more. I
suspect it will be a pretty fluid dynamic, with norms and expectations
evolving over time and given circumstances.
Brian B2
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
Two in one day... I'm losing it. But that's a misspelling I'vew dealt with my
whole life.
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> All points well made. I can buy the necessity for subsidization. In
EO/Lifeguard billed the Govt of Sierra Leone $1.8 million US per month.
That was for a few hundred (at most) troops.
G'day
> Only if you buy the stuff straight from the factory.
Not to mention Russia supplying refurbished T-something-or-others
(they're tanks at any rate) to the Northern Alliance in their fight against
the Taliban.
Cheers
G'day,
> 2)WTF sort of IDIOT would insure combat equipment?
I guess you're not including 3rd party etc for when travelling through
civilian areas?
G'day,
> Merc Units will also have to deal with grudges. I'm sorry, but if
Wouldn't that run contrary to what happened a lot in Europe? OK I'm
simplifying, but the Saxons changed sides a bunch during the Napoleonic wars
(once in the middle of a battle at the battle of nations) and the English and
French fought side by side against the Russians in the Crimean Wars not too
long after having faced off against each other in the Napoleonic Wars. There's
even a classic anecdote about the French and English staff being set up on
adjacent bits of turf and a doddering old French general referring to his maps
saying ".. and then we will deploy here and attack the
English..",
at which point the younger members of the French staff tried not too look to
nervous as all the English eyes swung their way (well more or less - the
book's in Townsville with Derek's Dad at present).
Cheers
> On 1/4/02 6:33 PM, "Beth.Fulton@csiro.au" <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> G'day,
Not just Europe, but also here in the US. My ancestors were Hessians who
switched sides to support the colonists when the British ran out of cash.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Well, they are unlikely to shoot at you (personally,
But an employer that hires mercenaries that they have pitted their standing
forces against may well find themselves dealing with disciplinary problems or
"friendly fire" incidents while the standing forces "even the score" with the
mercenaries. Soldiers are soldier, they are NOT inhuman, the remember who does
what to them and their platoon-mates.
Likewise, if an employer hires multiple mercenary units, there may be similar
murderous rivalries between merc units suddenly emplyed by the same
organization.
> Presumably, merc contracts will contain clauses to
Actually, that was mentioned in a Hammer's Slammers book I read a long time
ago. That's or something similar... it sounds familiar at any rate.
> And a prospective employer may well have been
A Merc unit would have to worry about the employer "settling the score" as
well... you don't have to pay a Merc unit that's never heard from again...
> During the high days of the mercenaries, many
Losses in DS2 can't really be all KIA and WIA. I expect a high proportion of
eliminated units are simply rendered unfit for combat in various ways:
scattered, scared, lost, helping a budding, etc.
But if you're used to 80% casualties, lets play a game of something.
> K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
On the
> other hand, insurers of US equipment and personnel in recent wars would
No worries:)
> Thank you, Adrian, you expressed what I was trying to get at much more
The
> pilot himself is probably making less than $40K a year.
**********************************************
> At 03:53 4/01/02 -0800, you wrote:
> > A) Customer shall supply us with tanks (Least
Sure, but do they know how to drive them?:) Hence the need to hire someone who
does.
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
Every nation which can manage it, no matter how poorly, tries to field troops.
Lots of nations make really, really bad tankers (all Arabs, for instance) but
try to kid themselves that the righteousness of their cause or high morale, or
whatever will make up for this.
> --- Michael Llaneza <maserati@earthlink.net> wrote:
Right. And those units can be rebuilt by the victor. Loosers don't get that
chance (damaged equipment is in the hands of the enemy, stragglers are in POW
camps,
etc).
Ah, Man... The Narns need some practice...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:39:29 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
OOOOkay,
> Every nation which can manage it, no matter how
I know this was likely meant in jest, but I still find it highly
inappropriate. I mean gimme a break being Arab has nothign to do with it. It's
bad training, bad leadership, bad supply and a whole lot else. Being arab has
little to do with it.
I know this is a bit overreactionary, but right now, this sort of statement
just seems a little more innappropriate than usual.
Eli
John,
I listen to you on this list and hold my replies but I have to respond to
this. It may be that all Arabs that you have met or know of are poor tankers.
However this does not mean that "All Arabs" are poor tankers.
Bob Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Bob Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
When was the last time an Arab nation won a tank fight? Fer crying out loud,
they can't beat Israelis
driving Shermans with T-55s and the advantage of
numbers. They have brigades chopped up by AMX-13
batallions. The Lybian tankers got clobbered by
Chad--who's main force units were driving Toyota
pickup trucks with Milan launchers bolted to the beds. And the performance of
the Iraqi Army was so bad that the only troops who were even slowed by their
defenses were Syrians and Egyptians.
Sure, there are US tankers of Arab descent--but the
vast majority of them are no more culturally Arab than I am.
> --- Eli Arndt <eli_arndt@wattosjunkyard.com> wrote:
> I know this was likely meant in jest, but I still
If all Arab states field really bad armies, I'm guessing there's a causation
here. I mean, the Arabs havn't fielded a respectable army[1] since they
started hiring Turks to do all their heavy fighting.
> I know this is a bit overreactionary, but right now,
You must be new here.
I never jest about Arabs.
John said:
> When was the last time an Arab nation won a tank
Translation:
The doctrine they use--which to the best of my knowledge is Soviet
doctrine
for all of them, right?--turns out not to be effective against the
opponents they've faced.
> If all Arab states field really bad armies, I'm
> [1]Excepting colonial forces with European officers
The Arab Legion. Sir John Glubb was the Pasha of that one, IIRC.
This isn't unique to the Arabs, of course. For quite a while there, "Italian"
and "military" were two words that didn't go together. This is
not to say that these ethnic groups *can't* be good--obviously the
Romans and the Arabs both conquered pretty much everything around them at one
time--just that they weren't. I have no suggestions as to why, at the
moment.
John,
The point I was trying to make is this. When you make a blanket statement
about an entire race of people that is called racism. As I said your
experience and the evidence may point that way but it still does not mean that
"All Arabs make poor tankers".
It is the blanket statement I disagree with.
If you would like to discuss this further I would be glad to take it off list:
Rmako@coqui.net
Thanks
Bob Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Eli Arndt <eli_arndt@wattosjunkyard.com> wrote:
The israeli's won the '73 war due to a bit of luck and a LOT of logistical
support from the US. The Arab league could handily defeat the israelis, but
the US was another whole kettle of fish.
The Syrians and Egyptians were hampered by poor doctrine that was
penny-wise and pound foolish. Tank commanders that stick their heads
out of hatches tend to fall victim to snipers, but tank commanders that look
out through vision blocks tend to not see anything. However, the doctrine
employed by the egyptians at the Suez canal rolled over the
Bar-Lev (hebrew for Maginot, near as I can tell) line as if it was a
live-fire exercise. The israelis were lucky because the syrians could
not believe that a mountain pass was undefended, so they took their dear sweet
time to carefully crawl through it. It took the so much time that the israelis
were able to meet them before the figured out that it was undefended.
So, I would say that the arabs have not fielded a respectable army since 1973,
when they ripped the heart out of the isreali tank corps (400
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> The israeli's won the '73 war due to a bit of luck
Handily?
> doctrine employed by the egyptians at the Suez canal
Sure. A set-piece battle fought mostly by infantry
and artillery. Then they got into a series of maneuver battles where their
tankers again looked
bad--their infantry fought with more skill than they
used to, and the mass use of Saggers temporarily nullified the fact that their
tankers weren't worth much at all. But then the Israelis mobilized enough
troops to put up a fight, and then it was the bad old days of '67 all over
again.
> The israelis were lucky because
The Syrians were fought to a standstill. In exchange for two Israeli brigades
on the Golan Heights, they gutted three of their divisions. Another push at
the right time would have made it, but the casualties they had taken bled what
audacity they had out of them.
> So, I would say that the arabs have not fielded a
So out of curiousity, what was the score of T-62s left
smoking in the desert? Or BMP-1s? Sure, when you
outnumber your opponent enough you can win--but even
with total operational and tactical surprise (proof that no matter how good
you are, and the Israelis are very good, you can get caught with your pants
down) and massive weight of numbers, the Arabs couldn't strike far enough or
fast enough to disrupt Israel's mobilization schedule enough to win.
Keep in mind, those same Shermans fought in armies that beat back Tigers and
Panthers. Your comments aren't getting any less revolting, mind you.
Eli
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:36:42 -0800 (PST)
> Eli Arndt Wrote:
> Keep in mind, those same Shermans fought in armies that beat back
Wow,a debate about the relative quality of WW2 Armor.... thanks, Eli, just
what we needed to get this moving in another direction....
What does everyone think of the "Shermans weren't as good as Tigers, just more
numerous" arguement, especially prior to the upgrade to the 76mm gun? I refuse
to believe I even come CLOSE to having a right to speak on THAT
issue....
> Keep in mind, those same Shermans <the Israelis used> fought in armies
At odds of 5 to 1, wasn't it? I recall the Panther than drove through a US
tank company, turned around and drove back through, disappeared back into
German lines undamaged. And another single tank from an SS division knocked
out something like 20 tanks from a British battalion and retired undamaged.
I'd have to say the Israelis were pretty impressive.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Depends. There were fair fights--US Combat Commands
vs. Panther Brigades. However, Panther formations tended to loose a
significant portion of their tanks
to mechanical difficulties. Oh, and roving P-47s
didn't help much either.
> --- Eli Arndt <eli_arndt@wattosjunkyard.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind, those same Shermans fought in armies
If you think a T-55 is no better than a Panther,
you're either intoxicated, stupid, or dead.
Your comments
> aren't getting any less revolting, mind you.
I don't think the point of my discussion was for my
comments to get any more Arab-friendly. It doesn't
happen.
Although I'd invite you to hold your breath until it does.
Eli said:
> Your comments
John, you know, Eli was right. I don't know when you're going to start
applying a trace of diplomacy, but, to quote one of our more colorful listers,
I'd invite you to hold your breath until it happens.
> Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 9:45:49 PM, John wrote:
> JA> --- Eli Arndt <eli_arndt@wattosjunkyard.com> wrote:
+++SNIP+++
JA> If you think a T-55 is no better than a Panther,
JA> you're either intoxicated, stupid, or dead.
You forgot ignorant... ignorance IS excusable.
+++SNIP+++
I suggested no such thing. The example holds true, hoever, outgunned, is
outgunned. The point is, it's not what you have it's how you use it. If all
wars were rated on what you had, the US wouldn't be a country of its own. The
same comments made about Arabs and tankers has been applied to any number of
ethnic, cultural, or religious groups.
What gauls me, is that no matter what, the original statement was defended. If
you had just bothered to rephrase your comment say something along the lines
of, "Arabs have yet to win a tank war" there would have been no problem, but
instead you decided to pass judgement on
an entire people/culture claiming their innefectiveness was somehow a
part of who they are as a people.
That's just sick.
Eli
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:49:33 -0500
gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 9:45:49 PM, John wrote:
> --- Eli Arndt <eli_arndt@wattosjunkyard.com> wrote:
> I suggested no such thing. The example holds true,
Really? As near as I can tell, the Americans and Brits used more or less
identical small arms. Artillery was identical because most of our artillery
was captured Brit arty. There was less of it, true. And of course, having the
French Navy on our side for one of it's few moments of total glory helps. And
a
couple thousand French Marines were also helpful--but
not as much as a the variety of trained officers that the French loaned us in
the early stages.
> What gauls me, is that no matter what, the original
What divides you into three parts?? I'm confused.
> statement was defended. If you had just bothered to
Hey--that's not the only data point I have on the
subject. Arabs are... a hobby of mine.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Robin Paul <Robin.Paul@tesco.net> wrote:
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What does everyone think of the "Shermans weren't as
Well, considering the Tiger was a Heavy Tank, and the Sherman was a Medium
tank, it's a specious argument. The comparison should be between the M4 and
the PzIV. Which is a more even discussion.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Because it's true (leaving aside production, logistical and strategic movement
problems for the Tigers). In a similar vein with Panthers, IIRC the US lost 3
Shermans for every Panther. But they started out with 5 Sherms per Panther...
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Eli Arndt Wrote:
> From what I have read, aside from its stellar mechanical reliability,
It has good mobility over broken ground, enough armor to repel light field
guns and withstand artillery, and not only a gun with a great HE round, but
room for lots of shells. It would have been the best tank in WWI.
Unfortunately, the germans read Biddel-Hart's book and used tanks to
destroy
tanks, instead of using mobile anti-tank guns (german tank destroyers
had heavier armor than the tanks that they were derived from). The poor AP
performance of the sherman's gun, combined with its great height (needed to
fit an air-cooled engine that was not used in all but the earliest
models), meant that it could be easily seen before it was close enough to
penetrate the
armor of their opponents. To add insult to injury, the 7.5cm/70 cannon
of the
panther could hole a sherman at quite a range. The 8.8cm/71 could
penetrate the sherman's armor from any aspect and at any range that the crew
could reasonably expect to hit.
The king tiger caused as much trouble as it did, because it combined the
8.8cm/71 with more front and side armor than the sherman's 75mm gun
could ever reasonably hope to penetrate, at any range. The tactic for shermans
to take on a tiger were for one sherman to occupy the tiger's attention long
enough for a another sherman to sneak up behind the tiger, and fire into the
much thinner rear armor. The tactic only worked because tigers were much fewer
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:23:57 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whoa! Germans in Europe had "...strategic movement problems.." that Americans
across the Atlantic had less of? Please clarify what you
wrote? I'm confused - well, more then normal...
And moving ships across GZG space distances is *real* strategic distances.
<grin>
Gracias,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:38:19 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
I think the term you are looking for is 'equal opportunity evaluator'! <grin>
Yeah I was forced (as the Hispanic Emphasis Council chairperson) to start
attending the monthly EEO Council meetings so my brain is swimming in memories
of mind numbing presentations. I am awash with buzz words, which might not
wash off...
I thought I might recover by next month - and then someone said "...this
one was 'too bad!..."
Aaaargh!
Gracias,
> >Because it's true (leaving aside production, logistical and
a) the allies weren't too concerned with the Luftwaffe shooting up their
vehicles b) the Tiger was pretty heavy and IIRC had problems with some bridges
Yes, it took a while to get any particular box from New York to Calais, but
the Allies had a lot of boxes and by 1944 they weren't all that worried about
having them sunk en route.