Are Singaporean conscripts too soft?
-
lol the way you respond to me are getting interesting by the day.
LOL! You only quoted the last part. Nice try!
you did it first. i copy all that craap from the website you copy and paste. I just had to know if the MASTER him self knew his handy work.
again with the number. Pal... your mother cook book is not a credible source. Stop saying other people such as me as mis leading or twisting fact just because you love her? (lol i use your own words against you!)
you still havent enlighten us about Hurtgen Forest? Why? Is it because its really there that the American destroy its soldier life wastefully? and it really support my so called theory (which is not mine actually, i quote it from Earnest Hemingway about that battle, ofcourse you already know that, didnt you?)
-
It is obvious the Yanks enjoyed numerical superiority with their armour- they better given they were in an inferior tank. BUT they certainly did not fight their wars intending to trade numbers for victory. They did the best with what they had, which ironically was due to poor decisions from their uppers regarding their armour doctrine and procurement, and made a good accounting for themselves despite their inferiority in quality.
did you just contradict with you self?
You actually agree with me? lol
you laugh at 3 mil german civ death. mmmmm. How many died at Dresden? I assume the Allied give a quite a number?
How many really died at Dresden? I asume also your mommy knew, or you have to cut paste from wikipedia again. -
Hello, reread my post. The very least you could do is to understand some basic english.
You might have realized you just made your latest posts on faulty assumptions that arose from you not being able to read proper english.
Truly, do grow up. -
did you just contradict with you self?
No, what I am showing, unlike you... is that I know how to take ALL the factors into account as to why the Allies won to war... while you seem to be unable to focus on anything but one aspect of it. You actually agree with me? lol
No fool is going to deny that superior numbers is an advantage that the Allies had that helped them to win the war. However, as one only need to take a basic lesson of history and learn from personal accounts that the Allies (the Yanks and Tommies in question), also made up for their technological shortcomings by exploiting other areas in which they had an advantage over the Jerries, as well as coming up with tatics to make up for some of their technological and qulatitive inferiorites... lots of deciding factors that had little to do with numbers.
Am I contradicting myself? Of simply being able to see all the shades of colour in a painting including the one that you seem to think the whole painting is made out of?
Also, this topic is drifting off topic. Your original assumption was that the Yanks and Tommies, being inferior in morale and discipline, and mental toughness then the Jerries, could only win by trading blood for victory... a point which I think that others beyond me has pointed out as flawed from beginning to end.
I await your reply, and am interested to know if it will actually contain arguments of substance instead of childish insults and dishonest facts, which I am afriad to say, hardly helping your case at all. -
you still havent enlighten us about Hurtgen Forest? Why? Is it because its really there that the American destroy its soldier life wastefully? and it really support my so called theory (which is not mine actually, i quote it from Earnest Hemingway about that battle, ofcourse you already know that, didnt you?)
What about the Hurtgen Forest supports your point? The Allies made several errors in judgement and intel and the whole thing was doomed to fail from the beginning.
And how could you quote Earnest Hemingway without really understand what he meant? Please reread his quote and the context in which he made it... please, one you expect you to be a bit wiser then to go around grabbing random quotes and trying to make a round peg fit a square hole.
What is there to enlighten from an incident that you have obviously taken out of context, ignored most of the background on, and tried to make fit your agenda?
Instead, have you not considered that harping on it the way it has is hurting, and not helping your case?
The real telling thing is what really happened after that during the Ardennes Offensive, which is more indicative of how the Yanks actually intended, and could, fight the war.
So yeah, what is your point except to demostrate how poorly you read english and understand historic facts?
With the kind of logic you are using in here, one can make a similar statement:
All dogs have four legs.
A giraffe has four legs.
Therefore, a giraffe is a dog.
Nuff said. -
first of all you insult first. mmm.
What about the Hurtgen Forest supports your point? The Allies made several errors in judgement and intel and the whole thing was doomed to fail from the beginning.
so how long to realise that the offensive were going to fail? they smack 22nd Infantry, 4th Division, VII Corps, XV Corps and 5th Armored Division into the forest.
aide: sir 22nd are dieing by the thousand. there must be a mistake.
general : ok let 4th come in.
aide: sir 4th were having heavy casualties.
general: ow really? let the VII kick their fannies.
aide: sir VII corps receiving horrenduos casualties.
general: nah .... they want more i give them more. call the XV.
aide: sir XV corps reporting massive loss
general: this time the 5th armoured will do the job. kill em all 5th!
aide: the tank could not traverse the forest sir its too risky.
general: are you kidding me that tank is more superior that those krautz. Let em have it.
aide: sir everyone die, we didnt achieve anything.
general: mmmm there must be some intel flaw some where......
aide: faintAnd how could you quote Earnest Hemingway without really understand what he meant? Please reread his quote and the context in which he made it... please, one you expect you to be a bit wiser then to go around grabbing random quotes and trying to make a round peg fit a square hole.
haha i learned from the MASTA...Also, what is there to support your point? The kill loss ratio there 33,000 vs. 16,000, or about 1:2 is expected when forces of roughly equal quality clash when one is on the defensive and the other on the offensive. The offensive side will obviously take more losses.
well if they can firebomb Dresden into ashes why wouldnt they do it here? or just by passs it? or destroy the damm and flooded the forest? etc etc...What is there to enlighten from an incident that you have obviously taken out of context, ignored most of the background on, and tried to make fit your agenda?
oh now i have an agenda.... for crying out loud i just say that it would be good if SAF have tougher traning and tougher soldierSo yeah, what is your point except to demostrate how poorly you read english and understand historic facts?
you keep saying i insult you but the thing is you are the one starting it.With the kind of logic you are using in here, one can make a similar statement:
and i am the one who is talking BS? you just said girafe is a dog?!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
All dogs have four legs.
A giraffe has four legs.
Therefore, a giraffe is a dog.
Nuff said. -
anyway i agree its off topic.
-
Wah lau...
Not say I want to say you leh... but how come you insist on showing a lack of comprehension skills with each sucessive post? I mean seriously, not insulting you but you just like erm, made several huge errors of comprehension in your quotes and post.
I'm not sure if it is deliberate, but in the case that it is I suggest you seriously think about deliberate misunderstanding of your opponents' position as an effective tatic in debate. I mean sure it allows you to avoid the issues and wastes your opponent's time in adressing things that have little to bear with the true debate but it has some serious shortcomings that limit its usefulness.
HOWEVER one also needs to know that this only works best in personal debate and not a public one as this. For others will rapidly start to see the person using deliberate misunderstanding as somewhat of a lamer, and quite quickly he will be discredited (a bit like Glock's case, but I suspect he simply lacked the ability to comprehend any basic logic that was in the way of his ideas).
You seem to make the fatal error of seeming to think when your opponent assumes your position (which is a common pratice in debate) as an actual pitching of it.
Hence please reread the giraffe-dog point... I'm afraid that was made to laugh AT YOU. Please don't make yourself seem even more ignorant by laughing at yourself being laughed at.
It might do you good that putting "laughter" in your post only work if it is used intelligently... used poorly it only sia sway yourself. The same goes for the colourful insults that you have been trying, but which have been mostly backfiring simply because for them to stick they must be based on some sense. Random insults just don't cut it here.
That's why people have gone "ditto SingaporeTyrannosaur" and not "ditto tankfantic", and I'm not trying to be haolian... but rather pointing out that even if you refuse to see my point of view, others are equally willing to contradict you. Even if I wasn't here to contradict you, others would almost certainly pick up that mantle quite quickly.
And why are you trying to satire the Hurtgen Forest? The Americans made the assumption that the Germans were not going to hold the line and would withdraw, and were then surprised by the defences that the Germans had prepared there which included a lot more then just armour. This was not to mention that in retrospect it the value of the whole battle was questionable to begin with.
So yes, all this in mind... how does it even begin to support your point? When the Americans said that the whole battle was a waste of lives, they weren't saying lives were wasted due to them being inferior and unable to trump the Germans in quality, they were talking about the whole affair being rather pointless to begin with.
In that vein, even if they had taken less losses then the Germans, they still would have considered that battle a waste of lives.
So yes, it does not support your cause at all, but I thought that was obvious to anybody with a bit of comprehension of historical facts.
And how come you seem to think the only thing that matters in every single battle in the ETO is Sherman vs. German tanks?
So as it stands, I'm afraid you still have yet to prove your orginal point of the more disciplined, "high morale" German losing to the Yanks only because of numbers... which by all indications wasn't the case.
Please ah, I think one Glock in military nuts is enough liao... dun need to be another. -
Chill out guys. Keep the discussion objective lar.
Just an additional side note. It seems that the Germans were good at fighting defensively in depth, than launching quick blitzkrieg than led to believe.
As for high morale and discipline for the Post-Normandy German army, I don't really think so. They were getting their supply and war material manufacturing bombed all the way to Berlin, hence their morale couldn't have been fantastic either.
However, I feel that what made the German's a "tougher" army was eventually not just the vehicles. But the fact that it was a more evolved army at that time in terms of organization and training. And that is taken from General Fayolle in 1916 where he wrote, "The great superiority of the German Army lies in its instructional methods and in its organization."
It was better organized and as a result had a more de-centralized command that allowed it to react faster to fluid situations. In most cases, the German army were able to make precise counter attacks, from defense to offense, as well as switch operations tempo simply because its Army and leadership were better trained and better educated.
If thats what you constitute as a tougher soldier, perhaps in a way you are right then. -
I was an infantryman, a job where toughness - mental and physical - is needed.
I like to think that me and my mates were up to the job.
But how can you really tell? We have never been under fire before. And also, we have never got to know other armies intimately.
I would suspect that most armies train a lot harder than we do.
I do think we are soft.
We lead soft lives. We never go hungry, we all have a roof over our heads.
We grow up in soft surroundings with little cruelty and violence and death.
However, we are not too soft, yet.
But it is relative. Who is our enemy? Who are we comparing ourselves to?
If we are indeed "softer", than we must be brave and admit it, and work with it. Rather than pretend we're as tough as ... say.. the Indonesians. I think we're not.
But this doesn't mean we can't beat them. You just need to know your own strengths and weaknesses. -
Just look at GW1, Iraq had a much larger army with more soldiers, tanks and arty pieces, live their whole life in the desert and some are even veteran of the 8 years Iran/Iraq war as compare to the allies( mainly US and UK) .
But when they met the technologically superior allies with air superrioty and better ground equipment( M1, MLRS, Apaches etc) manned by mostly city kids of the US/UK armies, Iraqi army crumbled within days.
Today modern warfare, without air superiority , you are fu
Without information superiority, you are fu
That is why SAF has such a large AF and going for 3G (NCW) armed forces. -
Wah lau...
see? now you say i lack comprehension skill.
Not say I want to say you leh... but how come you insist on showing a lack of comprehension skills with each sucessive post? I mean seriously, not insulting you but you just like erm, made several huge errors of comprehension in your quotes and post.I'm not sure if it is deliberate, but in the case that it is I suggest you seriously think about deliberate misunderstanding of your opponents' position as an effective tatic in debate. I mean sure it allows you to avoid the issues and wastes your opponent's time in adressing things that have little to bear with the true debate but it has some serious shortcomings that limit its usefulness.
what debate? this is an internet forum. I say its good that SAF have tougher soldier. You agree with me.
HOWEVER one also needs to know that this only works best in personal debate and not a public one as this. For others will rapidly start to see the person using deliberate misunderstanding as somewhat of a lamer, and quite quickly he will be discredited (a bit like Glock's case, but I suspect he simply lacked the ability to comprehend any basic logic that was in the way of his ideas).
You seem to make the fatal error of seeming to think when your opponent assumes your position (which is a common pratice in debate) as an actual pitching of it.
i say sherman tank suc*s.. you agree also, but not after mind bogling copy and paste and insut from you.
i point the two massacre because to point out that life were wasted because the higher up considered soldier as number and not a person. That battle could be ends differently yet its not. While you agree its senseless to send more men and metal into a highly defended forest and life were wasted, yet you didnt say why didnt they stop? instead the allied sent more division there. And in the case of Dresden civilian life were calculated as a necessary target. The allied did justified that the german did the same thing using their V2 rocket, but where is the 'bad and evil' concept that the allied so revered to?Hence please reread the giraffe-dog point... I'm afraid that was made to laugh AT YOU. Please don't make yourself seem even more ignorant by laughing at yourself being laughed at.
since you insist this is a debate, i have to say that no one ever use this giraffe and dog metaphore before. Its funny.It might do you good that putting "laughter" in your post only work if it is used intelligently... used poorly it only sia sway yourself. The same goes for the colourful insults that you have been trying, but which have been mostly backfiring simply because for them to stick they must be based on some sense. Random insults just don't cut it here.
did you just describe your self? lolThat's why people have gone "ditto SingaporeTyrannosaur" and not "ditto tankfantic", and I'm not trying to be haolian... but rather pointing out that even if you refuse to see my point of view, others are equally willing to contradict you. Even if I wasn't here to contradict you, others would almost certainly pick up that mantle quite quickly.
did you realise that you just praise your self? i bet you wrote the above while smiling at the mirror.And why are you trying to satire the Hurtgen Forest? The Americans made the assumption that the Germans were not going to hold the line and would withdraw, and were then surprised by the defences that the Germans had prepared there which included a lot more then just armour. This was not to mention that in retrospect it the value of the whole battle was questionable to begin with.
see? you agree with me... then suddenly you wrote this below...So yes, all this in mind... how does it even begin to support your point? When the Americans said that the whole battle was a waste of lives, they weren't saying lives were wasted due to them being inferior and unable to trump the Germans in quality, they were talking about the whole affair being rather pointless to begin with.
if it was pointless why pour so many men there? now we are getting closer.In that vein, even if they had taken less losses then the Germans, they still would have considered that battle a waste of lives.
again you just support my point. life were wasted unnecassarily. Then again you wrote even more confusing thing like below...So yes, it does not support your cause at all, but I thought that was obvious to anybody with a bit of comprehension of historical facts.
And how come you seem to think the only thing that matters in every single battle in the ETO is Sherman vs. German tanks?
i didnt say its the only things matter. But the tommycooker did get owned because of its inferiority and the tiger where overwhelmed and outnumber by the american from ground and above regardless of its superiority and ability to kill a lot of the allied.So as it stands, I'm afraid you still have yet to prove your orginal point of the more disciplined, "high morale" German losing to the Yanks only because of numbers... which by all indications wasn't the case.
i didnt link the two. i say the german were more diciplined and are tougher in terms of mental, quality of equipment and tactics. Yet they lose.
then i say the allied use overwhelming number of men and equipment to counter the german superiority. Thats why they won.
if you remmember i say...'superb hardtrained soldier won battle. But dont make war if you have just a few of them..' i say battle not war.Please ah, I think one Glock in military nuts is enough liao... dun need to be another.
in the end you have to insult me again, aafter all that craap about no insult during debate. -
I have to say that GW1 the allies had it real easy. The whole technologically-backwards Iraqi Army laid out in the open desert for the Allies to destroy.Originally posted by gary1910:But when they met the technologically superior allies with air superrioty and better ground equipment( M1, MLRS, Apaches etc) manned by mostly city kids of the US/UK armies, Iraqi army crumbled within days.
It'll be slightly more difficult in our part of the world, unfortunately. -
It would be in your favour if I was just trying to insult you, unfortunately I am pointing out a observed fact- that you are taking some rather unfortunate paths of action that more or less leads you to Glockland.
i point the two massacre because to point out that life were wasted because the higher up considered soldier as number and not a person. That battle could be ends differently yet its not. While you agree its senseless to send more men and metal into a highly defended forest and life were wasted, yet you didnt say why didnt they stop? instead the allied sent more division there. And in the case of Dresden civilian life were calculated as a necessary target. The allied did justified that the german did the same thing using their V2 rocket, but where is the 'bad and evil' concept that the allied so revered to?
Which kinda bring me to my point which is: How exactly does this go anywhere to prove that the Allies were fighting by numbers? And every grunt of every army is a number to their higher ups, how is this unique to the Allies?
If you can't quantify your forces in numbers then it'll be impossible to even plan for any battle.
The real question is what you do with these numbers... do you rely on them as your tatic or asset? The distinction must be clear here.
In all of military tatics, if you believe an area is worth fighting for, you will obviously try to fight for it despite your losses and try to replace them. However this hardly means that the sides in question are simply fighting a war of numbers. One actually has to understand the dotrine, ideas and mindset of the armies fighting, as well as what actually transpired and how they reacted to that.
In that way, what happened in the Hurtgen forest was more a result of inadequate Allied intelligence, overconfidence in planning, as well as complicating weather conditions and unexpectedly robust German defences, as opposed to the Allies trying to crack each and every single nut using sheer numbers.
A comparable battle for the Axis would be Stalingrad, the Germans were certainly not the ones to rely on numbers as part of the way they intended to fight the war, but the battle bogged down and they had to keep pushing their men to fight despite mounting losses... we don't accuse them of trying to use numbers to fight Stalingrad do we? It was more a case of an army that was forced into a kind of battle that it was not good at fighting.
In the same vein, it would be unfair to consider the Hurtgen as a case of the Allies trying war of numbers to achieve their objective.
By all indications the allies in terms of the Yanks and Tommies did not fight the Jerries simply by relying on numbers. They made ample use of the areas in which they had advantages over the Jerries (air support, arty, unit recovery) and employed innovation in the battlefield to make up for their shortcomings.
Compare this to the Reds who were well known at playing the numbers game, often relying on massed infantry wave attacks and the like. And even towards the end the Soviets were weaning themselves off that idea to become a quite competent fighting force.
Given the vast contrast between the way the Reds fought the war and the Yanks and the Tommies, it is indeed difficult to understand your position on the Yanks/Tommies winning only by numbers. Their victory was due to many other factors, which if taken away, would have certainly made their victory impossible or far more costy then it was. -
Not really, if they are hiding , that's means that they are not doing anything, if start to do something, that's means they will be exposed.Originally posted by moca:I have to say that GW1 the allies had it real easy. The whole technologically-backwards Iraqi Army laid out in the open desert for the Allies to destroy.
It'll be slightly more difficult in our part of the world, unfortunately.
When that happens, hunting season just started!!!!
-
It would be in your favour if I was just trying to insult you, unfortunately I am pointing out a observed fact- that you are taking some rather unfortunate paths of action that more or less leads you to Glockland.
what path of action? who is this glockland? i thought its kind of swearing you throw at me. i didnt know its actually a person.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i point the two massacre because to point out that life were wasted because the higher up considered soldier as number and not a person. That battle could be ends differently yet its not. While you agree its senseless to send more men and metal into a highly defended forest and life were wasted, yet you didnt say why didnt they stop? instead the allied sent more division there. And in the case of Dresden civilian life were calculated as a necessary target. The allied did justified that the german did the same thing using their V2 rocket, but where is the 'bad and evil' concept that the allied so revered to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Which kinda bring me to my point which is: How exactly does this go anywhere to prove that the Allies were fighting by numbers? And every grunt of every army is a number to their higher ups, how is this unique to the Allies?
the allied so overconfidence to win the war quickly win the war they smack every thing at the forest because they thought:
a) they have more men and equipment
b) they have air superiority
c) the men they use were veteran
hurgen forest is like a big pie lieing in the midle of the field. Beyond that a bigger pie. the allied general were racing with each other to get that pie and put their name into history book. At this point human life were regarded as numbers and proper tactic and strategy were ignored. hence the use of human soldier in large numbers regardless of casualties in hurtgen forest support my so called claim (like i said earlier i didnt claim this, Ernest Hemingway did) of using man as numbers in battle.If you can't quantify your forces in numbers then it'll be impossible to even plan for any battle.
see? now you realise im right. Yet you try to reduce the damage on your self by saying like below...The real question is what you do with these numbers... do you rely on them as your tatic or asset? The distinction must be clear here.
mmmIn all of military tatics, if you believe an area is worth fighting for, you will obviously try to fight for it despite your losses and try to replace them. However this hardly means that the sides in question are simply fighting a war of numbers. One actually has to understand the dotrine, ideas and mindset of the armies fighting, as well as what actually transpired and how they reacted to that.
in this case it isnt worth a penny.In that way, what happened in the Hurtgen forest was more a result of inadequate Allied intelligence, overconfidence in planning, as well as complicating weather conditions and unexpectedly robust German defences, as opposed to the Allies trying to crack each and every single nut using sheer numbers.
the german defended and counterattack robustly all the way to berlin, pal.A comparable battle for the Axis would be Stalingrad, the Germans were certainly not the ones to rely on numbers as part of the way they intended to fight the war, but the battle bogged down and they had to keep pushing their men to fight despite mounting losses... we don't accuse them of trying to use numbers to fight Stalingrad do we? It was more a case of an army that was forced into a kind of battle that it was not good at fighting.
so you admit that its not comparable to hurtgen forest then? This is also why i didnt use it as an examples.In the same vein, it would be unfair to consider the Hurtgen as a case of the Allies trying war of numbers to achieve their objective.
look dino pal, you say "If you can't quantify your forces in numbers then it'll be impossible to even plan for any battle." Then you say that above. You keep insisting that i contradict myself, but unfortunately that rule doesnt applied to you.By all indications the allies in terms of the Yanks and Tommies did not fight the Jerries simply by relying on numbers.
contradick...They made ample use of the areas [color=red]in which they had advantages over the Jerries [/b](air support, arty, unit recovery) and employed innovation in the battlefield to make up for their [b]shortcomings. [/color]
aha!......and what is their shortcomings?Compare this to the Reds who were well known at playing the numbers game, often relying on massed infantry wave attacks and the like. And even towards the end the Soviets were weaning themselves off that idea to become a quite competent fighting force.
well isnt red is an allied forces? please man...Given the vast contrast between the way the Reds fought the war and the Yanks and the Tommies, it is indeed difficult to understand your position on the Yanks/Tommies winning only by numbers. Their victory was due to many other factors, which if taken away, would have certainly made their victory impossible or far more costy then it was
there is a contrast, yet at this stage of the war everything is by the numbers. More tank, more men, more ship, more bomber, more fighter, more gun, more artillery...etc...
anyway you have agree with me by saying...If you can't quantify your forces in numbers then it'll be impossible to even plan for any battle.
and i hold firm to that.[/quote] -
Guys and gals, here we go again ; I guess we will just have to bear with Tyra's emotional & long dwindled postings infesting the threads.
-
Well tankfanatic, you just recieved your answer on who Glock is... for a demostration of Glockland, refer to some of the threads he was involved in... they are quite a good laugh.
hurgen forest is like a big pie lieing in the midle of the field. Beyond that a bigger pie. the allied general were racing with each other to get that pie and put their name into history book. At this point human life were regarded as numbers and proper tactic and strategy were ignored. hence the use of human soldier in large numbers regardless of casualties in hurtgen forest support my so called claim (like i said earlier i didnt claim this, Ernest Hemingway did) of using man as numbers in battle.
Erm, isn't Ernest Hemingway pointing out what happened in the end in Hurtgen in his conclusion?
However isn't he refering to the fact that despite all Allied efforts, what that started out as a proper battle plan eventually turned out to be a costy war of attrition?
The same could be said about other Axis battles. Even well-organized armies who do not rely on attrition sometimes find themselves fighting such a conflict on an ad-hoc basis when things don't turn out their way. However it would be quite inprecise to try to pin down their operational style or intention to such an outcome.
What I am trying to dispute is not that numbers does not play a role in war, what I am disputing is that the Allies, namely the Yanks and Tommies do not rely on numbers to win most of their battles- and it certainly wasn't a trend for most of way that they fought- which seemed to be your assumption.
Also beyond Hurtgen the trend does not pan out. If you account for all the losses in the battles, and the fact that the Allies were often on the offensive versus a well-defended foe, I find it hard to understand your point that the Yanks and Tommies can only win after taking heavy losses in ratio to the Germans. This almost certainly didn't happen.
An army that could properly be said to rely on numbers would be the Soviets, who pushed massive amounts of manpower and material to the front for many of their battles.
But considering the rest of the major Allied players, they made up for their technological inferiority through other means rather then sending as many men to their deaths as possible until the enemy is out of options ala. Soviet style. Numbers was only one part of their game, but not
So I'm not so sure what's getting in your way of seeing that distinction. It seems clear enough to most people. The Americans are fighting a war of attrition in Iraq now and Bush has called for a troop surge... however it's would be pushing it to say that the Yanks intend to win this battle by numbers.
Obviously you need manpower to do any job- the Germans and Japanese were hurt by a lack of experienced manpower towards the end, but it's another thing to say that they needed manpower for the explict purpose of cannon fodder.
So I am even really disagreeing with you? The way I see it our main difference is in how a "battle of numbers" should be defined. It is my opinion that your way of seeing it is pretty nonspecific, and hence so broadly applicable that it makes the term itself not very useful for understanding the strategic and tactical situation of any war, modern or not.
It mixes up the Chinese human wave attacks in Korea, massive Japanese Banzai charges as a tatic, Hurtgen and Stalingrad without really drawing any line between them to understand them as rather different battles and ways of fighting them. -
tankafantic, you should stop making a fool of yourself. Of course, you are not 100% wrong and tyrano will surely agree with you on some points. The rest of it, esp the part on logical thinking is just so laughable.
-
Erm, isn't Ernest Hemingway pointing out what happened in the end in Hurtgen in his conclusion?
so what exactly he means whe he say this below?
However isn't he refering to the fact that despite all Allied efforts, what that started out as a proper battle plan eventually turned out to be a costy war of attrition?"Well anyway this regiment was rebuilt as American regiments always are by the replacement system . . . It boils down, or distills, to the fact you stay in until you are hit badly or killed or go crazy and get section-eighted. . . . "
"We got a certain amount of replacements but I can remember thinking that it would be simpler, and more effective, to shoot them in the area where they detrucked, than to have to try to bring them back from where they would be killed and bury them. . . "
Ernest HemingwayThe same could be said about other Axis battles. Even well-organized armies who do not rely on attrition sometimes find themselves fighting such a conflict on an ad-hoc basis when things don't turn out their way. However it would be quite inprecise to try to pin down their operational style or intention to such an outcome.
the german dont have enough man power to die like that, hence the in depth defence and counter attack were carefully executed. Unsuccessful most of the time because of the odd that the allied smack towards them.What I am trying to dispute is not that numbers does not play a role in war,
say again?what I am disputing is that the Allies, namely the Yanks and Tommies do not rely on numbers to win most of their battles- and it certainly wasn't a trend for most of way that they fought- which seemed to be your assumption.
nope, you miss-copy me. i said in the near end of the war not everytime from start to finish. Hence my examples are two incident that happen at the end of the war not the start.Also beyond Hurtgen the trend does not pan out. If you account for all the losses in the battles, and the fact that the Allies were often on the offensive versus a well-defended foe, I find it hard to understand your point that the Yanks and Tommies can only win after taking heavy losses in ratio to the Germans. This almost certainly didn't happen.
two British infantry divisions and three armoured brigades moved forward, behind a tumultuous barrage of artillery fire.
The garrison in Le Havre, with 11,000 men, remained firmly where it was. The Germans did not intend to give in without a fight, and turned the town into a formidable entrenched camp, spiked with heavy guns and crammed with concrete pillboxes.The assault on Le Havre threatened to be a bloody one, so the RAF was called in to help, with the result that the 60,000 people still in the city went through hell on September 5th and 6th, when the central districts were razed to the ground by explosive and incendiary bombs.
On September 12th Le Havre was liberated, but 85% of the city has been razed and 2,000 civilians had perished in its ruins. Freedom has exacted a heavy price indeed.
my a** it didnt happen. every time the allied facing stiff resistance they bomb the civilian population. and this happen all the way to berlin. The allied were so used to this calculated murders they did the ultimate massacre in dresden in order to discourage resistance from the nearby defence.An army that could properly be said to rely on numbers would be the Soviets, who pushed massive amounts of manpower and material to the front for many of their battles.
like i said the soviet were allllliiiiieeeeeeedddd.....But considering the rest of the major Allied players, they made up for their technological inferiority through other means rather then sending as many men to their deaths as possible until the enemy is out of options ala. Soviet style. Numbers was only one part of their game, but not
So I'm not so sure what's getting in your way of seeing that distinction. It seems clear enough to most people. The Americans are fighting a war of attrition in Iraq now and Bush has called for a troop surge... however it's would be pushing it to say that the Yanks intend to win this battle by numbers.
pal that two war cant be compared at all. are you making fun at me?Obviously you need manpower to do any job- the Germans and Japanese were hurt by a lack of experienced manpower towards the end, but it's another thing to say that they needed manpower for the explict purpose of cannon fodder.
if the allied use inferior technology and built it as many as their can, what makes you so surprise in the end numbers win the war?So I am even really disagreeing with you? The way I see it our main difference is in how a "battle of numbers" should be defined. It is my opinion that your way of seeing it is pretty nonspecific, and hence so broadly applicable that it makes the term itself not very useful for understanding the strategic and tactical situation of any war, modern or not.
oh? how specific do you want? i allready gives 3 examples?It mixes up the Chinese human wave attacks in Korea, massive Japanese Banzai charges as a tatic, Hurtgen and Stalingrad without really drawing any line between them to understand them as rather different battles and ways of fighting them.
Well i didnt mean too. But i always believe that alot of life were wasted. Alot of blunders were covered. A lot of number of death were exegerated or the other way around. A lot of massacred were being considered as ' price of freedom'. -
You must be his mother. Hi maam.Originally posted by HyuugaNeji:tankafantic, you should stop making a fool of yourself. Of course, you are not 100% wrong and tyrano will surely agree with you on some points. The rest of it, esp the part on logical thinking is just so laughable. -
oh? how specific do you want? i allready gives 3 examples?
Ahem, to prove a trend you have to draw from as large a sample range as possible, take into account the contributing factors, consider how it affects the case, collate all the evidence, account for alternative hypothesis before one can make any sort of a statement.
Hence my examples are two incident that happen at the end of the war not the start.
Unfortunately it seems that you have chosen to build your case mostly on semantics, wilful misunderstanding (or perhaps choosing not to understand), and riding events out of context to their illogical extreme.
In fact I wonder why I am even bothering to replying you, considering that at least Glock bothered to construct logically-feasible arguments, as flawed as they may be.
You on the other hand, seem to be just grabbing whatever floats your way, and pretending everything else does not exist.
Please refer to the exhaustive list of important battles and their results that can be found some posts back. I am afraid you have to work a lot harder then me to top the number of examples IÂ’ve quoted.
In any court of law, it is not enough that you present your case; you need to consider, account for, and disprove your opponentÂ’s position as well. Unfortunately you have yet to take even the most basic facts in that direction.pal that two war cant be compared at all. are you making fun at me?
IÂ’m afraid you are simply making fun of yourself. The truth is, even if you refuse to see reason and live in denial, the inability to see yourself as a fool does not change the fact that you are one.if the allied use inferior technology and built it as many as their can, what makes you so surprise in the end numbers win the war?
I am not surprised, what I am surprised at is your inability to realize that the Allied victory was won by more factors then merely numbers.
Actually I suspect you realize that, but have basically argued yourself into a corner that you are trying to force the case into whatever unfortunate context you have selected. You must realize that I am not even attempting to argue with you, merely letting your increasingly desperate antics bounce off and reveal themselves for the flawed arguments that they really are.
Truly, you are your own worst enemy.the german dont have enough man power to die like that, hence the in depth defence and counter attack were carefully executed. Unsuccessful most of the time because of the odd that the allied smack towards them.
Ney, only in Normady were they severely outnumbered, and thanks in part to Allied misdirection as well. And one needs to account for the fact that the Allies did not commit all of their 1.4mil men that landed by July 25 into direct fighting with the Germans, a large proportion of that were landed men and equipment that were not thrown into the fight.
Also if you look at the committed forces in the other battles, the Allies rarely achieved the 3:1 ratio that military doctrine demands for the numerical superiority for a reasonably successful attack. Note that 3:1 assumes that both sides are of equal quality and equipment.
Even in the Battle of Berlin, when it was about to be over the Soviets committed a ratio of 2.5 to 1. And in the Hurtgen you so like the Allies badly under-committed (due to poor intelligence on enemy strength) to the battle, with a paltry ratio of 1.5:1!
In Market Garden they under-committed again with a ratio of 1.75:1.
In Dragoon, the Allies managed a strategic victory once again versus the German defenders with only a 2:1 advantage, still under the magic ratio of 3:1! Note that this is only a mere 0.5 and 0.25 more then Hurtgen and Market Garden.
Of course on the other hand when the Ardennes Offensive started, the Germans had an advantage of 2.4:1 on the Allies, coupled with stragetic surprise, lack of Allied airpower, as well as the “superior” technology and morale you seem to base a lot of your points on.
Yet they were unable to achieve their objectives and eventually ended up with an rather even 1.05:1 kill ratio.
What all this shows is that there is a lot of other factors that go into victory beyond sheer numbers versus Technology. Technological deficiencies can be made up for not only through numbers, but prudent stragety and playing into your inherent advantages.
Sun Tzu reconized this principle well enough when he wrote the Art of War, which wasnÂ’t focused around pitting numbers against numbers but a lot on how to manage and set yourself up for victory.
In fact if you look at many of the battles in WW2 (or actually a lot of battles before and after that), youÂ’ll find that often a lot of the results do not tally with what we would expect from warfare being a numbers games. This certainly wasnÂ’t the case in WW2 where sometimes the Allies won big, and in other cases they lost big irregardless of their numbers. Ditto for the Axis.
In fact the point is so obvious that I have yet to see any serious attempt to explain the Axis defeat as purely due to numbers beyond Neo-Nazi forums. The Yanks and Tommies fought beyond their numbers, considering what they were up against. -
You must be his mother. Hi maam.
As I tried to warn you earlier, even if you decide to deny logicÂ… it is inevitable that others will see it and realize that you are a fool.
In fact it is somewhat unfortunate (and funny) that your inability to comprehend and move beyond a few positions you seem to be hung up on seems to be lost on yourself.
Perhaps you seem to think that by insisting on them, they will become real and valid, but IÂ’m afraid by many indicationsÂ… this is not happening at all.
You might not seem to understand that this is not an affair of who keeps this up with the most number of posts until the other side gives up and stops posting, in fact have you considered that the first person to really lose is the person who is reduced to raving and repeating a mantraÂ… of which unfortunately you have drawn dangerously close to doing.
The fact that there are people who voiced their disagreement with your position should be a warning sign to you to reconsider your positions. You donÂ’t really seem to get itÂ… itÂ’s not you versus me, and hence all your references to my mother is actually hurting your credibility, not mine.
ItÂ’s a mystery why you choose to debate in such a fashion, but I suspect it might be because you are so hung up on numbers, that you assume the person who manages to post to the bitter end can be considered the winner.
Believe me, if you next post consists mostly of your usual nonsense, there is really no need to reply to you anymore for there are certainly more productive things to do with time. You need to seriously think about how to actually win a debate, for it seem the only person losing your mind (considering how quickly you draw peopleÂ’s mothers in debate) might be you.
For me, I might just sit back and enjoy your show. -
Sorry i got urgent assignment for few days and have to delay my reply. i hope you guys undrstand.
Ahem, to prove a trend you have to draw from as large a sample range as possible, take into account the contributing factors, consider how it affects the case, collate all the evidence, account for alternative hypothesis before one can make any sort of a statement.
i know. i didnt do it because my actual argument are ...
........ITS GOOD IF SAF HAVE TOUGHER TRAINING AND TOUGHER SOLDIER. ITS A BONUS. this you agree
........THE GERMAN WERE BETTER TRAINED, TOUGH SOLDIER AND HAVE BETTER SUPERIOR EQUIPMENT.....they also thought that aryan craap are always tougher than their enemy. this also you agree
........THE SHERMAN TANKS SUCKS, THE TIGER WERE BETTER. this you agree
........THE ALLIED USE MORE METAL AND MEN THAN THE AXIS TO WIN THE WAR. this you dont agree but you keep saying contradick thing such as 'its impossible to plan if they were not regarded as numbers?'(i cant remember the exact words and im too lazy to go back to quote it again)Unfortunately it seems that you have chosen to build your case mostly on semantics, wilful misunderstanding (or perhaps choosing not to understand), and riding events out of context to their illogical extreme.
same to you, you didnt bother to consider my point because your copy paste skills are better than i am.In fact I wonder why I am even bothering to replying you, considering that at least Glock bothered to construct logically-feasible arguments, as flawed as they may be.
aha. and i thought you say all glocks argument are piece of s**ts. I wonder why now a change of hearts?You on the other hand, seem to be just grabbing whatever floats your way, and pretending everything else does not exist.
well i didnt, but you keep acusing me of doing it.Please refer to the exhaustive list of important battles and their results that can be found some posts back. I am afraid you have to work a lot harder then me to top the number of examples IÂ’ve quoted.
i already did and the 'number win war' theory were the conclusion of my research.In any court of law, it is not enough that you present your case; you need to consider, account for, and disprove your opponentÂ’s position as well. Unfortunately you have yet to take even the most basic facts in that direction.
lol now its a court of law? its a freaking INTERNET FORUM!!!IÂ’m afraid you are simply making fun of yourself. The truth is, even if you refuse to see reason and live in denial, the inability to see yourself as a fool does not change the fact that you are one.
now you call me a fool ( again ). Not once i insult your way of thinking ... yet you still calling other people a fool. How arrogant you can be?I am not surprised, what I am surprised at is your inability to realize that the Allied victory was won by more factors then merely numbers.
how can you be able to agree with me and contradick yourself in one paragraph? im impress.Actually I suspect you realize that, but have basically argued yourself into a corner that you are trying to force the case into whatever unfortunate context you have selected. You must realize that I am not even attempting to argue with you, merely letting your increasingly desperate antics bounce off and reveal themselves for the flawed arguments that they really are.
Nope. not even close. Infact by reading the previous post i find out that you agree with all of my point, accept the number thing. Not once i felt threathened.
Truly, you are your own worst enemy.
i did not consider another forumner as enemy like you do.Ney, only in Normady were they severely outnumbered, and thanks in part to Allied misdirection as well. And one needs to account for the fact that the Allies did not commit all of their 1.4mil men that landed by July 25 into direct fighting with the Germans, a large proportion of that were landed men and equipment that were not thrown into the fight.
you just sum up my point pal. in the above quote you regards the soldier as number and kills as ratios. i rest my case.
Also if you look at the committed forces in the other battles, the Allies rarely achieved the 3:1 ratio that military doctrine demands for the numerical superiority for a reasonably successful attack. Note that 3:1 assumes that both sides are of equal quality and equipment.
Even in the Battle of Berlin, when it was about to be over the Soviets committed a ratio of 2.5 to 1. And in the Hurtgen you so like the Allies badly under-committed (due to poor intelligence on enemy strength) to the battle, with a paltry ratio of 1.5:1!
In Market Garden they under-committed again with a ratio of 1.75:1.
In Dragoon, the Allies managed a strategic victory once again versus the German defenders with only a 2:1 advantage, still under the magic ratio of 3:1! Note that this is only a mere 0.5 and 0.25 more then Hurtgen and Market Garden.
Of course on the other hand when the Ardennes Offensive started, the Germans had an advantage of 2.4:1 on the Allies, coupled with stragetic surprise, lack of Allied airpower, as well as the “superior” technology and morale you seem to base a lot of your points on.
Yet they were unable to achieve their objectives and eventually ended up with an rather even 1.05:1 kill ratio.
What all this shows is that there is a lot of other factors that go into victory beyond sheer numbers versus Technology. Technological deficiencies can be made up for not only through numbers, but prudent stragety and playing into your inherent advantages.
Sun Tzu reconized this principle well enough when he wrote the Art of War, which wasnÂ’t focused around pitting numbers against numbers but a lot on how to manage and set yourself up for victory.
In fact if you look at many of the battles in WW2 (or actually a lot of battles before and after that), youÂ’ll find that often a lot of the results do not tally with what we would expect from warfare being a numbers games. This certainly wasnÂ’t the case in WW2 where sometimes the Allies won big, and in other cases they lost big irregardless of their numbers. Ditto for the Axis.
In fact the point is so obvious that I have yet to see any serious attempt to explain the Axis defeat as purely due to numbers beyond Neo-Nazi forums. The Yanks and Tommies fought beyond their numbers, considering what they were up against. -
aiyo... from what I see there is no really clear definition of tough soldiers. So thats why this debate can float all over the place and come back inconclusive.
But from the points that both of you brought up, you are both Right. Somewhere, your points actually support each other's just that your view points are different.
Remember, war is not about who is right, but What is left. =)
ps. Man i love this quote!