CM 2 And Snipers

[PeterNZer]

I love it when we get all huggy

OK, Yeah, If Jason's point was 'hey snipers don't matter that much' and he threw some numbers at it for fun, great. I think that was kinda lost in the strong defence of his thesis put forward. But I think Croda probably sees the debate more clearly despite his lack of sanity so I'll go with his thoughts.

Which reminds me..

Croda since you lost a BLOOD HAMSTER (again) here's your new sig file, thanks for the inspiration:

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

Mercy buckets (that's your actual french)

PeterNZ

------------------

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[Croda]

It's great to be the voice of reason.

And here, for your approval, the appended sig file.

It's great that a heated and informative debate like this can be ended in utter ruin by an assinine post like this one.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Croda:

It's great that a heated and informative debate like this can be ended in utter ruin by an assinine post like this one.

I had hoped to give you the last word in this thread, thinking you deserved it, but I feel compelled to note the irony of not only ending this "informative" post with your comments above, but in the fact that "asinine" has been spelled incorrectly (!)

Somehow, it seems fitting.

And now, the last words are truly yours:

From the keyboard of Croda, the intellectual Satan and holder of the "Steve Award" for best post by a person named Croda:

It's great that a heated and informative debate like this can be ended in utter ruin by an assinine post like this one.

[Volstag]

Originally posted by Croda:

Now apply that to Jason's post. If 4 items were larger factors than the 5th, then the 5th is by necessity less than 1/5 of the total. This is where everyone jumps up and down.

Right there with ya Croda. That's the exact impression I got, and like you I fail to see why everyone is so hot 'n' bothered by it. I've re-read the whole thread and no where do I see Jason mention an EXACT percentage of Russian sniper effectiveness at Stalingrad.

This thread, however, is 67.3% amusing.

Later,

Volstag

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Volstag:

Right there with ya Croda. That's the exact impression I got, and like you I fail to see why everyone is so hot 'n' bothered by it. I've re-read the whole thread and no where do I see Jason mention an EXACT percentage of Russian sniper effectiveness at Stalingrad.

This thread, however, is 67.3% amusing.

Later,

Volstag

Hehe...didn't realize that I was either hot or bothered. I thought this forum was established for debate; might as well shut it down if we're all in agreement on everything.

[Simon Fox]

I have been trying to add more to this, but it comes off as a sermon so I'll skip it.

A collective sigh of relief all round.

As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything.

[Michael Dorosh]

A collective sigh of relief all round.

As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

That's it! Found a new sig

------------------

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-21-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

This post is responds to many. The primary addressee is marked in each section, but all are welcome to twiddle away their hours on it.

To - PeterNZ

How many times do I have to tell you ninnies that there is no "R" in my last name?

Next, PeterNZ conflates numerical with exact. He needs to go back to Chem 101 and learn what a significant digit is. If someone says "pi is 3, give or take 2", then there is no pretence of exactitude. But there is certainly a numerical basis.

Next, he gives me the option of having meant "entirely meaningless" or "more insight than historical study". Since my statements have logical content, they are not entirely meaningless. Since they are based precisely on insight from historical study, the second is something of a non-sequitor. Undoubtedly, that slippery relation "more than", that is giving him so much trouble, caught him out again.

It is also noteworthy that his rhetorical dicotomy is wide enough to drive a truck through. Couldn't a number provide less insight than an alternative, rather than more, and still not be meaningless? Leaving aside the actual case, equality. Which is obviously the actual case, because "historical study" is what I was and am doing in the matter.

And what you and the chorus are missing in this debate, is how hysterically comical the pompous math haters among you look. I don't need your respect, kind sirs, to wash my dishes. And I surely don't need it to check my math when I divide by five.

Next, PeterNZ pleads that numbers only be invoked, like wayward olympian deities I suppose, when whatever they say cannot be "concluded through simple reading". It is like a Barbie commercial - "math is hard." Dividing by five bothers; reading is preferred.

Next PeterNZ engages in the always amusing pastime of guessing the personal habits of his interlocutor. No, sir, I don't use Excel. If the math is hard - not divide by five, I mean *hard*, then I use mathematica. If it is easy, I use what nature gave me. For some tedious but simply in betweens I use an HP-35 (no, I can't get more than 1-2 significant digits of a 15 year amortization stream in my head).

But I immediately wish to reassure PeterNZ, that no such esoteric and magical aids were involved, in the present case. I actually divided 1 by 5, in my head. If he tries it sometime, he may realize that he needn't resort to a spreadsheet to accomplish the same daring feat. In fact, he may find that the notation does positively all of the work for him, via that little "/" key - 1/5.

Next, PeterNZ worries over my academic future and relates his impressions of certain tea-rooms. I can only say that the University of Chicago is not exactly predisposed to ridicule the attempt to be numerical. Just a few nobel prizes from that, just a few. I am sure your tea room denizens would just laugh like mad hatters, at the idea of putting a numerical value on a contingent claim (the very idea!) Don't worry, we won't disturb your tea. Chicago boys will be too busy.

Next Peter trips over himself by getting too academic all at once, and speaks about my variables. What variables are those exactly? I constrained exactly one variable. I let any number of others be anything you please. And I made four, count 'em four, direct judgements, that no one disputes. Twas all I needed for the simply claim I made. As for the qualifications he wishes I made, why he thinks that certain genuflecting pieties of his academic environment are dictates of reason, is a mystery I simply do not want to know the answer to.

Then there is the pathetic argument from respectability. As in, "don't tell me I am naked, I am the bleeding emperor!" Thus all of his heartful pleas to acknowledge that truly he is Herr Doctor Professor and everyone is so bright here they could light my desk lamp by looking at it. Which may all be perfectly true, but doesn't not justify critizing anyone for dividing an inequality by five.

In fact, as a little thought experiment, much like his street crossing, I propose the following word picture question. Imagine a vast conclave of learned professors, grave bishops, honorable senators, impressive general officers with shoulders squarer than a proposition in Euclid, all trying to shout down at a running-nosed boy of 7 who insists to them that 2 times 5 is 10. Where is the humorous error in this picture? There is no authority for them to appeal to; the plane is simply reason.

But PeterNZ thinks of the decorous processes of debate, as a sort of social ritual, in which the fact that criticism is felt and offered, is all that is needed to ensure a craven compliance and kowtowing. Even if the criticism is so beside the point, that a child can see it. His poor students, what if they are right? LOL.

But he has a last great faith - that surely, somewhere, a valid criticism must exist. And since there must be, somewhere, a valid criticism - and since, in addition, criticism has been offered - why, surely, as plain as a pikestaff, the particular criticisms that have been offered must be valid!

If someone had honestly disagreed, he might well have said, "actually, I doubt the artillery on the east bank of the volga mattered a tuppeny darn", and stated his reasons. If adequate, they would nudge my upper bound higher.

Or, another fellow, convinced that snipers are purely an invention of Hollywood and mattered not a jot or tittle, might have come along and spun out his additional comparisons, supporting each with strong historical cases, until he had accumulated an impressive pile of 51 factors, each of which he could argue with complete assurance, was obviously more important than snipers were in the battle. If actually attempted, and if (a very hard condition) every one of his intermediary arguments for his new 47 factors were clear as day, then he would have succeeded in nudging my lower bound, very slightly lower.

Doubtless additional modes would be possible. But what all would have in common, is (1) they would actually be facing the question, in the sense of making claims about the battle and trying to delimit the true figure and (2) they would not instead dispute that dividing an inequality by five preserves the truth of propositions, then lapse into spouting that nothing is certain, under heaven.

Next, we come to the Mannheim Tanker, who has correctly noticed that I ignored his previous musing about how he wasn't insulting my intelligence and such like. He evidently thinks it is easier to take someone seriously when they are disputing the proposition that dividing an inequality by five preserved the truth of propositions, than when they are "ranting", by which apparently he means correcting the mistaken criticisms of others, and or jocular commentary in general. I assure him that I do not have an impression if he means to, or does not mean to, insult or praise, Queen Victoria. It will come as shocking news I am sure, but it never entered my head to care, one way or another. And I have no desire to be credible to him or to anyone else. My arguments stand on their own feet, or fall on their own faces, and I intrude neither of mine.

But Mannheim Tanker is worried, that perhaps I might not learn adequately, to take criticism from others. Doubtless it would be useful training, to take seriously those who criticise dividing an inequality by five. I mean, if you can take that sort of criticism seriously, then you can take any sort of criticism seriously, no? However, I think that my long and involved replies to every "not getting it" response in this thread, shows a patience and a diligence that will serve me in good stead in real life. It is always better to be amused by foolish attacks, than moved by them. And if Mannheim Tanker thinks there is criticism of sloppiness in halcyon academia, I welcome him to spend a single year in the field of finance.

But later, he does state his substantive case in so many words. I quote it, because this is delicious "To do so would require quatifying every other factor as well. You can't selectively choose just a few". He obviously believes this. And he goes further, adding to the point and showing the analysis he has obviously made - "There is no basis (at least no evidence that anyone has provided) that the five factors given are equally weighted". In other words, his substantive criticism rests on the claim that my conclusion only follows if (1) the factors I named are all equally weighted and (2) all factors have been listed and their weights duly assigned. He then thinks that he has detected an error in simple math, and relates it to statistics 101.

Therefore, he is directly claiming before all the world, that my conclusion only follows if the five factors were equal and exhaustive. He can't tell an inequality from an equality. You all learned about them in 6th or 7th grade, but perhaps because he is analysing on his feet and not writing it down, he thinks "less than 1/5" is the same as "equals 1/5". Because otherwise, his criticism is itself without merit, as I will (painfully, slowly, in detail, justifying each step as in a freshmen calc class) show.

Relative weights mean partitioning a single total into a number of factors. Let there be n total factors. n can be any finite number, >= 5. To each n, assign a positive real number, W. That is, W(i) >= 0 for all i, i = 1 to n. Then the set of w(n) 's all together, can be said to be relative weights, if they sum to 1. That is, Sum [ k=1 to k=n, W(k) ] = 1. To see this, imagine you have absolute quantities and they sum to G. Then divide each of the W's by G. The whole series will now sum to 1, while the ratios between the Ws remains unchanged. Such a "normalized sum" is what the term "relative weight" means. The "relative" simply means the total has been "normalized".

Now, given any set of relative weights, I add some additional facts to be used in the reasoning. These are new propositions, independently given as data.

There exists an S in the series n, and others in the series A, B, C, D, such that -

W(S) < W(A); W(S) < W(; W(S) < W©; W(S) < W(D); W(S) > 0

OK? Those are my additional facts. I have nowhere assumed that A, B, C, D, S exhaust the series n. I have no where made any assumptions about the relative magnitudes of the difference W(i)s, except the fact that they are positive real numbers (follows from the definition of a "relative weight"), and the data provide, that these particular 4 are each greater than W(S).

Let X = 1 - W(S) - W(A) - W ( - W © - W (D) (equation 1)

That is, X is the sum of all the weights besides the 5 about which the data give relations.

Since each of those remaining factors is >= 0, so is their sum. (Notice - if n = 5, then X strictly equals zero. But this is not necessary).

Whole sum = X + W (S) + W (A) + W ( + W © + W (D) property of addition

Whole sum - W(S) = X + W (A) + W ( + W © + W (D) subtract W(S) both sides

Whole sum - 2 W(S) > X + W ( + W © + W (D) use datum 1, prop. of subtraction

whole sum - 3 W(S) > X + W © + W (D) use datum 2, prop. of sub.

Whole sum - 4 W(S) > X + W (D) use datum 3, " "

Whole sum - 5 W(S) > X use datum 4, " "

Whole sum - X > 5 W (S) prop. of add, sub.

1 - X > 5 W (S) def. of relative weight.

W (S) + W (A) + W ( + W © + W (D) > 5 W (S) equation 1, prop. of add, sub.

1 > 5 W (S) def. of relative weight.

1/5 > W (S) prop. of division.

As was to be demonstrated. No assumptions made about equality of the size of the factors. No assumptions made about the exhaustiveness of the list of factors.

All you have to know, is what operations are truth-preserving in an inequality. Which you were supposed to have learned before grade school algebra. You can subtract inequalities - as long as the larger subtracted amount comes from the smaller side of the inequality - and preserve the truth of the inequality. Nothing else is needed, except knowing how to divide by 5.

He then recommends sticking to abstractions. Well, if you are going to make math mistakes in your head in criticism of others, that blatant, and pretend they are the ones being stubborn about it, then I suggest you are doing a little too much abstracting, and not enough careful reasoning, yourself. If you had "stuck to abstractions", instead of saying that the < 1/5th conclusion didn't follow unless the factors were equally weighted, it is true you might not have made this mistake. But I am prefer you making it, and stating it, because the least little something, that makes enough of a claim that it can be shown to be wrong, is worth a hundred pages of sophistic twaddle that can't be.

As for Mr. Dorosh, I accept his apology heartily. I just don't know what he is apologizing for. Especially since it seems to have been followed by further "digs". If you don't find my sign off quips amusing, you might rent a sense of humor.

Terence seems to be the one of the few who has understood me perfectly, and I thank him for that. I agree that this thread has been hysterical. I have certainly found its denizens straight men of the highest caliber. (Highest - there is an implict number thing again).

tss graciously acknowledges that my upper bound was at least sound. He then proves he didn't quite follow the logic exactly by pretending the subject being addressed was cause of casualties, supposedly broken out numerically. It is funny that he then goes on about assumptions. What he ought to have traced, is the logical reduction of proposition to proposition in my chain of reasoning. Spefifically, I showed that if each of four named causes was more important to the German victory than snipers were, then the snipers' relative weight in the victory was less than 1/5th.

But I did not simply assume the others were more important. I argued it, claimed it, by referrence to the historical narrative I provided. And no one has contradicted those "greater than" importance claims. The reason they haven't, is they are true. True premises are good places to start reasoning from. It even helps if you start from true statements that are clear enough (in this case, from the history) that they are not in dispute. There was, in fact, nothing "hazy" about my assumptions. tss probably thought so, because he was expecting some casualty count game or something - pace his previous slip on this question of the subject being addressed.

My assumptions, at the risk of beating a pulp of a former horse, were - (1) the artillery on the east bank did more for the victory than the snipers did (2) the house-to-house fighting of large bodies of regular infantry did more for the victory than the snipers did (3) the attack on the flanks did more for the victory than the snipers did (4) the bad decisions by the German high command, especially about not leaving the pocket, made more of a difference than the snipers did.

Each is a proposition, it may be disputed. Each makes a definite claim about the relative importance of two factors. tss may regard them as "hazy", because they are mere rankings, this greater than that, rather than pretended, more precious numbers or something. (Notice, I wind up taking all the bric-bats for supposedly doing that, when it is others who are assuming it as some sort of ideal or something, not me).

It may interest people to know, that in economic theory it is quite generally recognized that only rank-order valuations are actually made by humans, when valuing economic goods. All the precise exchange ratios and value relationships of the market, emerge from the results of simple chains of this more than that, to which no finer ratios can be imputed, at the level of preferrences. Every actual choice is an opportunity cost trade, and higher value only means a "greater than" judgement applied between the two sides. Yet this is quite enough fodder to get the econ-math machine moving.

To all -

I have to do all of this grunt work to clear the ground. None of it is what I actually came to say. I came to broaden Londener's homework assignment to the rest of you, since it seems the hint or invitation was not taken. Here is your mission, gentlemen.

1. Locate the paragraph in my first post that got down to numbers, and thereby set everybody off.

2. Find the first sentence of the paragraph in question.

3. Read it.

4. Think about the nature of the debate here so far.

5. In writing your next response, copy and paste the sentence in question, as the first line of your response, and put it in quotes.

6. Direct your initial comments to this sentence, and your reaction to it.

7. Explain what you have been doing since that sentence was first posted.

I breathlessly await your efforts.

[This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

7. Explain what you have been doing since that sentence was first posted.

I breathlessly await your efforts.

Well, in my case, I have pointed out that a simple value judgement along the lines of, e.g. 'snipers were not as important as certain movies make them out' would have been equally valid, and IMO more to the point than putting (rather meaningless) upper and lower boundaries on it. Your upper boundary is pointless to me, because it does not help the cause of understanding and analysing the problem at hand. Anyone can pick a random number that is safely within the parameters expected and proclaim it to be some sort of base to work from. Your lower boundary on the other hand is not supported by anthing and you won't be able to support it, because there are so many factors we will never know.

As for economists at Chicago - I had the great honour to spend a week with Deirdre (formerly Donald) MacCluskey. She told me all I ever wanted to know about Chicago. Great bunch of people I am sure, but what their mathematical exploits have to do with my contentions I am rather unclear about.

Your attempt to erect upper and lower boundaries reminds me of the attempts to find a 500-equation formula to accurately predict the behaviour of the US economy. Mildly amusing, but ultimately doomed to failure.

My questions are:

1. what is the value of your upper and lower boundaries?

2. Why don't you trust yourself that on the basis of your obvious knowledge you would be able to make a value judgement without using numbers?

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[PeterNZer]

JC:

I can only say that the University of Chicago is not exactly predisposed to ridicule the attempt to be numerical.

In what fields? If it's in art/english/etc then perhaps they would be, in the sciences, of course not.

Since we're talking history here how inclined are they to ridicule the attempt to be numerical? If not at all. Well. Need I say more about the university?

JC (with an r) do you not understand the basic argument many of us are putting forward that although your numbers and propositions may be fine and dandy in the end they add absolutely nothing to the debate since they illustrate nothing new and of themselves are debatable.

Simply stating

- arty more important than snipping

- street fighting more important than arty (followed by sources/some history)

is perfectly acceptable to me (and everyone else) based on simple historical study, why the need to throw numbers at it? Your first post on the thread covered all the bases in my view

And JC, I'm sorry I attempted to enliven my post through the odd allegory or hyperbole and you took it all in seriousness.

Sure, my critique of your numbers and so on isn't perfect, I don't have the time to examine it all to closely, but can't you at least agree with the concept that your numbers (I repeat) add absolutely nothing to debate.

I could throw in some comments from the Oxford maths grad opposite me who has read the numbers, but they aren't terribly complimentary and probably shouldn't be brought up at this juncture.

Anyway, I think it is more interesting to say that this is a pretty clear example of the differences between the European and the US view on history/politics/social sciences. Something I've seen several American's unaware of.

For those interested I had a prof who reckoned that the 'split' (which happened in the 50s and 60s) was caused by the massive ammounts of funding the Fed Govt had available to spend on research into stuff during the cold war. Now the Fed doesn't like paying for "Snipers weren't very effective in Stalingrad and the street to street and artillery was much more important: source" method and really dug (and more importantly, paid lots of money) the whole "snipers, out of 5 variables (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) assumed only 6.75% importance bla bla"

End result is two fairly different methodologies to the study of the social sciences in Europe and America. This -always- leads to debate in acadmia and here too it seems, a reading of a few Pol Sci journals or History journals will reveal this.

Through training I am disinclined to follow a method that analyzes history/politics through mathmatics because often numbers are used to claim knowledge of something that can not be known or to back a weak argument with some mumbo jumbo. Now you don't have a weak argument, JC, (we all agree and believe the historical evidence shows snipers weren't -that- important), just the numbers seem a bit pointless and potentially even silly.

PeterNZ

------------------

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-22-2001).]

[mensch]

posted by Peter of the Land of Kiwis:

"…but don't bother with those silly number games unless they are actually going to prove or highlight something useful that can't be concluded through simple reading/research.

ok... 4!.. its even, round and can be put on things like houses, cars and bodybags. Much like the bodybags you'll be needing for our battle.. and yes I have 4 snipers/sharpshooters which I brought in from the U.S. to kill your Snipers... Unfortunatly they have taken to a small German Boy who seems to be fixing our boots quite well, and has high hope that one day he will have 4 dollars to buy those 4 shiny new apples he saw at Fourderstr. 4 in Fourburg. funny that but it will take a Fourtnight for him to make those 4 dollars...

oh ya..

HI MOM!

-----------

www.derkessel.com Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

"...one who once was and still is but does not as often but does it better although somewhat sloppily."

-Hiram Sedai/Phillies Phan

[Croda]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything.

The spelling was in fact intentional, much like my oft used 'stoopid' in place of stupid, and thanks for noticing.

As for 'putting the ass in everything,' I'm fairly unsure how to take that and reserve judgement until I can figure it out.

As for Jason, not that it matters, but seeing as I put forth a few posts in defence of your arguments, 'Your Welcome' even though you saw fit to include everyone but me in your acknowledgements.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Guest Ace]

I'm joining this discussion late, and it may have been mentioned already (I don't have the stamina to read everything), but I thought I'd comment:

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

I am not talking about wastage, or casualties caused, or morale lowered, or any other mysterious intermediary hidden variable I am not telling you about. I am talking directly about the contribution of various factors to the Russian victory in the Stalingrad campaign.

When you agree that of five named factors, four of them are each, individually, bigger than a fifth, then you agree that that single fifth factor is less than one fifth as large as all five named factors combined.

Might I be so bold to point out that there may indeed be other factors that also contributed to the Russian victory? If so, the *math* is not technically correct.

Instead of sniping being less than 1/5 of the total contributions, it is actually less than 1/5*X (where X is sum of the contributions of the factors you mentioned). But since there were undoubtably additional factors (some of which were mentioned above), X is not equal to 1. Instead it is 1 - Y (where Y = sum of all other contributions).

[ducks]

BTW Croda, love your new sig! Now I know why I didn't receive a turn yesterday - you must have been too busy reading this thread

[Croda]

Ace, good idea to duck. The reason that this thread has reached this number of pages is because of that factor. Many took Jason's numbers as "hard numbers." A few, like myself, viewed them as an attempt to "quantify the unquantifiable" in order to make a point. The serious statisticians took issue with this approach, Jason entrenched himself for the siege. Reinforcements came in the form of a Croda. Everybody hugged and made up. Some guy called me an ass. Jason, not realizing that the war was over (much like the Japanese soldier in the Phillipines who finally surrendered in the '70s) came out firing again. Limited Hostilities recommenced. Some guy named Ace noticed that the numbers may not be exact. Welcome to now.

As for the sig, I love it.

As for your turn, hopefully tonight, but I'll be busy through the weekend and may not get a chance...bummer.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[PeterNZer]

Croda you little love monkey, get back in your hole.

as for

"quantify(ing) the unquantifiable"

Isn't that, by definition, rather a silly thing to try and do?

it's like trying to evaluate the sound of the squeals ones inner croda would make being squished to a pulp by a mallet, without actually doing it.

PeterNZ

[Mannheim Tanker]

Jason, not sure what I can add since, despite your incredibly verbose response, I sense that you completely missed the point of my posts as well as those of others. We can quibble over your math all day long (I'm not disputing your inequalities, equalities, blah, blah, blah...I AM disputing your assumptions). Ace's comments summarize beautifully what I was trying to say. My point was that you tried to neatly wrap up the Battle of Stalingrad in an equation, whether exact or inexact (if I read 'exactitude' one more time I'll smash my keyboard ), which is an impossible feat considering the number of intangibles involved. You assume that there are 5 factors, and snipers are definitely the least of the five. Maybe so, maybe not. Without knowing with any reasonable certainty which is the truth, your fuzzy math brings nothing to the debate. This was only a small quibble that I brought up in defense of Michael D's arguments. It didn't become a crusade of mine until you started treating any opposing views as ****e. Bottom line. Period.

I could care less whether you take our comments personally, but it was obvious from offhand remarks that you did. I was trying to be a nice guy, help you save a little face, and let you know I wasn't attacking your ideas - just debating them. In return, you decided to simply insult me. Go figure. Next time I won't bother debating with people that refuse to debate an idea, but rather go after the messenger. Thanks for the memories...

------------------

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

Edit: Toned down a comment.

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Croda: You can take the "ass" quote as a compliment. I once knew a girl who "put the ass in everything". Boy, I miss her!

Nice summary of "the War" BTW! LOL!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Croda:

Ace, good idea to duck. The reason that this thread has reached this number of pages is because of that factor. Many took Jason's numbers as "hard numbers." A few, like myself, viewed them as an attempt to "quantify the unquantifiable" in order to make a point. The serious statisticians took issue with this approach, Jason entrenched himself for the siege. Reinforcements came in the form of a Croda. Everybody hugged and made up. Some guy called me an ass. Jason, not realizing that the war was over (much like the Japanese soldier in the Phillipines who finally surrendered in the '70s) came out firing again. Limited Hostilities recommenced. Some guy named Ace noticed that the numbers may not be exact. Welcome to now.

Well, I for one appreciate that others became involved in this discussion, whatever viewpoint they took. I'm sorry I came out so strongly initially, but I'm not sorry that the discussion turned out the way it did. My only lasting regret is that it didn't end with the group hug.

I've made my points several times over and refuse to do so again. I think its become obvious what Jason is all about, so there is no need to prolong this. I don't see any flexibility in thought on either side. If it appeared at one point that I "had an axe to grind from another thread" it was simply because I haven't seen that flexibility on Jason's part in several instances now. As an aside, and this certainly is not intended as in insult - when I first noticed Jason's posts I assumed (for whatever silly reasons, we all assign personalities and faces to the names of posters, don't we?) several things. From the general timbre of what he was saying, his vocabulary, his obviously large knowledge base, I assumed he was in his 40s, been playing classic wargames for two going on three decades and supplmented the knowledge he's gotten from playing games with a LOT of reading and research. I unfortunately walk away from this conversation coming to the realization (and maybe his email address should have tipped me off) that he is considerably younger than that, and worse, convinced of his own brilliance. I don't fault someone for taking a position and sticking to it, and while I think his mathematical approach to this problem is silly, I can also see where in a vacuum, there is logic to it - hence the frustration that others refuse to agree, since to Jason it must appear very black and white. I've never been a big fan of looking at things in a vacuum; if that is inflexibility on my part, so be it, but I will be the first to admit it.

Jason, glad you accepted the apology. See you round the board; hopefully there will be other matters of interest to both of us that we can reach a higher level of consensus on.

[Londoner]

Jason, there was a little more going on at the KCL War Studies dept. than homework. At least there was when I graduated.

I assumed you were just tired when you tagged on those meaningless figures at the end of your essay, after reading the panzerfaust thread it is painfully obvious that you apply your flawed and idiotic methodology to all your historical study.

Instead of insulting you I'll post my thoughts on Stalingrad. I'm a little uneasy with your hard and fast big 5, you neglect other factors.

(Please excuse the lack of footnotes, I couldn't attach them)

The defeat of the German 6th army was brought about by numerous factors, many of which originated from Hitler. The senior officers must also take some responsibility for the defeat. They should have reacted to the threat posed by the Soviet counter attack, but reaction was slow and confused. The general state of the 6th army should also have been addressed and taken into account, and the capacity of the Soviet military and especially Soviet industry should have been more closely monitored. Hitler and to a lesser extent his generals all consistently under-estimated and even mocked the Russian war effort, believing it was inferior, infirm and almost exhausted. Natural elements such as weather and terrain also hindered the Germans, but all these factors must not belittle the Russian victory at Stalingrad. The speed and secrecy of the counter-offensive shocked the Germans almost as much as the strategy employed. Moreover, morale amongst the defenders of Stalingrad would remain intact (not just for patriotic reasons) throughout the operation. This essay will attempt to examine all the factors that contributed to the German defeat.

The initial Luftwaffe bombardment totally levelled the city, causing some 40,000 civilian deaths in the first week alone. This only served to create a relative fortress, so the defenders could dig into the rubble to await the attack. The bitter fighting that ensued when the Germans entered the city, proved excessively costly in men and material, and the condition of the 6th continued to deteriorate. Lice were a common problem and the attritional nature of the struggle had burnt out many divisions. Many senior commanders noticed this; the local Luftwaffe commander commented that “complete apathy” among the 6th. Army was taking root.

On the other hand, Russian morale was quite different. Russian propaganda persuaded some to stand and fight. Many of Stalingrad’s defenders were fighting for their own houses and streets, lending a determination not seen amongst the Germans. Soviet high command stated, “there is no ground across the Volga”. The unwilling defenders were persuaded mentally and if need be, physically by the NKVD at every level to fight to the last, no matter what the situation.

So the general condition of the opposing armies favoured the Russians, this advantage was combined with the failure of the Germans to capture tactically important positions. The hill, Mamaev over-looking the city was never consolidated and the Volga river was never captured, enabling the Soviets to transport 65,000 fresh soldiers a night into Stalingrad, plus supplies and ammunition. Also Chuikov ordered that the Russian front line hug the Germans, preventing the effective use of tactical bombing and artillery. Thus, tactical brilliance and superior support elements could not be employed by the Germans, a dogged infantry battle would have to be fought; mortars, grenades and small arms becoming the primary weapons of the struggle.

On the 19th November 1942 the Soviet counter offensive was launched, smashing the 3rd and 4th Rumanian armies that were supposed to be protecting the flanks of the German 6th army. Beaver and others have criticised Paulus for his lack of decisive action to counter such a threat. The Rumanian sectors had for weeks suggested the coming of an imminent Soviet offensive, but the warnings were ignored. Massive troop concentrations were observed plus the construction of new bridges across the Volga. These developments should have jolted Paulus into action but instead he focussed, with a tunnel-like vision on the capture of Stalingrad. Beaver argues that if Paulus had withdrawn some of the tank formations from the urban fighting and reorganised supply lines, a mobile unit could have halted or at least significantly slowed the Russian offensive. As it turned out Paulus’s tanks were still engaged in Stalingrad when the first reports of the Soviet counter offensive reached 6th army headquarters on the morning of the 19th. It was not until the evening that disorganised tank units finally started to withdraw from the city and re-direct their efforts. This was too little too late. The chaos on the evening of he 19th negated any tactical advantages the German tanks might have enjoyed. Beaver’s criticism seems credible, however it is arguably a little harsh. Paulus was under direct orders from the Fuhrur, the capture of Stalingrad being his primary objective. Also communications with the flanking forces was poor (due to divided command), the gravity of the situation did not dawn on Paulus until it was too late. Still, he has also been attacked for not re-acting when the situation became clear. This point is valid, but even if he had the flanking forces charged with protecting the 6th army were woefully inadequate. The Rumanian armies faced a total of 11 Russian armies, three of which were armoured. Taking the state of the 6th army into account it could be argued that any defensive re-deployment would have, at best, only slowed the encirclement of the 6th by a few days, not enough to make a difference to the eventual relief force. Also the satellite forces covering the 6th were not put under German command until they were virtually annihilated by the Russian offensive. In short, without a united command, enabling a co-ordinated defence, any last minute preparations made by the battered 6th army would probably not have significantly affected the outcome of the battle for Stalingrad. Without outside help, Paulus and his men were doomed.

So, for the most part, the blame lies with Hitler. He decided to deploy the weak satellite forces on the 6th’s flank. Also, he made no provision for a quick relief force should the Soviets launch a counter-attack. Hitler was obsessed with the symbolic value of Stalingrad, Keegan argues that this obsession combined with Hitler’s contempt for Russian tactics and his belief that the Soviet economy and army were crippled, gave him the impression that a Soviet counter-attack on the scale of operation Uranus was impossible. Even if a counter-offensive came, no one in the German high command, especially Hitler, believed it would come in the form of encirclement. By the 23rd of November the German 6th army was entombed in Stalingrad, partially due to Paulus’s lack of reaction, but mostly due to Hitler’s deployment of forces in the Stalingrad theatre.

The failed relief of Stalingrad can also be attributed to Hitler; Goring convinced him that the 6th could be re-supplied from the air. This proved erroneous, the minimum the 6th needed was 300 tonnes a day. On only three days did airdrops exceed this figure.

The armoured breakthrough was also doomed from the start. Only the 4th panzer army could manoeuvre, the rest of the force assigned to operation Winter Storm were incapable of assisting in any meaningful way. By the 17th December, this small force commanded by Manstein reached to within 35 miles of the city, making a breakout conceivable. Hitler, on more than one occasion flatly refused to let Paulus break out. Hitler wanted the relief effort to open a supply route to the 6th. While the rest of the German high command thought the objective of Manstein’s thrust was to open a route for the 6th to retreat through. Hitler can again be held accountable for the relief’s failure because of his obsession to hold Stalingrad. However, Paulus also can be held partially responsible because he refused to link up with Manstein through fear of incurring the Fuhrer’s wrath. By December 24th all hope of relief vanished, Manstein was forced to withdraw, even if this were not the case the 6th no longer had the fuel to break out. The Russian winter had crept up again on an ill prepared, worn out German army, its fate was sealed.

In conclusion, the defeat of the 6th army was mainly due to Hitler’s decision-making in the summer and autumn months. Inadequate forces were assigned to the protection of Paulus’ 6th, then his lack of action proved decisive in the face of encirclement. Furthermore, Hitler refused to listen to his Generals in the face of the failed airdrops because he burned to achieve a victory after the relative failure of the summer offensive. He became obsessed with Stalingrad to the point of ignoring events around it.

Jukes argues that the extreme stress that Hitler endured as a consequence of unforeseen events caused a paralysis of action and single-mindedness. However, Paulus cannot escape partial responsibility, he didn’t deploy adequate defences, he failed to re-act to the Soviet offensive and he did not break out when he still could. Still, the fate of the 6th was for the most part sealed by decisions Hitler made in the autumn and winter of 1942. He compounded these errors with a stubborn single-mindedness that finally decided the outcome of the battle for Stalingrad.

I wrote this a few years ago now, it was graded a high 2:1, however unlike you Jason I'd be happy to debate any points you care to raise. Your ranting just makes you look comical.

------------------

In military operations timing is everything.

Wellington

1800.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Great piece of writing, Londoner. It dovetails nicely with what Jason wrote initially (discounting his statistics).

To get this discussion back on track (if that's possible):

Question: What do people think about modeling snipers in CM2, as opposed to the sharpshooters currently in CM:BO? I'm thinking along the lines of an earlier comment regarding having a single unit that takes 1-3 shots per game, the effects of which range for a "normal" casualty to widespread panic (squad to platoon level perhaps). I'd think that such a unit should be uncontrolled, much like the Jabos currently are used.

Thoughts?

[Croda]

Londoner -

Jason's "Big 5" were arbitrary and by no means meant to be be indicative of all factors impacting the outcome of the battle. He chose 5 which he felt were more important than snipers, he did not say that there were not other. The numbers were meant to encourage this. If there were 5 more important factors, then snipers were less than 1/5 of the total. If there were 10 more important factors, then snipers were less than 1/10th of the total. Lather Rinse Repeat.

The numbers are intentionally flawed and the range is intended to represent the ambiguity present in attempting to call one thing more important than another in the battle for Stalingrad.

I'm now offically sick of discussing this.

As for Manheim's question about modelling snipers, I feel like the percieved effect of the snipers have grown with their glamorization. I think the only tweek may be that the current sharpshooters should engage infantry more than at present. Otherwise, I think they're good as is.

------------------

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[Londoner]

Thanks tank, yes I'd agree with you, an AI controlled sniper, similar to how aircraft are currently modeled seems the way to go with CM2.

Croda I see what your saying but Jasons piece read (at least to me) like an essay atempting to account for the battle as well as make the point about snipers.

------------------

In military operations timing is everything.

Wellington

1800.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Great piece of writing, Londoner. It dovetails nicely with what Jason wrote initially (discounting his statistics).

To get this discussion back on track (if that's possible):

Question: What do people think about modeling snipers in CM2, as opposed to the sharpshooters currently in CM:BO? I'm thinking along the lines of an earlier comment regarding having a single unit that takes 1-3 shots per game, the effects of which range for a "normal" casualty to widespread panic (squad to platoon level perhaps). I'd think that such a unit should be uncontrolled, much like the Jabos currently are used.

Thoughts?

I found both analyses of the Stalingrad battle informative; thank you Londoner and Jason both.

Back to the main topic - snipers in the SL/ASL board game eventually came to be treated as a random factor, and I think it worked out well. Sounds much like what you are proposing; I think such a unit should indeed be uncontrolled - a real life commander would probably have no influence on the sniper's choice of targets, so why should the player?

There would be a lot to discuss regarding how common they were, what effects they have, etc. If the loss of battalion and company leaders in CM and CM2 is modelled so as to affect the morale of their subunits, then you can neatly show part of the pschological effects. The other part - the fear that "someone is out there" - is already arguably "factored in". I can only presume our cyber soldiers feel some degree of fear and hesitancy as a matter of course. In the game, I suppose this fear and sense of self preservation is only triggered, though, by the appearance of actual enemies (or suspected enemies).

Perhaps when a sniper fires, you should get a half a dozen "Suspected Sniper?" symbols pop up in likely areas, reflecting the fear and hesitancy this would bring - especially if the sniper nails a leader or tank commander.

You would then have a fairly realistic replication of this situation - guys looking all over trying to find the sniper, spraying the trees in vain - only one of the "Suspected Sniper?" icons would of course be a sniper.

[SirOscar]

For the sake of argument lets say that without Russian snipers the Germans would of won the battle of Stalingrad ( I don't belive this for a second, there just would of been more Germans to die as POW's) My question becomes, Is not CM2 to based on small unit combat on the EASTERN FRONT, not on the entire battle of Stalingrad? Even if you could make a argument for the importance of snipers at Stalingrad, unless you can make the same argument apply for the entire Eastern front then it's a mute point. Because of limited resources, playability and other factors, not all heroics and great battles will be able to be covered in one game. Personally my idea of a true sniper, like the one mentioned in 'Enemy at the gates' is so far removed from the scope of CM that you would really need an entire new game to do it justice.