An answer to Simon Fox

[Andreas]

Not sure what 'extention' means. Clausewitz (not being an English speaker by birth) said in German:

'Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln'.

I would translate this (and have seen it translated) as:

'War is the continuation of political action by other means'

'continuation' in the sense of 'going on', 'constant succession' and 'extension'. Implying that when you don't get anywhere with political action, you resort to using the armed forces. I would contend that that is as true today as it was in the 18th century, although what has changed is the introduction of democratic politicians and their risk-averseness.

Been ages since I read this quote, so it may be off, but this is what I recall.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Not sure what 'extention' means. Clausewitz (not being an English speaker by birth) said in German:

'Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln'.

I would translate this (and have seen it translated) as:

'War is the continuation of political action by other means'

'continuation' in the sense of 'going on', 'constant succession' and 'extension'. Implying that when you don't get anywhere with political action, you resort to using the armed forces. I would contend that that is as true today as it was in the 18th century, although what has changed is the introduction of democratic politicians and their risk-averseness.

Been ages since I read this quote, so it may be off, but this is what I recall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He also said "Mien assen ist colden" but it did not get to be quite as famous.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tero, your posts are getting almost as long as JasonCs.

Sorry about that.

But at least he doesn't talk about the same thing all the time.

His SMG Gap and the more recent MG42 über ammo are basically the same.

If you can tear yourself away from telling us about how BTS shafted the Germans for the 10,000th time, go check out this post (if you haven't already).

My Rugged defence score

http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/cm/Members/tero.htm

is up to date is 2 game won: 1 as Allies, 1 as Germans. So, of the finished games I have won so far I have won 100%. Of these wins 50% was adcheived as Allied (As British as it happens ), 50% as Germans.

Lets look at the stats a bit more closely

Players ranked higher than 100 (there are 29 players)

Allies(out of 292 games)

Win: 55.1%

Germans(out of 279 games)

Win: 72.0% (!)

Players ranked from 90 to less than 100 (26 players)

Allies (out of 186 games)

lose: 50%

Germans (out of 224 games)

lose: 42.0%

Players ranked below 90 (30 players)

Allies (out of 239 games)

lose: 67.4%

Germans (out of 210 games)

lose: 59.5%

First off the stats are made of a sample of 26-29 players which is not statistically representative as such so any conclusions are as valid as any conclusions I make based on my games.

Second: it seems that the top players are sweeping the floor with the rookies (DUH ! ). More importantly there is no correlations between the losses as the difference stands universally at ~8% no matter which side the rookies play.

If the numbers are that lopsided with BTS rooting for the home team, I'd hate to see what they'd be like if they were "fair"...

To me the numbers are not lobsided at all. All they tell me experienced/skilled players win while the inexperienced/unskilled lose. The fact that people seem to win while playing as Germans is irrelevant and does not reflect the game engine. It does however reflect the preferences of the high ranking players. But does that make the allegations about biases inside the game invalid ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Not sure what 'extention' means. Clausewitz (not being an English speaker by birth) said in German:

'Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln'.

I would translate this (and have seen it translated) as:

'War is the continuation of political action by other means'

'continuation' in the sense of 'going on', 'constant succession' and 'extension'. Implying that when you don't get anywhere with political action, you resort to using the armed forces.

In a sense it is an extension as you do not change you policies, you just extend them using other means of communications than verbal communication.

I would contend that that is as true today as it was in the 18th century, although what has changed is the introduction of democratic politicians and their risk-averseness.

The modern cycle is a fiscal quartal so policies change overnight. There is little continuity nowadays. The people in power do not seem to look beyond their term in the office. In the 19th century the cycle was decades so war was an almost natural form of political continuity.

Been ages since I read this quote, so it may be off, but this is what I recall.

At least I see no flaw in your recollection and interpretation.

(It has been 10+ years since I used my German skills actively. )

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

[qb]Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best?

He says war is an EXTENTION of politics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roughly correct. Depends upon which version or translation your using.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones.

Yes. But nowadays the operations are governed by the polls and the proximity of elections more than high principles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has war ever been fought for "high principles"? I can't think of one. Many have been claimed but when you get down to tin-tacks it usually gets found to be a smokescreen for the real reasons.

[Username]

A 1941 -1944 (CMBB) period platoon could have up to a dozen or even more SMG's and numerous LMG's. I'm still looking for an official OOB but for all I know the platoon structure remained the same throughout the war, only the number of automatics increased through battle field acquisitions.

For someone that cant go on enough about the Finns, you mean to tell me you dont have an order of battle?

yeah, let us know when you find out tero.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

So, of the finished games I have won so far I have won 100%. Of these wins 50% was adcheived as Allied (As British as it happens ), 50% as Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, the 2 games you have played are way to small a sample size to mean anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off the stats are made of a sample of 26-29 players which is not statistically representative as such so any conclusions are as valid as any conclusions I make based on my games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to seriously check your math. Its 85 players, not 26-29.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second: it seems that the top players are sweeping the floor with the rookies (DUH ! ). More importantly there is no correlations between the losses as the difference stands universally at ~8% no matter which side the rookies play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which side the rookies play! Being a bit selective there...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me the numbers are not lobsided at all. All they tell me experienced/skilled players win while the inexperienced/unskilled lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's part of what it tells you... but not the important part.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The fact that people seem to win while playing as Germans is irrelevant and does not reflect the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant!? You can't be serious. Even an 8% difference (overall its higher than that) is large enough to be statisticaly significant with a sample size that large. An how can you say it doesn't reflect the game engine? How can it not reflect the game engine?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It does however reflect the preferences of the high ranking players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And why do they have those preferences? The answer is obvious.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But does that make the allegations about biases inside the game invalid ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as any specific issue (gyros, ect.) goes, not really. But as for a systematic pattern of bias, consistently in favor of the Allies and against the Germans (the kind you claim exists in the game), I'd say it shoots a big gaping hole in it.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. If BTS gave the home team an edge (as you claim), they did a piss poor job of it because the US is getting its ass kicked in competitive play.

BTW, I noticed you only commented on the total Allied/German numbers, and not the British/US breakdown...

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

No, I never had the (mis)fortune to fire the weapon in anger.

I've fired, Brens, in both .303 and 7.62x51mm calibre. L2a1 Automatic Rifles, M60 GPMG's, FN-MAG58 and Minimi. All had their different attributes. My favourite was I admit the Bren in .303 - purely because of its accuracy (something it partially lost in 7.62mm). My least favourite is a tossup between the L2a1 and the M60.

However, thats largely personal taste, rather than military utility or functionality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture that taste would change against an opponent that was armed with belted full auto weapons. Its nice to be accurate on the firing range and feel secure but its another thing having supersonic bullets crack about your head.

Most peace time military training is BS. Firing at pop up targets that dont move is especially a waste. PT and running in sneakers and shorts is stupid.

In a squad sized ambush, I would want a belted MG and as many semi/3-shot weapons as possible.

Now, I dont want to change your mind. I just want you to see that your opinion is based on your experience and its not what the game is depicting.

Lewis

[Richard Morgan]

Lewis,I really think that you should qualify that remark about most peacetime training being bulls@*t. What unit did you say you came from??? Many untested units have in fact performed wonders when in action for the first time - 12 SS, 82nd/101st Airborne,The Rifle Brigade, The Parachute Regiment, to name but a few. Seems that their training wasn't all bulls@*t doesn't it?

Report to the Officer's Mess with your pyjama bottoms on back to front

Richard.

[Username]

Are you for real? You named off a bunch of elite units! The US airborne was one of the most physically fit and trained units ever! they ran in boots too.

The US airborne also closed with its enemy and were really shock troops. When they were forced to be line infantry, they took high casualties. They were trained to fight rear echelon battles and overcome at all means.

I was speaking of modern armies btw. I understand that PT is being diversified in some armies also. Drills like carrying a buddy up a hill piggyback races (sounds like too much fun) and other toughening exercises replace 3.25 mph jogs for 1.5 miles in running shoes.

I ran a mile in 6:40 in combat boots in basic. With shin splints. Not too bad.

Combat shooting should be head sized pop up targets up to 100 meters. Moving torso sized pop up targets should also be used for 100-250 meters. there should be a training aid that simulates enemy fire overhead while shooting.

Lewis

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Get a job USeR.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Are you for real? You named off a bunch of elite units! The US airborne was one of the most physically fit and trained units ever! they ran in boots too.

The US airborne also closed with its enemy and were really shock troops. When they were forced to be line infantry, they took high casualties. They were trained to fight rear echelon battles and overcome at all means.

I was speaking of modern armies btw. I understand that PT is being diversified in some armies also. Drills like carrying a buddy up a hill piggyback races (sounds like too much fun) and other toughening exercises replace 3.25 mph jogs for 1.5 miles in running shoes.

I ran a mile in 6:40 in combat boots in basic. With shin splints. Not too bad.

Combat shooting should be head sized pop up targets up to 100 meters. Moving torso sized pop up targets should also be used for 100-250 meters. there should be a training aid that simulates enemy fire overhead while shooting.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok - a little away from modern but still relevant....

39 Bn AMF (that's Australian Military Forces or Militia) on the Kokoda Track.

Training had consisted basically of unloading ships at Port Morseby until order "up track" to Kokoda - something no white man had done before without native bearers carrying their equipment.

Delayed the advance of a Japanese force of combat veterans (about 2,500 of them) for weeks while being driven back down the track (even re-took Kokoda for a time - driving out the Japanese advance guard in their first action).

Releived by a Brigade they rested and reinforced to be committed to battle again a month later, fought in the "Battle of the Beachheads" where the Allies first encountered large-scale fanatical Japanes defence.

When withdrawn after 3 months of fighting there were 24 men "on parade" (beating 2/48 Bn AIF after Second El Alamein with 28 men "on parade").

They achieved more ground, killed more Japanese, captured more equipment than the US Inf Regt alonside of them.

In contrast 54 Bn AMF had a similar background but when ordered "up track" failed in their first enagaement.

The difference was in their leadership not in their training. Good leadership can overcome many hurdles.

AMF were regarded as second best to the AIF units (at the time) - they proved at least equal.

[Richard Morgan]

Here we go again... Lewis, you may have half a point about the belt vs mag fed debate, but PURLEESE, don't have the temerity to lecture serving or former soldiers on the merits of their training, especially as you consistently refuse to qualify your remarks with details of your own service (if indeed you served at all.)

Is all P.T. useless?!!! This doesn't seem to be the kind of remark that any genuine soldier would ever make. One of my best and oldest friends used to be a P.T.I. Physical Training = improved fitness: I KNOW that his reply to your point would be a good deal less diplomatic than mine. Running in shorts and sneakers (as you put it)is alas an essential part of modern military training. Today's generation of recruit is far more of a couch potato than mine ever was. Typically, they will have soft feet from wearing trainers, and will have to be gradually hardened up to the point were they are capable of running in boots - and full C.E.F.O.

Your comment that I had only named elite units seemed to imply crack troops good, everyone else bad. In reality things are not nearly so black and white: there are only shades of grey. I will concede though that armies the world over tend to train for the last war instead of the war to come. The goalposts are moving all the time. SOP's change, but not always fast enough to accommodate the new technology.

Richard.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I would venture that taste would change against an opponent that was armed with belted full auto weapons. Its nice to be accurate on the firing range and feel secure but its another thing having supersonic bullets crack about your head.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I stated, thats personal taste. I found the M60 very unreliable, particularly compared to the Bren, Lewis. The Bren has very little which can go wrong with it. The M60 too much. Indeed, knowing what I know about how bad the M60 is, I'd cheerfully strange the politicians who decided the Oz army should adopt that weapon, way back in 1962, in preference to the weapon which eventually replaced it - the FN-MAG58.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Most peace time military training is BS. Firing at pop up targets that dont move is especially a waste. PT and running in sneakers and shorts is stupid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your experience of the military is? I've asked you this question before and never recieved an answer. I wonder why?

Its obviously you've never been on an assault or battle range nor even a sneaker or DART range - all used in peacetime. Nor do you quite realise that while running around in full webbing and carrying a rifle is more realistic, in order to get to that point, one tends to start off easy - wearing shorts and "sneakers".

Tell me, have you ever suffered through rifle exercise - which are specifically designed to strengthen the arms/upper torso?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In a squad sized ambush, I would want a belted MG and as many semi/3-shot weapons as possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An ambush is an atypical situation, Lewis.

I can point you to a raft of references which show that the Australian army managed to become quite the masters of the ambush in the SW Pacific and Korea, without those sorts of weapons.

Personally, I always had a bit of a liking for 12ga shotguns but I'm from the old school, I must admit, who were still learning the lessons from SVN.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now, I dont want to change your mind. I just want you to see that your opinion is based on your experience and its not what the game is depicting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've indicated that I have problems with what the game is dipicting, based upon my experience and knowledge, Lewis.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

The history of battle, a commander’s experience, and the wisdom of military philosophers all confirm the direct correlation between training and victory in war. Successful combat units train as they intend to fight and fight as they were trained. Modern Armies base their future success on the battlefield on this philosophy.

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

Good tactics depend upon sound technical skills. These are the techniques and procedures which enable us to move, shoot, and communicate. We achieve technical competence through training. We build skills through repetition. Training also instills confidence in weapons and equipment. It develops the specialized skills essential to functioning in combat.

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

The purpose of all training is to develop forces that can win in combat. Training is the key to combat effectiveness and therefore is the main effort of a peacetime military.

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

“The definition of military training is success in battle. In my opinion, that is the only objective of military training. It wouldn’t make any sense to have a military organization on the backs of the American taxpayers with any other definition. I’ve believed that ever since I’ve been a Marine.”

LtGen Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller

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

“You are either in contact, moving to contact, or training!“

LTC ”Chips“ Catalone, USMC

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

Here we go again... Lewis, you may have half a point about the belt vs mag fed debate, but PURLEESE, don't have the temerity to lecture serving or former soldiers on the merits of their training, especially as you consistently refuse to qualify your remarks with details of your own service (if indeed you served at all.)

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point about experience, and its a valid one, is that very few people here have combat experience. Including myself. i was in Ft Bragg. Even though it was peacetime , all the NCOs had combat experience from vietnam. They made the training as realistic as possible. They were lifers. They were professional career soldiers.

Since it was a engineering unit, we had a static mission, we only went on long marches infrequently. Guys feet would be torn to shreds. Its a fact that wearing boots all the time just wears out the boots. You have to march and run and train in them to toughen the foot up.

I am not belittling anyones service. I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons.

Lewis

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

UsER: Since it was a engineering unit, we had a static mission, we only went on long marches infrequently.

You mean “We went on long marches infrequently”?

Or

We infrequently went on long marches?

Or how about:

Long marches were infrequent for my unit.

USeR: Guys feet would be torn to shreds.

whaaa…you were in the 82nd Airborne?

uSer: I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons.

If you haven’t been in combat how would you really know?

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:

uSer: I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons.

If you haven’t been in combat how would you really know? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh look, RiDgEwAy (isnt that 'little kid type' in the chat rooms?) has decided to show he cant read.

1. I served with combat vets.

2. They discussed their experiences.

Now, just to be absolutely clear, I am not a combat vet. They were. Lets repeat that for matty. THEY, the combat vets, COULD tell me the real sh*t. THEY (thats the combat vets again matty) related the big difference between THEIR (you know who) training and what combat was really like. THEY (following me son?) wanted to share their knowledge for several reasons.

1. THEY were such big hearted older-guys (cough)

2. It could be that WE (thats them and me and the other kids) would have to be in combat together someday (the real reason).

We (the kids) learned when to be quiet, when to be quick, when we were fu*king up royal, and what we needed to do to kill and not to get killed and not to get the older guys killed.

If I could draw you a picture I would matty. Someone might say "hey Lewis, ask him about his military/combat experience." But thats alright, I really dont care a flying hoot about you or what you have to say.

Always a pleasure matty.

Lewis

[Username]

Since it was an engineering unit, we had a static mission; we only went on long marches infrequently.

This is grammatically correct. You astound me matty.

Lewis

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

UsEr: I served with combat vets ( )

They discussed their experiences.

So the information you are presenting is pretty much second or third hand information. “I heard this one guy talking about his brother who fought in Vietnam and he said….” Your discourse on the subject at hand is anecdotal at best. Mumbo jumbo. But you are certainly entitled to your – uhmm -- opinion.

[Username]

Still not quite getting it there soldier. Lets spell it out for matty some more.

I was getting the "info" (it was training) from a first hand source (THEM, again, being the first hand source being the VETS). I could compare it to the poor basic training I recieved in Ft Dix. I could interact with them and ask questions. Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses?

Consider your remarks as a reflection on yourself. This, like the german 88mmHE discourse, is a waste of time.

And yes I was in lovely Ft Bragg. Drank in Fayetville (Fayetnam) and went for 10K jogs to Iron Mike (statue of trooper).

So much fun.

Lewis

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:

Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear! Hear! He was in a "static" engineer unit? What sort of unit is a "static" engineer one? It only builds/tears down things in the one spot?

I'm not going to pay out the Ginger-Beers, some of whom I have for mates and whose ability to work and fight I greatly admire. I'm just interested how you feel your experience qualifies you to try and tell me that my experience and knowledge is not valid.

I served in Infantry and Ordnance, Lewis. All in what we call "field force" (ie the part of the army which actually deploys in the field in wartime, as against "training command" or "base command" which do not). Furthermore, our training has it that all soldiers, no matter what their role are infantrymen and we practice all-arms defence, which means they have to fulfil that role and be a specialist second.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I'm not going to pay out the Ginger-Beers, some of whom I have for mates and whose ability to work and fight I greatly admire. I'm just interested how you feel your experience qualifies you to try and tell me that my experience and knowledge is not valid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian

Talking with you is an exercise in futility. Dont despair. I think that there can be some good come of this. You and matty can compare notes and be pen pals.

You should ease up on the ginger-beers perhaps.

I never said your experience is anything. But it is not a combat experience (by your own admission) and its nice that you have peacetime preferences but its not the end all to any discussion. Your knowledge is limited to your experience. So is mine. I can tell you that and so can anyone else. I prefer a combat vets thank you very much.

No one said anything about validity.

You are impossible to talk to. But still bearable compared to your new buddy matty.

Lewis

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:

Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

REPEAT: Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses?