William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

Even then you should pay attention to the Battle of Surigao Strait.

I did; you might recheck my post to Carl. Most of the surface fighting was destroyer torpedo runs by the US IIRC. Fuso was sunk that way. Yamashiro was sunk by battleship gunnery but that was combat of unequals as Yamashiro was a pre-WWI battleship fighting against 3 of the most modern battleships the US had.Of the 6 US BBs in action, one fired no rounds and another fired just one full salvo.

[Fuchs]

(...) but that was combat of unequals as (...)

Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland was a battle of unequal forces as well.
The German High Seas Fleet blew up some vulnerable battlecruisers, but it had no chance against the squadrons of new 15" armed QEs and Rs which came into action only at very long ranges.
The vastly weaker side slipped away after blunting the vulnerable vangaurd of the enemy.


In short; by not accepting Surigao as a serious naval ship/ship battle you discount almost every battle but Jutland, and possibly even Jutland as not serious. The same goes for the "size of ships" criterion. By today's standards the ships of the line at Trafalgar were corvettes or small frigates!


@carl
"they go and take the chance of getting killed or they don't go and definitely get hung or shot at dawn."

You understand this is bollocks, right?

[carl]

@carl
"they go and take the chance of getting killed or they don't go and definitely get hung or shot at dawn."

You understand this is bollocks, right?

Not at all. That is the ultimate step. Depending on the severity of the fight, armies will graduate the penalties they mete out but they can always take that ultimate step. Every army I've read about did that, kill their deserters, depending upon how hard the fight was.

That won't always keep things in line though since it really is prophylactic step. There are always more men than people in authority and if the men decide to act en-masse there is little those in authority can really do. The trick is to keep things from getting that bad and, to be cold blooded about, executions are one of the tools used if need be there.

[Fuchs]

Not at all. That is the ultimate step. Depending on the severity of the fight, armies will graduate the penalties they mete out but they can always take that ultimate step. Every army I've read about did that, kill their deserters, depending upon how hard the fight was.

Nonsense.
The quote was clearly in a context implying that such extreme punishments without due trial were commonplace. Now you're moving goalposts and talk about what some of the most extreme armies did at their worst times.

At best you used a hyperbole, now you're defending it as if it was a sensible statement.

Here's another piece of nonsense of yours

I do know the difference between Southwest Airlines and the military is nobody at Southwest can order you to die and you can quit anytime you want and they won't put you against the wall and shoot you for desertion.

See? "military". Not 'extreme dictatorship's military that's desperate because it's losing badly', no "ultimate step" stuff or anything like that. You contrasted civilian jobs with military jobs in general.


You do realize we can still read, copy&paste what you wrote? How could you possibly think you could get away with this incoherent counter-factual nonsense?


To serve in a military which readily shoots its own men because of whatever is clearly different from working in a non-military job in a Western democracy.
But so is working as a civilian in that military's country, too.


P.S.: Nobody in a military "can order you to die".

P.S.2: I've been in here for what? Six years? And there are still people who want to pull off the most simple rhetoric tricks like moving goalposts on me? Don't you guys make any notes?

[carl]

Nonsense.
The quote was clearly in a context implying that such extreme punishments without due trial were commonplace. Now you're moving goalposts and talk about what some of the most extreme armies did at their worst times.

My statement was simple, plain and true. Armies, every one that I've read of, kill their deserters if they feel the need. With due process or without, commonplace or not, they do it. That is a simple fact.

See? "military". Not 'extreme dictatorship's military that's desperate because it's losing badly', no "ultimate step" stuff or anything like that. You contrasted civilian jobs with military jobs in general.

No, that is the difference between military and civilian. You can be ordered to go out and die in a military organization and you can't quit if you feel like it. A banzai charge was effectively an order to die, gloriously maybe in the eyes of Imperial Japanese militarists, but it was an order to go out and die. When the Union soldiers got the warning order for the attack at Cold Harbor they knew that for many of them it was an order to die. They didn't write their names on pieces of paper and pin them to their uniforms for nothing. At Waterloo a unit was ordered by some peer to attack in line when a cavalry unit was plainly in sight on the flank of their route. That was an order to die. They did as they were ordered and most of them did.

So yea, soldiers can be ordered to die. And soldiers can't leave when they feel like it. There may be some exceptions to the leave when they feel like it part but in general it's a no go, especially in war.

[Fuchs]

No, that is the difference between military and civilian. You can be ordered to go out and die in a military organization and you can't quit if you feel like it. A banzai charge was effectively an order to die, gloriously maybe in the eyes of Imperial Japanese militarists, but it was an order to go out and die. When the Union soldiers got the warning order for the attack at Cold Harbor they knew that for many of them it was an order to die. They didn't write their names on pieces of paper and pin them to their uniforms for nothing. At Waterloo a unit was ordered by some peer to attack in line when a cavalry unit was plainly in sight on the flank of their route. That was an order to die. They did as they were ordered and most of them did.

So yea, soldiers can be ordered to die. And soldiers can't leave when they feel like it. There may be some exceptions to the leave when they feel like it part but in general it's a no go, especially in war.

You're dealing in extremes here. (Besides, every soldier who can fight 'the enemy' also has the capacity to fight against who truly takes his freedom instead of doing as ordered).

You're mistaken if you think I couldn't find similar in the realm of civilian work.

Military Mi-8s were used to lower supplies to ground workers. Later, fitted with external spray systems, they helped drop a bonding mixture over the (Chernobyl) reactor area to prevent contaminated dirt from spreading. Aeroflot-supplied versions executed precise drops of the chemical in bulk form, using their own pilots who were trained for Arctic oil-pipe laying and fire-fighting control in the former Soviet Union.

The Mi-8's four-axis autopilot gives it added yaw, pitch and roll stabilisation under any flight conditions. This made it ideal for precision flying close to the exploded reactor.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ernobyl-12245/

Ever read about who fought the fires in German cities 1944/45? Hint: not only soldiers. In fact, few if any soldiers. Do you have an idea about what it's like fighting a firestorm? Or what it's like staying in the control centre bunker of a coal powerplant during an air raid? Again, civilians. And yes, they would not have improved their odds of survival if they had said "####, I'm outta here".


What's next? A claim that these civilians were exceptions?
Well, let me count the Banzai charges of the U.S.Air Force during the Iraq occupation then so I can establish the ratio of "Banzai!" to airmen...
Oh, wait. "Civilians" were the only ones who blew themselves up in that conflict. Many airmen were enjoying air conditioning meanwhile.


You argue for special status of military personnel based on extremes which rarely ever affect them, but which affect a few civilians as well.
Your case is incoherent because military personnel isn't that special. Some soldiers developed a certain class conceit about their trade, though.


Besides, most incidences of such class conceit are not about soldiers supposedly accepting greater risks. Most of what examples I saw were snobbier than that: They were pretending a superior morality.
There was usually a huge influence by right wing attitudes sniffable - particularly conceit about "moochers", "liberals", and the like.

The idea of military personnel being special or superior to the general population is more an authoritarian-leaning political attitude almost always found in military forces staging a coup d'tat than it is a justifiable assertion.

[carl]

You're dealing in extremes here. (Besides, every soldier who can fight 'the enemy' also has the capacity to fight against who truly takes his freedom instead of doing as ordered).

Yes, the difference between civilian and military is extreme. That is the point. And yes every soldier can rebel against authority, that is why every army I've ever read of tries to nip that in the bud by killing those of their own who desert or disobey when things get hard enough.

You're mistaken if you think I couldn't find similar in the realm of civilian work.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ernobyl-12245/

Check the same thing for all the policemen and firemen who went into the twin towers on 9-11 and didn't come out. They went in on their own. They could have quit on the spot if they wanted to and not gone in. My point wasn't at all about the bravery that many people exhibit very often. My point was about people who want to run away can be forced to stay in the military and while civilians can mostly scoot.

Ever read about who fought the fires in German cities 1944/45? Hint: not only soldiers. In fact, few if any soldiers. Do you have an idea about what it's like fighting a firestorm? Or what it's like staying in the control centre bunker of a coal powerplant during an air raid? Again, civilians. And yes, they would not have improved their odds of survival if they had said "####, I'm outta here".

Yeah, I did read about them, in Bomber by Len Deighton. That was a really good book. Very brave people. But were they drafted and forced to stay in those jobs if they didn't want to? I don't know.

What's next? A claim that these civilians were exceptions?
Well, let me count the Banzai charges of the U.S.Air Force during the Iraq occupation then so I can establish the ratio of "Banzai!" to airmen...
Oh, wait. "Civilians" were the only ones who blew themselves up in that conflict. Many airmen were enjoying air conditioning meanwhile.

You lost me.

You argue for special status of military personnel based on extremes which rarely ever affect them, but which affect a few civilians as well.
Your case is incoherent because military personnel isn't that special. Some soldiers developed a certain class conceit about their trade, though.

I am arguing that the military is fundamentally different from the civilian world. My case is quite solid in that respect.

Besides, most incidences of such class conceit are not about soldiers supposedly accepting greater risks. Most of what examples I saw were snobbier than that: They were pretending a superior morality.
There was usually a huge influence by right wing attitudes sniffable - particularly conceit about "moochers", "liberals", and the like.

The idea of military personnel being special or superior to the general population is more an authoritarian-leaning political attitude almost always found in military forces staging a coup d'tat than it is a justifiable assertion.

I don't know what this is about or who it is directed to.

[carl]

I did; you might recheck my post to Carl. Most of the surface fighting was destroyer torpedo runs by the US IIRC. Fuso was sunk that way. Yamashiro was sunk by battleship gunnery but that was combat of unequals as Yamashiro was a pre-WWI battleship fighting against 3 of the most modern battleships the US had.Of the 6 US BBs in action, one fired no rounds and another fired just one full salvo.

I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.

[wm]

I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.

You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.

Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland was a battle of unequal forces as well.
The German High Seas Fleet blew up some vulnerable battlecruisers, but it had no chance against the squadrons of new 15" armed QEs and Rs which came into action only at very long ranges.
The vastly weaker side slipped away after blunting the vulnerable vanguard of the enemy.

Most of the British fleet never got into action. The first engagement between Beatty's and Hipper's battlecruisers was pretty much of an even match. The 4 QE battleships supporting Beatty did not get in range. In the main event, only 2 of Jellicoe's battle squadrons were really engaged. Capital ships (heavy cruiser and above) in the two fleets numbered 45 Brit to 27 German while capital ship loss was 6 Brit to 2 German.

The same goes for the "size of ships" criterion. By today's standards the ships of the line at Trafalgar were corvettes or small frigates!

Trying to compare an 18th century sail-powered ship of the line to a 20th century diesel powered armored battleship or even a guided missile frigate is comparing tree frogs to kangaroos.

[carl]

You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.

You said "3 of the most modern battleships the US had". None of those battleships were modern. None could be considered among the most modern the US had. All were old and refurbished.