Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:
Reputation is what opponents go on when it comes to whether its worth the effort.

Assuming an equal standing of forces, no intergovernmental communication, and the absence of any indirect information provided by various media outlets; sure.

But, since all of those things, with the possible exception of intergovernmental communication, are readily accessible or determinable, reputation becomes irrelevant.

Orlanth wrote:
Rep is important both now and historically. The Asyrrians and Romans placed great store in it, as did later nations including the UK and US.

Of course they did, they didn't have instantaneous global communication, or access to great stores of information. We do.

We live in an age where, if I want to know the standing strength of the US armed forces, I just have to enter the requisite search criteria into Google in order to receive a rough approximation.

Its 2012 man, catch up with the times.

Orlanth wrote:
I will give you one piece of modern evidence. The bagpipes. The Scots by tradition play the bagpipes into battle, and still do. Why play musical instruments in modern warfare, it sounds daft, but its all about reputation, it says the Scots are not afraid and opponents have admittedly to be unsettled by it.

No, its about tradition and esprit de corps, because:

Although the early history of pipers within these regiments is not well documented, there is evidence that these regiments had pipers at an early stage and there are numerous accounts of pipers playing into battle during the 19th century, a practice which continued into World War I when it was abandoned due to the high casualty rate (though incidents of pipers playing into battle have occurred since).

Also, not relevant to international relations.

Orlanth wrote:
Reputation also has other effects, soldiers don't want to let down the honour of their regiment, and that is all about rep. It sounds jingoistic but it is effective.

Again, that is tradition and esprit de corps. Nice recruiting tools, and useful for maintaining unit cohesion, but no nation in the world is going to care about it in the sense of "reputation".

Orlanth wrote:
Giving a straight rational on topic opinion is not trolling, whether or not it is agreed with. You might profit by learning the difference.

He gave a straight, rational, piece of criticism regarding why part of the support for you opinion was nonsense. You dismissed it because you didn't like the implication. Which, honestly, is much more offensive than snarky commentary.

The point of my comment was that, if what Ahtman did was trolling, then virtually everything you do is as well.

dogma wrote:
But, since all of those things, with the possible exception of intergovernmental communication, are readily accessible or determinable, reputation becomes irrelevant.

Tell that to the Argentine soldiers who heard they were facing Gurkhas. Reputation matters. Matters to the extent that their CCWs were more frieghtening than their firepower, and letting the enemy know they were coming was more valued than surprise.
Not everything boils down to an equation.

dogma wrote:
We live in an age where, if I want to know the standing strength of the US armed forces, I just have to enter the requisite search criteria into Google in order to receive a rough approximation.

Its 2012 man, catch up with the times.

How does modern comms prevent the fear when the enemy hears the pipes and knows, the Scots are coming.

dogma wrote:
No, its about tradition and esprit de corps, because.

Clearly you do not understand, talk to some veterans rather than dismiss comments out of hand. Tradition and esprit de corps is another word for reputation, reflected inwardly. The terms are synonymous. Again talk to veterans, ask why esprit de corps is important. The answer will likely be along the lines of 'not letting down the good name of the regiment'.

dogma wrote:
Also, not relevant to international relations.

Who said it had to be, the value of reputation reflects inwards and outwards. However it does go both ways actually, the inward reputation and outward reputation are linked. Men are not born Gurkhas, the Nepalese have no specific knack for combat, they learn it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Reputation also has other effects, soldiers don't want to let down the honour of their regiment, and that is all about rep. It sounds jingoistic but it is effective.

Again, that is tradition and esprit de corps. Nice recruiting tools, and useful for maintaining unit cohesion, but no nation in the world is going to care about it in the sense of "reputation".

You should talk to veterans, or even listen to their recorded testimonies perhaps then you would understand.
One old chappie I remember serving in Aden, a war recent enough to be modern, spoke about going into combat with the pipes and the effect it had on them and the enemy, especially as the music changed as they actually entered combat. I believe him.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Giving a straight rational on topic opinion is not trolling, whether or not it is agreed with. You might profit by learning the difference.

He gave a straight, rational, piece of criticism regarding why part of the support for you opinion was nonsense. You dismissed it because you didn't like the implication. Which, honestly, is much more offensive than snarky commentary.

The point of my comment was that, if what Ahtman did was trolling, then virtually everything you do is as well.

Why was the information worthless, Ahtman blatantly didn't know an informed counter opinion, just made an opposite comment, a bit like the comments you hear from schoolgrounds that people grow out of by age eight i.e. am too - are not repeat ad nauseam.

However testimony has value. If you think it doesn't, then show some consistency and apply that first to yourself. After all your standards fit your paradigm, so while they might not apply to others then at least if you are honest they would apply to your own thinking. Therefore next time you give an opinion consider it worthless without third hand documentary evidence, and dont post. Now at least you will be consistent and it ought to shut you up a little so its a win-win really.
However you like to have an opinion dont you, as do I. Come join the fun then but remember to show common courtesy and dont call BS without something to back it up.

As for backing it up: Again talk to veterans. Go ahead do so. You might change your tune if you do.

If you did you wouldnt come back with crap like 'reputation is irrelevant'. Sometimes listening to others who know more than you is useful dogma. If I had no quality sources I would not post on the subject. I am confident enough to post because I repeated the comment 'ask veterans' . My double sourcing is potentially your double sourcing. Go ask veterans rather than assume. You will see for yourself what you find real veterans that know what they are talking about.

Ahtman was trolling, if he had asked veterans, he would not come back with what he wrote. And if you think the testimonies of veterans are nonsense source then shame, and I mean shame on you.

Orlanth wrote:
Tell that to the Argentine soldiers who heard they were facing Gurkhas. Reputation matters. Matters to the extent that their CCWs were more frieghtening than their firepower, and letting the enemy know they were coming was more valued than surprise.

I really doubt that their CCWs were more frightening than facing a highly trained force of professional soldiers armed with automatic weapons.

And, again, not relevant to IR.

Orlanth wrote:
Not everything boils down to an equation.

Yes it does. If you think it doesn't, you haven't thought hard enough.

Orlanth wrote:
How does modern comms prevent the fear when the enemy hears the pipes and knows, the Scots are coming.

You're far off the original objection, but I'll run with it anyway.

I can type "Scottish Bagpipes" into Google, and find many absurd images of bagpipers. Why should I fear them?

If anything its a vulnerability. Shoot the bagpiper in the head. Symbol taken. This, of course, was long ago realized by the Scots.

Orlanth wrote:
Clearly you do not understand, talk to some veterans rather than dismiss comments out of hand. Tradition and esprit de corps is another word for reputation, reflected inwardly. The terms are synonymous. Again talk to veterans, ask why esprit de corps is important. The answer will likely be along the lines of 'not letting down the good name of the regiment'.

There are so many things wrong here....

First, "talk to some veterans" assumes all veterans are the same, and that I don't know any. That's a laughable presumption, and one that nicely illustrates why I don't respect you. You may as well call me a "booger face", it has as much relevance.

Second, you're trying to co-opt my claim that certain things are manifestations of tradition, and esprit de corps, by making some undefined claim about reputation. If, by "reputation", you mean anything tacitly relevant to X, then sure, you're right, but that's a useless definition.

Third, no one but the regiment cares about the "good name" of the regiment.

Orlanth wrote:
Who said it had to be, the value of reputation reflects inwards and outwards.

You did when you started talking about the UK.

Orlanth wrote:
As for backing it up: Again talk to veterans. Go ahead do so. You might change your tune if you do.

I cannot overstate the intellectual disdain I have for you regarding this argument. Its weak, lazy, and a number of other things that would get me suspended for uttering them.

I hope you continue to cope with your cognitive dissonance so well in the future.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Tell that to the Argentine soldiers who heard they were facing Gurkhas. Reputation matters. Matters to the extent that their CCWs were more frieghtening than their firepower, and letting the enemy know they were coming was more valued than surprise.

I really doubt that their CCWs were more frightening than facing a highly trained force of professional soldiers armed with automatic weapons.

And, again, not relevant to IR.

Actually the reputation made a big difference. The Argies were already facing plenty of soldiers with semi-automatic weapons (the British army was still using the SLR at the time), the ones with kukri were most feared. Why? Because of their reputation.
Deny if you like, but you do so without a scrap to defend your position. Laugh at the Gurkhas, or the Highland regiments if you like, and call out their rep as irrelevant. It will only expose your ignorance.
Take up the challenge: Ask veterans if they laugh at their reputation. Obviously you wont take my word for it, so ask for yourself.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Not everything boils down to an equation.

Yes it does. If you think it doesn't, you haven't thought hard enough.

Westmorland might have agreed with you, but its an outdated position.
The US military used to think this way. Then they lost in Vietnam, against the calculations.

dogma wrote:
I can type "Scottish Bagpipes" into Google, and find many absurd images of bagpipers. Why should I fear them?

I wont answer that. Its pointless, instead I will say ask veterans. Ask those who have faced the Scots,even in exercises.

dogma wrote:
If anything its a vulnerability. Shoot the bagpiper in the head. Symbol taken. This, of course, was long ago realized by the Scots.

Indeed, yet it still works. You might think why bother with kukri, why bother with bagpipes. It doesn't make sense on a % basis. But it works. This is why you need to ask a veteran. Ever spoken to someone who has faced battle, you will be surprised what can matter.

dogma wrote:
First, "talk to some veterans" assumes all veterans are the same, and that I don't know any. That's a laughable presumption, and one that nicely illustrates why I don't respect you. You may as well call me a "booger face", it has as much relevance.

You dont respect because frankly you can be a troll and still need to grow up unfortunately. If you cannpot respect an opposed opinion it is a reflection of your character, not on the person holding the opposed opinion. One could make exception if the opposed opinion was serious beyond the line, like a gross racist or equivalent.

dogma wrote:
Second, you're trying to co-opt my claim that certain things are manifestations of tradition, and esprit de corps, by making some undefined claim about reputation. If, by "reputation", you mean anything tacitly relevant to X, then sure, you're right, but that's a useless definition.

Actually its a good definition. What is esprit de corps? Its about maintaining and not letting down the good name of the regiment. That is all about reputation. Its so clearly an important repuation issue tghat it gets given its own name. You are mistakeing that to mean its not longer about reputation.
Its is not possible for a soldier to claim, 'I like our esprit de corps but I have no care about the reputation of the regiment'. They are one and the same.

If you actullay beleive what you posted rather than just to be contrary then plainly you dont know combat soldiers, as pretty much any who served in a regiment, including the US ones, will know this and tell you this. Thats a fairly solid presumption, not a laughable one.

dogma wrote:
Third, no one but the regiment cares about the "good name" of the regiment.

Point taken, you really haven't a clue what you are talking about. Think about what you wrote for a minute.

Of course soldiers care about the "good name" of the regiment, you know thats the same as "reputation" right. And it does effect their performance.

dogma wrote:
I cannot overstate the intellectual disdain I have for you regarding this argument. Its weak, lazy, and a number of other things that would get me suspended for uttering them.

This does you no credit, it doesnt actually reflect on me. I am happy to discuss the issues; if you cannot then, sorry, thats your problem. Please if you want to claim 'intellectual distain' please post as an intellectual, your comments here are sadly too riddled with bile to count as level headed..

Orlanth wrote:I am happy to discuss the issues

And yet you do not. How strange.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I am happy to discuss the issues

And yet you do not. How strange.

I have, which is why my replies to serious comments tend to be over a sentence long.

Your replies tend to be along the lines of 'ask the veterans', which is a risible argument, as several people have pointed out.

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I am happy to discuss the issues

And yet you do not. How strange.

I have, which is why my replies to serious comments tend to be over a sentence long.

No, what you have done is make a bunch of half thought out opinions, tried to pretend they were well sourced, researched facts, and then got upset when called on it. You say you want rational discussion but you offer none. You say you want cited sources but you offer none. You repeat the same thing over and over again as if saying it twice suddenly makes it true. You have been intellectually dishonest and insulting since the first page and think that if you try and pretend it is you that seeks rational, honest discourse that also somehow makes all your foolishness rational, honest, or even discourse. If you think sentence length has anything to do with integrity or accuracy, that explains a lot about your failings.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually the reputation made a big difference. The Argies were already facing plenty of soldiers with semi-automatic weapons (the British army was still using the SLR at the time), the ones with kukri were most feared. Why? Because of their reputation.

Even if we accept "most feared" as a valid premise (which we shouldn't, given testing issues), we still have to wonder how you came to the conclusion that it made a "big difference".

Orlanth wrote:
Deny if you like, but you do so without a scrap to defend your position.

Are you fething kidding me?

"The soldiers I know say things."

Alright, that's nice, no one cares. It isn't support for an argument, even assuming its an honest claim.

And, keep in mind, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you don't mean "All soldiers say X." or "Only the soldiers that say X are soldiers."

Orlanth wrote:
The US military used to think this way. Then they lost in Vietnam, against the calculations.

You clearly missed the point.

"Equation" does not imply statistics or math, it implies equation.

Orlanth wrote:
Indeed, yet it still works.

Which is why, to this day, Scottish infantry play bagpipes into the field.

Orlanth wrote:
You dont respect because frankly you can be a troll and still need to grow up unfortunately. If you cannpot respect an opposed opinion it is a reflection of your character, not on the person holding the opposed opinion. One could make exception if the opposed opinion was serious beyond the line, like a gross racist or equivalent.

No, it isn't about your opinion being opposed to mine, its about you making fundamental errors in the formation of your's.

I consider your opinions "beyond the line" because you consistently exhibit ridiculous degrees of cognitive dissonance, and sophism. Sophism I could understand, but you just lack the talent.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Actually the reputation made a big difference. The Argies were already facing plenty of soldiers with semi-automatic weapons (the British army was still using the SLR at the time), the ones with kukri were most feared. Why? Because of their reputation.

Even if we accept "most feared" as a valid premise (which we shouldn't, given testing issues), we still have to wonder how you came to the conclusion that it made a "big difference".

...Especially when you consider that the reputation of the British armed forces didn't stop the Argentines from invading in the first place.

I'm back chums, and I'm a veteran, ask me something!

Before you ask I reckon I can figure out what Ill say.. I shall express myself via the medium of song.

"Napalm napalm sticks like glue, burns old women and babies too"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:A single incident is a narrow foundation on which to build a pattern of long term decline of the armed forces.

On a serious note, I think you can sum the thread up with KKs statement.

Basically, gak happens.

In this instance it basically sounds like the enemy were well aware that they had been rumbled, so they quickly took the hostages to one side and slotted them.

gak happens. Would it have been any different if it was Mossad or Delta were going in? Would their vehicles have driven faster? Would their soldiers have managed to get into the compound quicker and prevent their deaths?

I very much doubt it. gak happens when your talking about hostage situations, and if they knew they were rumbled, Id say the two guys were fethed regardless.

Well, unless they sent me obviously.

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Actually the reputation made a big difference. The Argies were already facing plenty of soldiers with semi-automatic weapons (the British army was still using the SLR at the time), the ones with kukri were most feared. Why? Because of their reputation.

Even if we accept "most feared" as a valid premise (which we shouldn't, given testing issues), we still have to wonder how you came to the conclusion that it made a "big difference".

...Especially when you consider that the reputation of the British armed forces didn't stop the Argentines from invading in the first place.

Perhaps it explains why they waited until they weren't there. The naval patrol was withdrawn six months earlier and the aircraft carriers scheduled for decommissioning.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I'm back chums, and I'm a veteran, ask me something!

Before you ask I reckon I can figure out what Ill say.. I shall express myself via the medium of song.

"Napalm napalm sticks like glue, burns old women and babies too"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:A single incident is a narrow foundation on which to build a pattern of long term decline of the armed forces.

On a serious note, I think you can sum the thread up with KKs statement.

Basically, gak happens.

In this instance it basically sounds like the enemy were well aware that they had been rumbled, so they quickly took the hostages to one side and slotted them.

gak happens. Would it have been any different if it was Mossad or Delta were going in? Would their vehicles have driven faster? Would their soldiers have managed to get into the compound quicker and prevent their deaths?

I very much doubt it. gak happens when your talking about hostage situations, and if they knew they were rumbled, Id say the two guys were fethed regardless.

Well, unless they sent me obviously.

Your a treasure matty.

Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps it explains why they waited until they weren't there. The naval patrol was withdrawn six months earlier and the aircraft carriers scheduled for decommissioning.

Because, of course, no other explanation could account for the decision to wait for a military asset to be withdrawn when several other military assets had already been withdrawn.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps it explains why they waited until they weren't there. The naval patrol was withdrawn six months earlier and the aircraft carriers scheduled for decommissioning.

Because, of course, no other explanation could account for the decision to wait for a military asset to be withdrawn when several other military assets had already been withdrawn.

The Argentinians invaded six months early, they should have waited until the decommissioning of the aircraft carriers was beyond the point of no return, but they prefered a winter invasion instead.

But military what ifs are pointless, so many things could have been different in so many campaigns.

At this point I will just bow out and agree to disagree with you. I am not going to bother with a rebuttal to your comments as you will disagree and I will disagree with you in turn, and we both end up a little hot under thre collar.

I will leave this on a lighter note. As a fellow gamer do take a good look at the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War, its a very good wargaming scenario as there is plenty of room for, what ifs, its the only notable naval operation of its scale in the missile age, istri service and involved roughly balanced forces. Its historical gamer gold really and is too often overlooked.