|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, this is the crux of the issue, Throatwarbler. I get that you think Chinese numbers are suspect. I also think this. But as a result you've taken the numbers for the ROK dead from one source and the numbers of Chinese deaths from a totally different source. I think there is some kind of misunderstanding here. Let me quote my original post: quote:The 137,000 figure for South Korean deaths is *much* lower than estimates I had previously been familiar with which were in the order of 400,000 killed. Here is someone citing Max Hastings' book The Korean War as giving such a number. The wikipedia link appears to link to an Official ROK site but I can't read Korean and Google translate seems to be pretty bad at Korean. This is the only issue. I am not defending Hastings, I just put it out as an example, you can see in the site that you just quoted that he and another source is behind the 415,000 figure, I had thought that this was the consensus. Since presumably Hastings isn't a North Korean agent I had no reason to think that his figure of South Korean deaths would be 3 times what the official South Korean figure would be, even given the problems in South Korean bookkeeping that Cyrano has outlined. I haven't asked anyone for more cites because that's dumb lazy bullshit and we are all friends here so I'll go and track down some more sources on my own on this. I hope you understand why I was initially a bit apprehensive about the website. quote:
How many square feet is your house? I going to say it's 83,500 square feet. Since it is not possible that you have better information than I do on how big your house is, the true size of forum poster mlmp08's house must be somewhere between 83,500 square feet and whatever mlmp08's answer is. We can come closer to the truth by conducting a poll of the posters in this thread and using the average of all the answers. Don't cherry pick your sources, it's simple statistics.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're incredibly loving dumb.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're incredibly loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I got $20 on the latter. Yeah, good luck getting someone to cover that bet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How many square feet is your house? I going to say it's 83,500 square feet. Since it is not possible that you have better information than I do on how big your house is, the true size of forum poster mlmp08's house must be somewhere between 83,500 square feet and whatever mlmp08's answer is. We can come closer to the truth by conducting a poll of the posters in this thread and using the average of all the answers. Don't cherry pick your sources, it's simple statistics. Strawman.txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Seriously, a more accurate analogy using your pointless square footage example would be this: Study A says my house is 2,000 square feet and yours is 3,000. Study B says my house is 2,500 square feet and yours is 3,800. Study C says my house is 1,200 square feet and yours is 4,800. Study D says my house does not exist and yours is a great victory for the Empire. In all studies except Study D, while the variance is disputed, they agree your house is bigger. I can't believe I just wrote something so stupid, but if that's what it takes for you to get the point, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
At least he correctly pointed out that my post was based on my opinion. Although, if someone uses human wave tactics against a technologically superior opponent and achieves casualty parity, that would be a story I would love to read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:At least he correctly pointed out that my post was based on my opinion. yeah, casualty parity would be impressive when you're doing battles like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_Harry
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Seriously, a more accurate analogy using your pointless square footage example would be this: Just to be clear, you are arguing that this is true even though none of the studies have ever seen my house or even know if I have a house, correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:yeah, casualty parity would be impressive when you're doing battles like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_Harry Okay, I agree with all y'all who are saying throatwarbler is misusing his statistics, but he never said that the Chinese were anywhere near casualty parity when fighting US forces. His point that the Chinese had casualty parity when fighting the South Korean troops, and this anecdote has nothing to do with that. And the vast majority of battles in the Korean War between the Chinese and the South Korean troops didn't go like this. The Chinese forces have a reputation for human wave attacks, but they actually relied heavily on infantry infiltration at night, only human waving when necessary against strongpoints like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Just to be clear, you are arguing that this is true even though none of the studies have ever seen my house or even know if I have a house, correct? No, that would be idiotic. loving forget it. It was a really stupid analogy to use in the first place because you're comparing apples and oranges. square footage of a standing building is easy to empirically measure. Wartime casualties, not as much, especially when various forces may have a vested interest in obscuring the results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Okay, I agree with all y'all who are saying throatwarbler is misusing his statistics, but he never said that the Chinese were anywhere near casualty parity when fighting US forces. His point that the Chinese had casualty parity when fighting the South Korean troops, and this anecdote has nothing to do with that. And the vast majority of battles in the Korean War between the Chinese and the South Korean troops didn't go like this. The Chinese forces have a reputation for human wave attacks, but they actually relied heavily on infantry infiltration at night, only human waving when necessary against strongpoints like this. I can see this being the case, but it seems like a weird hypothetical game to play. It's pretty hard to look at casualties in a battle by battle basis and pull conclusions from that when both sides were using coalitions to fight which complement each other even when coalition forces weren't literally fighting side by side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No, that would be idiotic. loving forget it. It was a really stupid analogy to use in the first place because you're comparing apples and oranges. square footage of a standing building is easy to empirically measure. Wartime casualties, not as much, especially when various forces may have a vested interest in obscuring the results. You (and others) are the ones who are making this ludicrous assertion in the first place that had almost nothing to do with my original discussion with Cyrano, which, I say again, is the matter of whether total South Korean deaths were 137k or 400k. If 137k is the correct figure, and given that it is an official figure from the South Korean government I am inclined for now to think it is, then Cyrano is correct that Chinese and North Korean forces suffered more men killed throughout the whole war than the UN. My original assertion was that the Chinese in particular didn't suffer more than the UN during their phase of the war, but we can get on that later if any of us have the strength left. Instead, all of you are rushing to assert that because Hastings was 1(one) source that indicated that there were 400,000 SK dead, I *MUST* also accept that Hastings' figure of 1.5m Communist casualties is correct. Yo know, maybe Hastings was just wrong on both? I certainly think he was about the communist side and it seems with the information we have now, especially from Cyrano's posts, he seems to have been wrong about the SK side too, but none of you have argued for or against this, only the rigid principle that I *MUST* consider all figures from all sources equally without any consideration as to their correctness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Can we shut up about casualty counts and go back to airpower? Some recon birds:   
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You (and others) are the ones who are making this ludicrous assertion in the first place that had almost nothing to do with my original discussion with Cyrano, which, I say again, is the matter of whether total South Korean deaths were 137k or 400k. If 137k is the correct figure, and given that it is an official figure from the South Korean government I am inclined for now to think it is, then Cyrano is correct that Chinese and North Korean forces suffered more men killed throughout the whole war than the UN. My original assertion was that the Chinese in particular didn't suffer more than the UN during their phase of the war, but we can get on that later if any of us have the strength left. Wrong again. I even made a post linking citations stating that while sources varied, the running trend is that they agree that the numbers were not equal. I was responding to this: Throatwarbler posted:The troop numbers and casualties on both sides were about evenly matched in Korea. I guess there's nothing for me to argue here since you've not posted anything other than your opinion, but it's not an opinion shared by anyone knowledgeable on the subject. You won't find me defending any one particular number anywhere in my posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
A lesser-known recon bird, the U-28:
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
It's about to be a lot better known after that crash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
USAF Drivers in the Southern Arabian Gulf are likely not pumped about this: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gulf-states-requesting-abm-capable-systems-04390/ edit: HAHAHAHHAHAA in that graphical overlay, there are two unknowns flying around with To Be Engaged Queue modifiers, meaning the system is set to weapons free. They're even in an air corridor orginating from what looks like a friendly airbase volume. 
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Wrong again. I even made a post linking citations stating that while sources varied, the running trend is that they agree that the numbers were not equal. Well if that's what you meant, great. I happen to think most of the sources on the page are wrong for the reasons I already posted earlier. On this and the last page you can see posters accusing me of not understanding statistics, because apparently in their world of statistics sources are never wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:My original assertion was that the Chinese in particular didn't suffer more than the UN during their phase of the war, but we can get on that later if any of us have the strength left. OK, I haven't had time to read all of the 30+ posts since this afternoon, and I doubt I'm going to be able to do an item-by-item recap or anything, but are you really arguing that the Chinese and the UN had similar casualties? I mean, the Chinese sources put their KIA at something like the 150k ballpark, and the total KIA for the entire UN coalition was in the 50k ballpark, with about 39k of that being American. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue here, or why, but to say that the Chinese didn't suffer any more than UN troops is a bit odd. 150,000 > 50,000 and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:19
|
|
VikingSkull posted:At least he correctly pointed out that my post was based on my opinion. He made an argument in the Ask/Tell history thread that was substantially similar to this. He tried to say that 1)China never enjoyed any real advantage in manpower and thus 2)The narrative of human wave attacks and massive Chinese casualties is false. He even went so far as to suggest that during the initial portion of the Chinese intervention the UN Forces enjoyed numerical supremacy. This is despite the fact that the Chinese pushed 30 divisions(with more following) across the Yalu to face 18 divisions in Korea. That's 18 divisions total, not 18 divisions in the vicinity of the Yalu. This is a quote from an article about the 1979 war with Vietnam. The operational tenets preached by the PLA: Xiaoming Zhang "China's 1979 War with Vietnam" posted:The real question for local Chinese military planners was to what extent the objective of teaching Vietnam a lesson could be achieved or measured. The conventional wisdom of the PLA always lays special stress on annihilation of enemy vital forces (yousheng liliang). One of the PLA's operational traditions is the employment of an absolute superior force to ensure victory. By mid-January 1979 more than one-quarter of the PLA's field armies were assembled at the China-Vietnam border, a total of more than 320,000 troops. Drawing from his own combat experience and based on the operational and tactic style the PLA had developed in the past, Xu Shiyou responded to the central leadership's war requirements with an approach known as niudao shaji (using a butcher's knife to kill a chick). The conduct of this engagement encompassed three basic elements: strikes must concentrate on the vital parts of the enemy's defence, but not on the enemy's strong point; overwhelming force and firepower should be used to smash the enemy defence at the point of engagement; attacking troops must move as quickly as possible to go deep, and strike all the way into the heart of the enemy. In this way, Xu expected his forces to cut the enemy defences into pieces, break opponent resistance, and then annihilate the opposition.52(footnote points to 'Zhou Deli', The Last Battle, pg 123-124)
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:On this and the last page you can see posters accusing me of not understanding statistics, because apparently in their world of statistics sources are never wrong. Look, this is far from worth it, but this is another example of a lame strawman. You read like a guy who already has a conclusion and is desperately grasping for evidence to support it rather than using evidence to reach a conclusion. but yeah, more pics of airplanes:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:OK, I haven't had time to read all of the 30+ posts since this afternoon, and I doubt I'm going to be able to do an item-by-item recap or anything, but are you really arguing that the Chinese and the UN had similar casualties? I mean, the Chinese sources put their KIA at something like the 150k ballpark, and the total KIA for the entire UN coalition was in the 50k ballpark, with about 39k of that being American. You didn't read all the posts, that's fine. I've said that if the figure of 137k for total South Koreans killed if accurate then I've been misled by the sources that claim 400,000 South Koreans killed and my statement is incorrect. quote:He made an argument in the Ask/Tell history thread that was substantially similar to this. He tried to say that 1)China never enjoyed any real advantage in manpower and thus 2)The narrative of human wave attacks and massive Chinese casualties is false. He even went so far as to suggest that during the initial portion of the Chinese intervention the UN Forces enjoyed numerical supremacy. This is despite the fact that the Chinese pushed 30 divisions(with more following) across the Yalu to face 18 divisions in Korea. That's 18 divisions total, not 18 divisions in the vicinity of the Yalu. Yes, and you know, I thought in that thread we agreed more than we disagreed. You keep posting anecdotes about the Chinese liked to concentrate superior force when attacking a position, as if this was a radical new Chinese development in warfare, or that it was typical in the doctrines of other countries to launch attacks on a superior enemy with inferior forces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You didn't read all the posts, that's fine. I've said that if the figure of 137k for total South Koreans killed if accurate then I've been misled by the sources that claim 400,000 South Koreans killed and my statement is incorrect. Stop. Just Stop. THIS, THIS is what this thread is about   
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Look, this is far from worth it, but this is another example of a lame strawman. I admitted to being unaware of the information that had been put forward just now and in that light my previous statement was probably incorrect. Look, here I am admitting it again. It's worth it to me because I enjoy reading your posts and respect the efforts that you've put into this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:43
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I admitted to being unaware of the information that had been put forward just now and in that light my previous statement was probably incorrect. Look, here I am admitting it again. SHUT THE gently caress UP gently caress Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Have some pictures in celebration of Iran's air defense exercises that were just announced.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Have some pictures in celebration of Iran's air defense exercises that were just announced. One of these things is not like the other...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Well here's something I learned on Wings of Russia. The Soviet authorities were so alarmed by the F-111 that they immedietely rushed a variant of their own with similar capabilities into service. The Su-24 was designed and entered produced in just 27 month. 10 prototypes crashed and 13 crew members were killed during testing, but the bomber gap was heroically closed.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Are you referencing the US I-HAWK system or the fact that the SA-3 may not actually be Iranian, though they have the system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
grover posted:A lesser-known recon bird, the U-28: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Blah, blah, loving blah. SHUT THE gently caress UP AND GET THE gently caress OUT ALREADY  I wish you were the Giraffe IRL. Except also on fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I wish I hadn't clicked on that image url. Poor giraffe  I hear they have quite nice dispositions (unlike some posters).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
priznat posted:I wish I hadn't clicked on that image url. Poor giraffe They can be unruly during the mating season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
You know, I woulda figured TFR being the home forum of TenementFunster you guys woulda been better at spotting/laughing off ridiculous trolls, but drat did throatwarbler have you guys going. On topic: A giraffe ate some leaves out of my hand once and it was tickly as hell. Welp, later!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > The Firing Range > Overheard stupid GIRAFFE RELATED poo poo thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
FEMA summer camp posted:
A giraffe licked my head at the Knoxville Zoo once. gently caress giraffes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:They can be unruly during the mating season. Aren't we all, though??
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
priznat posted:Aren't we all, though?? Not if you actually want to, you know - mate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 14:25
|
|