GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[keith mackenzie]

Doesn't happen very often, but I had to look this one up:
  
 
  tendentious \ten-DEN-shuhs\, adjective:
Marked by a strong tendency in favor of a particular point of view.
   
  All types of social disagreements seem to be routed almost inexorably into the tendentious jargon and intellectually impoverished categories of legal reasoning, until everyone from Alan Dershowitz to the guy fixing your radiator insists on giving you his opinion about fundamental rights, or presumptions of innocence, or probable cause, or--God help us--"what the Constitution requires."
-- Paul F. Campos, Jurismania: The Madness of American Law
   
  Just in case I wasn't the only one.
  K.
   
   
   
  
ccj at infionline.net wrote:
  Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:


Bruce,

First, I disagree with your characterizations of the thread. Second, your 
statements and questions have become esoteric and tendentious, and in one 
instance below, insulting. Frankly, I can't answer some of them, because I 
doubt they can be answered, and even if they could, I doubt they could be 
answered to your satisfaction. You can continue your investigation in the 
following works:

Beebe, Gilbert W., and Michael E. De Bakey. Battle Casualties: Incidence, 
Mortality, and Logistic Considerations. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. 
Thomas, c1952.



Dupuy, Trevor N. Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment 
Losses in Modern War. Falls Church, Va.: NOVA Pubs., 1995.



Great Britain. Army. Army Operational Research Group. Memorandum No. F.6. 
Trends in Warfare. April 1955.



Longmore, Sir Thomas. Gunshot Injuries. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 
1877.



Curt Johnson



----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/1/06 7:08:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> ccj at infionline.net writes:
>
>> Setting aside for the moment that the thread has entered into a new area 
>> of
>>
>> inquiry, this is the first I've heard that the discussion has revolved
>> around the absence of data. I have said from the beginning that there is 
>> a
>> mass of medico-military information available. I can't recall that 
>> anyone
>> has said, "No, this isn't so." Rather, what has happened, it seems to 
>> me,
>> is that the results of analyses of available data that I presented were
>> questioned on the bases of impressions or factoids. There's no way I can
>> help people prove their impressions by providing data that doesn't exist.
>
> You're avoiding the question. Where is this "basic data" supposedly so
> readily available to be found? Yes, there is some information from 
> medical sources
> available but, as has been expressed in several postings in this thread
> already, taking that information at face value is risky. More than risky, 
> in fact;
> downright naive. Were killed-to-to wounded ratios from various forms of
> artillery fire all the same? Were they the same as from small arms fire? 
> Why
> should we believe that this hospital information reflects the true 
> distribution of
> battlefield casualties (including variations in killed versus wounded)?
>
>>
>> In the present instance, the question has less to do with that 
>> information.
>> It has more to do (in my opinion) with doctrine and combat realities, and 
>> if
>>
>> I were inclined to investigate it, which I am not, I'd examine doctrine 
>> and
>> readily-available data on artillery ammunition expenditure in battle.
>> Without having looked at the data, I'd wager that the big killer in the 
>> 10%
>> of casualties attributed to artillery was spherical case. In fact, I'd 
>> say
>> that that should be plain without an investigation.
>>
>
> So, you have not bothered to actually do the dirty work of examining the
> data? Well, that certainly saves effort ... I would agree that spherical 
> case
> probably was the primary cause of those 10% reported casualties from 
> hospital
> data (not the "big killer" but the "big wounder"), but I would also argue 
> that
> is because canister casualties were more frequently unreported due to 
> combat
> circumstances (i.e., they occurred in close proximity to the enemy, so
> canister-wounded had less of a chance of making it to a friendly hospital 
> to report the
> wound, whereas spherical case-wounded in most circumstances could be
> transported to a hospital).
>
> Bruce Trinque
> Amston, CT


----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at: http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 - present at http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/


 
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.