Originally Posted by princeofcats67

on knowledge, both of the street and the book.

I was actually refering to your knowledge of that one book.

Either way, though Too Many Chiefs and Not enough Indians maybe the order of the day. It's a frequently invoked prayer on many a event where I work. The common mantra is that preformance degrades when there are more than 5 employees to 1 supervisor. My response is that we probably need to accept than people generally should be semi-autonomous operators. Still doesn't prevent 5 chiefs from marking up on an event where there are only 4 Indians working.

Might be the story of the saeculum.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I was actually refering to your knowledge of that one book.

Either way, though Too Many Chiefs and Not enough Indians maybe the order of the day. It's a frequently invoked prayer on many a event where I work. The common mantra is that preformance degrades when there are more than 5 employees to 1 supervisor. My response is that we probably need to accept than people generally should be semi-autonomous operators. Still doesn't prevent 5 chiefs from marking up on an event where there are only 4 Indians working.

Might be the story of the saeculum.

I do appreciate your desire to know my opinion on the matter, but I'm actually more interested
in what you think/feel about Willis John Abbot's comments concerning WWI. I mean, think about
it. It doesn't really matter what I think about it(or what you've been taught); What matters is,
ultimately, your own opinion.


Prince

PS: I do have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd rather hear your take on it first.
(especially considering the name you've chosen as an avatar).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I do appreciate your desire to know my opinion on the matter, but I'm actually more interested
in what you think/feel about Willis John Abbot's comments concerning WWI. I mean, think about
it. It doesn't really matter what I think about it(or what you've been taught); What matters is,
ultimately, your own opinion.


Prince

PS: I do have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd rather hear your take on it first.
(especially considering the name you've chosen as an avatar).

Well, I'm kinda biased and trying to be open to other approaches, and I'm not all the way through the book yet, but ghe impression I get is that Abbot thinks the US is really important, because every time they show up, even in the mildest context, he talks the action up, even when it's more or less nothing. Meanwhile, all the facts surrounding it kinda says to me that Allied forces were just shellshocked, more than anything. To them, I think, the disorganization and destruction on a scale never before seen... US, Japan, Antarctica... It didn't matter to them. Europe was being obliterated. And not just Moscow or Vienna like in the Napoleonic wars, but entire countries were just getting rocked. I think Abbot over emphasized any little US action knowing Europe didn't care.

Further, Europe saw itself as the end all, be all of mattering. Everwhere else was just resources to exploit should some European show up and manage the savages. Even though the US was full of people of European descent, I think they saw us as the Romans saw the Ostrogoths or the Huns (the original ones, not what we called Germans in WWI). Barbarians? The uncivilized? Backwoods? That's kinda what I see. Their taking aid from us shows just how desperate they were, and honestly that unnofficial European Crown being handed over to the US after WWII shows just how desperate they were to have the Hegemon *not* be Russia (I mean, they won the Napoleonic Wars and WWII, and all they really have to show for it is that bad ass stoic attitude). I still think Europe looks down on the US overall.

What percentage of firearms that people own are semi-automatic? Seems like the next data point for comparison.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't follow your logic.

The point being that if semi-automatic weapons are the overwhelming majority of weapons owned, their selection doesn't show a strong correlation between semi-automatics and murder, just that semi-automatics are prefered overall. Kinda like how the disproportionate number of black people in the US is way more worrisome than those in Ethiopia

The vast majority of guns sold in America are semi-automatic. This is not the same as an "assault rifle."

No one buys revolvers, except perhaps historical collectors.

Kepi got it, though I think he is missing the word "prison" in there somewhere, unless he is trying to suggest that the presence of black people in America is worrisome.

Doesn't this tactily imply that criminals who commit mass shootings are a representative sample of all gun onwers when it comes to selection of tools for killing?

Really, dude? No, it doesn't tacitly imply anything, it merely asks if your findings are different from the norm.

Looking into it, it would appear that "assault weapons" are not a majority of all firearms. This article says that assault rifles are a small fraction of all firearms owned. Another article has this:

Wait, I thought we were talking about semi-automatics. Where do "assault weapons" come in?

assault weapons != semi-automatics

Taken together it implies that the are more non semi-automatic weapons than semi-automatic weapons. And that most run-of-the-mill gun incidents (e.g. domestic violence, street violence) apparently do not involve semi-automatic weapons with large capacity detachable magazines.

I am not really sure why we are drawing these distinctions between different types of gun violence. Do drunken spouses and poor black people somehow count differently when discussing death by firearm?

I don't really understand what it is you are trying to prove.

I don't know, Jordan, why did you read "street violence" and substitute "poor black people"?

Pin-the-Racism is a fun game the whole family can enjoy.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The vast majority of guns sold in America are semi-automatic. This is not the same as an "assault rifle."

No one buys revolvers, except perhaps historical collectors.

Lots of people buy handguns.

What kind of gun was used at Newtown? California Street? The other mass shootings? That kind of gun should be banned.

Preferably punished, too. Evil gun!

Forget about this thread I started. I thought I was referring to a question that does not seem to be in this thread. Apparently WW I is being discussed. I have no idea where this post to which I thought I was responding is, maybe another thread and I posted on the wrong one?

Did I just imagine it? No wonder why everyone is confused. I'm confused. My bad.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Lots of people buy handguns.

The vast majority of handguns are semiautomatics. You really owe it to yourself to at least inform yourself slightly about matters on which you plan to hold strong opinion.

Maybe I can save this thread from Mikebert's unintentional thread-jacking!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I imagine if TR had been in power though, the USA could have exercized a big stick and changed how things went down in the 20s and 30s...

-And all we would have had to do is figure out how to extend Teddy's life by a decade or two...

Besides, what makes you think he wouldn't have sided with the Nazis? He could have gotten over Quentin. Different regime, you know, and no hard feelings and all that...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd say the consensus is that America's entry tipped the scales for the Allies to win, after 4 years of stalemate on the Western front...

-The Germans might have been able to win in 1918 if we hadn't shown up, but they had to win quick. If they didn't, the blockade would have finished them off.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

... British people tend to get a bit furious when you suggest America won the war...

-The fact is, that the Brits weren't doing too well in the spring of 18 (before we showed up). They probably could have held, but who knows. We certainly saved them quite a bit of trouble.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... The USSR began fighting Germany in June 1941 (though they were fighting the Japanese back in the summer of 1938)...

-You can throw in that right after Khalkhin Gol, the Soviets invaded Poland (after letting the Germans do most of the heavy lifting). Then they invaded Finland (after working on the Baltics).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...It was the Soviet Union that fought (and defeated) the armies of Germany...

-The Soviets inflicted about 70% of German casualties (i.e., killed, wounded, and captured), IIRC.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...It was the Soviet Union that fought (and defeated) the armies of Germany. The Americans and the British generally contented themselves fighting and defeating the women and children of Germany.

-Not exactly. Your phraseology in the first line is literally accurate, which is also its limitation. It's fair to say that the Red Army defeated the German army. But the Allies first distracted, then defeated the German air force. After the firebombing of Hamburg (JUL 43), the Luftwaffe began defending the homeland by pulling fighter squadrons off the fronts, including the Eastern Front. After that, the Germans never enjoyed air supremacy anywhere, including the Eastern Front, although they did pull off temporary local air superiority. Operation Pointblank attacked German aircraft factories, which in turn forced the Luftwaffe to come up against our fighters. By MAR 44, the Luftwaffe's losses were so bad that Germany's enemies (including the Soviets) could operate without worrying too much about the Luftwaffe. So, on the airpower issue alone, the Soviets would have had a much tougher time without the allies, maybe an impossible one.

You can throw in a few other factors like lend lease (highly under-rated) and the disproportionate number of well-equipped and skilled German units fighting the Allies compared to the Soviets (the opposite was true of the Italians, with their best units facing the Soviets, until SEP 43).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... The US didn't start fighting until December of '41, and didn't start participating in the war in Europe until the summer of '43 on the island of Sicily -- right around the time that the USSR was fighting and winning the biggest armored fight in history at the same time as the most intense air battle in history ...

-Military historians are still arguing about how much the Allied invasion of Sicily had to do with the Germans calling off Operation Citadel. But to say the Soviets "won" Kursk is a bit of a stretch. During Citadel, the Germans, attacking into the teeth of superior numbers and a well-prepared (and forewarned) defense, inflicted a 3:1 casualty rate of the Soviets. Tank losses were even more lop-sided, and the Germans were able to repair most of their losses since they held the field. German penetrations of something like 20 miles into the Soviet lines forced the Red Army to counter-attack, during which time the casualty rate was something like 7:1 (which even the Soviets couldn't sustain). More than likely, the Red Army got let off the hook.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Forget about this thread I started. I thought I was referring to a question that does not seem to be in this thread. Apparently WW I is being discussed. I have no idea where this post to which I thought I was responding is, maybe another thread and I posted on the wrong one?

Did I just imagine it? No wonder why everyone is confused. I'm confused. My bad.

We need a moderator, but no one wants one. This is the conundrum of T4T.

Or, we could just let the threads go where they may. Discussion of things people want to talk about seem to get along just fine.

Enjoy the free market in ideas.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Preferably punished, too. Evil gun!

You are not good, nor are you up to speed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The vast majority of handguns are semiautomatics. You really owe it to yourself to at least inform yourself slightly about matters on which you plan to hold strong opinion.

I would favor banning all handguns, but that does not seem politically possible at the moment. Meanwhile, if the vast majority of handguns are now semi-automatics, then that means this has recently changed. That change should be disregarded; it is an effort by greedy gun companies to make money, by making it easier to kill more people more quickly, and Gen X gun nuts and libertarians like you fall for it. A real handgun is a pistol; it has 6 chambers for 6 rounds, and each round is fired by one pull of a trigger.

Yet another thread hijacked by gun nuts. Too bad. What on earth does this have to do with the idea of a megasaeculum, pray tell?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are not good, nor are you up to speed.

What are you, 10? You're making fun of my name now? The one I was born with?

Besides, this thread was already suffering from drift. What does WWI have to do with the saeculum?

So Kepi, everytime I start to respond, I find myself typing-out treatise-length commentaries. For
some reason I often feel inclined to spell everything out, maybe because I don't much enjoy inefficient
back-and-forth discussions; I'm really not sure. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to keep this as brief as
possible, while maintaining some semblance of some larger observations that I feel a concern to identify.
So, here goes:

First, I'm glad that you took the initiative to hunt-down the book; It's right there available on Google-Books
(and other places), as I suspect you already know. I'm actually more concerned with Abbot's introduction(s).
Here's the one I own(1917-Edition). Also, here's the (1918-Edition). I'd really liked to have re-printed them
in their entirety b/c there's just so much to comment-on, IMO. The Bottom Line is that his is a POV from
someone who was living it in that particular moment(as opposed to a bunch of current-day intellectuals).
I also find it interesting that Abbot referenced the poem The Present Crisis by James Russell Lowell with
the line "Nor attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blood-rusted key".

Concerning the question at hand, I believe it has something to do with The USA as a super-power
(or something along those lines). As any productive discussion is best begun IMO, I would go to
Confucious and use a Rectification of Terms(Names) to find some level of agreement, and thus
hopefully minimize possible mis-understandings.

There seems to be a discrepancy over the use of the term "winning". I concur. Is it some sort of
objective-term with different metrics that can be analyzed and ranked, or is it a subjective term with
relative meanings depending-on the individual players' view of themselves or how they are viewed by
others? Maybe a combination of both and/or something else altogether?

I am of the mind that "winning"(and even "losing") are primarily subjective/relative terms that, even if
defined objectively, are but temporal in nature. IOW, even if we are to define "winning" by some sort of
metric(eg: power/authority), the "winner" only remains so until they are not. I believe we could agree
that Germany was the big "loser" in WWI, but some 20-25 years later, not so much. I would make a
case for not defining a "winner", but instead, "survivors", but then again, even that term can be subjective.
So, when I typed-out this response, I started with WWI and moved forward to the end of WWII. But
having done so, I believe it's more productive to start with the end of WWII and work our way backwards.

For definition purposes:
Top Dog=an objective definition, generally speaking, of the topic.
Leadership=a subjective definition. I'm not going to address this
at this time.

I believe we both can agree that the "Top Dogs" after WWII were the USA, Russia(Soviet Union), and
China, generally speaking, and I believe the question is only concerned with the Western Powers.
So, the question as I see it is if the USA was "Top Dog" i/r/t the Western Powers prior to the end of
WWII, and if so, when.

I believe the USA in both WWI and WWII had the specific advantage of being geographically distant
from any sort of destruction of Industry or Civilian Population. Add to that her accessability to certain
natural and financial resources, and I believe we could agree that she was at a distinct "advantage"
to the other Allies. But that does not a "Top Dog" make, IMO. And keep in mind that I'm looking at
the question, not only in some sort of objective sense, but also(and more importantly, IMO) in a subjective
sense in how she viewed herself, how she was viewed by others, and how others viewed themselves.

Out of all of the data/info, two things really stick-out to me.
1) The Western Allies(Britain and France) incorrectly believed that they held a superior
position to German Forces in 1940 before the "von Manstein Plan"(and Guderian) was
succesfully executed. And despite the miraculous recovery of human lives from Dunkirk,
the fact that the Allies had under-estimated the German Forces and/or over-estimated
their own position points to Arrogance(ie: confidence proved incorrect), IMO. I could go
further into depth here, but I believe we both would agree that if France and/or Britain
had believed themselves "Top Dogs" before that(and the subsequent Capture of Paris),
they no longer did so(But that's not to say that the USA was the Top Dog; Only that
France and/or Britain probably believed themselves to be "Top Dogs", and thus probably
didn't view the USA as such).

2) Germany declaring War on the USA. This pretty much speaks for itself, IMO.
There was really no need to do so at that time. Again, that just points to Arrogance
(ie: confidence proved incorrect), IMO.

So basically, anyone can pick some objective metric(s) to try and answer the question.
Post WWI, I believe the number of battleships was seen as an important metric of military
power, but that didn't really work-out too well, IMO. Metrics can change over time, so I
don't put too much faith in them(ie: I'm not interested in "fighting the last war".)

Subjectively, I believe Britain and France viewed themselves as Top Dogs, and viewed the
USA as a lesser entity. I can't comment on how the USA viewed herself, but I would think
that if she did think of herself as Top Dog, the under-estimation of the power of destruction
of the German Military Forces points, not to Arrogance, per se, but maybe: Ignorance/Naivete.

Note: I'm kinda losing my interest, so I'm just going to stop here before this thing
gets any longer.


Prince

PS: Having typed this out, I'm really hesitant to post it, but I will. This topic is far too
complicated i/r/t the data/info to be considered, as well as the opinions of particular
board members. Plus, I believe it's too easy for a discussion to get bogged-down in
the weeds because of an affinty towards specifics(minutia), as well as certain members
apparent desire for "winning" arguments(ie: being recognized, usually only by themselves!,
as being "right"). FWIW, I do not see myself as being one of those members, and to
anyone else reading this, I'm not inclined to respond at length on any matter in the future.

There are plenty of people on this Message Board that have particular
understanding and/or experiences, in different degrees, in certain areas
of study, IMO. I actually would love to discuss some historical military
occurances and perspectives with some of the people here. But, as we
discussed earlier, this topic, as well as most on this MB IMO, may just be
impossible for any productive/meaningful discussion due to:

"Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would favor banning all handguns, but that does not seem politically possible at the moment. Meanwhile, if the vast majority of handguns are now semi-automatics, then that means this has recently changed. That change should be disregarded; it is an effort by greedy gun companies to make money, by making it easier to kill more people more quickly, and Gen X gun nuts and libertarians like you fall for it. A real handgun is a pistol; it has 6 chambers for 6 rounds, and each round is fired by one pull of a trigger.

Yet another thread hijacked by gun nuts. Too bad. What on earth does this have to do with the idea of a megasaeculum, pray tell?

Holy shit... The ignorance in this post makes my head hurt.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Holy shit... The ignorance in this post makes my head hurt.

Join the club. My head hurts from reading all these gun nut posts on a thread where they don't belong. Don't you guys have enough threads around here?

I know what a real handgun is. I watch Perry Mason all the time. No, those were NOT semi-automatics!

If you want a real discussion on this, try taking it back to the threads where it belongs, sir.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Note: We were not discussing murders in general, but mass shootings, which is a tiny subset of all murders. So I changed "murders" to "mass-shootings" in your statement which I address below.


Doesn't this tactily imply that criminals who commit mass shootings are a representative sample of all gun onwers when it comes to selection of tools for killing?

Looking into it, it would appear that "assault weapons" are not a majority of all firearms. This article says that assault rifles are a small fraction of all firearms owned. Another article has this:


Taken together it implies that the are more non semi-automatic weapons than semi-automatic weapons. And that most run-of-the-mill gun incidents (e.g. domestic violence, street violence) apparently do not involve semi-automatic weapons with large capacity detachable magazines.

If this is true then mass-shooters are probably selecting semi-automatics with large detachable magazines because they they are a better tool for the job than, say, a revolver.

Here's where we're getting confused. Semi-automatic refers to the cycling action on a firearm, nothing else. It answers the question of "how do I get a round from the magazine, clip, tube from where it's chambered into position for firing?" So pump action, bolt action, lever action, and single action revolvers are your other options (double action revolvers function like semi-automatics, readying a round in the same action you fire it, so I'd count it to, for the sake of argument).

Semi-automatics come in every flavor of fire arm style, from pistols (unless you watch nothing but Westerns, almost every handgun you see on TV is semi-automatic). Assault rifles, on the otherhand, are arguably a sub-style of body. Now, I would argue that in order to be an assault rifle, selective fire, in which semi-automatic and either full auto, burst fire (2, 3 or any other shot burst), or both must be present to qualify, in which case classifying what is being fired in spree shootings as an assault rifle is false. Now, on the otherhand (and this is my chief concern), if we were to say that there were a class of weapon that was an "assault rifle", what would it encompass?

See, I'm fine with laws like Virginia's Striker law, which prohibits semi-automatic shotguns, as well as demanding barrel length be no less than 18 inches specifically because the law is specific on what qualifies, and it basically let's me know, clearly, what bounds I have and what bounds I have to buy in without being worried about carrying paperwork on me everywhere I transport the weapon to prove I bought something pre ban. The "assault weapons ban" language in both the law which expired and the proposed bill are vague, and the reasoning behind both is highly questionable. I really don't think it's fair to ban a rifle because it has a black finish, do you? Now while that's not explicitly stated in any law, to me it seems to be the only real unifying feature in what they're banning.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

So Kepi...

PS: Having typed this out, I'm really hesitant to post it, but I will. This topic is far too
complicated i/r/t the data/info to be considered, as well as the opinions of particular
board members. Plus, I believe it's too easy for a discussion to get bogged-down in
the weeds because of an affinty towards specifics(minutia), as well as certain members
apparent desire for "winning" arguments(ie: being recognized, usually only by themselves!,
as being "right"). FWIW, I do not see myself as being one of those members, and to
anyone else reading this, I'm not inclined to respond at length on any matter in the future.

There are plenty of people on this Message Board that have particular
understanding and/or experiences, in different degrees, in certain areas
of study, IMO. I actually would love to discuss some historical military
occurances and perspectives with some of the people here. But, as we
discussed earlier, this topic, as well as most on this MB IMO, may just be
impossible for any productive/meaningful discussion due to:

"Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians".

In the spirit of brevity you tend to appreciate, I tend to agree with you on all major points, especially the notion of England and France presuming themselves as Top Dog (though I will say that there is only 1: Ice Cube), and I especially appreciated the bit about the US's tactical advantage in geography as it is something I've often thought, but never taken pen to paper over.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would favor banning all handguns, but that does not seem politically possible at the moment. Meanwhile, if the vast majority of handguns are now semi-automatics, then that means this has recently changed. That change should be disregarded; it is an effort by greedy gun companies to make money, by making it easier to kill more people more quickly, and Gen X gun nuts and libertarians like you fall for it. A real handgun is a pistol; it has 6 chambers for 6 rounds, and each round is fired by one pull of a trigger.

Yet another thread hijacked by gun nuts. Too bad. What on earth does this have to do with the idea of a megasaeculum, pray tell?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Holy shit... The ignorance in this post makes my head hurt.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Join the club. My head hurts from reading all these gun nut posts on a thread where they don't belong. Don't you guys have enough threads around here?

I know what a real handgun is. I watch Perry Mason all the time. No, those were NOT semi-automatics!

If you want a real discussion on this, try taking it back to the threads where it belongs, sir.

You do realize that with a rather specifically simple eloquence you described how semiautomatic weapons fire and said specifically that this is how hand guns should be, then turned around and said they should be illegal. Are you sure you're not running the absolute longest troll ever?

Originally Posted by Kepi

In the spirit of brevity you tend to appreciate, I tend to agree with you on all major points, especially the notion of England and France presuming themselves as Top Dog (though I will say that there is only 1: Ice Cube), and I especially appreciated the bit about the US's tactical advantage in geography as it is something I've often thought, but never taken pen to paper over.

Thanks. It's just my(our) opinion, but it's nice to find some concensus sometimes.

BTW, the length of your response is much appreciated, but my comments were directed
more towards certain someones who apparently feel the need to express their opinions
on almost every topic(regardless of their level of understanding and/or experience).
And, as far as our interactions are concerned, if there's anything you desire to comment-on
or discuss, now or in the future, I would ask that it be broken-down into small chunks, as
opposed to really long responses(not that there's anything "wrong" with them; I just get
overwhelmed by too much data/info ).

I'd also add that there are plenty of members here that I feel have a better handle on alot
of these topics than I do. I would probably defer to the opinions of JDG, Copper, Justin,
and Semo(to name a few) i/r/t military operations(In fact, I believe there have even been
a number of War College graduates here at different times). But that's not to say that others
don't have different POVs that are productive in different related aspects to a topic at hand.
I will say that I feel I'm generally competent enough to have a conversation in a number of
areas. IOW, I don't consider myself a know-it-all(far from it!), and I would hope that you
don't perceive me as such.

Also, not to be overly critical, but to expand upon one of your comments, I would
say that the USA's geographical advantage is not only tactical, but strategic, as well.
(eventhough, IMO, Strategy and Tactics can be seen as simply a difference in relative scale).
And what I mean more specifically is that the advantage is more defensive in nature.
Offensively, and i/r/t logistics/supply i/r/t forward/remote units, it poses, and has posed
quite a challenge(eg: getting lend-lease supplies safely to England and beyond, or holding
a forward/remote position; The North Atlantic immediately comes to mind.) And that
brings-up the importance of Intelligence, Co-Operation, and Agreement of Purpose, IMO).
Admiral Ernest King is a case study both positively and negatively in this area, IMO.
Again, I suspect you already know this stuff; I'm just expanding a bit on the topic.

So, enough of that.


Prince

PS: I'd be interested in your(or even some others') opinion on this:
(I posed this question to Mikebert, but didn't receive a response).

Any general thoughts on the Dawes Plan and/or Young Plan
i/r/t contributing to WWII(ie: Weimar's Economy)?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would favor banning all handguns, but that does not seem politically possible at the moment. Meanwhile, if the vast majority of handguns are now semi-automatics, then that means this has recently changed.

Hmmm... I guess if you stretch 'recently' to go all the way back to the 1930s, then yeah...

A real handgun is a pistol; it has 6 chambers for 6 rounds, and each round is fired by one pull of a trigger.

That's called a 'revolver'. It is a handgun, but not a pistol. A Glock Safe Action like police forces use is a pistol, as is this little guy here: