Books for those who can read

Hank Scorpio · Post by **Hank Scorpio** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:47 pm

Gav wrote:
steamboatwillie wrote:The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz
Don't want to piss on anyone's fireworks but do a bit of googling on this. Apparently, it's not a true story.

Because Soviet paperwork says he was released? Trusting Soviet records to provide a definitive account of the truth is just fucking laughable, you limey wanker.

Gav · Post by **Gav** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:03 pm

steamboatwillie wrote:Trusting Soviet records to provide a definitive account of the truth is just fucking laughable

Yes, imagine the BBC wasting all that money making a documentary on why it wasn't true when they could have just asked you.

stosh · Post by **stosh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:59 pm

I checked out all these allegations when I read the book. Rawicz had no motive to make it up: He made little money off the book, donated most of it to charity, and did nothing to market himself. The BBC, on the other hand, has an obvious motive to attempt to discredit him.

Now, if he said he survived the long walk due to his previous years of KB training and he started hawking Rawicz Kettlebells...

The Rawicz Kettlebell Corporation. RKC. Heh.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:11 pm

On Killing by Dave Grossman is, by far, the most fascinating book I've read in a long time.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:11 pm

Land of Plenty by Fuchsia Dunlop

DARTH · Post by **DARTH** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:54 pm

On Killing is a great book.

Some of the Killers I know have said the book makes some great points, and some not so great, but overall they all advised me to read it.

His Wolf, Sheep and Sheep Dog points about personalities is a pillar of truth IME.
I'm a Sheep Dog.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:57 pm

I'm a cat.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:06 pm

Most interesting was the fact that Pre-Vietnam real war scenes would be laughable compared to what movies show us. Civil War battles had troops lined up at 30 yds. shooting volleys that should have dropped 150 men. One or two would fall. Ancient battles were basically shield shoving matches. Alexander the Great's army only had 700 killed in action while conquering millions. It makes Thermopolae a lot more understandable.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:12 pm

I would be very surprised if it wasn't a shoving match; in any combat sports I've seen--even ones where ostensibly you want to maintain range--it is very difficult to do so with two parties in aggressive forward movement.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:54 pm

Jack wrote:Certainly they shoved to vie for position or to break ranks on the enemy side. But once routed, slaughter.

I think you are misinterpreting me. This is what I meant. The shoving was to break the enemy ranks, at which point they were kebab'd.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:55 pm

DARTH wrote: His Wolf, Sheep and Sheep Dog points about personalities is a pillar of truth IME.
I'm a Sheep Dog.

Ah yes indeed. I linked to that in another topic...
http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11528

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:59 pm

Let me just go on record as saying that that is juvenile, even puerile, to the point of ridiculousness. There's only three kinds of people. Riiiight. People who buy into these kinds of models, the kind that don't, and the kind that take the time to point out how fucking stupid mental straitjackets like this are. I am the third kind of person.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:01 pm

Jack wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:
Jack wrote:Certainly they shoved to vie for position or to break ranks on the enemy side. But once routed, slaughter.
I think you are misinterpreting me. This is what I meant. The shoving was to break the enemy ranks, at which point they were kebab'd.

Oh, ok, got ya. Thanks.

An interesting latter day tactic of the Renaissance is the "pike and shot" formations that would use essentially phalanx-like tactics in alternation with arquebus volleys. Swiss mercenaries were famous for these methods, and I believe they were inspired by the records of Greek tactics.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:04 pm

Fat Cat wrote:Let me just go on record as saying that that is juvenile, even puerile, to the point of ridiculousness. There's only three kinds of people. Riiiight.

From the article...

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum.

Etc.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:11 pm

Then what is its use? Can I be a sheepwolf?

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:13 pm

Jack wrote:Troy, people in Greece wiped out each others tribes and villiages wholesale and then ruined the farms too. The xtian ethos and morals of Civil War vets is not the mind of a Hoplite looking to settle a dispute with an enemy.

The book is complex enough, as you know, that I don't want to get into the details. However, a Hoplite was different in that he had a long-range weapon (pike), and mechanical distance makes it easier, and was in formation (crew served weapons nearly always kill).

The Christian thing falls apart when you look at the Falklands. Two Christian nations, one side is given operant conditioning and 95% of the riflemen shoot, once side doesn't and 15-20% shoot.

Alexander and his ilk later killed aplenty. The Greeks dropped heroic combat in favor of disciplined ranks. That's why ME types lost to them.

Their enemies frequently wouldn't.

Also, there is substantially easier to kill a fleeing enemy or wipe out civilians in atrocities under the right circumstances.

Fat Cat wrote:I would be very surprised if it wasn't a shoving match; in any combat sports I've seen--even ones where ostensibly you want to maintain range--it is very difficult to do so with two parties in aggressive forward movement.

I'm generally talking about relatively disorganized single combat with smaller weapons. Pikemen generally kill easier than swordsmen, archers easier than pikemen, and artillery crews don't give a fuck.

DARTH · Post by **DARTH** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:35 pm

What overcomes the morals issue in the case of the Falklands, is the training toward killing that the Britts use.

They used a figure 11 target, that was the shape size, and painted like a Soviet Trooper.
That coupled with the aggressivness of the units used, it was largly a Para, Royal Marine and SAS/SBS show on the ground.

If you have read the book, this is coverd under stimulis response training and why Video games do help training for killing.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:21 am

Fat Cat wrote:Then what is its use? Can I be a sheepwolf?

Yea, it's called being in the middle ranks of the bully hierarchy. Pick on old ladies and children but are otherwise a pussy.

johno · Post by **johno** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:43 am

DARTH wrote:They used a figure 11 target, that was the shape size, and painted like a Soviet Trooper.
That coupled with the aggressivness of the units used, it was largly a Para, Royal Marine and SAS/SBS show on the ground.

After the Falklands, the Paras trained with 2/75 Rangers, in '85. A Para told me about bayonetting Argentinians who were cowering in their sleeping bags.... It clearly bothered the Para, but they had to do it.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:13 am

DARTH wrote:What overcomes the morals issue in the case of the Falklands, is the training toward killing that the Britts use.

They used a figure 11 target, that was the shape size, and painted like a Soviet Trooper.

And had them shooting at them from realistic shooting positions, and with a rewarding process. That's what I meant by operant conditioning.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:49 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Jack wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:
Jack wrote:Certainly they shoved to vie for position or to break ranks on the enemy side. But once routed, slaughter.
I think you are misinterpreting me. This is what I meant. The shoving was to break the enemy ranks, at which point they were kebab'd.

Oh, ok, got ya. Thanks.
An interesting latter day tactic of the Renaissance is the "pike and shot" formations that would use essentially phalanx-like tactics in alternation with arquebus volleys. Swiss mercenaries were famous for these methods, and I believe they were inspired by the records of Greek tactics.

Sorry Senior Pussy Cat,

The pike and shot formation was developed by the Spaniards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_%28weapon%29

The Swiss and Germans relied upon Halberds and Long swords as part of their pike formations.

BTW- here is a nice picture of the swiss & Landsknecht model:

BB2/75

Hagbard · Post by **Hagbard** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:23 pm

Baroque Cycle

finished this up over the weekend, great trilogy. Stephenson gave a good shake at how newton, leibniz etc may have acted and even thought. Not too shabs. Lots of fun, with a pretty reasonable level of "thinking" involved for a mass market recreational book.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:52 pm

nafod wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:Then what is its use? Can I be a sheepwolf?
Yea, it's called being in the middle ranks of the bully hierarchy. Pick on old ladies and children but are otherwise a pussy.

Wow. It's almost like science. Almost.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:31 am

Fat Cat wrote:
nafod wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:Then what is its use? Can I be a sheepwolf?
Yea, it's called being in the middle ranks of the bully hierarchy. Pick on old ladies and children but are otherwise a pussy.
Wow. It's almost like science. Almost.

Yea, kind of like psychology.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:35 am

Stick to your simplified reality. Life outside of the fishbowl would be overwhelming for a delicate person like you.