The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

[Moon Unit Tsu]

Sun Tsu is one of those semi legendary philosophers, like Socrates, who probably existed. But later “philosophers” found him a convenient source to strap their own opinions on.
Things were different back then. The in-thing to do was not to put things out in your own name, but to attribute your ideas to a famous name.
So a lot of obvious shit is attributed to a famous guy who is above reproach.

One thing that has always annoyed me was the idea that “the wisdom of the East” is superior to anything Western.
That’s why wargamers with Samurai armies always pout that “Western knights never faced Samurai!” Well, the opposite is also true. Samurai never faced Western knights. So your WRG and DBM army lists and Special Rules are really just a joke.

My point? Sun Tsu is rather obvious wisdom, given an undeserved patina of superior wisdom. I prefer Machiavelli.

[Guest]

I wonder if Bill will “register” Moon Unit Tsu.

[sebigboss79_nli]

Revisionist bullshit based on cherry-picked instances...

VC personnel were no more versed in surviving in the jungle than US troops, especially if it was a recruit forcibly sent in from the North - in their own words! The Australians were better at it than either group.

Was it General Doi's plan to attrit his force to almost a battalion at Firebase Ripcord?

I said PAVN, there were hardly any VC post TET and the North Vietnamese government preferred it that way.

Sun Tsu?!? Weak trolling. You think the average NVA commander was well versed in Sun Tzu and knowing when to take advantage of a favorable situation? North Vietnamese divisions tried rolling in several times, but were repelled experiencing heavy losses and the last time involving US air power and South Vietnamese ground forces and they were surprised at the progress made in 1975. PAVN generals were no more gifted than US ones!

This is the kind of borderline racist bullshit apology for how East Asians fight - the East isn't inscrutable! Reminds me of proponents of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko's New Chronology: discredited by Russian historians, yet found new life in the post Cold War West.

There's plenty of bullshit from the US side, like stabbed in the back notions, but there's an equal amount of revisionist bullshit from Hanoi, yet certain people by into the latter's spin, simply due to their personal biases.

Hit a nerve, condom? First chapters of Dr Gibson's book would have done the yanks good in understanding they won't win and guess what: They knew. They just had enough middle class white lives to throw away. Go ahead with the bullshit retort, just makes his (and my) point: You are an arsehole.

PAVN Generals were gifted enough to kick your yank ass out of the country, deal with it.

[sebigboss79]

Calling a long term in depth study "revisionist bs" because it disagrees with your amateur opinion says a lot about you, condom. Jfi are you such a dumbfuck in real life, too or just here?

[Guest]

Calling a long term in depth study "revisionist bs" because it disagrees with your amateur opinion says a lot about you, condom. Jfi are you such a dumbfuck in real life, too or just here?

That’s a good question you could ask everybody who participates in this thread.
Let me be the first to admit that, yes. I am.

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

Revisionist bullshit based on cherry-picked instances...

VC personnel were no more versed in surviving in the jungle than US troops, especially if it was a recruit forcibly sent in from the North - in their own words! The Australians were better at it than either group.

Was it General Doi's plan to attrit his force to almost a battalion at Firebase Ripcord?

I said PAVN, there were hardly any VC post TET and the North Vietnamese government preferred it that way.

Sun Tsu?!? Weak trolling. You think the average NVA commander was well versed in Sun Tzu and knowing when to take advantage of a favorable situation? North Vietnamese divisions tried rolling in several times, but were repelled experiencing heavy losses and the last time involving US air power and South Vietnamese ground forces and they were surprised at the progress made in 1975. PAVN generals were no more gifted than US ones!

This is the kind of borderline racist bullshit apology for how East Asians fight - the East isn't inscrutable! Reminds me of proponents of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko's New Chronology: discredited by Russian historians, yet found new life in the post Cold War West.

There's plenty of bullshit from the US side, like stabbed in the back notions, but there's an equal amount of revisionist bullshit from Hanoi, yet certain people by into the latter's spin, simply due to their personal biases.

Hit a nerve, condom? First chapters of Dr Gibson's book would have done the yanks good in understanding they won't win and guess what: They knew. They just had enough middle class white lives to throw away. Go ahead with the bullshit retort, just makes his (and my) point: You are an arsehole.

PAVN Generals were gifted enough to kick your yank ass out of the country, deal with it.

What's with the emphasis on someone's title? It's like Raffaele D'Amato getting upset when referred to as Mister and isn't a guarantee that someone's infallible.

I won't disagree with the book in its entirety, since the US strategy was a mess, but claiming VC controlled every engagement is revisionist bullshit and I have issues with people who hold something as gospel at the expense of everything else, since it conforms to their biases.

Name a PAVN general who routed US forces and how were they gifted?

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

Calling a long term in depth study "revisionist bs" because it disagrees with your amateur opinion says a lot about you, condom. Jfi are you such a dumbfuck in real life, too or just here?

If you want to be mental, go ahead...

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

Sun Tsu is one of those semi legendary philosophers, like Socrates, who probably existed. But later “philosophers” found him a convenient source to strap their own opinions on.
Things were different back then. The in-thing to do was not to put things out in your own name, but to attribute your ideas to a famous name.
So a lot of obvious shit is attributed to a famous guy who is above reproach.

One thing that has always annoyed me was the idea that “the wisdom of the East” is superior to anything Western.
That’s why wargamers with Samurai armies always pout that “Western knights never faced Samurai!” Well, the opposite is also true. Samurai never faced Western knights. So your WRG and DBM army lists and Special Rules are really just a joke.

My point? Sun Tsu is rather obvious wisdom, given an undeserved patina of superior wisdom. I prefer Machiavelli.

The problem is Machiavelli Art of War isn't practical, despite the praise from quarters: he just re-regurgitates Vegetius and some other writers, just to hype his own cred, while besmirching condottieri. Most pursuing a military calling in the Medieval/Renaissance world would've read a Latin or vernacular copy of De Re Militari, but wouldn't make the reader an awesome commander, and Machiavelli's militia failed miserably in battle.

Regarding Sun Tzu, it's funny how smegboss thinks PAVN commanders were well versed, yet even if some were, it didn't produce results on the battlefield. He gets het up when I point out the various offensives with conventional forces were defeated with heavy losses. He's stupid enough to think every East Asian is great at maths and knows martial arts...

Katana Kunts aside, anyone familiar with Thomas Cleary? I've read his translations of of the Chinese military classics, like the treatise written by Sun Tzu's descendant and commentaries about the Art of War, and the Japanese works derived from them.

http://www.samurai-archives.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70048&sid=48cf0052f15b45e19e23f17d4274a817#70048

It's been a long time since I read any Cleary, but reading his stuff in undergrad, specifically his translation of the Sun Zi and the "Japanese Art of War", he was one of the worst at trying to turn things into cosmological "philosophy" instead of "hey, this is a book about how to kill the enemy". He was at the forefront of turning Chinese & Japanese texts into some sort of Eastern exotic voodoo mystic mumbojumbo adapted to business or yoga or horse racing or whatever. My Asian philosophy professor loved him, which should immediately be a red flag. He's considered a hack at best by the Chinese history profs I know, and is one of the main reasons I'm wary of anything put out by Shambala Publishing.

[sebigboss79]

Calling a long term in depth study "revisionist bs" because it disagrees with your amateur opinion says a lot about you, condom. Jfi are you such a dumbfuck in real life, too or just here?

That’s a good question you could ask everybody who participates in this thread.
Let me be the first to admit that, yes. I am.

Hi Bill. Fuck off, Bill.

I'm not disagreeing with the book in its entirety, just with people who hold it as gospel at the expense of everything else.

No one said it is a gospel. It just points out a few facts inconvenient for your argument.

What does it have you claiming the VC being ninjas and having control over every engagement?

For starters pages 108, 109, 157, 158 which clearly state around 3/4 of engagments being initiated and terminated by decision of the "bad guys". Most engagements being US Units ambushed (~ 54% !), "hot" LZs being 12.5% and US forces willingly engaging enemy Units at ~ 25% INCLUDING where " reasonable intelligence" (aka we got lucky) was the reason for the engagement. Plus US forces being nowhere near a "break even" of bodycount high enough to "kill more than are freshly recruited".

Please elaborate how the described enemy force was not superior to the US Forces? If these statements were exagerations, why does literally all of this data come from US Forces themselves? Displaying utter incompetence is neither advisable, nor a trait of US Armed Forces, the OpFor was simply better and won.

There is also evidence that VC numbers were decided "at will" by the Administration in DC for political reasons while military intelligence and the boots on the ground knew better.

Name a PAVN general who routed US forces.

Which part of routing them is required to win the war (or a battle)? Correct, NONE whatsoever.
However, if running was not required why call it "Operation Frequent Wind"

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

Name a PAVN general who routed US forces.

Which part of routing them is required to win the war (or a battle)? Correct, NONE whatsoever.
However, if running was not required why call it "Operation Frequent Wind"

Not going to answer the question are you? Show me another example of Dien Bien Phu...