Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#141

Post by zipwitch »

wavefunction wrote: post #117
dreen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, although the books indeed don't mention it I don't think it's entirely out of the question. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth) > Tolkien indicates that Orcs are "always hungry".[24] Orcs eat all manner of flesh, including men and horses, and there are frequent hints of cannibalism among Orcs. Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they…

Orcs were corrupted/mutated elves and uruk-hai were corrupted/mutated humans iirc but could be mistaken It wouldn't necessarily be cannibilism then.

That's a popular and oft-repeated conception, but not precisely canon. Tolkien was never able to definitively pin down the origin and nature of his orcs to his own satisfaction, and never reached any final decision, afaik.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#142

Post by andrewl »

perlgeek wrote: post #130
tobyhede wrote: post #126

Orc supply logistics is eased somewhat by the ability of the Orc armies to eat the defeated and if required, each other. In the latter case the strong orcs eat the weak, preserving the elite and veteran parts of the army. There is a strong hierarchy within the various Orc subtypes, and an argument could be made that the Orc army marches as its own supply.

I don't think the book mentions any green, fertile farmland in Mordor, nor do the movies show any. So even if the Orc-eats-Orc or Orc-eats-Man "supply" might work for a short campaign, the biomass must come from somewhere, initially.

In the chapter The Land of Shadow in The Return of the King the narrator says:

"Neither he nor Frodo knew anything of the great slave-worked fields away south in this wide realm, beyond the fumes of the Mountain by the dark sad waters of Lake Núrnen; nor of the great roads that ran away east and south to tributary lands, from which the soldiers of the Tower brought long waggon-trains of goods and booty and fresh slaves. Here in the northward regions were the mines and forges, and the musterings of long-planned war; and here the Dark Power, moving its armies like pieces on the board was gathering them together."

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#143

Post by zipwitch »

tobyhede wrote: post #138
perlgeek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the book mentions any green, fertile farmland in Mordor, nor do the movies show any. So even if the Orc-eats-Orc or Orc-eats-Man "supply" might work for a short campaign, the biomass must come from somewhere, initially.

Book explicitly mentions slave farms in the East. But yes, cannibalism and human forage is not sustainable, but might stretch a 10 day supply to 15.

I think it's great slave farms in Southern Mordor, around the inland sea of Nurnen. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/n/nurn.php

(There may also have been farms in the East that I'm not remembering. The East was definitely under Sauron's thumb, although perhaps not so firmly as he would have liked.)

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#144

Post by zipwitch »

arethuza wrote: post #11
HenryKissinger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The film does show them mowing down soldiers with their claws and inspiring terror in others: https://youtu.be/HX4KKkSKZAY?t=197

I seem to recall that one of the names for Angmar was "The Captain of Despair" - literally a terror weapon.

Obligatory pedantry: "Angmar" was the name of the northern realm which the Lord of the Nazgul once ruled as the "Witch-King of Angmar". We don't know what his original name was, although I believe there's a reference to him being a Lord of Numenor somewhere. Tor.com recently had a nice overview of him: https://www.tor.com/2019/10/31/exploring-the-people-of-middl...

The only canonically named Ringwraith was Khamul, the Witch-king's number two. (Roleplaying game company Iron Crown Enterprises once put out some nice but totally unofficial names for all the Nazgul.)

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#145

Post by zipwitch »

jacobush wrote: post #18
_Microft wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit like things rendering Enterprise's transporters inoperative just when beaming up the away-team would have been the easiest solution. Oh, and to make it less obvious, you better announce a few minutes earlier that a plasma storm is forming in the upper atmosphere.

Or my favorite order never heard on the bridge of Enterprise "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" . Fine, often it would go against the ethos of what they are trying to do. But sometimes, they could have beamed home the away team and proceeded to rain fiery death from above with photon torpedoes or whatever.

In the good old days, of usenet, James D. Nicoll had a signature that read: "Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our depth." "Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#146

Post by zipwitch »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have phasers with enough power to boil the oceans of a planet, and torpedoes that can travel faster than light. Yet every conflict takes place at extremely close proximity, often on the same plane, as if they were ships in the age of sail. They have force fields with a critical flaw (harmonic resonance means any energy weapon using the same frequency as the shields can just shoot right through them) but whenever…

Star Trek: TNG made a teenage me wonder why starships encountering each other always appeared to have matched their orientations. Was there some kind of prearranged signal? A diplomatic code adhered to even by enemies? Just a general preference on all sides concerned preventing headaches and vague unheimlich feelings of discomfort? So many questions… If I was harassing the federation I would keep my ship at an awkwar…

Cue the great SF writer E.E. 'Doc' Smith of Lensman fame, who went into detail on the challenges of just getting two spaceships to match velocities closely enough to allow docking at transfer of passengers and cargo. (He did handwave the speed of light away, though.)

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#147

Post by rpeden »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have phasers with enough power to boil the oceans of a planet, and torpedoes that can travel faster than light. Yet every conflict takes place at extremely close proximity, often on the same plane, as if they were ships in the age of sail. They have force fields with a critical flaw (harmonic resonance means any energy weapon using the same frequency as the shields can just shoot right through them) but whenever…

Star Trek: TNG made a teenage me wonder why starships encountering each other always appeared to have matched their orientations. Was there some kind of prearranged signal? A diplomatic code adhered to even by enemies? Just a general preference on all sides concerned preventing headaches and vague unheimlich feelings of discomfort? So many questions… If I was harassing the federation I would keep my ship at an awkwar…

I remember thinking the same thing. They did break the matching orientations in the final episode with the attack from below, which was fun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=did164yEFx4&feature=youtu.be...

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#148

Post by zipwitch »

mcguire wrote: post #35
HenryKissinger wrote: post #2

Next up: How Gondor won despite a complete lack of air support (see: winged wraiths) and superior enemy armor (see: Mumakil).

If you're not familiar with Corey Olsen ( https://tolkienprofessor.com/ ), one of his frequent points is that, while the First Age elves had some air support in the form of Manwë's eagles, Morgoth didn't until he invented winged dragons shortly before the final battle. (Balrogs don't fly.)

> (Balrogs don't fly.)

Them's thar's fightin' words. :)

I don't have a copy of the old Usenet FAQ handy, but here's a tiny sample of the debate for any curious readers:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Balrogs/Wings http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FAQ/Do__Balrogs__have...

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#149

Post by Noumenon72 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #134
gherkinnn wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book “On Killing” does mention this. Killing seems to be a lot easier when done to a fleeing enemy. Something about running away makes one a juicy target.

S.L.A. Marshall was a fraud, and “On Killing” should be read with the knowledge it was written by a fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall Some veterans and historians have cast doubt on Marshall's research methods.[15] Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article, "S. L. A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fi…

> S.L.A. Marshall was a fraud, and “On Killing” should be read with the knowledge it was written by a fraud.

"On Killing" was not written by S.L.A. Marshall, but by Dave Grossman.

I know a few people have attempted to check this thesis by examining how many historical weapons we have are loaded, or reconstructing battles with laser beams. I'm still skeptical because it's so counterintuitive and old science never replicates, but I don't think "On Killing" has fallen apart yet.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#150

Post by kleton »

Balgair wrote: post #128
Animats wrote: post #110

Operations is the level of analysis between tactics (how do I fight when I get there?) and strategy (why am I fighting at all?). The USMC calls that "campaigning". See MCDP 1-2 [1]. Campaigning is about which battles to fight and where. Strategy includes economic and diplomatic issues, but campaigning is purely military. Military history can be divided into two parts - before machine guns, and after machine guns. Bef…

> Military history can be divided into two parts - before machine guns, and after machine guns. Before machine guns, bunching up was good tactics. After machine guns, it was terrible tactics. Too much of WWI was about learning that the hard way. Terribly good point! I want to refute you, but I'm not really coming up with much. Automatic rifles are just devastating. How did you come to this conclusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
Post reply on HN