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

War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#31

Post by Retric »

jcranmer wrote: post #20
sandworm101 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>in order to produce mass casualties in battlefield conditions, a chemical attacker has to deploy tons – and I mean that word literally – of this stuff. While I do agree with much of what this guy has to say about elephants, he is totally wrong about chemical weapons. We don't use mustard gas because it would indeed require tons of gas and be ineffective, but chemical weapons have evolved in the last 100 years . Mod…

Well, how much does it take to create a cloud of poisonous gas that is sufficiently concentrated to induce lethality and also spreads reasonably quickly that people can't escape it? Bret gives the example of the Tokyo terrorist attack that released sarin in several crowded subway cars... and killed 12 people. Grenades would have killed far more people far more quickly... and that's the point: chemical weapons are far…

Dispersal is a well studied problem: https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html

But to simplify, cluster mutinous are more effective vs troops than a single large detonation. Similarly, rather than starting from a single source you want to spread the weapon from a large number of points. By comparison to 7mg/m3 a 1 metric ton weapon could ideally cover a square kilometer to a thickness of 30m and concentration of 30mg/m3.

Notably, exposure time plays a major role in lethality so covering a wider area makes it much harder to escape from.

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#32

Post by ekanes »

z3phyr wrote: post #8
ekanes wrote: post #6

Definitely interesting, but the post isn't about elephants vs wolves (no wolves are mentioned!) but about why the Romans didn't adopt the use of elephants in war. TLDR; Despite being theoretically SUPERBADASS (my words), elephants are only somewhat effective against prepared armies, but are expensive and hard to maintain, especially compared to horses.

The Wolves are representative of the Romans! Legend has it that the founders of Rome were raised by a she wolf! A lot of roman cultural items have an imagery of the she wolf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Oh, of course. Sigh. Thanks.

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#33

Post by ekanes »

smogcutter wrote: post #9
ekanes wrote: post #6

Definitely interesting, but the post isn't about elephants vs wolves (no wolves are mentioned!) but about why the Romans didn't adopt the use of elephants in war. TLDR; Despite being theoretically SUPERBADASS (my words), elephants are only somewhat effective against prepared armies, but are expensive and hard to maintain, especially compared to horses.

The wolves in this case are the Romans themselves (The wolf being a symbol of Rome thanks to the Romulus and Remus myth). republican light infantry wore wolf pelts, and legionary standard bearers wore animal pelt headdresses, including wolves.

Thanks!

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#34

Post by bitbckt »

faitswulff wrote: post #11

I’m really appreciating the video game references - literally the article mentions the cost of elephants relative to horses in the Total War and Imperator series: > Let’s take Total War: Rome II as an example: a unit of Roman (auxiliary) African elephants (12 animals), costs 180 upkeep, compared to 90 to 110 upkeep for 80 horses of auxiliary cavalry (there are quite a few types) – so one elephant (with a mahout) cost…

Many of his video game or (current, pop) cultural references seem to stem from the challenges he faces teaching students for whom these references are their only exposure to pre-modern ideas.

But they are fun. :)

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#35

Post by mcguire »

padobson wrote: post #12
smogcutter wrote: post #10

It’s interesting that his analysis of war elephants has a lot of parallels to his thoughts about chemical weapons. In the hands of a sufficiently advanced military, both are an expensive, complicated solution in search of a problem, and both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor. This is what I was thinking the whole time. Rome was surrounded by peer competitors, and OP says their most effective use of elephants was against non-peer competitors like Spain or Gaul. So why would competitors continue to use elephants? Not because Roma was susceptible, but because THEIR boarder competitors were susceptible. Elephants were not worth it to defeat we…

IIRC, horses.

Cavalry can't be used around elephants unless the horses are specifically trained to be around elephants. Rome itself of the Republican/early Imperial era didn't use cavalry, although some of their allies did. As a hypothesis, those using elephants may have been fighting entities that used cavalry.

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#36

Post by sandworm101 »

cortesoft wrote: post #24
sandworm101 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tokyo attack was unprofessional. A military attack would be exponentially more effective. Sarin is also tame compared to some of the more nasty stuff out there.

Is it nastier than a conventional explosive weapon, though, at least for military purposes?

Yes. A conventional explosive kills in the immediate area. These things pollute, killing for days/weeks/months.

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#37

Post by sandworm101 »

jcranmer wrote: post #22
sandworm101 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tokyo attack was unprofessional. A military attack would be exponentially more effective. Sarin is also tame compared to some of the more nasty stuff out there.

How would militaries be exponentially more effective? As far as I'm aware, the military can't magically change the laws of gaseous diffusion.

Military munitions are engineered dispersal devices. They do a far far better job than plastic bags and umbrellas.

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#38

Post by mcguire »

Retric wrote: post #31
jcranmer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, how much does it take to create a cloud of poisonous gas that is sufficiently concentrated to induce lethality and also spreads reasonably quickly that people can't escape it? Bret gives the example of the Tokyo terrorist attack that released sarin in several crowded subway cars... and killed 12 people. Grenades would have killed far more people far more quickly... and that's the point: chemical weapons are far…

Dispersal is a well studied problem: https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html But to simplify, cluster mutinous are more effective vs troops than a single large detonation. Similarly, rather than starting from a single source you want to spread the weapon from a large number of points. By comparison to 7mg/m3 a 1 metric ton weapon could ideally cover a square kilometer to a thickness of 30m and concentr…

How long does the gas cloud last, in various wind conditions?

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#39

Post by setr »

padobson wrote: post #12
smogcutter wrote: post #10

It’s interesting that his analysis of war elephants has a lot of parallels to his thoughts about chemical weapons. In the hands of a sufficiently advanced military, both are an expensive, complicated solution in search of a problem, and both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor. This is what I was thinking the whole time. Rome was surrounded by peer competitors, and OP says their most effective use of elephants was against non-peer competitors like Spain or Gaul. So why would competitors continue to use elephants? Not because Roma was susceptible, but because THEIR boarder competitors were susceptible. Elephants were not worth it to defeat we…

Perhaps not coincidentally the same can be said of chemical warfare -- not so great in large scale war, but fairly effective against poor, untrained militia and enforcing order through fear on civilian populations

Re: War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019)

#40

Post by Retric »

mcguire wrote: post #38
Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dispersal is a well studied problem: https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html But to simplify, cluster mutinous are more effective vs troops than a single large detonation. Similarly, rather than starting from a single source you want to spread the weapon from a large number of points. By comparison to 7mg/m3 a 1 metric ton weapon could ideally cover a square kilometer to a thickness of 30m and concentr…

How long does the gas cloud last, in various wind conditions?

Really depends on local conditions, but as a benchmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people[3] to 1,729.[14] and 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in 3 hospitals supported by MSF[5]

However, it was considered safe enough for the UN to inspect the area the next day.

Post reply on HN