War Elephants, Part II: Elephants Against Wolves (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by mattmanser » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 12:41 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #13

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...

>>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…

That's not even the main thrust of his arguments against why chemical weapons are useless.

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

#42

Post by a1369209993 » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #30

jcranmer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A major avenue of research in chemical weapons was efficient delivery. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html But to simplify, you don’t just release a gas on it’s own you need a dispersal system like an explosive.

Well, yes, that's kind of the point: given the ability to deliver a explosive to your enemy's position, what makes it worthwhile to include (generally expensive and inconvenient to tranport) chemical weapon material rather than additional explosive and maybe some shrapnel. If it's that the area remains dangerous longer, then congrats, you have impaired your own ability to maneuver into or through that area once the enemy retreats.

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

#43

Post by marci » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

z3phyr wrote: post #4

nickbauman wrote: post #2

"Moreover, the Roman elephants were smaller African elephants, effectively useless against the large Asian elephants the Seleucids used" I thought African elephants were larger than Asian elephants?

There were two kinds of African Elephants; one from North Africa were domesticated and became extinct due to overexploitation. North African elephants were very small and lightly built compared to Asian varieties. The White African Elephants of the Savanah, to which we all are familiar were never domesticated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_elephant

There were three african species, now there are two:

- the (bigger) african bush elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_bush_elephant)

- the (smaller) african forest elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_forest_elephant)

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

#44

Post by Retric » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 2:13 AM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #42

Retric wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major avenue of research in chemical weapons was efficient delivery. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html But to simplify, you don’t just release a gas on it’s own you need a dispersal system like an explosive.

Well, yes, that's kind of the point: given the ability to deliver a explosive to your enemy's position, what makes it worthwhile to include (generally expensive and inconvenient to tranport) chemical weapon material rather than additional explosive and maybe some shrapnel. If it's that the area remains dangerous longer, then congrats, you have impaired your own ability to maneuver into or through that area once the e…

WWII shows the absolutely mind boggling amount of bombs you can drop on an area without actually killing that many people. After buildings have already been hit once they make repeated strikes less effective. Chemical weapons are pound for pound vastly more deadly, especially as a follow up and more importantly disable people tying up resources for medical treatment and evacuation.

The most recent example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack which killed or incapacitated ~5,000 with a few rockets. It also acted at least in the short term as area denial which can be extremely useful.

PS: In terms of fighting a near parity army, simply using tents separated by sandbag walls makes bombs or rocket strikes significantly less effective. Add even the threat of chemical weapons and things become significantly more difficult. http://armymomstrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2-milita...

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

#45

Post by User23 » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 3:15 AM UTC

fakedang wrote: post #27

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…

Can confirm. Back in India, my grandparents had a driver who later won the lottery. He used the winnings to buy two elephants, what he thought were a good investment (elephants are regularly rented out for expensive sums to temples for functions and celebrations). Now he's a driver once more. But he has two elephants tho.

I remember reading somewhere that Roman emperors would give troublesome patricians an elephant as a gift. If he let the elephant die it was a grave insult and the emperor would proscribe him and take all his stuff. And otherwise he’d be stuck paying for the upkeep of a useless elephant.

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

#46

Post by ardy42 » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 4:00 AM UTC

User23 wrote: post #45

fakedang wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm. Back in India, my grandparents had a driver who later won the lottery. He used the winnings to buy two elephants, what he thought were a good investment (elephants are regularly rented out for expensive sums to temples for functions and celebrations). Now he's a driver once more. But he has two elephants tho.

I remember reading somewhere that Roman emperors would give troublesome patricians an elephant as a gift. If he let the elephant die it was a grave insult and the emperor would proscribe him and take all his stuff. And otherwise he’d be stuck paying for the upkeep of a useless elephant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

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

#47

Post by InfiniteRand » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

z3phyr wrote: post #4

nickbauman wrote: post #2

"Moreover, the Roman elephants were smaller African elephants, effectively useless against the large Asian elephants the Seleucids used" I thought African elephants were larger than Asian elephants?

There were two kinds of African Elephants; one from North Africa were domesticated and became extinct due to overexploitation. North African elephants were very small and lightly built compared to Asian varieties. The White African Elephants of the Savanah, to which we all are familiar were never domesticated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_elephant

Was over-exploitation really the key factor in North African elephants going extinct? I always thought it was due to increasing desertification + the expansion of human settlement in North Africa, but that's just idle speculation

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

#48

Post by fakedang » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 8:24 AM UTC

bitbckt wrote: post #34

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. :)

I'll be honest though: I wouldn't have referred to numerous historical encyclopedias and visited countless museums to learn about history, if I hadn't started out playing a demo version of Age of Empires 2 when I was 6. Once I saw a map of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, and for the next two weeks, I was hell-bent on creating a Jerusalem on the map editor in AoE. And a few years back, on a work trip to Israel, I ended up visiting the city just to see the places I had built out nearly 2 decades earlier.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 9:18 AM UTC

setr wrote: post #39

padobson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by throwaway_pdp09 » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

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…

Please provide a link when quoting from elsewhhere.

Also you're badly overlooking the obvious. In full "...killing 12 people,[1][2] severely injuring 50, and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 1,000 others"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack