Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: / paroling and exchanging (was: THE BATTLE OF VICKSBURG

Expand Messages
  • Jfepperson@aol.com
    ... No, not at all. Suppose I have a 100,000 man army, and you have a 60,000 man army. We fight a battle, and in this battle we both take 1,000 men
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
      In a message dated Mon, 3 Jun 2002 4:12:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carlw4514@... writes:

      > I must be dense, because it seems to me arithmetic
      > produces equality of exchange, cheating being another
      > issue. Calls for higher math ? [g]

      No, not at all. Suppose I have a 100,000 man army, and
      you have a 60,000 man army. We fight a battle, and in this
      battle we both take 1,000 men prisoners, with 6,000 K&W.
      If we exchange prisoners, after the battle I have 94,000
      men and you have 54,000 men. If we don't exchange, I
      have 93,000 and you have 53,000. 93/53 is (very slightly)
      higher than 94/54, thus the superior force is better off
      not exchanging.

      Actually, there is some higher math involved, because
      one can show that, when making equal deductions from
      two forces, the smaller force is reduced by the greater
      fraction. This means an equal exchange policy is always
      a disadvantage (numerically) to the stronger force.

      JFE
    • fishx111@cs.com
      Carl As a monday morning quarterback ,it certainally would have been more humanitarian, to have made POW exchanges. Certainally the POW camps were not
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
        Carl

        As a monday morning quarterback ,it certainally would have been more
        humanitarian, to have made POW exchanges. Certainally the POW camps were not
        adequate,and with a little more foresight and planning conditions could have
        been a lot better than they were.There was no excuse for some of the
        conditions,ie Rock Island, ElmiraNY, Andersonville.

        I think at first the consensus was the war would be over in weeks or
        months,not years.That being the case, there was no need to have adequate
        Camps for that short of time frame.

        Neither side should feel good about their POW camps.


        Fish
      • carlw4514
        Thanks, that is the first time someone ever explained the math to me that made any sense. I wonder, though, if the decision was really made on the basis of
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
          Thanks, that is the first time someone ever explained the math to me that made
          any sense.
          I wonder, though, if the decision was really made on the basis of such slim
          advantage in the face of such woefull consequences.
          Carl

          --- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:
          > No, not at all. Suppose I have a 100,000 man army, and
          > you have a 60,000 man army. We fight a battle, and in this
          > battle we both take 1,000 men prisoners, with 6,000 K&W.
          > If we exchange prisoners, after the battle I have 94,000
          > men and you have 54,000 men. If we don't exchange, I
          > have 93,000 and you have 53,000. 93/53 is (very slightly)
          > higher than 94/54, thus the superior force is better off
          > not exchanging.
          >
          > Actually, there is some higher math involved, because
          > one can show that, when making equal deductions from
          > two forces, the smaller force is reduced by the greater
          > fraction. This means an equal exchange policy is always
          > a disadvantage (numerically) to the stronger force.
          >
          > JFE
        • carlw4514
          Another thought: if the problem was dishonesty regarding the paroles, why not stop that practice but continue the exchanges (ignoring the bean-counters)? That
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
            Another thought: if the problem was dishonesty regarding the paroles, why not
            stop that practice but continue the exchanges (ignoring the bean-counters)?
            That is, only exchange real prisoners. One would have absolute control, then: I
            release my 1000 prisoners to you when you release your 1000 to me.

            Carl

            --- In civilwarwest@y..., fishx111@c... wrote:
            > Carl
            >
            > As a monday morning quarterback ,it certainally would have been more
            > humanitarian, to have made POW exchanges. Certainally the POW camps were not
            > adequate,and with a little more foresight and planning conditions could have
            > been a lot better than they were.There was no excuse for some of the
            > conditions,ie Rock Island, ElmiraNY, Andersonville.
            >
            > I think at first the consensus was the war would be over in weeks or
            > months,not years.That being the case, there was no need to have adequate
            > Camps for that short of time frame.
            >
            > Neither side should feel good about their POW camps.
            >
            >
            > Fish
          • hartshje
            Just a sarcastic thought to add here: Since the Southerners claimed that each of them was worth TWO Yankees in battle, did the Confederacy insist on only
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
              Just a sarcastic thought to add here: Since the Southerners claimed
              that each of them was worth TWO Yankees in battle, did the
              Confederacy insist on only getting one parolee exchanged for every
              two Yankees exchanged? :) I rather doubt that!

              Joe H.

              --- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:
              > Suppose I have a 100,000 man army, and you have a 60,000 man army.
              > We fight a battle, and in this battle we both take 1,000 men
              > prisoners, with 6,000 K&W.
              >
              > If we exchange prisoners, after the battle I have 94,000
              > men and you have 54,000 men. If we don't exchange, I
              > have 93,000 and you have 53,000. 93/53 is (very slightly)
              > higher than 94/54, thus the superior force is better off
              > not exchanging.
              >
              > Actually, there is some higher math involved, because
              > one can show that, when making equal deductions from
              > two forces, the smaller force is reduced by the greater
              > fraction. This means an equal exchange policy is always
              > a disadvantage (numerically) to the stronger force.
              >
              > JFE
            • Jfepperson@aol.com
              In a message dated 6/3/02 10:39:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Hey, I used to teach calculus for a living... ... slim ... No, the decision was made on the
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
                In a message dated 6/3/02 10:39:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                carlw4514@... writes:

                > Thanks, that is the first time someone ever explained the math to me that
                > made any sense.

                Hey, I used to teach calculus for a living...

                > I wonder, though, if the decision was really made on the basis of such
                slim
                > advantage in the face of such woefull consequences.

                No, the decision was made on the basis of perceived cheating by the
                other side. And the slimness of the advantage is only due to the specific
                numbers I used.

                JFE
              • Jfepperson@aol.com
                In a message dated 6/3/02 11:31:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Hartshje@aol.com ... There actually are some comments in the OR about how much more
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
                  In a message dated 6/3/02 11:31:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Hartshje@...
                  writes:

                  > Just a sarcastic thought to add here: Since the Southerners claimed
                  > that each of them was worth TWO Yankees in battle, did the
                  > Confederacy insist on only getting one parolee exchanged for every
                  > two Yankees exchanged? :) I rather doubt that!

                  <smile>

                  There actually are some comments in the OR about how much more
                  valuable "our" men are to "us" than the enemy's men are to him. Of
                  course, both sides make this kind of comment --- kind of like the
                  typical Civil War skirmish: hard fought, confusing, and both sides claim
                  victory!

                  JFE
                • fishx111@cs.com
                  Referencing two for one. I dont think the CSA suggested a two for one exchange.When push came to shove their somewhat arrogant or psych job came back to a more
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 3, 2002
                    Referencing two for one. I dont think the CSA suggested a two for one
                    exchange.When push came to shove their somewhat arrogant or psych job came
                    back to a more realistic
                    thought pattern.It came more to rality after Appomattox and Durham.

                    The Japanese may have had this thought pattern also on 12/7/41, but after
                    Hiroshima and Nagasaki , their thought pattern became more realistic.
                  • dmsmith001
                    ... Taken to absurd levels, suppose I have a 10,000 man army, and you a 1,000 man army. I capture your entire army. Same effect, just in totality. Dave
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 4, 2002
                      --- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:
                      >
                      > Actually, there is some higher math involved, because
                      > one can show that, when making equal deductions from
                      > two forces, the smaller force is reduced by the greater
                      > fraction. This means an equal exchange policy is always
                      > a disadvantage (numerically) to the stronger force.
                      >
                      > JFE

                      Taken to absurd levels, suppose I have a 10,000 man army, and you a
                      1,000 man army. I capture your entire army.

                      Same effect, just in totality.

                      Dave
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.