Remembering Hunter S. Thompson: Gatling guns, loose hogs and

[Botef]

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."


----

Remembering Hunter S. Thompson: Gatling guns, loose hogs and editing

By DAVID MCCUMBER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER MANAGING EDITOR

The Gizzard of Darkness. Nixon and the Whale Woman. Bad Nerves in Fat City. Doomed Love in the Rockies: Hunter Stockton Thompson was, among other things, a great headline writer.

Each of those lines topped one of the columns the inimitable Doctor Thompson wrote in the halcyon days of the San Francisco Examiner, and each of them, for me, is a memory of angst, exhiliration and exhaustion, in roughly that order, from the time when I "edited" Hunter's work.


Thompson
"We are, after all, professionals," he would say, calmly, after having tortured another deadline to the last possible second before the press began to turn.

A day after his shocking death, I know those memories will mean more and more as I go about my duties in a Hunterless world. It will be weird, knowing when the phone rings at 4 a.m. that it really is bad news -- good news always waits 'til noon, as they say -- and not Hunter. He used the telephone like a weapon, and usually at an hour when the mortals he associated with, like me, were attempting sleep. It's a good reporting technique, and he used it well that way, too. He had great sources, and he certainly wasn't afraid to use them -- at any hour. Witness the last column he wrote for ESPN.com -- a wee-hours phoner with Bill Murray.

Most of the time, he simply wanted to share a laugh. As savvy and skeptical as he was as a journalist, it's easy to forget his almost boyish sense of fun. Sometimes, it meant firing .22 tracers from his hand-crank Gatling gun across the Woody Creek-Lanado Road when he got irritated at the traffic, or blowing an old Jeep pickup into thousands of pieces of flaming shrapnel on his back forty. Sometimes, it meant posing in his hot tub with Mona, an inflatable doll -- the only one of her plastic ilk, I'll bet, who earned a book dedication ("To Mona, who made this outburst possible").

Sometimes, it meant driving crazy-fast through a blizzard with the top down in one of his two ancient red convertibles, negotiating four-wheel skids on icy curves while fiddling absently with the stereo, trying to get the lyrics to the Cowboy Junkies' "Where Are You Tonight?"

Or posting crude steel vultures with glowing red eyes at the top of his driveway, or scattering dozens of plastic cockroaches in his refrigerator, or setting a large, live hog loose in a friend's restaurant dining room.

At the same time, his accomplishments as a journalist and literary lion were monumental. He will be remembered with the likes of Twain and Mencken -- and should be.

Thompson's early work was searing: the seminal book "Hell's Angels," followed by "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," the drug-soaked epic that made his name and has been adapted twice to the screen. Then came his brilliant journalism in Rolling Stone, including reporting from Vietnam, from Chicago in 1968 and from the campaign trail in the next six presidential elections. Perhaps most memorable of this work, for me, was his endorsement of Jimmy Carter, which was at the same time hard-nosed and hilarious, and probably played a significant role in Carter's election. His analysis of why the Dukakis campaign was in trouble was equally absorbing and prescient.



Later, he covered such disparate cultural events as the Super Bowl and the Roxanne Pulitzer divorce trial with the same fluid, inimitable, weirdly eloquent writing style. And the columns -- boy. What a ride.

Back in '85, everybody at the Examiner figured Hunter's column would last maybe three weeks before it blew up in a bloody froth of disputes over deadlines, editing and expenses. (One of Hunter's truisms about journalism: "Given money for expenses, anything is possible.")

Indeed, he and editor Dave Burgin clashed quickly -- and publisher Will Hearst decided somebody more expendable than the editor of the newspaper should handle Hunter's column, or that's the impression I got when he ominously invited me into his office to discuss being Hunter's new "control."

When I said, "sure," Hunter burst out of Will's bathroom, fell to the floor, did 10 pushups, then grabbed two tumblers, filled them with scotch, jammed one into my hand, shook the other hand, and the hog, as he would say, was in the tunnel. He would write the column for five years, three of them with a little help from me, and the best of them would make a book, "Generation of Swine," that sold a quarter-million copies in hardback.

Thanks, Hunter, for the past 20 years of friendship -- and for the incredible prose that will forever define the generation that somehow lost its grip on the American Dream.

You were, after all, a professional.

[Vahok]

Hunter is a coward in the greatest kind. Glad we can honour someone who had the "courage" to kill himself and leave his loved ones behind.

[Alomlim]

Um, reality check: everyone leaves their loved ones behind eventually. What do you care if it happened a few years early?

[rer]

Because he chose the cowards way out by committing suicide. He left them behind intentionally, and not because of some act of god or old age.

How lame.

[Mitharx]

Just out of curiosity, what was he afraid of? Selfish seems more appropriate than cowardly. Even so, you could say that his loved ones were being selfish in demanding that he be around when he no longer wanted to be. Who wins?

I don't think we should make a hero out of someone for killing themselves, but he was already a hero to many people so that doesn't seem to be the point. Instead, he chose how and why he died and was in full control of it in the process. I'm not an advocate of suicide, but I'm not going to attack the man for his choices when they don't seem to have any dire consequences on those around him.

If he had kids or dependents or someone who absolutely depended on him emotionally then I would think differently, but in this case I don't see the point in demanding that he stay alive because others would have preferred it or because I think people shouldn't have the ability to choose the way in which they die.

[Kifle]

You guys are idiots. You have absolutely no idea why he killed himself. It is extremely self-centered to say that it is selfish to kill one's self. Who's to say that his loved ones' pain is greater now than his when he was alive? Can you judge that? I know I sure as hell can't.

[teflor the ranger]

Hunter Thompson was never the plain, never the normal kind of guy. So much he did with a type of style and flair with the real imagination of a true childhoold prankster.

When you and I have a Jeep Cherokee, we change the oil (occasionally) and drive it around.

Hunter blew his up.

When you and I have a refrigerator, we tend to put baking soda and leftovers in it.

Hunter tossed in a dozen plastic cockroaches.

When news reporters flashed the headlines on the Lewinsky scandal with our last president, they read something like "President Admits to Affair with Whitehouse Intern."

Hunter? "Nixon and the Whale Woman"

So for all of you who don't have the imagination, read carefully.

Hunter S. Thompson was the kind of guy who did things differently, and he got something out of laughing at the idiots who criticized who he was. It's not exactly a huge suprise that his life closed out in such a similar manner, and he's probably laughing at you all right now.

[Corth]

Having read some of his stuff and perhaps gleaned a little bit of insight into this unique individual, I can say its not surprising that he killed himself. Its the sex drugs and rock and roll mentality that he lived. Its better to burn out than to fade away. I do have a problem with people that are making him out to be some sort of great person. His glorification of the drug lifestyle has undoubtedly resulted in some serious, and real, pain and suffering for individuals and their families. He was a talented writer, and reading him, or actually, having anything at all to do with him, was akin to playing with dynamite. I don't think he would disagree.

Corth

[Xisiqomelir]

I do have a problem with people that are making him out to be some sort of great person.

Anyone who writes the contents of "The Great Shark Hunt" is allowed that title by default.

[teflor the ranger]

You know, there is nothing great about him at all. He was just an unusual guy in unusual times.

[Kifle]

You know, there is nothing great about him at all. He was just an unusual guy in unusual times.

Except for the fact that he can write better than you, me, joe shmoe, and most writers alive...I'd say that's constitutes as great.

[Botef]

From what I have heard, his suicide might stem from his obsession with hemingway in addition to his unusual personality. During the last several years he was known to be quite obessed with his works, and was supposdly rewriting them to 'get the experience' hemingway had.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, he is by far one of my favorite authors, if not my favorite (William Gibson is also high on my list). All of his books are unique and everyone of them I can say Ive read numerous times, and still continue to read them.

I wouldnt call him a great person in the sense of what he's done for the world, but he is beyond a doubt a great writer and should be remembered as such.

[rarlaj]

just read on yahoo that his widow has made a statement...

he was nice enough to set the reciever of his phone down while talking to her before shooting himself...

guess he wanted her to experience it with him....

before i get flamed....

i have no opinion on this case, just wanted to post that you can read the article on yahoo...

Rarlaj

[teflor the ranger]

Kifle, great is George S. Patton. Not Hunter S. Thompson.
Really, his writing wasn't exactly better as it was just different.

[Kifle]

Kifle, great is George S. Patton. Not Hunter S. Thompson.
Really, his writing wasn't exactly better as it was just different.

Great = subjective. and i wouldn't say patton was great either seeing as how the tactics they used back then where "lets throw as many bodies as we can and over power them".

Also, Different = Creative, which in the art world = great.

[teflor the ranger]

"lets throw as many bodies as we can and over power them"

Trust me, that's great. Took military tacticians thousands of years to figure this out.

[Tasan]

"lets throw as many bodies as we can and over power them"

Trust me, that's great. Took military tacticians thousands of years to figure this out.

By that thinking, Moritheil is the greatest tactician of all time :(

HST was great, legendary and a pioneer. His vision, attitude and story-telling ability allowed for a wide fan base, while not restricting him to dumbing down everything for the layman. Yeah, he didn't go out by saving a child from a burning house; Does that tarnish him in any way? I don't believe so.

!!x

[Kifle]

"lets throw as many bodies as we can and over power them"

Trust me, that's great. Took military tacticians thousands of years to figure this out.

No, they've been doing it for thousands of years...they just started to figure out it is horrible tactics. In fact, the most celebrated book on military tactics speaks out against things such as this by calling the generals who do this weak and ignorant.

[teflor the ranger]

So back to trench warfare is what you're saying?

Shock and Awe, baby.

[teflor the ranger]

By the way, a few military strategy novels you might actually want to try reading:

An Army at Dawn (Atkinson)
Supreme Command (Cohen)

For that matter, you may want to read a little about George S. Patton. Your boiled down summation of his military tact doesn't quite indicate you knew much about him.

Patton understood how to get the most out of his men, to encourage bravery and professionalism in his troops, not laziness and cowardice.

He also understood that man was built to move and get things done, rather than to sit around waiting for the enemy to succumb to the same diseases your troops were trying to ward off.

As for "weak and ignorant?" The victors tell their own story.

[teflor the ranger]

:\ Guess I got a little off topic. Farewell, Hunter S. Thompson. Hopefully heaven appreciates your kind of style.

[Ashiwi]

No suicides in heaven... mortal sin and all that, ya know.

[teflor the ranger]

Technically, we are all sinners.

[Mitharx]

Well, he's not allowed in Christian heaven. He can go into my version anytime he likes.

[rer]

Well, he's not allowed in Christian heaven. He can go into my version anytime he likes.

That's why Judaism is better! Everyone goes to Heaven. The thing is, Heaven is kinda like a concert - the good, front row seats are reserved for the pious and good and the obstructed view, nosebleed, distorted sound seats that suck ass are reserved for the most attrocious of sinners. Of course, the good thing is, despite how bad their seats are, they still get to hear the word of God in the afterlife. Maybe it's more remonstration for them then affirmation and congratulation... I certainly don't know - havent made it there yet!

[Ashiwi]

Technically, we are all sinners.

Ah so, but you can't exactly ask forgiveness for this sin.

At least not if you're a successful sinner.

[moritheil]

"lets throw as many bodies as we can and over power them"

Trust me, that's great. Took military tacticians thousands of years to figure this out.

By that thinking, Moritheil is the greatest tactician of all time :(

!!x

:(

[Kifle]

So back to trench warfare is what you're saying?

Shock and Awe, baby.

Uh, trench warfare was throwing as many people as possible at the enemy...

[teflor the ranger]

You might want to stay away from military tactics and history, Kifle, at least until you've studied them.

Lest we find your version of Patton digging a trench.

[rer]

Trench warfare was:
Sit.
Wait.
Try to punch a hole in the enemy line by throwing as many bodies as possible at it.
Retreat.
Lick wounds.
Repeat.

[teflor the ranger]

Actually, that's quite an ignorant view of trench warfare. Some of the developments that came out of trench warfare in Europe are very modern concepts still used today.

- Snipers
- Tanks
- Air Power
- Chemical Warfare

The difference between Patton and Trench Warfare was mainly that Patton didn't believe in things like retreating, licking wounds, or losing. He had a passion for being on the attack and making the enemy turn tail and run. He also believed that the enemy should never be given time to make such defenses or to dig the trenches, so to speak.

His idea of the modern warrior recalled the fierce warriors of ancient times, soldiers that an enemy could fear.

Not a non-descript shape huddled in a trench.

The point he made was to hit hard, hit often, strike the enemy where it would hurt him the most.

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

George S. Patton

And Patton definatly didn't believe in such foolish sacrifices as rushing out of the trench into enemy machine gun fire.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

George S. Patton (attributed)


Now, it's obvious I can't go in depth with you all on a study of military tactics and warfare, but if you take the time to study what George S. Patton has done for modern warfare, you'll likely agree that his ideas have permanently altered the way western militaries have thought about the art of war.





And really, the only reason I brought him up was because he was also referred to with the "S" initial from his middle name. :P:P:P

[Kifle]

You might want to stay away from military tactics and history, Kifle, at least until you've studied them.

Lest we find your version of Patton digging a trench.

Yes, because I forgot teflor is versed in every subject known to man...on top of that, he's an expert. You and your google. Patton was lucky. He was over ambitious. Patton made hastey decisions. He was careless with his troops. This does not make a good general. He's just lucky he won when he did :) Now, reading the art of war does not make me a war expert or a tactician, but seeing as how it is one of the most important pieces of literature on the subject, which is all but mandated for commanders to read here in the US, it does hold a certain authority on the subject. Given that, Patton did much of what he did against this book. He got lucky...that is it. He was a body chucker and an offender of brute force. That is not a good general, that is a sloppy general.

[Kifle]

Actually, that's quite an ignorant view of trench warfare. Some of the developments that came out of trench warfare in Europe are very modern concepts still used today.

- Snipers
- Tanks
- Air Power
- Chemical Warfare

The only thing mentioned here that could even be close to considered as "coming out of" trench warfare would be the use of chemicals. But, I guess I should learn more on the subject...I'll head straight to the library.

[rer]

You might want to stay away from military tactics and history, Kifle, at least until you've studied them.

Lest we find your version of Patton digging a trench.

Yes, because I forgot teflor is versed in every subject known to man...on top of that, he's an expert. You and your google. Patton was lucky. He was over ambitious. Patton made hastey decisions. He was careless with his troops. This does not make a good general. He's just lucky he won when he did :) Now, reading the art of war does not make me a war expert or a tactician, but seeing as how it is one of the most important pieces of literature on the subject, which is all but mandated for commanders to read here in the US, it does hold a certain authority on the subject. Given that, Patton did much of what he did against this book. He got lucky...that is it. He was a body chucker and an offender of brute force. That is not a good general, that is a sloppy general.

Kifle, I think you just hit the nail on the head for the definition of trench warfare!

[teflor the ranger]

Yes, because I forgot teflor is versed in every subject known to man...on top of that, he's an expert. You and your google.

Quite frankly, Kifle, I'm fairly well versed in a variety of subjects, partly out of necessity, some out of education, but...

1) I am certain I know nothing about ballet.

2) I don't know the rules or history of croquet.

3) I've never worked with Oracle databases.

4) I can't speak Russian. At all.

5) I'm not exactly certain what the fifth fork on the left is for, but if there are four or fewer, I can give you a good guess.

6) I have studied some chemistry, but nothing beyond 200 level courses, so I'm not immediatly familiar with many complex compounds, particularly pharmacutical chemistry, but I have a friend who is an expert in the field in case I ever feel the need to learn something probably useless.

You are certainly welcome to be sarcastic about what my pool of general knowledge happens to contain. But it's not nice.

Since you seem so impressed by "qualifications" I did attend a military academy, dwelled within the ROTC program (running around, shooting guns, jumping out of airplanes and such up to the point where you are forced to sign a contract), and completed eight credit hours of military science (I got a 'B' so.. not so great but whatever). Combined with mostly personal interest and study, I have a fair survey of the field.

Granted, different principles apply to the Air Force's circuit of study - and the reading lists are awkward, dealing more with air power and management than with combat or the history of warfare, but that's not to say the material wasn't covered as well. Nevermind I was an enlisted man (later on) but, they don't really make you learn too much about warfare, rather than making you learn your job.

Speaking of the Art of War, what you don't seem to realize is how Patton exemplified quite a large portion of how Tzu dictated the order of combat.

But in order to interpret the Art of War and see if Patton appiled it's principles, you have to know about Patton. The battles he fought, his strategies, the way he managed his troops, and even something as simple as how many wars he has been in and which ones.



The key to success in combat is to apply maximum force at the point of attack.

There was so much more to Patton than what you think of him. Patton wasn't lucky. He was right.

By the way:

Snipers have been around as early as the civil war, but really developed out of trench warfare because trenches were being dug further and further apart. Sniper rifles were developed during World War I, to include things like high powered optics (really the first time you've seen scopes), heavier barrels, and match grade ammunition. All in order to shoot at people in trenches that were being dug further and further away.

Tanks were developed by the British in World War I in order to taverse the trenches by going over them. They were armored in order to deflect machine gun fire.

Airpower was fielded in World War I in order to fly over the trenches to attack enemy positions. Originally used for scouting, applications were developed, and heavier planes were built in order to drop bombs.

While of course, you could consider any of these, including chemical warfare, as a natrual progression of weapons development, it really has more to do with people thinking about how to kill men hiding in a trench. Patton's idea was to never let anyone dig one.

[Kifle]

You are certainly welcome to be sarcastic about what my pool of general knowledge happens to contain. But it's not nice.

When you practice what you preach, other people may follow.

Speaking of the Art of War, what you don't seem to realize is how Patton exemplified quite a large portion of how Tzu dictated the order of combat.

Actually, most of the art of war is about avoiding conflict and minimalizing casualties. The best generals never reach combat.

But in order to interpret the Art of War and see if Patton appiled it's principles, you have to know about Patton.

It's good that you assume nobody but yourself has every read anything about WWI.

Snipers have been around as early as the civil war, but really developed out of trench warfare because trenches were being dug further and further apart. Sniper rifles were developed during World War I, to include things like high powered optics (really the first time you've seen scopes), heavier barrels, and match grade ammunition. All in order to shoot at people in trenches that were being dug further and further away.

Yet the function was used long before WWI; therefore, was not created out of trench warfare.

Tanks were developed by the British in World War I in order to taverse the trenches by going over them. They were armored in order to deflect machine gun fire.

Leonardo Di Vinci created the Tank, not Britan; therefore, the tank was not created out of trench warfare.

Airpower was fielded in World War I in order to fly over the trenches to attack enemy positions. Originally used for scouting, applications were developed, and heavier planes were built in order to drop bombs.

While they where used to gundown trenches and drop chemicals into trenches, the plane was used more widely in other areas of combat and warfare. If we had planes during the civil war, we'd have used them as well. They have a great utility. Trenches had nothing to do with the use of airplanes in warfare nor their popularity.

[teflor the ranger]

First of all Kifle, Patton was a general in World War II.

Second of all, trench warfare popularized all those items. If you want to get technical, Da Vinchi no more created the tank than he did the flying machine (or contraption), seeing as how he never built any of them. The function of a sniper was greatly changed in trench warfare, as were their equipment and overall use.

Third of all, planes weren't used before World War I. None of them flew far enough.

Finally, not having to enter combat is the mark of the very best leaders of nations, if you read the Art of War, you'd realize that most of the book was discussing how to combat. Combat generals enter into combat and win. That was Patton.

[Kifle]

First of all Kifle, Patton was a general in World War II.

Second of all, trench warfare popularized all those items. If you want to get technical, Da Vinchi no more created the tank than he did the flying machine (or contraption), seeing as how he never built any of them. The function of a sniper was greatly changed in trench warfare, as were their equipment and overall use.

Third of all, planes weren't used before World War I. None of them flew far enough.

Finally, not having to enter combat is the mark of the very best leaders of nations, if you read the Art of War, you'd realize that most of the book was discussing how to combat. Combat generals enter into combat and win. That was Patton.

WWI was a typo, excuse me for not being perfect...you're a hard model to live up to. Regardless, he still led troops during WWI.

And, I will get technical. Tanks where concieved well before trench warfare. They where not a creation of trench warfare. They did not come out of, get drug out of, or smacked out of trench warfare. The use for them predates modern war and they where "created" well before trench warfare was ever thought up.

Uh, I never said planes where used pre WWI. They didn't have them... However, it is poor logic to say that, "since they came into popular use during WWI, they where a product of WWI and where used for the specific purpose of combating trench warfare." It's called "timely technology." Correlation != causation. Dolphins are used to hunt undersea mines...does that mean that they where created for underwater warfare? Robots are used extensivly by bomb squads...is it safe to say that, even though they weren't created as bombs became a threat, that they where birthed from bomb threats?

Snipers, again, used pre-trench warfare...the concept nor useage where created during trench warfare. The technique was refined, not created. They had a need for longer ranged scopes, so they created them...again, also a product of timely technology, not causation.

Lastly, the art of war speaks many times about how the best of generals [of actual armies] use force as an absolute last result. Yes, it does talk a great deal about strategy, but that is for when there are no other alternatives. Patton searched for no other alternatives. He came from the school of "Strong offense = strong defense". He wasn't mindful of the ways to avoid casualties...yes, meaning both sides. A life is a life and good generals know this. If you'd like, I have three different translations of the book sitting downstairs...you know what...never mind. I'd end up quoting them and you'd probably say that they where taken out of a garfield book or something.


Hunter S. Thompson was the man.

/end

[teflor the ranger]

And, I will get technical. Tanks where concieved well before trench warfare. They where not a creation of trench warfare. They did not come out of, get drug out of, or smacked out of trench warfare. The use for them predates modern war and they where "created" well before trench warfare was ever thought up.

Uh, I never said planes where used pre WWI. They didn't have them... However, it is poor logic to say that, "since they came into popular use during WWI, they where a product of WWI and where used for the specific purpose of combating trench warfare." It's called "timely technology." Correlation != causation. Dolphins are used to hunt undersea mines...does that mean that they where created for underwater warfare? Robots are used extensivly by bomb squads...is it safe to say that, even though they weren't created as bombs became a threat, that they where birthed from bomb threats?

Snipers, again, used pre-trench warfare...the concept nor useage where created during trench warfare. The technique was refined, not created. They had a need for longer ranged scopes, so they created them...again, also a product of timely technology, not causation.

Lastly, the art of war speaks many times about how the best of generals [of actual armies] use force as an absolute last result. Yes, it does talk a great deal about strategy, but that is for when there are no other alternatives. Patton searched for no other alternatives. He came from the school of "Strong offense = strong defense". He wasn't mindful of the ways to avoid casualties...yes, meaning both sides. A life is a life and good generals know this. If you'd like, I have three different translations of the book sitting downstairs...you know what...never mind. I'd end up quoting them and you'd probably say that they where taken out of a garfield book or something.
/end

It's funny what you consider 'timely technology'. The funny question you just haven't answered yet is: why where they developed and implemented so heavily at the time.

Just a thought.

If it wasn't for trench warfare, the development of the modern tank, plane, sniper, and chemical warfare would have been stunted possibly 25-50 years.

Furthermore, you are correct in stating that the art of war puts force as the last resort of warfare. What you don't know about Patton, is that is precicely the kind of general he was. He was an alliance builder and worked to endear Great Britian to the United States. He was a diplomat, putting on a hard face for Russian officials to remind them that America was not afraid to fight. First and foremost, Patton demanded the best from his troops. He demanded diligence, professionalism, a solemn fighting spirit, and above all, victory.

If you read the art of war carefully, you'll find that very little is dedicated to the explanation of the avoidance of combat. The author knew that warfare was not only about killing, but saw war as not only negotiating terrain, but as creating situations, that combat was not just blood and guts, but in the heats and minds of men.

Patton personified these ideals by being fearlessly relentless, ensuring his troops were the best combat troops in the world, and making sure that everyone knew when he come to town - and who was boss. He believed strongly in his country, so there was no question as to what his intents were. This is the playing field he leveled for his enemies, which were not only Nazis or what have you, but laziness, indecision, complacencey, and he made sure they could never find a good night's sleep or to want to fight him in the morning.

(let me boil it down. Patton was fearsome. No army or commander in the world wanted to go up against him. They didn't fear him because he was lucky.)

Hunter S. Thompson wasn't fearsome. He was fearful.

[rer]

Sniper Rifles: Developed in the Civil War for taking out officers.
Refined in WWI for taking out officers at greater distances
Refined in WWII for taking out officers at greater distances
Refined in Korea for taking out officers
Refined in Vietnam for taking out officers

Do you notice a consistent theme Teflor? The application stayed the same, the technology changed to be what was needed at the time of conflict. That is timely technology.

***

Air Power in War: First used in WWI, because that's the first time planes were available for combat. Their application was 2-fold -
1) strafing/bombing/chemical warfare missions against enemy trenches and installations
2) dog fighting with enemy aircraft to keep them from operations against your own trenches.

In WWII, we saw the same thing, only much more refined aircraft that had evolved significantly.

In Korea, we saw the same tactics used, just minus the trenches

In Vietnam, same as Korea

In each war, the technology was modified to be what was needed for the style of war being fought. That is timely technology.

***

Tanks, in a primitive sense, have been around for ages. "Turtles" were used in midieval conflicts to protect men as they stormed castles. Mobile defense units were used in the civil war to allow troops easier and safer access to the enemy. Armored cars were created almost as soon as the automobile was, for protection of valuable people. Their application in WWI was to traverse the space between trenches safely. They continue to evolve today, as new technologies come out. That is timely technology.

***

Trench warfare didn't necessitate air superiority - enemy aircraft did.
Trench warfare didn't necessitate tanks - the desire to preserve lives did.
Trench warfare didn't necessitate snipers - the distance caused refinement

I agree with you about Chemical Warfare - I think that it's development and application DID come as a cause of trench warfare tactics. So far, you're shooting 25%... not so hot, bud.

[teflor the ranger]

Sniper Rifles: Developed in the Civil War for taking out officers.
Refined in WWI for taking out officers at greater distances
Refined in WWII for taking out officers at greater distances
Refined in Korea for taking out officers
Refined in Vietnam for taking out officers

Do you notice a consistent theme Teflor?

Yes, that you're consistantly wrong.

[rer]

And where's your evidence to support your arguments teflor?

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, post something to support it.

[teflor the ranger]

Your post is similarly lacking in evidence and support. However, I know from both experience and posess the background knowledge to inform you that your opinion could use a little more information.

Here are a couple questions, that if you would research and read about, that might help you:

1) When was the first school for sniper warfare established by the United States Military?

2) What was the first produced magnifying optical sight & when was it put into production?

3) What is a ghille suit and how did the advent of optical scopes promote their use?

4) How did sighting and camoflague prompt the development of the shooter/spotter teamed tactics.

And a few questions to help you realize the actual purpose of a sniper:

5) What kinds of targets do snipers shoot at?

6) What uses does the heavy .50 cal barret rifle have?

We could get into the other stuff, but why don't you start with this?

[Kifle]

1) When was the first school for sniper warfare established by the United States Military?

Doesn't matter. Most schools of science and thought where established after major ideas/inventions/practices where already in place. Things usually follow this course: Invetion of idea/practice/ideology/etc.. --> create school. The ideas of sniping/tanks where around before schools because of this. Bad argument.

2) What was the first produced magnifying optical sight & when was it put into production?

Again, has no baring on the actual argument.

snip·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snpr)
n.

1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.

2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

Sniping doesn't mean optical lense. We both said it was refined during WWI. Refinement != creation.

3) What is a ghille suit and how did the advent of optical scopes promote their use?

Also a refinement of sniping not an indication of creation during the time.

4) How did sighting and camoflague prompt the development of the shooter/spotter teamed tactics.

Refinement...see a pattern in your thought here?


Conclusion of mistakes: argument non causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Mind trying to argue using a bit of logic to support your "facts"?

[teflor the ranger]

1) When was the first school for sniper warfare established by the United States Military?

Doesn't matter. Most schools of science and thought where established after major ideas/inventions/practices where already in place. Things usually follow this course: Invetion of idea/practice/ideology/etc.. --> create school. The ideas of sniping/tanks where around before schools because of this. Bad argument.

Actually, it's an excellent argument. When an army establishes a school for a specific role in combat, it is:

a) recognition of an essential role in warfare

b) an indication that there is a need to train individuals in the skills and tactics of this role

c) an investment by the strategy makers to make this role a fundamental piece in planning for war.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that death lasers as an idea has been around for quite some time. It will take some new trend in warfare to actually make it a recognized reality.

Finding out when it was established would tell you a little bit about when the idea was being developed.

2) What was the first produced magnifying optical sight & when was it put into production?

Again, has no baring on the actual argument.

snip·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snpr)
n.

1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.

2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

Sniping doesn't mean optical lense. We both said it was refined during WWI. Refinement != creation.

Unfortunatly, the dictionary can only go so far in telling you what something is. In fact, often times snipers don't even shoot at soldiers. They have many other roles in modern warfare, for example:

a) unexploded ordanence disposal

b) scouting, target marking, target identification

c) force protection

Now, the development of the magnifying opitcal sight was an essential movement to revolutionize the old 'marksman' into sniper warfare. When rifles, ammunition, and optical sites developed enough to actually give a shooter an accurate range beyond half a football field, it completely changed the way armies went into combat.

It created the sniper. In order to counter the accuracy of modern weapons, camoflauge was developed by way of the ghillie suit, and the classic breakup pattern seen in modern military battle dress uniforms.

It also developed into sniping tactics, including the development of two man sniping teams, with a shooter and a spotter to help identify targets and increase sniping efficiency (and a better chance at gettign the first shot).

So you do need to know when optical sights were technologically developed enough to enter mass production.

3) What is a ghille suit and how did the advent of optical scopes promote their use?

Also a refinement of sniping not an indication of creation during the time.

Actually, the development of such camoflauge and sneaking techniques are a symptom of the creation of modern sniper warfare. The time of it's development indicates about when sniping became serious business.

4) How did sighting and camoflague prompt the development of the shooter/spotter teamed tactics.

Refinement...see a pattern in your thought here?


Conclusion of mistakes: argument non causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Mind trying to argue using a bit of logic to support your "facts"?

Again, these questions were presented in order to broaden your thinking, but seeing as how you have not bothered to attempt to answer them, your thinking remains as narrow as it was and as incorrect as it has been.

Let me put it this way, motorsport was around long before there were cars, from steam locomotives to the Model T. But wheels are not what created car racing.

If you didn't ignore the opportunity for intellectual growth, you would notice, the entire development of modern sniper warfare was in the trench warfare era.

Another example, would simply be birth. Were you created when the sperm hit the egg? Or when you popped out of the womb?

If you want to talk about refinement - it was a while before they knew if you were a boy or a girl - and a little while before you even had a name.

Again, look over the questions, research the answers, then come back.

Trench warfare created the sniper, and you're quite wrong to believe otherwise.

[Kifle]

Sorry teflor, created != refinement. Creation != growth. Everything you have listed there is an example of refinement or growth of a specific tactic. The argument was about creation, not refinement or growth. Again, no causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simple as that.

[teflor the ranger]

Sorry Kifle, but that's your logical fallacy. Creation is the refinement of conception to the point of effectiveness.

Here's something to consider:

Somthing you and Rer both seem to agree upon, is that chemical warfare was borne out of trench warfare.

What about the first time poison was used for assassination? What about the first time someone potentially even thought about poisoning a garrison well? (which the arabs did quite a lot in the desert for a LONG time)

Or did it really have something to do with a 'refinement' if you will, that brought the concept onto the big stage?

Just a couple more questions that might broaden your thinking...

[rer]

Well, apparently Teflor is the only one who can use dictionary definitions and have them be complete and accurate... But just for arguments sake, let's assume he agrees with the following definitions:

creation
cre·a·tion
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.

2. The act of investing with a new office or title.

3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.

4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.

refinement.
re·fine·ment

1. The act of refining.

2. The result of refining; an improvement or elaboration.

3. The state or quality of being refined; cultivation, as in manners or taste.

4. A keen or precise phrasing; a subtle distinction.

It looks to me that a creation is an "original" thing, and a refinement is "an improvement".

But the dictionary could be wrong again, right Teflor?

[teflor the ranger]

Rer, that's not quite the most intelligent argument.

The fact is that snipers, tanks, air power, and chemical warfare all came out of trench warfare.

If you want to drag the argument into your realm of stupid:

The Duke of Parma employed trench warfare in the late 1500s,

Poison was first used in the earliest documented history,

a frenchman in a light blue uniform mounted on horseback, shooting at enemy formations in plain sight, aiming down the bare barrel of a rifle (without any kind of sights at all) but trying to shoot accurately is a sniper,

and a patchwork quilt of animal skins stretched out on a wooden frame is a tank.

Oh, and Da Vinch' introduced the aeroplane.

Let me put it this way: Poor Argument.

I might also suggest that neither you or Kifle have answered the questions I have posed to you because the facts they provide support my position.

Btw, "creation" is a word you brought into the argument because you both have been unable to create an intelligent argument.

"Actually, that's quite an ignorant view of trench warfare. Some of the developments that came out of trench warfare in Europe are very modern concepts still used today. "

- Try Reading That Again -

Way to dodge the issue. Way to show your ignorance.

[rer]

Snipers in history
Even before firearms were available, there have been soldiers, such as archers, specially trained as elite marksmen.

First modern snipers were trained in 16th century Japan as a sub-category of ninja warriors. These were specially trained to cover-up retreating armies. The sniper would lay covered on the ground until a leader of the advancing army came into his firing range. There are several confirmed records of such (mostly unsuccessful) attempts. The rifles used were of huge caliber, but poor accuracy.

France's Louis XIV trained elite riflemen to shoot armored knights. Their gun weighed more than nine kg (20 lb), and were capable of shooting 28 gram (1 oz) lead balls fast enough to kill through plate armor. Some authorities claim that they, alone, made heavy cavalry (knights) obsolete.

Timothy Murphy was a rifleman in Daniel Morgan's Virginia riflemen in 1777. He shot and killed General Simon Fraser of the British army. Murphy was said to have taken the shot at roughly 460m (500 yards), astounding at the time. He was using the renowned Kentucky rifle. The death of General Fraser caused the British advance to falter and the rebels to win the battle.

During the pivotal Battle of Trafalgar, on October 21, 1805, as the British flagship HMS Victory locked masts with the French Redoutable, a sniper's bullet struck Admiral Horatio Nelson in the spine. Nelson was carried below decks and died as the battle that would make him a legend was ending in favour of the British.

In the Napoleonic Wars, the British copied colonial weapons and tactics in a limited number of rifle companies. They dressed (unsportingly) in green to avoid visibility, and were instructed to shoot enemy officers. Rifleman Thomas Plunkett of the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles is remembered for shooting General Colbert at a range of between 200 and 600 metres during the Peninsula war. He used a Baker rifle.

Colonel Hiram Berdan was the commanding officer of the 1st and 2nd US Sharpshooters. Although snipers were held with low regard by both sides during the American Civil War, under his tutelage, skilled Union marksmen were trained and equipped with the .52 caliber Sharps Rifle. It has been claimed that Berdan's units were responsible for killing more enemy than any other unit in the Union Army.

On May 9, 1864 during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Sgt. Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry, sniped Major General John Sedgwick at the then incredible distance of 730m (800 yrds), with a British Whiteworth target rifle. The death of Sedgwick, a corps commander, caused administrative delays in the Union's attack, leading to Confederate victory. Before Sedgwick was shot, he was advised by his men to take cover, and his last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance". The popular story that he said "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist—" happens to be an urban legend – he finished his sentence and was shot a few minutes later.

Simo Häyhä (December 17, 1906 – April 1, 2002) of Finland is regarded as the most effective sniper in the history of warfare. Using a relatively primitive Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Häyhä sniped 542 Soviet Union soldiers in Winter War from November 30, 1939 to March 6, 1940, when he was seriously wounded.

Sulo Kolkka was also a Finnish sniper during the Winter War, who sniped approximately 400 Russians, as well as another 200 with a submachinegun. Due to the superb quality of Finnish snipers, the Russians lost men at a rate of 40:1. At the end of the Winter War a Soviet General is said to have bitterly quipped, "We gained 57,000 km² (22,000 square miles) of territory. Just enough to bury our dead."

Vasily Zaitsev was a Russian sniper who rose to prominence during the Battle of Stalingrad, credited with sniping 242 German soldiers. He became a folk hero for killing the German master sniper instructor Major Thorvald, in an extended sniper-countersniper duel. However, there are debates as to whether Thorvald actually existed, or was the invention of Soviet propaganda writers. Zaitsev was the main subject in the movie Enemy at the Gates, a fictionalized account of sniper-warfare in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Mila Mikhailovna Pavichenko was a female Ukrainian sniper with 309 confirmed kills during World War II.

Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock of the United States Marine Corps sniped 93 North Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam war. He is the subject of two biographies, Marine Sniper and Silent Warrior.
Delta Force snipers Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart were both killed in action during the Battle of Mogadishu. It is estimated that together they sniped over 100 Somalis. Both men received the Medal of Honor, posthumously, for their actions.

The longest-ever confirmed sniper kill was made by Master Cpl. Arron Perry of the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan during combat in 2003. Using a .50-caliber (12.7 mm) MacMillan TAC-50 rifle, Perry shot and killed an Afghan soldier from a distance of 2,430 metres.

Hmm... I dont see ANY WWI snipers in this list from the encyclopedia..