quote:

---

Originally posted by I.M.A:
Hello
This is my first posting in this forum and greetings to everyone. I just read a review by the well known cyberspace military history critic Michael Licari in which, among other things, he criticizes the late Col. Dupuy's conclusions on German military performance as based on "bad data" without actually saying why he thought it was bad data. He says he will in the future state what he finds wrong with Dupuy's "bad data". I sure look forward to that. Does anyone have any thoughts to share on Licari or his online work?

---

Well, he may be well known to you, but I've never heard of him. I will be curious if Chris ever heard of him either. Where does this "cyberspace military history critic" reside?

quote:

---

Originally posted by I.M.A:
Hello
Here's his online link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3IXVPX2M3HTHR
Look forward to your comments
Best Regards
I.M.A

---

Interesting, and I tend to agree with quite a few of his book assesments, although his adulation of Hastings' Armageddon and Frank's Flawed Victory is inexplicable, they are horribly bad books.

But where is the criticism of Trevor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by I.M.A:
and here is another link
http://www.uni.edu/~licari/brute.htm

---

A data-less construct filled with straw men. In essence he is saying that because sometimes inferior forces (Allied and German) sometimes beat superior forces and that sometimes superior forces sometimes failed against inferior forces, that that means that somehow eventually Allied forces, whether superior or inferior to Germany forces, would have won anyway.Because they were superior orginizationaly. Mind you how the M4, with five major subtypes and engines, three major armament suites, two suspension series, multiple track types, and even a hybrid cast/welded hull qualifies as more standardized than the Panzer IV or Panther is beyond me?

I think that is it in the proverbial nutshell?

quote:

---

Originally posted by I.M.A:
and here is another link
http://www.uni.edu/~licari/brute.htm

---

Okay, now I remember this, he popped up somewhere else a while ago, although I forget where. The long paper is just an extended and as poorly argued and data-less construct of the shorter paper.

In a nutshell, whenever we have examined combat effectiveness under any terms (PW exchange ratios, casualty exchange ratios - including just KIA, or KIA+MIA, or total casualties, armor exchange ratios, or whatever) - without using any of the methodology of the QJM/TNDM, we still have consistantly found that the Germans performed better on average than any of the Allies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by I.M.A:
Thanks for the input Rich. That last tidbit really intrigued me. I had no idea German combat superiority showed up even without QJM

---

Sorry, been out for the holidays.

Yes, in every measurement we've used in various studies ince about 1995 we've seen that the German superiority remains. Simple casualty exchange comparisons, armor exchange comparisons, PW exchange comparisons, and so on, all seem to indicate that the superiority was there. It simply doesn't require a QJM/TNDM anlaysis to show that it existed.

Happy Holidays!

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000028.html

He also made one or two posts himself. In my opinion, his critique is ill-founded in terms of both sourcing and logic.