|WikiProject Espionage||(Rated C-class)|
Information presented on the Maxwell Web Site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.
Therefore this article is a free game. However its usage must not be brainless cut and paste, but rather a summary, because the author himself goes to great lenghts to explain that the main issue here is the linguistic one: the untranslatability of the word: cross-overlapping the meanings of russian terms "maskirovka"/"kamuflyazh"/etc. with english terms camouflage/concealment/etc. `'mikka 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of soviet "Maskirovka", until 13:47, 14 August 2009 there was a part in this article discussing just that (sourced to this webpage), I'm wondering if there was something specifically wrong with it? (the editor left no comment) and if we can put it back? As it is now the reader (like yours truly ;) ) is left in the dark as to why it's sometimes called this. A1s (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Large scale examples
Someone wrote: "On the day of Barbarossa, two-thirds of the Soviet ground forces were in the Soviet Far East preparing against attack by Japan. The military deception was so successful that the Germans would likely have taken Moscow, consolidated Europe and won the war, if not for the extraordinary logistical skill of Zhukov."
I find that factually doubtful and overly speculative. At the very least it needs a good source. There isn't one so I have removed the text.
Agreed, not only is it overly speculative and somewhat sensationlist, it is unrealistic. Two thirds of the Soviet Army, fractions is one of those things that doesn't actually convey anything useful in such cases. How many hundreds of thousands if not millions did a third of the Soviet army comprise? Furthermore, won the war? Even if they had of pushed right over the Urals it seems unlikely that they would win, over 10 million Russians died fighting, I've never heard of anything to suggest that they would not accept 20 million to win, then there is the trouble of trying to hold a piece of land larger than the continent of Europe with a hostile populace, none of which changes the Western part, Normandy still would of happened. Nothing would of changed the Germans inabilitiy to launch a proper offensive against Britain or the Americas (with their weak Kriegsmarine) which would put them up against a stronger and completely undamaged industry. With the Brits sending away alot of children to the colonies and such it seems unlikely they could of bombed Britain into submission, worst case scenerio British Government in Exile in Canada down the street from some Scandinavian Royalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"These two cases alone demonstrate the extreme importance of military deception in outcomes of major historical battles. " You cannot draw general conclusions from only two examples, and even if you could, it would be original research. I have removed that text. Put it back in a sourced form and I will let it be. -Sensemaker
There is no debate whatever as to the value of military deception. I have removed the text to that effect, which in addition seemed internally inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- How can anyone claim to know that there is no debate whatever? Wouldn't that require omniscience? I certainly have read discussion about this in the Royal Swedish Military Academy Magazine. John Keegan's book certainly seemed like part of an ongoing debate. Still, the debate on this issue might be a lot less prevalent and international than I originally thought. In that case: thank you for correcting me. I have changed the article so that it says there is a difference of opinion on the value of military deception among military pundits. If you doubt that there is a significant difference of opinion on the value of military deception, please read the sources referenced. -Sensemaker
Merge Denial_and_deception into this article?
This section was recently added by 188.8.131.52:
- At the Battle of Okehazama Nobunaga Oda was severely outnumbered, against an Imagawa clan army which numbered 25,000, and his own was only 2500-3000. The Imagawa clan force took camp in front of a ridge, leaving their rear unprotected. The weather was in the favour of the Oda troops, lot's of fog in the early hours and later a storm. They made straw men and created large banners to greatly exaggerate their numbers, which gave them more time as the Imagawa would not have been as hesitant, were their size to be smaller. At night a large rainstorm erupted, giving them cover for their advance behind the enemy's encampment. Also it being night the Imagawa were predictably drunk, with only sober sentries. all these factors (mainly the Oda deception of force size), allowed them to massacre their foe by burning their camp, with very few numbers in comparison.
Apart from the grammatical errors, I think this is overstating (and even exaggerating) the deception and also has too many factual errors compared with the article Battle of Okehazama (which is also poorly referenced). Having had a read over the Japanese wiki article on the battle, which has far more detail, I can see: 1) there is no mention of "straw men"; 2) the rainstorm was at midday, not midnight 3) the battle happened in the afternoon, not at night; 4) there is no mention of burning their camp; 5) there was no massacre per se, after the Imagawa leaders were attacked and killed, most of the force either fled or joined Oda's side.
Having said that, the main gist of the entry is true. Oda gathered about 2,500 men at a temple on the other side of the road from the enemy. After spending about an hour there, he left about 500 men at the temple and attacked with about 2,000. Imagawa had about 5 or 6,000 men actually protecting him. If properly sourced it may be worthy of inclusion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
History section imbalance
The history section is almost entirely made up of western examples. With the emphasis placed on The Art of War, there should be a lot of examples from Asia at least. --Euniana/Talk 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)