Germans invented wargaming for real life: I tried to wargame a ethnic conflict in South Africa between people and people…

(:E-:N-:R-AZ:C-30:V)   

For those who think that wargaming is just childish play, let me remind you that Germans are the original inventors of wargames. All armies in the world play physical wargames, also known as "manoevres" and they do this all the time. They also wargame against other armies.

Germans are the inventors of board wargames and also real wargames, and in NATIONAL SOCIALIST Germany, they used these same techniques to teach young boys the principles of battle. I’ve even posted this stuff and I once did a short video about it.

Wargaming is great practise for men and boys to begin thinking like warriors. These methods are used in actual military colleges.

But I went one step further. When I wrote my book Government by Deception, I had a chapter in it called: The People’ Last Stand, and it was about an actual war in South Africa. I took the concepts that came from the Christians who were believing the Siener Van Rensburg stuff, and I went one step further. I decided to try to wargame an actual conflict in South Africa between people and people.

I did this using a banned wargame that I had managed to get hold of called: South Africa. It was BANNED during Apartheid but I managed to get a copy of it from New York. The game was itself designed so that the People ALWAYS LOSE and the only hope for the People is to hang in as long as possible.

I began modifying the rule of the game to try to play out some kind of game to see if I could simulate some kind of wargame about People vs people en masse. Somewhere in my photo album is at least 1 photo of the wargame I played using the modified rules. I wanted to see if i could learn some strategic lessons about a ethnic conflict, by playing the game.

I will discuss this wargame later. This wargame was however, a thumbsuck, and by no means realistic.

Then what I did was I began to study the work of an American Colonel, who was known as the top US expert on estimating war casualties. I studied his work in depth. I then wrote software, to try to create a simulation based on the "rules" he invented for his method of estimating battle casualties. He had a method that would work for modern times as well as historical times.

From studying his books, I learned a lot about the factors that he came up with, which affect combat. What is most interesting is that his stuff can be used to estimate things like:
(a) If one army attacks another, which one will win (which he determines by whether the army can advance against the other one
(b) At what speed can this army advance?
(c) What casualties are suffered by both forces?

These factors are modified by: weapons and terrain.

His formulae and methods apply to 1 day of combat. Using his methods you can actually calculate hypothetical battles. It is not visual. It merely spits out the results.

Depending on how things go, I might even haul out my old software, with modifications, because it could still be used even now.

There are also things you can determine, retroactively by studying actual battles. You can actually determine how good one set of soldiers are, versus others, by simply throwing in the information from a given battle.

For example, he concluded that in WW2, the average German soldier was 20% more efficient than any other soldier. Similarly, during the Napoleonic wars, the French troops were 20% more efficient than any other soldiers.

Once one has these ratios, it allows you to do even more in depth analysis of actual combat and what is possible.

Sadly, I did not get round to applying this to future ethnic conflicts, but I began testing my software using a hypothetical campaign of Zulus versus Boers set in the Free State in South Africa. I ran this to test rules and to even try to get things displayed on a map so that I could fight a theoretical campaign.

What could be of direct use though, is to use these formulae, not for actual map-based combat, but to test out some test battles – which is simpler. So you don’t play an entire war or campaign. Instead what you do is you test hyopthetical battle scenarios. e.g. what happens if 1000 people, armed with AK47s were to attack, say 200 men armed with AK47s.

Then you can add more weapons, and mixes of weapons and see the result. e.g. what if the guys have 2 x 81mm mortars?

I am quite sure, that with the right simulations, one can test out all kinds of scenarios, not only ethnic conflicts in South Africa, but civil wars and ethnic conflicts elsewhere.

I, for example, believe that a militia, that is large enough, could for example, conquer a country and get it back.

It was my exercises with wargaming, as well as what I learned from studying the modelling, that began to give me some insights into how a ethnic conflict would go, and what the potential is, for men.

As a result of this, I did not like what the Suidlanders were doing. But, when you look at my original writings, almost 20 years ago, there are MANY aspects of what I wrote, that may have influenced the Suidlanders. This is a topic I will revisit when I discuss, The People’ Last Stand.

I really enjoyed writing that chapter. It was really fun. But because of the limitations of pages, I could not state in detail how I arrived at my conclusions. I was also concerned that the Govt would read my book (which they did get copies of). And I was careful to hide the most important conclusions therein.

For this, you will have to watch the video I’m currently trying to finish, about the Portuguese in Angola. Then you will begin understanding what I thought was "the holy grail" of combat in South Africa and why I believe the People can survive even against 59 million people.