Don’t feel bad: the above info was lifted verbatim from the Russian version of Wikipedia. The reliability of that source is limited, to put it mildly.


For example, the blurb here states that during the Kursk battle ( summer 1943) dogs destroyed 12 German tanks. But another reference ( not cited) mentions that already by 1942 the dogs for some reasons became less reliable and, instead of jumping under German tanks, preferred to go back to Russian positions, wrecking havoc there. As a result, their use was swiftly terminated. The only German description refers to an incident in October of 1941. And another reference from the Russian Wiki ( also not cited) avers that the entire program was not effective altogether.

The story about Luftwaffe hunting any dogs was taken from some Russian radio program, never documented, just like the use of flamethrowers.

Overall, don’t feel sad and guilty: we are dealing with a cockamamie story.

The idea of using animals as suicide bombers was briefly revived at the end of 20th century: dolphins. The program was shut down anon.

On the other hand, there were well documented cases of patriotic Russian soldiers throwing themselves with explosive devices under German tanks. The only thing it proves is that Pavlovian brainwashing works better on humans than on dogs. Dogs seem to be smarter.

I will be very grateful if you provide serious evidence that the Wikipedia article contains erroneous information.

Yeah!!!! How bout them trunk swords!!!!! :)

Jim, a sprinkle of rationality always enlivens a discussion:-)


My mentor during my fellowship years always taught me to conduct an experiment aimed at destroying my theory. Only if it failed was I allowed to publish a paper.

Regretfully, we cannot have a model of an elephant wielding a trunk sword and use it in testing our beliefs. But at the very least we are obligated to ask rational questions and expect rational answers. That’s how inquiry is supposed to be conducted.

Guys, where is the line, and how fine it is, that separates rationality from skepticism ? The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see :rolleyes: .


.

Could they really choke them, despite all those thousands of trunk muscles ... So that they wouldn't be able to respire through their snorkel ;)

.

Excellent Ariel!!! Indeed it does, and the best part of our discussions here are the ratiocination well applied in examining the evidence shared in thread entries. That is the greatness of a good thread, exchange of information and ideas, and ultimately the revision of ideas and previously held views.

I admire what you clearly well learned in these applications in your education and it shows! :)

While I have not learned these methods in a formal setting, I feel that I have learned a great deal from you and others here in these discussions, and very much continue to do so constantly, I note with gratitude.

I have pretty much wavered in my positions from skepticism to acceptance of reasonable plausibility several times on various elements discussed here on these talking points, and certainly have much broader perspectives on the topic than I began with. I do hope those reading enjoy the same.

Fernando, excellent graphics!!! That really does convey the message.
I have always appreciated that well worn axiom, none so blind as those who will not see, and will share one of my favorites I have long observed.

"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought".

This axiom for me has been applicable not only in the instances where I was the one 'doing the seeing', but more often in the vision of others who have shared their 'eureka' moments with myself and others openly.

Thank you guys!

Having posted the narwhal tusk in post 137, I note that one was used this week at the latest London Bridge attack by a knife weilding terrorist, where a chef at the nearby fish market grabbed a 5 ft. narwhal tusk off the wall to confront and pin the knifeman down, assisted by someone with a fire extinguisher until the police could deal with him.

Probably the only use of a spear in combat in recent history, and a tusk one at that! Sometimes reality IS stranger than fiction.

Now thats amazing! Who says history is not alive and kickin.
Great share Wayne, and truly interesting ......I hope they dont outlaw narwhals now. After all, they have outlawed guns here in many degrees, but INCREDIBLY the crime and shootings continue. It would appear that criminals are not obeying the law :)

On that note, returning top elephant weaponry, I had this excerpt I forgot to include earlier:

"...even the best trained elephant was liable to be panicked by the sights, sounds and smells of battle, especially by incendiary devices, and might be joined by its companions, turn into a common enemy, trampling friend and foe alike.
From the 16th century, the use of gunpowder in battle made it considerably easier to bring down the animals, diminishing their effectiveness and bringing an end to their use on the battlefield. However they continued to be used for transportation and logistics in warfare right up to WWII."
Online: "The War Elephant in history"
Andrew Griffiths
In: Articles in History.com

Re: Fernandos note on the application of a sword to the snout, I agree they could still breath even if some constraint to the trunk was applied. There is still some plausibility of trunk 'swords' having been used in SOME fashion, as suggested in corroborating period accounts from varied sources observing them in real time.

However Jim, given the recurrent spicing poured into accounts, left to us by authors with imagination, and period paintings being not the same as photographs (and even those), we wind up swapping hypothesis in a loop mode.
On the other hand, it looks as if the increasing reach for peripheral resources, namely within the zoologic area (horses, dogs, bats, narwhals, foxes), is bringing this second thread chapter to compete with the Ark of Noah ;).
Until then ...

Well said in your inimitable and intriguing manner Fernando!!! The 'spicing' of these accounts and the artwork which evolved in the same themes by imaginative and creative writers and artists have presented us with a challenging task, to break through these colorful veneers to find the truth.
Absolutely perfectly placed analogy to this chapter of the topic, which has indeed become reminiscent of Noah and his ark in degree in its zoologic periphery.

It has indeed been a lively and thought provoking discussion, and personally I think some great perspectives have been gained on this topic and the related situations with animals in warfare. Its always amazing what can be learned when thinking, and discussion, can move 'outside the box'!

The oldest mentioning of tusk blades was from Timur biography. Of his invasion of the Delhi Sultanates.

Can you post the text and its source?

I have some limited experience working with antique Indian & mammoth ivory and while it's very strong, it's also somewhat brittle. When ivory breaks, the cracks can chip & spread like a split log. I assume a elephant tusk broken close to the root would be as painful as a broken tooth is to a human.

In the scenario where tusks are being used as a weapon, the illustrations that show them blunted with metal caps & bands makes the most sense for me, since it would protect the tip from damage & the bands stop splitting. Blades on the ends of caps, while intimidating, could be big levers that would risk breaking the tusk in use. I wouldn't want to ride on top of an frenzied elephant with a toothache & my hypothesis is the bands/caps are to protect the tusks while they're used as bludgeons, and the rarity of tusk swords implies they were tried but abandoned outside parades.

Welcome to the Forum, rysays, and thanks for these comments.

When I was stationed in Alaska, I bought a small Walrus Ivory Polar Bear carving from an Aleut. After a few decades, it started cracking. I soaked it in mineral oil, which was the recommendation back then, to stop it from further cracks. Oiling your elephant's tusks might help, if they let you. :D

Chinese monk account of sword attachments to the trunk. Artist representation of the same from Gandhara, 1st-2nd+ Century AD.

Most interesting, Milogow360. Thanks for sharing.

A bas-relief from the Borobudur temple complex
https://sillynewsboy.wordpress.com/2...tory/#more-839
Thanks to A. G. Maisey

After all ... not so rare !!!

You can see Elephants holding blades here as well. Gandhara art 1st-2nd+ Century AD.

Chinese monk Xuanzang mentions that emperor Harsha(7th century ad) had armored elephants with spurs attached to their tusks.

Great material. Just a pitty it didn't show up some 150 posts before in this tread :shrug: .

We didn't have Milogow360 back then. Ah well, better late than never. Thanks Milogow.

It is a very interesting and informative reference that fully explains the " spur" from the Metropolitan shown by Jens in the very first post of this topic. Good job, Milogow360! Thanks!