[JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:04 am

The circumstances of a military unit's near-failure to even be founded practically ensured its great success on the battlefield. Explain.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby dukhsan » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:44 am

Is this an irregular unit, not set up the normal way or not with normal equipment/protocol/etc.? Was it difficult to establish due to any of cost, lack of interest, lack of able-bodied people or lack of people proficient in weaponry/tools, for political reasons, for legal reasons, for territory/land/barracks reasons, for supply reasons, due to personal quarrels, or because it was currently a period of war or strife?

Does the exact country/military matter, or could this have been anywhere? Does it matter who the unit was fighting or on a mission against?

Was it more successful than other units founded in the same circumstances, or units founded in different/ordinary circumstances? Was it more successful broadly or in very specific areas? Was it (suddenly) successful due to previously irrelevant and/or non-combat skills its members happened to possess?
dukhsan
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:45 pm

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby GalFisk » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:13 am

Did it succeed because of: skill of the soldiers? Skill of the officers? Size of the unit? Weapons provided? Training provided? Where it was deployed? Who it was sent to fight against? Was it particularly skilled in improvisation? Did it have particularly intimate knowledge about the enemy?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7856
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:43 am

Are we talking about a modern military unit? I mean: a unit founded for instance 100 years ago but still in force? If so with the same name? With the same functioning/aims as in the past?

Is it a military unit employed in "open fields" battles? Is it a secret unit? Is the near failure a key of its success because it maintained the secret? Relevant to which country that military unit belongs? List of countries? None? To the world (e.g. ONU, global organizations...)? Is it a conventional military unit employed to face enemies by shooting against them and/or performing defending activities to defeat enemies?

Was the unit founded to face a specific war related problem? Was it a specialized unit composed by members of the army facing specializing problems? E.g. mainly mines/bombs/medical assistence/engeneering in battleships/snipers/radar activities/communications/strategic coordination
Does the unit mainly concern navy? Aereonautics? Ground troops?

Did the circumstances of its near failure allow to better/create a specific tool to overcame the near failure?(e.g. foundation of radar/morse/...)
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:10 pm

Is this an irregular unit, not set up the normal way or not with normal equipment/protocol/etc.? Yes. Was it difficult to establish due to any of cost, lack of interest, lack of able-bodied people or lack of people proficient in weaponry/tools, Primarily this. Look out for FAs though. for political reasons, for legal reasons, Very mild elements of this. for territory/land/barracks reasons, for supply reasons, due to personal quarrels, or because it was currently a period of war or strife?

Does the exact country/military matter, or could this have been anywhere? Yes, though I can think of a few other countries where it might have worked just as well. Does it matter who the unit was fighting or on a mission against? No.

Was it more successful than other units founded in the same circumstances, or units founded in different/ordinary circumstances? In the sense that it was a formed unit, it was unique, and this was an element of its success. Was it more successful broadly or in very specific areas? Very specific. Was it (suddenly) successful due to previously irrelevant and/or non-combat skills its members happened to possess? Yope. A relevant question. I wouldn't call the success sudden, though.

Did it succeed because of: skill of the soldiers? This. Skill of the officers? Size of the unit? Weapons provided? Training provided? And this. Where it was deployed? Who it was sent to fight against? Was it particularly skilled in improvisation? Did it have particularly intimate knowledge about the enemy? No to the others.

Are we talking about a modern military unit? It existed in the 20th century, but not today. It could, in theory, be recreated at need. I mean: a unit founded for instance 100 years ago but still in force? If so with the same name? With the same functioning/aims as in the past? None of these.

Is it a military unit employed in "open fields" battles? Yope. See last question of this paragraph. Is it a secret unit? Yesish. Is the near failure a key of its success because it maintained the secret? The secret of the near failure? No. Relevant to which country that military unit belongs? Yes. List of countries? United States. None? To the world (e.g. ONU, global organizations...)? Is it a conventional military unit employed to face enemies by shooting against them and/or performing defending activities to defeat enemies? No.

Was the unit founded to face a specific war related problem? Yes. Was it a specialized unit composed by members of the army facing specializing problems? Yes. E.g. mainly mines/bombs/medical assistence/engeneering in battleships/snipers/radar activities/communications This. /strategic coordination
Does the unit mainly concern navy? Aereonautics? Ground troops? This; the navy is related, however.

Did the circumstances of its near failure allow to better/create a specific tool to overcame the near failure?(e.g. foundation of radar/morse/...) No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby KayleeArafinwiel » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:23 pm

is this military unit (or "was" this military unit?) part of the Army? Marines? Navy? Air Force? Coast Guard? Were they the USO?
KayleeArafinwiel
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby dukhsan » Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:26 am

If it's a communications unit, is that at all related to propaganda or espionage? Was the navy required to make something work, such as by relaying this unit's messages or providing facilities/radio equipment on their ships?

If it's an American unit, is anything about American culture at the time - military, civilian, etc. - relevant to the puzzle? The culture of the countries the United States was fighting at the time? Was the unit successful because of any relevant assumptions made by the involved armies, units, or people?
dukhsan
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:45 pm

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:44 am

Code relevant? Language spoken relevant? Communications = decoding enemies'communications? Provide internal (among members of the same military force) communications? Facilitate communications? Is it something like it was required to decode certain communications and they struggled to do that because of the translation of some terms, which turned out to be an advantage in that it gave the opportunity to create a new code, not accesible by enemies, for communicating those words?

Are any of the wars fighted by USA relevant? (In Afghanistan,Libia,siria...) Communications with local people relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:55 am

is this military unit (or "was" this military unit?) part of the Army? Marines? This. Navy? Air Force? Coast Guard? Were they the USO?

If it's a communications unit, is that at all related to propaganda or espionage? No. Was the navy required to make something work, such as by relaying this unit's messages or providing facilities/radio equipment on their ships? No.

If it's an American unit, is anything about American culture at the time - military, civilian, etc. - relevant to the puzzle? Yes. The culture of the countries the United States was fighting at the time? Mildly. Was the unit successful because of any relevant assumptions made by the involved armies, units, or people? False assumptions? No.

Code relevant? Yes. Language spoken relevant? Yes. Communications = decoding enemies'communications? Provide internal (among members of the same military force) communications? This. Facilitate communications? Is it something like it was required to decode certain communications and they struggled to do that because of the translation of some terms, which turned out to be an advantage in that it gave the opportunity to create a new code, not accesible by enemies, for communicating those words? Not the issue.

Are any of the wars fighted by USA relevant? Nothing in the 21st century, no. (In Afghanistan,Libia,siria...) Communications with local people relevant? No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby KayleeArafinwiel » Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:38 am

so not the 21st century. Was this particular Marine division extant in:
20th century?
19th?
18th?
KayleeArafinwiel
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:59 am

so not the 21st century. Was this particular Marine division It wasn't a division. extant in:
20th century? This.
19th?
18th?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:01 am

if I'm not wrong marines are a navy unit operating also on ground right? So is this charachteristic of marines relevant? Is the nationality of the components of the original marin division relevant? Is the language spoken just the american english? If so was it also when the unit was found?
Do the cause of the near-failure of the division and the reason of its success coincide? If so, is it about the code that the unit was using? Was/Is it a special/unique code? A unique code among the USA army? Was the same code for communications used all iver US army before the introduction if the Marins? Did the Marins found their own code for internal communications? Is it a special code that just the members of the Marins know? Is the code the reason of the unit's success? If so it's unicity? The way in which is communicated? The difficulty/impossibility if decoding it? Is it a code communicated via radio? Via gestures? I mean...can it be communicated just by seeing the person who is communicating it to you or also via radio? Does it involve a key word? Tattoos? Is it mostly useful in wars? In actions with civilians? (E.g. when marins as undercover agents and want to be recognized they show their tattoo...) Is the code used for any type of actions/communication? For specific obes (identification...)?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:16 pm

if I'm not wrong marines are a navy unit operating also on ground right? Yes. So is this characteristic of marines relevant? Yes. Is the nationality of the components of the original marine division relevant? No. Is the language spoken just the american english? No. If so was it also when the unit was found?
Do the cause of the near-failure of the division and the reason of its success coincide? Yes. If so, is it about the code that the unit was using? Yes. Was/Is it a special/unique code? Yes. A unique code among the USA army? Yes, though some similar codes were used in other theaters. Was the same code for communications used all over US army before the introduction if the Marines? No. Did the Marines found their own code for internal communications? Yes. Is it a special code that just the members of the Marines know? Yes. Is the code the reason of the unit's success? Yes. If so its unicity? Uniqueness? Yes. The way in which is communicated? No. The difficulty/impossibility of decoding it? Yes. Is it a code communicated via radio? This. Via gestures? No. I mean...can it be communicated just by seeing the person who is communicating it to you or also via radio? Yes. Does it involve a key word? A series of words. Tattoos? No. Is it mostly useful in wars? Yes. In actions with civilians? (E.g. when marines as undercover agents and want to be recognized they show their tattoo...) No one goes undercover. Is the code used for any type of actions/communication? Yes. For specific obes (identification...)? Not this.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:20 pm

Does the code use words/expressions in english but from another field? Is it made by sentences which would have been meaningful had them been made in other contexts? (E.g. in sports? Water sports? Fishing? A code invented during the training? Involving sailors/nautical words?) By completely invented words? By meaningless sentences?...ok if I stop reasoning...have someone ever decoded it? Do someone a part from Marines knows it? If not...what do we hace to find out? I mean...the context by which the words used in the code are inspired and the reason why? Is the reason the affluence of a particular type of person in the unit? (E.g. fisherman...) Is it relevant how Marines mostly communicate? From ships to ground? Vice versa? From ground to ground? From ship to ship?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:28 pm

Does the code use words/expressions in english but from another field? No. Is it made by sentences which would have been meaningful had them been made in other contexts? No. (E.g. in sports? Water sports? Fishing? A code invented during the training? This. Involving sailors/nautical words? Not really.) By completely invented words? No. By meaningless sentences? Not quite meaningless; they referred whatever was being discussed ...ok if I stop reasoning...have someone ever decoded it? No. Do someone a part from Marines knows it? Yes. If not...what do we hace to find out? I mean...the context by which the words used in the code are inspired and the reason why? Oh, yes. Context is crucial. Is the reason the affluence of a particular type of person in the unit? No. (E.g. fisherman...) Is it relevant how Marines mostly communicate? Yes. From ships to ground? Vice versa? From ground to ground? This. From ship to ship?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:32 pm

Ok...training relevant...so is it relevant that their training is very hard? Is it a code they need to develop during their training? Is it a code which is different from unit to unit? Depending on their training? Is it (found a code to communicate) part of the training?

Is the code to communicate if everything is fine? If there are enemies in the nearby? If help is needed? If they need to hide/attack? Are nicknames involved? (E.g. nicknames invented during training)
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:28 pm

Ok...training relevant...so is it relevant that their training is very hard? It was normal Marine training plus their specialty. It was harder than it would have been if not for a relevant issue. Is it a code they need to develop during their training? The first group of them did. Is it a code which is different from unit to unit? No. Depending on their training? No. Is it (found a code to communicate) part of the training? No, just for the first few who went through the training.

Is the code to communicate if everything is fine? If there are enemies in the nearby? If help is needed? If they need to hide/attack? Are nicknames involved? (E.g. nicknames invented during training) Yes to all. (Possible FA on the nicknames.)
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:11 am

Hint: The unit in question are the Navajo "Code-Talkers" of the US Marines in WWII.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:07 am

Sorry for repeating some questions...

Imigrants relevant? Mexico? Indian? Is the relevant part of the training for the invention of the code the "specializing part of it" or "the classical marine training part"? The pauses (e.g. nights/moments of resting/lunches/dinners/others...)? Was the unit being made for decoding some specific communication? I mean, communication in spanish? Communications of mexicans? People passing the fronteer? Relevant that it was in WWII? Submarines relevant? Was the language they use to communicate relevant? Was it english? If not, did they somehow confound the enemy? Does the code modify words in a certain way? Modify the order of words in a sentence? Was it made of words (I mean when they communicate to others did they speak using their voice and make finite sentences with verbs/nouns and what so ever?)? Was the near failure due to the fact that nobody except them was able to understand the code? Are other members of the army aware of the code? Able to understand it? If not is it an advantage in the battlefield (e.g. if soldiers are captured by enemeies and required to decode it?)?

Do we need to discover what the code is about? In which circumstances it has been invented? Why is unique? If the latter, is its unicity due to what the code is about? To the circumstances pf the training in which it was invented? Was a specific group of people assigned to Navajo?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby GalFisk » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:17 am

Relevant why the code talker unit almost failed to be founded? Relevant that the allies wanted to avoid capture of any code talkers?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7856
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:21 pm

Immigrants relevant? No. Mexico? Indian? Is the relevant part of the training for the invention of the code the "specializing part of it" This. or "the classical marine training part"? The pauses (e.g. nights/moments of resting/lunches/dinners/others...)? No. Was the unit being made for decoding some specific communication? Coding and decoding. I mean, communication in Spanish? Communications of Mexicans? People passing the frontier? No to these. Relevant that it was in WWII? Yes. Submarines relevant? No. Was the language they use to communicate relevant? Yes. Was it english? No. If not, did they somehow confound the enemy? Yes. Does the code modify words in a certain way? No. Modify the order of words in a sentence? I don't believe so. Was it made of words (I mean when they communicate to others did they speak using their voice and make finite sentences with verbs/nouns and what so ever?)? Yes. There was an unusual sentence structure. Was the near failure due to the fact that nobody except them was able to understand the code? No. Are other members of the army aware of the code? Yes. Able to understand it? No. If not is it an advantage in the battlefield (e.g. if soldiers are captured by enemies and required to decode it?)? One speaker of Navajo was captured, and had he been willing to help the code could have been broken fairly easily, but at first listen he was very confused by it.

Do we need to discover what the code is about? No. In which circumstances it has been invented? Yes. Why is unique? Yesish. If the latter, is its unicity due to what the code is about? No. To the circumstances of the training in which it was invented? Yes. Was a specific group of people assigned to Navajo? The Navajo are an Amerindian tribe of Arizona and New Mexico - specific members of the tribe were assigned to the "Code Talker" unit.

Relevant why the code talker unit almost failed to be founded? Yes. Relevant that the allies wanted to avoid capture of any code talkers? Mildly.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:22 pm

Language used (according to the name) is the Navajo? An indian language? An ancient one?

Ok my idea is that the language/way of communicating is such that it seems there is some disturbance at the radio or sonething unclear....is that so? If not did they communicate by singing navajo songs?

Circumstances of the training in which it was invented: part of the physical training? Did they have to communicate something in a code imposed by superiors? Did they need to invent a code previously and then remember that code and communicate through it? Did trainings fail when Navajo soldiers communicated? Maybe due to their pronunciation? Was the unit created already with Navajo speakers/natives? Or was it a mixed unit before? Or it was not a unit at all and it became a unit once something relevant happened?

Training = coordinate sone attack in Europe? Communicate some strategic position?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:28 pm

Language used (according to the name) is the Navajo? Yes. An indian language? Yes. An ancient one? irr.

Ok my idea is that the language/way of communicating is such that it seems there is some disturbance at the radio or something unclear....is that so? If not did they communicate by singing navajo songs? No to both (though they did write their own translation of the Marine Corps Hymn!).

Circumstances of the training in which it was invented: part of the physical training? No. Did they have to communicate something in a code imposed by superiors? Technically, they created it themselves, with some guidance from higher-ups. Did they need to invent a code previously and then remember that code and communicate through it? Yes. Did trainings fail when Navajo soldiers communicated? Maybe due to their pronunciation? No to both. Was the unit created already with Navajo speakers/natives? This. Or was it a mixed unit before? Or it was not a unit at all and it became a unit once something relevant happened? Something relevant was required before the unit was formed.

Training = coordinate some attack in Europe? The Pacific, but yes, this was sometimes their role. Communicate some strategic position?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby Earnest » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:01 pm

Ok...to figure out = reasons for its nearly failure right? Incapability of inventing a code? Incapability of inventing a code which was different from the Navajo language?

WAG...is the near failure because there were no more navajo speakers? Because the navajo tribe was threatened? Was disappearing?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle

Postby JenBurdoo » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:32 pm

Ok...to figure out = reasons for its nearly failure right? Yes. Incapability of inventing a code? Incapability of inventing a code which was different from the Navajo language? Neither.

WAG...is the near failure because there were no more navajo speakers? Yes. Because the navajo tribe was threatened? Yes. Was disappearing?


*Spoiler*


Navajo speakers in 1942 were thin on the ground, in large part because of a government policy of taking children from their parents and putting them in mission schools where they were taught English and Christianity, and were harshly punished if they persisted in using their own language and culture. Many of the recruits practically had to relearn their own language before they could use it as a code. Luckily, the unit was very small and they were able to scrape up the few score speakers needed. Knowledge of Navajo was so rare even inside the tribe (amongst those of the right generation) that no one outside the tribe would be able to study it either.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Yet another milhist puzzle [The Rest is Sile

Postby Earnest » Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:20 am

Cool!
Earnest
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests