Miscellaneous desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 22

Pyrrhic victory

Is there a formal definition for the term Pyrrhic victory (based on stats such as loss exchange ratio, the percentage of casualties among the "winning" force, the absolute number of casualties, etc.)? Or is it a subjective judgment? 2601:646:9882:46E0:7137:977A:132E:9612 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be an actual definition. Operation Bagration was possibly the most important Soviet or even Allied victory of WW2. Still they still suffered many more losses than the Germans. In other circumstances, the battle would certainly be evaluated as a Pyrrhic victory. --KnightMove (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Bagration, according to its infobox, resulted in, depending on the source, ~1.5 to 3 times as many Russian casualties as Axis. That is, I believe, typical of most battles on the Eastern Front (until near the end). By your standard, pretty much every battle the Soviets won could be considered a Pyrrhic victory, rather than SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the Soviets would have finally run out of soldiers to defeat the Germans, this could well be the case. The Brusilov offensive of WW1, although in its early stages one of the most glorious victories of any party in this war, is also sometimes called a Pyrrhic victory overall - in the end, the high losses furthered the collapse of Tsarist Russia and the later revolution. --KnightMove (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition in our article ("a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat") is a good one, but it is of course not a formal one. For that, one would need to formalize the concept of a toll being "tantamount to defeat". That cannot be a simple matter of counting the casualties. A loss of some 800 souls would mean little to Italy but would be the end of Vatican City State as we know it. The term is used rather freely in the literature, without much concern about a precise definition. --Lambiam 18:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: The Seven Days Battles resulted in a Confederate victory, but with higher losses. The South was vastly inferior in total manpower. So these battles were, right at the beginning, one of many battles to wear down the South in a war of attrition - some kind of Pyrrhic victory. But still the victory prevented an immediate end of the war and took it on for further four years - so no, not what you call a Pyrrhic victory. --KnightMove (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Los Angeles

Looking at this photo of the DTLA skyline, can anyone identify from which direction it was taken? None of the metadata seem to say so, unless I've missed it. Cheers all, SN54129 11:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be looking southeast toward the city core along West 7th Street (the main road in the middle of the image) from somewhere beyond/over MacArthur Park. 91.194.221.225 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@'225, thanks very much! Yeah, a fun few minutes on Gmaps confirms your theory. Loads of buildings are well identifiable. I've updated the Commons entry accordingly. Cheers! SN54129 13:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. 80.47.73.217 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Richard Harris of course, '217, someone makes a good point in the comments section about how he might not have been a great singer, but he conveyed the emotion of the song better than anyone else could. Now I'm going to have the blooming thing in my head all night, of course! Cheers, SN54129 18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sends up engines?

Resolved

Could someone explain the use of engine in this context?[2]

Linked example:

From here you can see the Pillar Point Air Force Station and the telemetry antenna covered by a hard, white plastic shell. This station tracks the flight accuracy of missiles, especially those launched from Vandenberg Air Force base near Santa Maria in southern California. If something goes wrong with a missile launch, Command Control at Pillar Point can send a signal to blow up the missile. The station also sends up engines for satellites and moves satellite positions.

I'm not familiar with the use of engine in this context. Is this military jargon or a typo? Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing Pillar Point Air Force Station is capable of sending is a radio/radar transmission. Such transmissions can clearly be used to control rockets/missiles/satellites etc, and it seems that the station may have been used for that purpose in the past. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a helpful link, as it explains the range of operations without using the term "sends up engines". I understand what the term is intended to convey, but have you ever heard that term before? Is it military jargon or a typo? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it was written by someone who misunderstood what the station did. The quote is from a San Mateo County Parks document, rather than the military. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree; I'm just trying to eliminate the chance that it's an unknown term of art unique to the Air Force. I was surprised to find it there, as I've never seen it anywhere, and Google only lists the use of the term in the SMCP document. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we can't be sure that the USAF doesn't use it as a term of art somewhere (they keep secrets after all), but it doesn't come across as military jargon to me. Official military jargon tends towards brevity (with lots of TLAs) or obscurantism through codewords (who could guess what a Pave Spectre was from its name?). 'Send up' seems far too literal, and 'launch' would be one word less. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The thing is, I'm making my way through all the parks documents related to the California Coastal Trail, and this is the only one I've seen that uses an unfamiliar and unusual term. And these park documents have layers and layers of bureaucracy behind them. They aren't written by randos without review. It literally takes years for these things to reach the public and go to print, after dozens of reviews. Because of this, I do seriously wonder if the term "sends up engines" is a loose, colloquial term of art given to the writer by a military contractor, but not widely used or shared outside of technicians. It also reminds me of some of the chatter I heard in the mission control room during one of the Mars missions many years ago (via video). Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after thinking about this for several days, I’m convinced that sends up engines is a typo by the printer of the material. It’s supposed to say sends instructions. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Google's cache I find the sentence "Pillar Point Tracing station also fires up satellite's engines and moves them as needed from one position to another."^[4] --Lambiam 09:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there goes my theory. Bravo on finding the answer. How did fire up get changed to sends up? Weird. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an erroneous paraphrasing (for which there's probably a term). "Fires up" is a slangy expression for "starts up", so a copywriter or subeditor may well have wanted to change it, but "fires" is also a synonym for "launches [a projectile or rocket]" – one might well "fire up a rocket into space" – so the rewording chose a possible but incorrect paraphrase. I wonder if AI was involved? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.107.25 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, that makes perfect sense. I will close this out. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]