America's Army Sucks, Fact

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translationlenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.


In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps
and laying waster to Georgia and the Carolina's was
a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.


Overall 11% of union soldiers became casualties
compared with 15% of confederates.

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

Keith

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales
when
compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives,
failing
to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.


Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith


Montgomery has no -real- achievements.

His "victory" over the Afrika Korps at El Alamein came only after he had
overwhelming superiorty and the Germans ran out of gas.


Compare and contrast the battles of Alem Halfa and the
Kasserine Pass

snip




Also consider:

"The British had such superiority in weapons, both in quality and
quantity,
that they were able to force through any and every kind of operation...
For
the rest, the British based their planning on the principal of exact
calculation, a principal which can only be followed where there is
complete
material superiority. They actually undertook no -operations- but relied
simply
and solely on the effect of their artillery and air force."

--Erwin Rommel


Of course Rommel LOST - Twice.

Keith

In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25% of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other Confederate
commanders.
His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.
BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of fighters
who try to carry out orders.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men
percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.


Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more
soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25%
of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.


Incorrect. While exact figures for the Confederate casualties arent
available
the most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were
around 75,000 strong while the total strength of the army
of the Potomac was aroun 97,000. However on the first
day only a fraction of the Union force was present

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )


He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other
Confederate
commanders.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win
anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses
within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.


Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American
Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean
War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of
fighters
who try to carry out orders.

Enough of them lose the war.

Keith

Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.


Well,Total population of Union States was 22,000,000 ,Confederate States only
5,000,000.
Union military forces outnumbered Confederates by more than 2,5 to 1.

So if you follow your way of thinking they should do whatever Union wants them
to do,not they want to do,to conserve their scarce manpower resources.

Heck,I wonder why some states are still issuing license plates "Live free or
Die".logo.

he most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were

Most accepted figure is 20000 for Confederates.

He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

Maybe Lee should have listened Longstreet,but even if Lee won at Gettysburg it
would not change much,confederates were hopelessly outnumbered.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

You seem to repeat revisionist Civil War historian Rhea and trying to
rehabilitate Grant and Sherman.
But its impossible to rehabilate persons whose achievements during Civil War
are limited to terrorizing civilians.

Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

They only wanted to peacefully secede from the Union,but they were outnumbered
so they had to accept "union by force" option to save lives.

I think EU could be created 65 years ago if Brits and other Europeans accepted
a corporals' "Union by force" proposals and many lives could saved.
So they must be stupid too.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

Grant was a slaver too.
Grant and Sherman would be the first ones who get convicted in 20th war crimes
tribunal.Besides being a barbarian,Grant was an anti-semite too.

Civil War only ended when Confederates run out of soldiers ,supplies and
everything.
Heck, the "Master of Maneuver" even lost more than 6000 soldier within one Hour
,but he did not have worry about.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.


Well,Total population of Union States was 22,000,000 ,Confederate States
only
5,000,000.
Union military forces outnumbered Confederates by more than 2,5 to 1.

So if you follow your way of thinking they should do whatever Union wants
them
to do,not they want to do,to conserve their scarce manpower resources.


Since in the end they lost and had to do exactly that you
could indeed draw that inference. However I was pointing out that
they could ill afford to squander their soldier's lives.


Heck,I wonder why some states are still issuing license plates "Live free
or
Die".logo.


That would be New Hampshire - not a confederate state you may recall.


he most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were

Most accepted figure is 20000 for Confederates.


Rather high even so

He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

Maybe Lee should have listened Longstreet,but even if Lee won at
Gettysburg it
would not change much,confederates were hopelessly outnumbered.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

You seem to repeat revisionist Civil War historian Rhea and trying to
rehabilitate Grant and Sherman.

You dont need to rehabilitate winners.

But its impossible to rehabilate persons whose achievements during Civil
War
are limited to terrorizing civilians.


And winning the war

Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

They only wanted to peacefully secede from the Union,but they were
outnumbered
so they had to accept "union by force" option to save lives.


They wanted to maintain slavery which was why they seceded.

I think EU could be created 65 years ago if Brits and other Europeans
accepted
a corporals' "Union by force" proposals and many lives could saved.
So they must be stupid too.


No we didnt want to be German slaves.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

Grant was a slaver too.

No he married a woman from Missouri who owned
slaves.

Grant and Sherman would be the first ones who get convicted in 20th war
crimes
tribunal.Besides being a barbarian,Grant was an anti-semite too.


Scarcely unsual for the time, note I have not proposed Grant
for beatification. He certainly had his faults but he was an
effective general.

Civil War only ended when Confederates run out of soldiers ,supplies and
everything.

Yep Sherman's march to the sea and the razing of the Shenandoah
valley cut combined with the Union naval blockade cut Virginia
off from its sources of supply. A succesful strategy in fact.

Heck, the "Master of Maneuver" even lost more than 6000 soldier within one
Hour
,but he did not have worry about.


Quite so, he won after all.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Compare and contrast the battles of Alem Halfa and the
Kasserine Pass

You mean Alam el Halfa?

For one thing, the Brits had been at war for three years when Alam el Halfa
happened. Kasserine Pass was the first time the US faced the Germans

Walt

Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

"cain_uk" wrote in message
om...
America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they unavailable?

Al Minyard