America's Army Sucks, Fact

"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.

Um, that would be the Air Force. The Army is the one that has
rifles an' boots an' stuff but I don't think they use horses anymore.

Their a bunch of cowboys.
^
They're. It's a contraction of 'they are.'

And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
^
hear

torturing Iraqi prisoners.

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

Who's Britian? I guess he must be new to this group. As for you,
Sir, back to 'English as a second language' class for you.

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

Denyav wrote:

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

because the US drew the toughest sectors?

redc1c4,
"Market Garden"... 'nuff said.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?


At least partly because the Americans faced a first line infantry formation
that was on manuevers in the area right behind Omaha Beach.

At Utah, the US casualties were similar to those on Brit/Canadian beaches.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

snip

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's
not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships
actually
detonated.

I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly
well
known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known
among the
readers of s.m.n.

Sure, but 'most people' don't read this newsgroup.


They were US munitions left over from WWII.

No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series
1,000
lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs,
either 250
or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax
Bay
looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are
post-WW2
vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

Thanks for the correction. I heard something else.


Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the
FAA
doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The
reason so
few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the
job
of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped
from
altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the
bombs
dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to
clear the
target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by
structure
inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding.
The
whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about
survival
than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG
317.0
(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine
pilots
were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just
that
reason.


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.

You seem to agree that if -all- the bombs had detonated the Brit supporting
force would have been reduced below a level where the invasion could have been
supported.

On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a
slick Mk.
82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off
accordingly.

Guy

The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe.

In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.

Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the operation
and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.

But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
before so why stop now.

Keith


What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd what was
executed?

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.

Walt

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.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as
advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe.

In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.

Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the
operation
and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.

But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
before so why stop now.

Keith


What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd
what was
executed?


Just about everything and most especially
timing.

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

On 31 May 2004 03:11:43 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?
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 those people that died serveing
MCCLELLAN died for nogthing, and that is the true waste in war.

JMO

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as
advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe.

In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.

Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the
operation
and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.

But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
before so why stop now.

Keith


What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd
what was
executed?


Just about everything and most especially
timing.

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.

The relationship betwen the two men is beautifully described in Chester
Wilmotts book... what ws it called? The Road to Europe maybe?

John