America's Army Sucks, Fact

redc1c4 wrote:

Denyav wrote:

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?

No, because the Brits stopped for tea! Yes. Really. Folks who were there have
told me about it.

-- Charlie Springer

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

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

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.

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.



More in one day? Didn't McClellan command at Antietam?

Bad civilian leadership will negate any military prowess. Look at the Germans.

The rebel government was extremely incompetent. State governments often just
ignored edicts from Richmond. The rebel government also had to resort to
conscription early on. When things started going badly, the rebel armies
largely faded away. There was little that the government in Richmond could do
to stop it.

Neither Grant nor Sherman were butchers. They were both masters of Maneuver.

In his campaign around Vicksburg, Grant used maneuver well and extensively to
defeat the rebels when they had generally more forces available than he did.
In the overland campaign, Grant constantly maneuvered around Lee's left. This
was ultimately successful. Grant did order the Cold Harbor assault. He
learned from that. Lee it was for 'hey-diddle-diddle-right up the middle'
tactics. He lost more men on every day of the Seven Days Battle than little
Mac did, and don't forget the third day at Gettysburg. No wonder Lee's army
was riven with desertion.

Sherman constantly turned the rebel forces out of ther positions during the
Atlanta campaign. After he left Atlanta, no sizeable rebel force opposed him
at all.

And don't forget Hood, who had seen that third days' attack at Gettyburg, yet
practically immolated his army at Franklin.



Walt

"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

In message , cain_uk
writes
America's army sucks.

Are these the US Americans, the Canadian Americans, the Mexican
Americans, the Venezuelan Americans, the Costa Rican Americans... (the
Americas are two large continents, if you hadn't noticed)

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.

No, it's frequently called "efficient economy of force" these days.

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.

I can't find an "Alantic" (is it a river? an ocean? a road?) or a
"Britian" in my world atlas, thanks.

And while I'll differ in detail about some aspects of US TTPs, the big
picture is a capable and deadly force: and if you want to criticise
their operational skills, learning to read, write and spell would be a
good start.


1.5/10 on the trollometer: Must Try Harder, See Me After Class.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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.

So when exactly do you think they used B-52's in the
old west ?

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.

Thanks for proving we produce morons too.

Keith

"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.

"...Their (sic) a bunch of cowboys...."

At least they know English language spelling rules better than do certain
Brits!!!

WDA

end

"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.