ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 10 of 12
« First < 678910 1112 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Here is a tribute to the 'Mad Dog' hoping he is tapped for DOD
Chiefshrink 12:05 PM 11-24-2016
I think it is only fitting to repost this modern day General Patton speech in tribute to General Mike Mattis hoping he leads the DOD because he will not apologize for defending this country. And what a day to post this speech, Thanksgiving !!!!

Enjoy my conservative hawk brethren !!!!


[Reply]
NinerDoug 11:25 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
One awesome thing I remember seeing -- on June 6, 1944, the greatest invasion fleet in the history of the world hit Normandy.

That same day, the second greatest invasion fleet in the history of the world was, errr, somewhere in teh damn Pacific. Heading for some target (Guam? Saipan?) Third Fleet. With like 15 fleet carriers, couple dozen light carriers and a bazillion other ships.

Just ridiculous.
We built something like 90 aircraft carriers during WWII, compared to the Japanese building something like 7. Tojo was a moron.
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:26 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo:
Nice to see you coming around a bit chowda' Carry on.

I dislike Trump. I never will like Trump. That doesn't mean, however, that I wish him to fail as POTUS. That doesn't help America one bit. I have found his cabinet picks to be reasoanbly promising. I doubt very much that I will like his SCOTUS pick, but that's to be expected.

Elections have consequences after all.
[Reply]
Fairplay 11:27 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
One awesome thing I remember seeing -- on June 6, 1944, the greatest invasion fleet in the history of the world hit Normandy.

That same day, the second greatest invasion fleet in the history of the world was, errr, somewhere in teh damn Pacific. Heading for some target (Guam? Saipan?) Third Fleet. With like 15 fleet carriers, couple dozen light carriers and a bazillion other ships.

Just ridiculous.
Rommel's Atlantic wall was a joke, all you need is a break in one of the beaches and the rest of it is all worthless. I would've divided up several divisions of tanks and men in locations along the coast of France ready to speed to where the ships are landing. Those concrete bunkers for the most part were a waste of concrete.
[Reply]
ChiefaRoo 11:27 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
I dislike Trump. I never will like Trump. That doesn't mean, however, that I wish him to fail as POTUS. That doesn't help America one bit. I have found his cabinet picks to be reasoanbly promising. I doubt very much that I will like his SCOTUS pick, but that's to be expected.

Elections have consequences after all.
Fair enough. Merry Christmas!
[Reply]
NinerDoug 11:30 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
The law is there for good reason. If, in the judgment of Congress, an exception should be made for an exceptional candidate, as was done for George Marshall (one of the greatest Americans in history), then that can be done.

Mattis does appear to be an exceptional candidate. I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt on this. By the time Trump is sworn in, it will have been about 3.5 years since he left the military. About half of the statutory period.
I really don't know anything about Marshall the man, but Marshall the statesman was a genius. His genius was in setting the stage for peace and prosperity. I don't know what he was like as a general.

This guy strikes me as a bit too gung ho to be given an exception. Seems to me he is just the kind of individual that Congress had in mind when enacting the seven year waiting period.
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:32 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
We built something like 90 aircraft carriers during WWII, compared to the Japanese building something like 7. Tojo was a moron.

There are many classifications of Carriers, or at least were, during WWII. I doubt we had 90 fleet carriers. I think we had hundreds of escort carriers, however, which were much smaller. I suspect the 90 is a combo of Fleet plus Light carriers, excluding escort carriers.

The Japanese certainly had more than seven durign the war. Six were used to hit Pearl Harbor, and while I remember that two were somewhat smaller than the other four, I don't recall if they were so small as to be classified as "light" or "escort". The four primary carriers were sunk at Midway.

Tojo was a moron, for many reasons. Japan was certainly handicapped in military construction matters by its shortage of raw materials, including steel. Japan was stupid to go to war with us. They never had a chance.
[Reply]
Fairplay 11:36 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
We built something like 90 aircraft carriers during WWII, compared to the Japanese building something like 7. Tojo was a moron.
90 aircraft carriers eh?
[Reply]
NinerDoug 11:39 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
There are many classifications of Carriers, or at least were, during WWII. I doubt we had 90 fleet carriers. I think we had hundreds of escort carriers, however, which were much smaller. I suspect the 90 is a combo of Fleet plus Light carriers, excluding escort carriers.

The Japanese certainly had more than seven durign the war. Six were used to hit Pearl Harbor, and while I remember that two were somewhat smaller than the other four, I don't recall if they were so small as to be classified as "light" or "escort". The four primary carriers were sunk at Midway.

Tojo was a moron, for many reasons. Japan was certainly handicapped in military construction matters by its shortage of raw materials, including steel. Japan was stupid to go to war with us. They never had a chance.
The figures I heard a while back were what was produced during the war, not what either side had going in.

Here you go. 160 total, including 24 big ones.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-aircr...ng-World-War-2
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:39 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Fairplay:
Rommel's Atlantic wall was a joke, all you need is a break in one of the beaches and the rest of it is all worthless. I would've divided up several divisions of tanks and men in locations along the coast of France ready to speed to where the ships are landing. Those concrete bunkers for the most part were a waste of concrete.
You are precisely right. But you are also wrong.

These exact arguments were the subject of very serious debated between the commander of German forces in the west (von Rundstedt), Rommel, who had been appointed directly by Hitler to repel the expected Allied invasion. Rundstedt though forward positions would be pummeled by naval firepower, so he wanted his armor etc deep in reserve. Rommel thought if the Allies gained a strong foothold, it would be impossible to throw them back into the sea, so any landings must be met quickly and with firepower.

The answer, really, is that neither plan would work. The German western forces in total were small and pathetic, simply given the vast resources devoted to the ongoing, actual shooting, war against the Russians on the Eastern front. Allied air superiority meant railroads were cut and reinforcements could be attacked on teh way to the landing area. Overwhelming naval superiority meant the Allies could attack anywhere they wanted, subject to resupply and other such limits.

I like Rommel's plan somewhat better than Rundstedt. "Sit, wait and pray" doesn't seem like much of a plan. If the armor at Calais and elsewhere had been mobilized more quickly, maybe the Germans would've done better. As it stood, however, given the limitations of space, time and equipment, I don't see any real plan that would've protected France for any significant period of time.
[Reply]
Titty Meat 11:42 AM 12-02-2016
Mattis has said not to tear up the Iran deal. He must be a pussy.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 11:43 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
You are precisely right. But you are also wrong.

These exact arguments were the subject of very serious debated between the commander of German forces in the west (von Rundstedt), Rommel, who had been appointed directly by Hitler to repel the expected Allied invasion. Rundstedt though forward positions would be pummeled by naval firepower, so he wanted his armor etc deep in reserve. Rommel thought if the Allies gained a strong foothold, it would be impossible to throw them back into the sea, so any landings must be met quickly and with firepower.

The answer, really, is that neither plan would work. The German western forces in total were small and pathetic, simply given the vast resources devoted to the ongoing, actual shooting, war against the Russians on the Eastern front. Allied air superiority meant railroads were cut and reinforcements could be attacked on teh way to the landing area. Overwhelming naval superiority meant the Allies could attack anywhere they wanted, subject to resupply and other such limits.

I like Rommel's plan somewhat better than Rundstedt. "Sit, wait and pray" doesn't seem like much of a plan. If the armor at Calais and elsewhere had been mobilized more quickly, maybe the Germans would've done better. As it stood, however, given the limitations of space, time and equipment, I don't see any real plan that would've protected France for any significant period of time.
If Hitler hadn't been insane enough to go to war with the Soviets, that would have done it.
[Reply]
patteeu 11:47 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
He's not eligible to be Secretary of Defense. Unless we're just going to give exceptions to the law to Trump because he's Trump.
That's pretty much what we're going to do.
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:50 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
If Hitler hadn't been insane enough to go to war with the Soviets, that would have done it.

Yes, but he was not capable of that. He always viewed Stalin and the Soviets as the "real enemy". Much moreso than England or France. When he talked of Lebensraum, he meant Eastern Europe and into the Ukraine. He viewed their peoples as inferior and rightly subject to domination by his superior Aryans. He did not hold those same views toward the French (despite a century of French/German hostility) and especially the British. He actually viewed the British as a natural ally against the USSR.

In short, the USSR was ALWAYS "the plan". France and England (Battle of Britain) were, in his twisted worldview, essentially a diversion necessitated by Anglo/French interference in his plans. He had a visceral hatred of Communism and the Soviets, not unlike his hatred of Jews. It's part of why the war on the Eastern Front was so vastly more vicious (in terms of atrocities and general barbarism/ruthlessness) than the war in the West.
[Reply]
Amnorix 11:51 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by patteeu:
That's pretty much what we're going to do.

I hope, if he is appointed, that Mattis proves to be one billion times better at strategic thinking than Reid. :-) The "nuclear option" doesn't look so good when it's sitting at your own feet.
[Reply]
patteeu 11:52 AM 12-02-2016
Originally Posted by patteeu:
That's pretty much what we're going to do.
I don't think democrats will be able to uphold a filibuster blocking a waiver for Mattis. Does anyone here think they can?
[Reply]
Page 10 of 12
« First < 678910 1112 >
Up