- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:21 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:21 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
It is not in any way germane.
Yet, you think your unclassified copy/paste jobs are.
0
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:25 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
they found that the USSR as late as 1986 was moving units around in east Germany looking for an opening to break into the West.
That's not unexpected, as the Russians, just like the US, had/have contingencies for just about every conceivable scenario. And just like the US, many of those contingencies are pointless and would result in utter failure if executed.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
It's out the arse. I can't believe of all things Trump didn't not only cut but also raised was defense. That is a bunch of shite. We could probably cut it in half and be perfectly safe. We have 2 oceans protecting us from basically everything but Canada and Mexico. You really think those countries are threats? Try bordering Russia directly.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:54 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Oh I think it might be germane. Let's stack up my company command, my two battalion commands, my two brigade commands, my two deployments, my resident senior service college against your ability to copy and paste.
Yeah, you got a good point there WikiPaster.
ETA: But you did look good in your dress whites at the Marine Ball. So you got that going for you, which is nice.
Yeah, you got a good point there WikiPaster.
ETA: But you did look good in your dress whites at the Marine Ball. So you got that going for you, which is nice.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 12:35 am to OMLandshark
quote:
It's out the arse. I can't believe of all things Trump didn't not only cut but also raised was defense. That is a bunch of shite. We could probably cut it in half and be perfectly safe. We have 2 oceans protecting us from basically everything but Canada and Mexico. You really think those countries are threats? Try bordering Russia directly.
200 years ago the US benefited quite a bit from the Royal Navy keeping the sea lanes peaceful. We can't count on the Royal Navy any more. We have to have a world wide naval presence in order to to protect everyone's commerce.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 12:58 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Oh I think it might be germane. Let's stack up my company command, my two battalion commands, my two brigade commands, my two deployments, my resident senior service college against your ability to copy and paste.
Then why did you say something as stupid as this:
"Wolfhound45
USA Fan
San Antonio
Member since Nov 2009
42830 posts
re: Let's talk about military spendingPosted on 3/18/17 at 11:35 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
If the Russians have something like three entire Fronts (army groups) rolling across Central Europe, what is one battalion going to do to stem the tide?
Bro, no. They roll like that we will go nuclear. Come on."
Then I wrote:
No way in Hell are we using nuclear weapons in a NATO country.
Then you wrote:
quote:
Wolfhound45 USA Fan San Antonio Member since Nov 2009 42830 posts re: Let's talk about military spendingPosted on 3/18/17 at 12:20 pm to WhiskeyPapa In the scenario he just described? Are you kidding me?
There is absolutely the possibility of a tactical nuke being used.
Then I wrote:
And there simply is not.
------------------------------------
THEN you wrote:
hound45
USA Fan
San Antonio
Member since Nov 2009
42830 posts
re: Let's talk about military spending Posted on 3/18/17 at 2:50 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Do you honestly think we are going to publish military doctrine that outlines what our threshold is for use of nuclear weapons? Seriously? That will be an NCA decision anyway."
When there are tons of data on that very thing.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO
US Nuclear and Extended Deterrence
And:
ALL CARDS ON THE TABLE: FIRST-USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AL MAURONI AND DAVID JONAS JULY 25, 2016
Recent news that President Obama may be considering changes in nuclear deterrence policy has caused a storm of speculation as to whether the time is right for the U.S. government to declare a no first-use policy. In short, this refers to a policy by a state that possesses nuclear weapons not to use them as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary with nuclear weapons. The United States has never had a no first-use policy, preferring the concept of strategic or calculated ambiguity to suggest that it could respond to a crisis with nuclear weapons, if appropriate, or with the massive use of conventional weapons. Thomas Schelling, who called deterrence “the diplomacy of violence,” reminds us that latent violence may influence a state’s choice and that the threat of more damage to come can make a state yield or comply. One of the rationales for retaining nuclear weapons is to deter an adversarial nation from initiating a conventional war and using its nuclear weapons as a latent threat against U.S. military actions. As a matter of extended deterrence, allies such as Japan and South Korea would like to be assured that the United States will not hesitate to use all means to protect them, given that they have committed to not developing nuclear weapons (per the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty)."
LINK
Are you going to say all that stupid shite about using nuclear weapons in a NATO COUNTRY again?
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 1:07 am
Posted on 3/21/17 at 1:25 am to Wolfhound45
Posted on 3/21/17 at 3:50 am to GeauxxxTigers23
The Army envy is so evident in everyone of your military posts
You got the butthurt bad lil bro
You got the butthurt bad lil bro
Posted on 3/21/17 at 5:40 am to Wes B
NOBODY envies the Army. Goofy looking uniforms and best known soldier is George Custer.
One of the things you don't hear much about the Custer fight is how Reno and Benteen - made a conscious decision not to go to Custer's aid.
One of the things you don't hear much about the Custer fight is how Reno and Benteen - made a conscious decision not to go to Custer's aid.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 8:24 am to WhiskeyPapa
Square yourself away and get in line behind the ARMY. The U.S. Army has borne the brunt of every war/conflict this nation has been in since before our inception.
FOLLOW ME!
Posted on 3/21/17 at 8:27 am to WhiskeyPapa
WikiPaster, you are the gift that keeps giving. Thanks for starting off my morning right
Posted on 3/21/17 at 9:27 am to Wes B
quote:
Square yourself away and get in line behind the ARMY. The U.S. Army has borne the brunt of every war/conflict this nation has been in since before our inception.
FOLLOW ME!
It is the job of the Army to bear the brunt of every war.
It is the job of the Marine Corps to be the expeditionary force in readiness.
It is fate that the Army will always envy the Marine Corps.
"As the Marines continued to roll through the north, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Vessey, reportedly called the commander of the 82nd, Major General Edward L. Trobaugh. “We have two companies of Marines running all over the island and thousands of Army troops doing nothing,” Vessey fumed. “What the hell is going on?” The rebuke was to linger for years with the paratroopers, who bitterly resented Vessey’s censure as a classic example of know-nothing meddling from Washington."
LINK
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 9:28 am
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:04 am to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:11 am to Champagne
I don't have enough to make this worth its own thread but:
I recently got a copy of Fix Bayonets by John W. Thomason.
He indicates that the Marine Brigade started out used French tactics, platoons attacking in four waves. That was 6/6/18; that video I posted before was of 6/6/18.
They only did that once.
"It helped some to bag the feldwebels [F.O.'s]in the trees. There were men in that [Marine] line who could hit a target three times out of five at 750 yards." - Fix Bayonets p. 13
I recently got a copy of Fix Bayonets by John W. Thomason.
He indicates that the Marine Brigade started out used French tactics, platoons attacking in four waves. That was 6/6/18; that video I posted before was of 6/6/18.
They only did that once.
"It helped some to bag the feldwebels [F.O.'s]in the trees. There were men in that [Marine] line who could hit a target three times out of five at 750 yards." - Fix Bayonets p. 13
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:34 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
200 years ago the US benefited quite a bit from the Royal Navy keeping the sea lanes peaceful. We can't count on the Royal Navy any more. We have to have a world wide naval presence in order to to protect everyone's commerce.
the fact that we have a 2-4000 mile long gap on each side is what I'm referring to. Not to mention that no naval ship will be able to get within 3 digits of reaching our shores sheerly due to our satellites.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:37 am to WhiskeyPapa
Great find. Please go ahead and post new info from the book that sheds light on the "who, what and how" the Brigade's approach to infantry assault tactics evolved and what influence the German Infiltration/Stoss had.
The Germans had Stoss-trained platoon and company sized units at the launch of Verdun way back in Feb, 1916. The Germans had expanded on that to the extent that their 21 March 1918 offensive used Stoss tactics at the corps and army level.
It could be that Marines in the Brigade developed Infiltration on their own. After all, the technique was invented and developed first at the platoon and company level in the German and French armies. The junior officers in the German Army got support from the Generals to continue development and expansion. The French Army rather ignored their junior officers who advocated the new approach to infantry assaults.
Yes, that's deploying the infantry companies in two ranks, almost shoulder to shoulder, and advancing in dressed lines, as I previously described, these are the tactics that were quite universal in 1914. The quote refers to each rank/line as a "wave", so you get four waves with an advance of one company behind the other.
They did use rather extended intervals as a solution to the new levels of battlefield lethality as compared to the 19th century. As such, the WWI formations were not exactly like 19th century formations.
The lessons of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 were there to learn, but they were ignored.
I'm beginning to suspect that our search for US Army and USMC infantry assault tactics using the Stoss approach will be taking us into the 1940s, which is a real "Frowny Face" emoji, because it shows that our military thinking WRT infantry tactics was retarded for a long time.
The culmination of the Infiltration Approach is when we find the tactical approach extending to organizing, equipping, and most importantly TRAINING specific infiltration teams with specific tasks during planning stages far before the start of the attack. We aren't talking about ad hoc arrangements to begin the attack in linear formations and then breaking down into smaller groups once enemy fire forces the waves to the ground.
PS The OP: I apologize for hacking the thread. I figure that I can keep the intrusion to a minimum by sticking to this very particular subject of tactical development. I'm always looking for new info on that topic.
The Germans had Stoss-trained platoon and company sized units at the launch of Verdun way back in Feb, 1916. The Germans had expanded on that to the extent that their 21 March 1918 offensive used Stoss tactics at the corps and army level.
It could be that Marines in the Brigade developed Infiltration on their own. After all, the technique was invented and developed first at the platoon and company level in the German and French armies. The junior officers in the German Army got support from the Generals to continue development and expansion. The French Army rather ignored their junior officers who advocated the new approach to infantry assaults.
quote:
platoons attacking in four waves.
Yes, that's deploying the infantry companies in two ranks, almost shoulder to shoulder, and advancing in dressed lines, as I previously described, these are the tactics that were quite universal in 1914. The quote refers to each rank/line as a "wave", so you get four waves with an advance of one company behind the other.
They did use rather extended intervals as a solution to the new levels of battlefield lethality as compared to the 19th century. As such, the WWI formations were not exactly like 19th century formations.
The lessons of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 were there to learn, but they were ignored.
I'm beginning to suspect that our search for US Army and USMC infantry assault tactics using the Stoss approach will be taking us into the 1940s, which is a real "Frowny Face" emoji, because it shows that our military thinking WRT infantry tactics was retarded for a long time.
The culmination of the Infiltration Approach is when we find the tactical approach extending to organizing, equipping, and most importantly TRAINING specific infiltration teams with specific tasks during planning stages far before the start of the attack. We aren't talking about ad hoc arrangements to begin the attack in linear formations and then breaking down into smaller groups once enemy fire forces the waves to the ground.
PS The OP: I apologize for hacking the thread. I figure that I can keep the intrusion to a minimum by sticking to this very particular subject of tactical development. I'm always looking for new info on that topic.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 11:16 am
Posted on 3/21/17 at 12:48 pm to WhiskeyPapa
never mind how special your drill sergeants told you you were in boot camp. That shite may work for your recruiting posters, but anyone in the know KNOWS the USMC has a role, and that role is to support the Army.
There's a reason marines should never be trusted with running a war...never happened, never will.
Now FOLLOW ME!
Posted on 3/21/17 at 1:30 pm to Wes B
quote:
That shite may work for your recruiting posters, but anyone in the know KNOWS the USMC has a role, and that role is to support the Army.
One of the ways the Marine Corps was able to recruit some pretty good human material early in WWII was by saying that the Marines would come in and do the very violent assaults and then be relieved by the Army. In that sense the Army supported the Marine Corps. The reason this worked was because young men in that situation knew all about the horrible trench warfare from WWI. That was a good mission for the doggies.
In a great little book called “Into the Valley,” by John Hersey, about the fighting on Guadalcanal he relates how he was talking with some Marines from 1/7 I believe. They had been on the island for several months already. He asked them – “what are you really fighting for?” They didn’t say anything at first, then one of them said, “I sure would like a piece of blueberry pie.” Another said, “I like mine to be apple. With some mintz.” Soon they asked him “WHERE IS THE DAMN ARMY!?”
Page 32 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News