I support it also. Thanks djensen for bringing the issue to our attention on that day.
LOL Things the American Military has tried to make
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Wow… Tax dollars hard at work.
-
Another screwball military idea which makes for entertaining reading is the WWII project to build a 2.2 million ton aircraft carrier out of ice and sawdust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
-
The British also failed at trying to invade Gallipoli in the Great War, and did even worse with her Canadians at Dieppe.
-
I’m not sure how you classify Dieppe as worse than Gallipoli or why you use failed military missions as a comparison to stupid military systems. In any event, Dieppe was a failed reconnaissance mission with under 5,000 casualties compared to a failed invasion with over 150, 000 casualties. I’d be interested in knowing what metrics you used to come to your conclusion.
As stupid as Dieppe was IMHO it’s not in the same league as a gay bomb when it comes to stupidity.
-
Y’know that’s a really sad comment on the state of science education in America. As any first year biology or psychology student can tell you, pheromones are used by some animals (e.g. rats, dogs) to communicate to each other that they are in heat, or “estrus”, but humans don’t have an estrus cycle; we don’t go into heat because we are always capable of sexual response to an attractive potential partner. Even if we were sexually aroused by pheromones, it would not make us change our sexual preference. Humans do have a vestigial vomeronasal organ (the organ that detects pheromones in the air), but it probably doesn’t work like the one in a rat or dog. Anyway, it is sad that people in responsible positions in the American government and military are so ignorant that they fall for this stuff. It makes me wonder how corrupt their system must be for people so inept to get into powerful positions. Yet another symptom of a FAILED empire in collapse.
Now the flatulence bomb on the other hand, would be devastating! :-D
-
**I’m not sure how you classify Dieppe as worse than Gallipoli or why you use failed military missions as a comparison to stupid military systems.** In any event, Dieppe was a failed reconnaissance mission with under 5,000 casualties compared to a failed invasion with over 150, 000 casualties. I’d be interested in knowing what metrics you used to come to your conclusion.
As stupid as Dieppe was IMHO it’s not in the same league as a gay bomb when it comes to stupidity.
When I used to work in the tech sector, we called that having an ID-10-T error.
-
I’m not sure how you classify Dieppe as worse than Gallipoli
Simple. To compare military disasters you got to compare the aggregate total of loses as a % of force committed in order to make sense.
If you had 1 million men and lost 150K vs. 30k and lost 10K the second was worse as a percentage of loses.
So it’s the ‘metrics’ of comparing % of total force lost in battle.
Gallipoli almost had a chance but the damn British decided to camp out on the coastline, allowing the Turks to reinforce. Dieppe had ZERO CHANCE, it was a suicide run for Canadians. Thank Churchill.
-
Dieppe was never an invasion, it was always a reconnaissance mission. In in that role it was a success. We learned you will get your ass kicked if you do a poorly prepared frontal assault on a guarded port.
So, your ‘metrics’ are on % of casualties. So D-day was a failure because it had >0% casualties compared to a commando raid of 4 guys who accomplish their mission with no casualties. The British navy lost at least 3 front line battleships in Gallipoli compared to a destroyer in Dieppe, now does that work on % of forces lost?
Dieppe was not a failure as it accomplished the set out mission, albiet in a bloody fashion that left Canada somewhat bitter towards the British military commanders. The Allies in general learned, but so too did Canada. We learned that we better be in command of our units and we were in D-Day. Generally we thank Churchill for saving Britain while the US dithered on the sidelines.
The gay bomb does sound pretty stupid but I’m sure you have to explore so hair brained ideas and have many dead ends before a revolutionary weapon becomes operational. Directed energy weapons still are not that practical. Mind you a ray-gun does sound way more cool than a gaybomb. Yeah the more I think about it the gay bomb was just pretty damn stupid. It must have been a pet project for somebody trying to explain to their wife why they got caught in bed doing the nasty with another dude!
-
Malachi Crunch: Do you think working on the Gay Bomb rubbed off on the creator and the Authorities feared all of America might go gay before its use on the enemy and so cancelled it?
I would rather not look in to it, just in case! -
Wife: “what are you doing today darling?”
Inventor : “working on a Gay Bomb. Don’t wait up!” -
Kasserine pass was equally as embarrassing for the Americans. Â Probably worse considering they had proper air support, and it wasn’t even an amphibious assault.
Simple. To compare military disasters you got to compare the aggregate total of loses as a % of force committed in order to make sense.
If you had 1 million men and lost 150K vs. 30k and lost 10K the second was worse as a percentage of loses.
So it’s the ‘metrics’ of comparing % of total force lost in battle.
[edited by GG] For example, in Iraq, a Lieutenant sends out a recon party in a humvee, 3 enlisted men and a medic - and they get ambushed by a suicide bomber. Everyone dies.
Is the Lieutenant now the WORST commander that ever lived? Because he had a 100% casualty rating?
-
You know what else is interesting?
CAPTURED is considered for all intensive and historical purposes a CASUALTY. Of the 6100 Canadians at dieppe, about 1200 were killed, and 2000 Captured, for casualties around 3200.
Take a look at the American performance in the defence of the phillipines.
American Strength = About 151,000
Casualties and losses = 146,000
It’s military DISASTER we are talking about after all, isn’t it?
That’s a way bigger failure than Dieppe, or Gallipoli, in terms of %.
-
This is a really dumb methodology. � For example, in Iraq, a Lieutenant sends out a recon party in a humvee, 3 enlisted men and a medic - and they get ambushed by a suicide bomber. Everyone dies.
I knew insane, off the wall examples would be presented. I guess i won my bet. That is not a battle [edited by GG]. We are talking about Historical battles in History. You just disagree with anything i say [edited by GG].
-
CAPTURED is considered for all intensive and historical purposes a CASUALTY. Of the 6100 Canadians at dieppe, about 1200 were killed, and 2000 Captured, for casualties around 3200.
Funny that you deliberately left out the British figures to make a weak argument look plausible.
Singapore was another British disaster, far worse than Philippines.
-
85,000 surrendered?
Not 150,000…
-
Speaking of losing battles,
Is calling me names on a regular basis your only method of response?
And why did you come into this thread JUST to derail it?
-
Malayan Campaign. Another unmitigated disaster for UK.
-
85,000 surrendered?
Not 150,000…
100% OF FORCE LOST. It is the worst if we allow captured POW as loses. See how that works?
-
So you acknowledge then that you were WRONG earlier? About Dieppe and Gallipoli?
-
Casualties are not the most important thing; meeting the objective is. For example, the Vietnamese took many more casualties than the Americans, but it was the Americans who lost that war.
Suggested Topics
