Nice.
LOL Things the American Military has tried to make
-
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL. That’s the point I made.
Choosing Malaya, or the Phillinpines as the best or worst, or whatever is irrelevant.
The methodology is bad. As bad as the name calling.
You’ve also derailed this thread. Feel free to apologize.
-
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL.
You didn’t clarify anything, instead i used your example against you. You can’t compare losses in battle by just identifying how many, because the battles have different numbers.
But you CAN identify total % of force lost to compare them. Singapore was a 100% force lost.
Yep clear winner…me LOL
-
IL… you’re running circles around yourself.
On one hand you are saying that Gallipoli (59% casualty rate) was not as bad as Dieppe (40 or so % casualty rate).
but that based solely on % Malya(100%) was worse than the Phillinies (97%), without acknowledging that Gallipoli (59%) or Dieppe(40% or so) wasn’t as bad as either of the afformentioned.
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?You’re wrong on either count, and likely both. Congratulations.
-
On one hand you are saying that Gallipoli (59% casualty rate) was not as bad as Dieppe (40 or so % casualty rate).
but that based solely on % Malya(100%) was worse than the Phillinies (97%), without acknowledging that Gallipoli (59%) or Dieppe(40% or so) wasn’t as bad as either of the afformentioned.
…… you’re running circles around yourself.
Why do you even post?[edited by GG]
aforementioned not afformentioned.
Another foot stuck in that fat mouth.
-
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.
They sent “4 guys” to Dieppe? OK
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?
British lost like 100 planes too. Compare that.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
-
It is all a matter of perspective and overall picture. It can not be a % of causlties. Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them and they took very little casualties percent wise vs the Americans and Hawiian Populas. They failed their first objective of sinking the US Carriers. They achieved the Second objective in crippling the US Pacific fleet although they failed to eliminate it. The Completely failed their third objective which was to destroy the shipyard/dry docks which could be used to repair/refit/rearm the entire US Pacific forces. The last failure was in the Imperial govenrment failing to declare war soon enough which Unified All of North America Againt them.
-
Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them
Military disaster for Japan? Surely not.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
-
@Imperious:
Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them
Military disaster for Japan? Surely not.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
And your still wrong LOL!
You won’t answer the question:
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?Your fear of admitting when you’re wrong is laughable. And this “fat” mouth has got you cornered.
-
can you two (Gargantua and Imperious Leader) just get along please?…seriously!!
-
If he does not reply to me with gibberish examples and commentary. Yea sure.
Note who starts problems first. That’s the problem.
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?Neither, Garg is bad. LOL Win again!
-
2 men enter, 1 man leaves
-
Exactly :)
Leaves
-
Exactly Smiley
Leaves
[edited by GG, c’mon!] He didn’t say that.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Wow… Tax dollars hard at work.
Hahahaha! :lol:
I tend to believe there is inherently less waste in military spending than elsewhere in the federal budget, but there are some damn stupid ideas out there.
-
This was a civil thread before I left for my doctors appointment. I come back to find Imperious Leader and ONLY Imperious Leader engaged in petty name calling.
I knew insane, off the wall examples would be presented. I guess i won my bet. That is not a battle moron. We are talking about Historical battles in History. You just disagree with anything i say and look stupid for it.
Calling a member of AA.org a “moron” and “look stupid for it” is unacceptable.
Garg has not engaged in name calling, there is only one here who is violating the spirit if not the rules of this place, that is Imperious Leader.
This thread was about silly military systems. There is only one troll here. Imperious Leader came in here and hijacked it by making a silly claim in a thread started by Garg which is the classic definition of troll.
This is the second time I am saying how ironic it is for Imperious Leader to be dropping the troll moniker. I suppose I should take screen shots of this thread before posts by Imperious Leader start vanishing again.
Imperious Leader, your moderating abilities and character in general are becoming a disappointment to me. I do appreciate the positive energy over the years you have contributed to the AA world. What has become of that person?
-
@Imperious:
Neither, Garg is bad. LOL Win again!
Hahahaha! Â :lol:
Nice… Quite intelligent. :roll:
-
Back to debating the trolling points at least and maybe if time permits the actual topic of this thread before it was hijacked/trolled.
The attack on Pearl Harbour lead to the the destruction of Imperial Japan, 100%. As a military plan, one where the results lead to the destruction of your empire 100% would be classified as a failure in my books if not the majority of non-trolls.
My example against your % loss metric of a 4 man squad versus D-Day was just an extreme example. A survey says even most trolls would understand this comparison. To imply that I thought Dieppe consisted of just 4 men and was 100% successful AND that that was what I was implying is just causes me to throw your hand up in the air in frustration. I will use logic.
Either you:
A) did
or
B) did not think this
Before you say it I know this is a tautology.
So if
A) then I greatly overestimated your intelligence
or
B) Then you are a troll
A or B, your reply is awaited Imperious.
-
When military spending results in darpanet that is money very well spent. I wonder though how comfortable some people are with what military research could lead to in so far as shaping society. DARPAnet begetting the internet is easy in retrospect. I wonder about energy independence and climate change research spending. If something requires a high risk, large investment and long term payout who better than the ‘government’?
I just wonder how many gay bomb projects are out there that live in the darkness that military secrets must live in?
-
@Imperious:
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL.
You didn’t clarify anything, instead i used your example against you. You can’t compare losses in battle by just identifying how many, because the battles have different numbers.
But you CAN identify total % of force lost to compare them. Singapore was a 100% force lost.
Yep clear winner…me LOL
Let’s look at these battles without the numbers. The U.S recoveried from it’s defeat in the Phillinies to exit the war as a world power. Singapore was the begining of the end of the British Empire.
-
The British Empire was in real decline when they had to fight Germany alone for awhile. Singapore I think was the road sign everyone finally could remember.
Suggested Topics
