Absolutely appalling. :mad:
QuotePentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level
The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
FEB. 23, 2014
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
"You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war," a senior Pentagon official said.
Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.
For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.
Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel's proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel's budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel's proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama's national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation's interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.
"We're still going to have a very significant-sized Army," the official said. "But it's going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained."
Mr. Hagel's plan would most significantly reshape America's land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel's proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
The Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions. But the Guard would see its arsenal reshaped.
The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk — a workhorse transport helicopter — to use in domestic disaster relief.
The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.
The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel's full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans' organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.
Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.
The fiscal 2015 budget also calls for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.
The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel's proposals do not include any changes to retirement benefits for those currently serving.
Under Mr. Hagel's proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft would be eliminated. :mad:The aircraft was designed to destroy Soviet tanks in case of an invasion of Western Europe, and the capabilities are deemed less relevant today. The budget plan does sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane, which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.
In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.
The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.
Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.
Bring on the drone army.
Cut the Officers.
We should give the A-10s to someone who can do some good with them. That's my staple aircraft when playing pretty much any African nation in SR2020.
We could save some money by laying off soldiers who are on the muster roles of other countries. That's just common sense.
Or we could drop the technology fetish and keep the soldiers. If we are going to waste money on a giant military I'd rather blow it on people rather than giving it to Lockheed Martin.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2014, 11:13:30 PM
Or we could drop the technology fetish and keep the soldiers. If we are going to waste money on a giant military I'd rather blow it on people rather than giving it to Lockheed Martin.
We need to keep the technological edge.
Cutting personnel is better than lowering salary or benefits.
Eliminate the USAF and roll it back into the US Army. It's only use is to support the Army anyways. After that, slash the army. It's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one. The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.
Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.
I think Congress won't go nearly as far.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2014, 11:50:30 PM
Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.
That's what we're doing.
Replace expensive carriers with battleships armed with drones and lot's and lot's of missiles.
Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 25, 2014, 08:59:51 AM
Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.
Surely our soldiers will become fat(ter).
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 25, 2014, 08:59:51 AM
Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.
Surely our soldiers will become fat(ter).
A relatively cheap way of getting a larger army.
I will do my part be retiring of this new nice and PC fortune 500 Navy in about a year from now.
At least the LCS is being cut back by 20 ships.
:yeah:
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I think we could keep Mexico at bay while we invade Canada, or vice-versa.
I wouldnt want to convince you otherwise. :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I think we could keep Mexico at bay while we invade Canada, or vice-versa.
Canada can be diploannexed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:56:59 PM
I wouldnt want to convince you otherwise. :ph34r:
What are you gonna do-- throw your skis at us??
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 04:59:41 PM
What are you gonna do-- throw your skis at us??
They'll challenge us to a winner-take-all game of hockey, and, soon afterward, we will all have universal healthcare.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Germany First Strategy Part II, what could possibly go wrong?
So long as a part of that strategy is still to keep the Canadians sitting on their asses guarding a place that can't be invaded, and allow the Aussies to take point, I like that strategy.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 25, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I think we could keep Mexico at bay while we invade Canada, or vice-versa.
Canada can be diploannexed.
Not with relations as low as they are.
Your Guardian comment column jackass of the day:
QuoteDespite 'historic' cuts, the US will still have 450,000 active-duty soldiers
The Pentagon is able to maintain a bloated and extravagant military force even when the US faces no actual security threats
Lolz.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2014, 06:20:39 PM
Germany First Strategy Part II, what could possibly go wrong?
China
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2014, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 25, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, I think we could keep Mexico at bay while we invade Canada, or vice-versa.
Canada can be diploannexed.
Not with relations as low as they are.
No kidding, we havent been at 190+ since the days of Ronnie and Brian singing together on stage.
Thank you
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2014, 11:47:21 PMIt's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one. The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.
this is was my first thought as well. we don't need a large army currently from what i can tell. what's the point? navy, however, is different, and we should maintain or increase numbers. it provides us with too many economic incentives
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2014, 10:42:20 PM
Cut the Officers.
And let you NCO's try and take care of yourselves? :lol:
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2014, 11:47:21 PM
Eliminate the USAF and roll it back into the US Army. It's only use is to support the Army anyways. After that, slash the army. It's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one. The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.
Lol retard talking. What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2014, 11:50:30 PM
Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.
I don't think they should enlarge, but I think there should be some big changes. Remove combat MOS's and intensive jobs from the Guard/reserves and move non-essential jobs such as 88s, AG, mechanics, and even some medical to the reserves. Weekend warriors aren't going to be able to stay proficient in a variety of tasks, which is why they need months of training beforehand. Heck, a lot of them can't even stay within physical standards.
I've also heard the argument that some MI and some signal MOS's should be active only, that they can't stay proficient playing army less than 2 months a year.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 08:30:23 PMLol retard talking. What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?
what is the point of a large army for the US, right now?
Heard this on NPR: How many troops would it take to occupy Beijing? C'mon America.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
I have a hunch that Germany would have been a bit more successful with a few thousand nuclear weapons.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2014, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
I have a hunch that Germany would have been a bit more successful with a few thousand nuclear weapons.
The point is that creating a doctrine which requires a decisive win in one conflict decisively and quickly enough to deal with another adversary in another conflict leads to a bias toward acting quickly to go to war in the first conflict.
Don't worry, we don't want Canada.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 10:03:14 PM
Don't worry, we don't want Canada.
More to the point, Canada doesnt want you. But you can really screw up the world for us and everyone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 11:26:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 10:03:14 PM
Don't worry, we don't want Canada.
More to the point, Canada doesnt want you. But you can really screw up the world for us and everyone else.
That's cute.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 08:30:23 PMLol retard talking. What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?
what is the point of a large army for the US, right now?
Because even with a light occupation of Afghanistan and 160,000 soldiers in Iraq the army was stretched REALLY thin.
There were over 150,000 soldiers deployed at one point in 2008, of 490,000, nearly a third of the force(300,000 military personnel deployed at one time). One third had just gotten back from deployment and another was getting ready to deploy.
My old unit deployed every other year for 8 years for a year to 15 months at a time. 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2009, 2010-2011. A lot of active duty units were this way, the tempo was high. There weren't enough troops and people were spread severely thin, which is why they increased the military by 80,000 soldiers - because they were desperately needed.
Yeah most people make a choice, but not everybody realizes what they're getting into when they sign a 4 year contract, do two one year deployments and are ready to get out of the military again, only to get stop-lossed and have to do a third deployment and end up spending 7 years in the military, 3 and a half of those years overseas and deployed - away from family and loved ones.
So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation? Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.
So why not keep the force at reasonable numbers? I can't say what reasonable is, but less than 400,000 doesn't seem reasonable, and the army doesn't think so either.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 11:40:31 PMSo why not keep the force at reasonable numbers? I can't say what reasonable is, but less than 400,000 doesn't seem reasonable, and the army doesn't think so either.
Because its very very expensive?
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 25, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
Heard this on NPR: How many troops would it take to occupy Beijing? C'mon America.
:lol:
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 11:40:31 PM
So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation? Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.
I find that argument to be pursuasive.
I'm torn on the a10.
Part of me says apart time, they were meant to so that years ago.
Yet cheap, sturdy and functional is just what is needed in modern warfare, not ultra sonic whiz bang would fall out of the sky if not for it's computers fighter planes.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 11:40:31 PMSo what happens next time we have a difficult occupation? Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.
So why not keep the force at reasonable numbers? I can't say what reasonable is, but less than 400,000 doesn't seem reasonable, and the army doesn't think so either.
was lack of numbers the sole reason for why the occupation of iraq turned out the way it did, rather than lack of preparation, pre-war planning, and reliance on sketchy intelligence?
as jacob said, it is very expensive. and no military branch thinks a massive reduction is reasonable :D
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2014, 04:52:45 AM
I'm torn on the a10.
Part of me says apart time, they were meant to so that years ago.
Yet cheap, sturdy and functional is just what is needed in modern warfare, not ultra sonic whiz bang would fall out of the sky if not for it's computers fighter planes.
The US military is not always going to have air superiority over the battlefield space, and they will need a Sturmovik to get shit done on the deck for CAS, and they will not have it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2014, 07:37:41 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2014, 04:52:45 AM
I'm torn on the a10.
Part of me says apart time, they were meant to so that years ago.
Yet cheap, sturdy and functional is just what is needed in modern warfare, not ultra sonic whiz bang would fall out of the sky if not for it's computers fighter planes.
The US military is not always going to have air superiority over the battlefield space, and they will need a Sturmovik to get shit done on the deck for CAS, and they will not have it.
Actually, they probably will. They pick their enemies very carefully.
I would think the Warthog would be the last plane to send on a mission in the absence of air superiority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2014, 10:27:09 AM
I would think the Warthog would be the last plane to send on a mission in the absence of air superiority.
Neil doesn't understand the concept of flying machines. They frighten and confuse him.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 25, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
Heard this on NPR: How many troops would it take to occupy Beijing? C'mon America.
the Chinese did it with approximately 120,000 troops in 1989.
I wonder how much an A-10 will sell for. :ph34r:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 10:01:21 PM
The point is that creating a doctrine which requires a decisive win in one conflict decisively and quickly enough to deal with another adversary in another conflict leads to a bias toward acting quickly to go to war in the first conflict.
Good thing no one is talking about "a doctrine which requires a decisive win in one conflict decisively and quickly enough to deal with another adversary in another conflict," then. If you misread the current US strategy that way, you need to brush up on your reading skills.
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2014, 04:52:45 AM
Yet cheap, sturdy and functional is just what is needed in modern warfare, not ultra sonic whiz bang would fall out of the sky if not for it's computers fighter planes.
This is an argument for drones, not for the A-10. Cheap is meaningless in the context of the A-10, because they are paid for already, so costs are just maintenance costs (which are high for its relatively unsophisticated systems, because they are so old), sturdiness is not really a consideration on the modern battlefield (one hit with a SAM is a kill on an A-10, a drone, or an F-35), and thee are many functional airframes.
And computers in aircraft are not bad things, even if they are essential for flight stability.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
What are the alternatives?
1) Having the capability to decisively win 2 conflicts - that would require a much higher level of resource commitment that the US can't or won't afford.
2) Having a lesser capability of only being able to handle one conflict without being to hold enough another adversary - then it is open season on US allies and interests if the US commits itself to one conflict. The mere announcement of such a concept would cause havoc.
3) Having a strategy of engaging in two conflicts simultaneously but doing a crappy job in both?
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2014, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 25, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
Heard this on NPR: How many troops would it take to occupy Beijing? C'mon America.
the Chinese did it with approximately 120,000 troops in 1989.
:XD:
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 26, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
I wonder how much an A-10 will sell for. :ph34r:
Probably for less than the Vulcan they remove from it.
:(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 26, 2014, 10:58:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 25, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
QuoteIn more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there
The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?
What are the alternatives?
1) Having the capability to decisively win 2 conflicts - that would require a much higher level of resource commitment that the US can't or won't afford.
2) Having a lesser capability of only being able to handle one conflict without being to hold enough another adversary - then it is open season on US allies and interests if the US commits itself to one conflict. The mere announcement of such a concept would cause havoc.
3) Having a strategy of engaging in two conflicts simultaneously but doing a crappy job in both?
Option 1 is the option that had been advocated until a political judgment has been made that the US cannot afford that option.
Quotethe Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
It may well be true that the better option cannot be afforded. But it would be putting your head in the sand to pretend that a reduction in capability doesnt have its own drawbacks. The spending cut only makes sense if someone more knowledgeable than you or I can determine with a significant degree of confidence that that US will not have to fight two conflicts at once or that if such a situation arises that the US can "decisively win one conflict" while holding off the adversary in the other.
That last bit sounds so similar to the logic of the schleiffen plan that it is at least worth mentioning. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 01:16:20 PM
Option 1 is the option that had been advocated until a political judgment has been made that the US cannot afford that option.
Option 1 has not been advocated since the middle of the Reagan administration.
QuoteQuotethe Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
It may well be true that the better option cannot be afforded. But it would be putting your head in the sand to pretend that a reduction in capability doesnt have its own drawbacks. The spending cut only makes sense if someone more knowledgeable than you or I can determine with a significant degree of confidence that that US will not have to fight two conflicts at once or that if such a situation arises that the US can "decisively win one conflict" while holding off the adversary in the other.
The "new strategy" is the same old strategy. The US has not had the military policy of maintaining sufficient forces to fight two major wars simultaneously to a finish since the mid-80s (remember the term "600 ship Navy"?). The spending cut only makes sense if the competent authorities (Congress) decide that the lower funding levels meet US security interests.
QuoteThat last bit sounds so similar to the logic of the schleiffen plan that it is at least worth mentioning. ;)
Actually, it doesn't much resemble the Schlieffen Plan at all. It is, however, pretty much identical to the "Germany First" strategy.
QuoteMade before American entry into World War II, in the context of a world threatened by Axis aggression in Europe and Asia, the judgment that Germany must be defeated first stands as the most important single strategic concept of the war. From it and the painful deliberations that preceded the decision was finally crystallized the war plan known as RAINBOW 5, the plan put into effect when the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on that "day of infamy" in December 1941...
RAINBOW 5 assumed the United States, Great Britain, and France to be acting in concert; hemisphere defense was to be assured as in RAINBOW 1, with early projection of U.S. forces to the eastern Atlantic, and to either or both the African and European Continents; offensive operations were to be conducted, in concert with British and allied forces, to effect the defeat of Germany and Italy. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific until success against the European Axis Powers permitted transfer of major forces to the Pacific for an offensive against Japan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 01:16:20 PMThat last bit sounds so similar to the logic of the schleiffen plan that it is at least worth mentioning. ;)
the world today is so unlike the late 1800s/early 1900s that I don't think that analogy should be made. not to mention the US's geographic position and alliances don't require anything that resembles schlieffen
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 01:16:20 PMThat last bit sounds so similar to the logic of the schleiffen plan that it is at least worth mentioning. ;)
the world today is so unlike the late 1800s/early 1900s that I don't think that analogy should be made. not to mention the US's geographic position and alliances don't require anything that resembles schlieffen
I grant you the first one to some extent. But in the modern age it might be more dangerous. Consider the need to have a quick decisive victory playing into the decision of using ever more destructive weaponry in the conflict and perhaps even tactical nukes. Also, in the modern age geography isnt as important as it was then. It is the concept of needing a decisive victory before engaging the second foe that remains the constant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 06:51:22 PMI grant you the first one to some extent. But in the modern age it might be more dangerous. Consider the need to have a quick decisive victory playing into the decision of using ever more destructive weaponry in the conflict and perhaps even tactical nukes. Also, in the modern age geography isnt as important as it was then. It is the concept of needing a decisive victory before engaging the second foe that remains the constant.
isn't this more of a reason why schlieffen analogies can't be applied these days? also, i think geography is very much as important as it was then. I could be wrong, but the US isn't going to be deploying a full size army to Europe within weeks to stop a Russian invasion, or South Korea to stop a Chinese invasion. it takes times to move personnel overseas. likewise, it takes time for the enemy to invade the US with large numbers.
besides, large scale wars (world wars) are probably over anyway. this russia/china v. america & co. scenario isn't realistic
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
besides, large scale wars (world wars) are probably over anyway.
The other side of the planet doesn't seem to think so.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2014, 07:52:00 PMThe other side of the planet doesn't seem to think so.
peasants in china don't matter. neither do their equivalent in america :P
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
besides, large scale wars (world wars) are probably over anyway. this russia/china v. america & co. scenario isn't realistic
Somebody said this before.
I'm sure.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2014, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2014, 10:27:09 AM
I would think the Warthog would be the last plane to send on a mission in the absence of air superiority.
Neil doesn't understand the concept of flying machines. They frighten and confuse him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffun-pics.com%2Fjet%2Cwater%2520ski.s.jpg&hash=a6da4debb34a4b2fdab351fdb6db1b22581479ff)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2014, 07:52:00 PMThe other side of the planet doesn't seem to think so.
peasants in china don't matter. neither do their equivalent in america :P
Save it for the Eurotrash peacenik convention, Weenieboi. Russian, Chinese and Indian defense spending and their planners prefer that you do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2014, 08:02:18 PMSave it for the Eurotrash peacenik convention, Weenieboi. Russian, Chinese and Indian defense spending and their planners prefer that you do.
teasing. but i don't think a world war is very feasible right now. nobody wants one. regional conflicts will exist for some time, but even those i think will die out eventually. today's world is much different than 20 years ago, and all signs point to the continued trend of global interconnection. terrorists are more of a concern to modern states than other foreign nations in most parts of the world
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 06:51:22 PMI grant you the first one to some extent. But in the modern age it might be more dangerous. Consider the need to have a quick decisive victory playing into the decision of using ever more destructive weaponry in the conflict and perhaps even tactical nukes. Also, in the modern age geography isnt as important as it was then. It is the concept of needing a decisive victory before engaging the second foe that remains the constant.
isn't this more of a reason why schlieffen analogies can't be applied these days? also, i think geography is very much as important as it was then. I could be wrong, but the US isn't going to be deploying a full size army to Europe within weeks to stop a Russian invasion, or South Korea to stop a Chinese invasion. it takes times to move personnel overseas. likewise, it takes time for the enemy to invade the US with large numbers.
besides, large scale wars (world wars) are probably over anyway. this russia/china v. america & co. scenario isn't realistic
Geography isnt as important in the sense that nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another. The fact that the threat is further away geographically actually makes this doctrine more problematic in the modern age since the need to send troops off quickly in order to achieve the decisive victory increases.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 08:22:09 PMGeography isnt as important in the sense that nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another. The fact that the threat is further away geographically actually makes this doctrine more problematic in the modern age since the need to send troops off quickly in order to achieve the decisive victory increases.
nations don't have to be neighbors to be threats, correct. the use of navy, nuclear arms, drones, air power, etc. in general makes this so. i don't see where there's this need for troops, however
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 09:14:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 08:22:09 PMGeography isnt as important in the sense that nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another. The fact that the threat is further away geographically actually makes this doctrine more problematic in the modern age since the need to send troops off quickly in order to achieve the decisive victory increases.
nations don't have to be neighbors to be threats, correct. the use of navy, nuclear arms, drones, air power, etc. in general makes this so. i don't see where there's this need for troops, however
I suppose if it is possible to achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops then I yield the point. But is that possible?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 26, 2014, 10:58:58 AM
3) Having a strategy of engaging in two conflicts simultaneously but doing a crappy job in both?
The Rumsfeld strategy, going strong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 10:07:14 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 26, 2014, 09:14:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 08:22:09 PMGeography isnt as important in the sense that nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another. The fact that the threat is further away geographically actually makes this doctrine more problematic in the modern age since the need to send troops off quickly in order to achieve the decisive victory increases.
nations don't have to be neighbors to be threats, correct. the use of navy, nuclear arms, drones, air power, etc. in general makes this so. i don't see where there's this need for troops, however
I suppose if it is possible to achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops then I yield the point. But is that possible?
You really need to be much more subtle in moving the goal posts like this. You went from "nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another" to "achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops" in one step. No one is arguing that the doctrine calls for achieving a decisive victory without troops.
What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy. The Romans held off Hannibal while decisively overrunning Carthaginian Spain. Napoleon had Moreau hold of Archduke Karl in Germany while Napoleon lead the Army of the Reserve to a decisive victory over Melas in Italy. Von Moltke had 48,000 men hold off the 120,000 men of the South German Confederation in 1866 while he lead 178,000 men against the Austrian Army. The Allies held off the Japanese while concentrating on the defeat of Germany. The "new' US strategy is more of the same.
The most effective and low-cost way to hold off a foe with inferior numbers in today's combat environment is to use air and sea power to deny that enemy the ability to move as he wishes and to deny him the ability to locate and concentrate against your inferior numbers. Troops will be needed for the decisive victory against the first opponent and for the follow-up campaign against the second.
There is no need for your proposed decisive victory without troops... but I suspect that you knew that even before you posted it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 07:39:29 AM
What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.
:lmfao:
Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich. Even for you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 07:39:29 AM
What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.
:lmfao:
Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich. Even for you.
:lmfao:
Given that every example I gave was an example of the success of the strategy, your response is highly amusing. Do you even read posts before you respond?
I take it, though, that you are dropping that silly "decisive victory without troops" argument. That's probably the smartest thing you've done so far in the thread.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 07:39:29 AM
What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.
:lmfao:
Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich. Even for you.
:lmfao:
Given that every example I gave was an example of the success of the strategy, your response is highly amusing. Do you even read posts before you respond?
:lmfao:
Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct. It just means you are a good cherry picker.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
:lmfao:
Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct. It just means you are a good cherry picker.
:lmfao:
I gave five examples, you gave one, and you claim that
I am the cherry-picker?
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
:lmfao:
Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct. It just means you are a good cherry picker.
:lmfao:
I gave five examples, you gave one, and you claim that I am the cherry-picker?
Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything. But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:39:31 PM
Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything. But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.
So you are also abandoning the Schlieffen Plan comparison? Smart. I think we are done, then.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:39:31 PM
Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything. But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.
So you are also abandoning the Schlieffen Plan comparison? Smart. I think we are done, then.
I will wait for someone La C to come back so I can continue the discussion with him. You can continuing arguing with shadows.
All this talk of cherries makes me want some cherry butter.
Asses. :glare:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 27, 2014, 03:29:18 PM
All this talk of cherries makes me want some cherry butter.
Asses. :glare:
Grumbler could pick some for you :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 12:04:08 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 11:40:31 PM
So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation? Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.
I find that argument to be pursuasive.
Why don't we just not try any difficult occupations?
We should only get involved when it is worth nuking someone or conquring them.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 27, 2014, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 12:04:08 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 25, 2014, 11:40:31 PM
So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation? Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.
I find that argument to be pursuasive.
Why don't we just not try any difficult occupations?
I am pretty sure people said Afganistan was one such choice.
Who said Afghanistan was not going to be difficult?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 05:15:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 27, 2014, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 12:04:08 AM
I am pretty sure people said Afganistan was one such choice.
We probably needed to go into Afghanistan in some capacity. But stay there? What did that get done?
It would probably be better to intervene in the country every 5 or so years than to do what we did.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 27, 2014, 05:23:58 PM
We probably needed to go into Afghanistan in some capacity. But stay there? What did that get done?
It would probably be better to intervene in the country every 5 or so years than to do what we did.
The story of what went wrong in Afganistan fills many books. But I think you are missing the point that every time I hear people say that the US can discipline itself not to get involved in another difficult occupation I have to say that history says otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 10:07:14 PMI suppose if it is possible to achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops then I yield the point. But is that possible?
this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1
i forget exactly what you started off arguing, but i don't think it's necessary to retain a large enough army to defeat two powers at once. it would be a huge expensive for such an unlikely scenario, and as grumbler pointed out it would be unneeded from a military standpoint, too
Quote from: LaCroix on February 27, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2014, 10:07:14 PMI suppose if it is possible to achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops then I yield the point. But is that possible?
this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1
i forget exactly what you started off arguing, but i don't think it's necessary to retain a large enough army to defeat two powers at once. it would be a huge expensive for such an unlikely scenario, and as grumbler pointed out it would be unneeded from a military standpoint, too
I think you are starting to convince me.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 27, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1
I agree that such a victory might be decisive, but only if it convinced the PRC that it could not achieve its goals through force, and thus compelled it to negotiate an end to the war and the threat to Taiwan. If the PRC simply started to rebuild their forces awaiting the time when US forces defending Taiwan were weakened, then such a victory would not be decisive. Japan, for instance, destroyed US and British naval and air forces from dec 7-10, 1941, and thus prevented the US and Britain from interfering with their advance into Malaya and the DEI, but that victory was not decisive. That's why a "boots on the ground" win is preferable.
But the kind of victory you describe could certainly count as the holding action, and could be accomplished while the major ground forces were deployed elsewhere.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.duffelblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FVeterans-Gaul.gif%3Fresize%3D660%252C400&hash=263c8367ad3f531d5bca173326898a0a5ca9de91)
The Ukraine-Russia thing means we will have to re-arm Europe.
But there is always money to pay for the new Rifle Combat Sights with engraved rules of engagement.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.duffelblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2Froe1.jpg%3Fresize%3D660%252C400&hash=075396db274130be35549d9b519259c3fd9b047e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2Ft1%2F1966894_680238422031646_1558126781_n.jpg&hash=5046b549b9a0a8b45bb1112aff5db19562cd1a91)
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2Ft1%2F1966894_680238422031646_1558126781_n.jpg&hash=5046b549b9a0a8b45bb1112aff5db19562cd1a91)
Is there any way you can work out the sense of victimhood and get yourself a real job?
Her statement has a lot of merit.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Her statement has a lot of merit.
I agree. But the greatest litany of victimhood in American politics is mainly by conservatives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Her statement has a lot of merit.
It describes the Limbaugh-listeners and the "from-my-cold-dead-hand"ers pretty well. I shouldn't think that they were the objects of her statement, but it applies both ways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Her statement has a lot of merit.
I agree, but I don't see it as particularly applicable to the question of how large of a military we should maintain.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 05:56:48 PM
I agree. But the greatest litany of victimhood in American politics is mainly by conservatives.
24 carat codswallop. Conservatives bitch about X-mas; they don't claim that they fucked up because someone else was mean to them. For the Professional Angry Black Class however, everything that a black person ever does wrong is someone else's fault.
Okay. How about you provide recent examples of the latter and I'll get examples of conservative victimhood?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 05:56:48 PM
I agree. But the greatest litany of victimhood in American politics is mainly by conservatives.
24 carat codswallop. Conservatives bitch about X-mas; they don't claim that they fucked up because someone else was mean to them. For the Professional Angry Black Class however, everything that a black person ever does wrong is someone else's fault.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk :hmm:
That's all you got?
Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2014, 06:47:51 PM
That's all you got?
Oh course not, but it's more then sufficient.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 06:37:47 PM
Okay. How about you provide recent examples of the latter and I'll get examples of conservative victimhood?
You know I don't keep links of articles on my hard drive handy for use in potential future debates.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 06:37:47 PM
Okay. How about you provide recent examples of the latter and I'll get examples of conservative victimhood?
You know I don't keep links of articles on my hard drive handy for use in potential future debates.
Neither do I. I remember articles I've read and Google :lol:
Surely you must remember some examples of professional black victimhood? Or is it just an impression?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 06:37:47 PM
Okay. How about you provide recent examples of the latter and I'll get examples of conservative victimhood?
You know I don't keep links of articles on my hard drive handy for use in potential future debates.
Your loss.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 07:16:23 PM
Neither do I. I remember articles I've read and Google :lol:
Surely you must remember some examples of professional black victimhood? Or is it just an impression?
Neither. It's a never-ending mantra whenever talking heads are brought on cable to discuss a race issue, and the same in print. It's like asking you for specific examples of Englishmen complaining about the weather.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 07:20:00 PM
Neither. It's a never-ending mantra whenever talking heads are brought on cable to discuss a race issue, and the same in print. It's like asking you for specific examples of Englishmen complaining about the weather.
Surely if it's a never-ending mantra it's even easier to get some examples?
Also two English people and a Portuguese guy complained to me about the weather today. Yesterday I had several conversations about how nice it was :P
Edit: Incidentally here's a conservative moaning about conservative victimology:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/09/17/conservative-victimhood/
codswallop
I think there is a human tendency to become increasingly paranoid once one starts believing people are trying to screw you. I see it left right and center. It is also the reason I try to take personal responsibility for what goes wrong in my life even if that is not 100% accurate, to do otherwise seems to lead to madness.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2014, 07:23:27 PM
Surely if it's a never-ending mantra it's even easier to get some examples?
It would be trivially easy if black unemployment, crime, incarceration were a daily news story, but it's not.
If you want some text Sav's Detroit thread would not be a bad place to start.
:huh:
I have a real job.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.demotivationalposters.org%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2Fsmall%2F1106%2Fgenetics-science-can-actually-explain-why-she-will-never-hav-demotivational-posters-1308763689.jpg&hash=d1ee0dfd3cb6de8dea549a1ab64ee23070e80581)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fkim-jong-un-acme-meme.jpg&hash=df6b20e15a530f583436d60913c0a805c72f5d56)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblackquillandink.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fwhite-guilt-black-victim-e1315185581991.jpg&hash=a6442ecb0123eee408f024ffff93cde0bf293866)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftomohalloran.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fal-and-jesse.jpg&hash=5a8f95deaf0aee5af191f64059802d83d3576e41)
Somebody finished cleaning the toilets early.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
I have a real job.
Oh, congrats on retiring from the military I hadn't heard. :cheers:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 03, 2014, 10:47:24 AM
Somebody finished cleaning the toilets early.
Snow day.
Didn't have to clean any toilets today.
Between the links he visits and the ones he gets from strangers, Siege's computer has the internet version of full-blown AIDS with all the yeast infections that come with it.
Hopefully with Russia continuing on their path to full retard, the cuts are off the table. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on March 03, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Hopefully with Russia continuing on their path to full retard, the cuts are off the table. :P
Am I remembering correctly that the last time big cuts to the Army were on the table the war in Afganistan and Iraq put those on hold? Now very conveniently a war in the Ukraine is being threatened while these cuts are being considered.
What I want to know is why Siege hasnt posted any links about this obvious conspiracy!
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 03, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Hopefully with Russia continuing on their path to full retard, the cuts are off the table. :P
Am I remembering correctly that the last time big cuts to the Army were on the table the war in Afganistan and Iraq put those on hold? Now very conveniently a war in the Ukraine is being threatened while these cuts are being considered.
What I want to know is why Siege hasnt posted any links about this obvious conspiracy!
Good call CC. Seconded.
Is it a Putin/Obama conspiracy? Stay tuned kids for the next episode.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 03, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Hopefully with Russia continuing on their path to full retard, the cuts are off the table. :P
It will certainly make the Congressional fight that much harder.
So mad. :mad:
QuoteThe Maryland Air National Guard is set to lose its attack aircraft but should be getting its airlift capability back, officials said Tuesday.
The Air Force is planning to give the state eight C-130J Super Hercules turboprops, the cargo planes that Maryland pilots used to transport troops and equipment in Iraq, Afghanistan and natural disasters in the United States until 2011.
The planes are due to arrive in fiscal year 2018, when the guard is set to lose its A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft.
"Transitioning to C-130s will be an adjustment, but one we're well equipped to make," said Maj. Gen. Jim Adkins, commander of the Maryland National Guard. "Frankly, it's a perfect fit, given our track record of developing the J-model's flying procedures and being among the first in the Air Force to fly it in combat."
The move, outlined in the Pentagon's five-year budget plan, is subject to congressional approval. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said getting the C-130J back "has been a priority."
Maryland pilots logged thousands of hours in the C-130J in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also used the planes during the response to Hurricane Katrina, California wildfires and the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
The return of the plane would restore Maryland's ability to transport troops and equipment by air. The 175th Wing of the state Air Guard transitioned from the C-130J to the smaller, faster C-27J Spartan in 2011. The Air Force divested itself of the C-27J in 2013, leaving the state without an airlift aircraft.
Officials said the return of the C-130J would "help mitigate any loss of jobs" that might result from the loss of the Cold War-era A-10.
The Maryland Guard has flown the A-10 — a snub-nosed, close-support attack aircraft known as "the warthog" — since the late 1970s. The Air Force plans to retire the A-10 in favor of the more versatile F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. :bleeding:
East coast sucks. :blurgh:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 11, 2014, 09:53:14 PM
East coast sucks. :blurgh:
a number of north dakotans i've met feel both coasts suck and america would be better off without them :Canuck:
And some opinions are wrong. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2014, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 03, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Hopefully with Russia continuing on their path to full retard, the cuts are off the table. :P
Am I remembering correctly that the last time big cuts to the Army were on the table the war in Afganistan and Iraq put those on hold? Now very conveniently a war in the Ukraine is being threatened while these cuts are being considered.
What I want to know is why Siege hasnt posted any links about this obvious conspiracy!
He's probably still mad about Obama administration purging generals who commit fraud and rape people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2014, 09:21:47 PM
So mad. :mad:
QuoteThe Air Force plans to retire the A-10 in favor of the more versatile F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. :bleeding:
They're bringing the F-35s to Vermont also, to replace the F-16s. There was a decent amount of local opposition around Burlington, mainly on noise and environmental grounds, but no elected official no matter how left-liberal was going to come out against it if it means jobs. The mayor, the governor, Leahy and hell even Bernie, they were all backing it 100%.
There actually is a JSF now? :huh:
I thought it was just a myth like leprechauns and Belgium.
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 12, 2014, 05:19:09 AM
There actually is a JSF now? :huh:
I thought it was just a myth like leprechauns and Belgium.
Luke AFB in Arizona got the first one delivered and is supposed to have 16 by the end of the year.
I think Norway's down to under 30 operational F-16s now, so we need a delivery fairly soon to look slightly less like the joke we are in military affairs. :showoff:
We have that neighbour you don't really want to come visit, you know. The one Palin sees from her kitchen window.
Katmai is viewable from all 50 US states.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
Katmai is viewable from all 50 US states.
He is also the reason everyone needs guns, I've heard.
He is a known Taco thief.
And good to see you back Norgy. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2014, 06:04:08 AM
He is a known Taco thief.
And good to see you back Norgy. :)
I've missed the dysfunctional collective of average to quite good minds, really.
Some of you I have on Facebook, but it's not the same.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 12:19:28 AM
They're bringing the F-35s to Vermont also, to replace the F-16s. There was a decent amount of local opposition around Burlington, mainly on noise and environmental grounds, but no elected official no matter how left-liberal was going to come out against it if it means jobs. The mayor, the governor, Leahy and hell even Bernie, they were all backing it 100%.
I hope this works out better than the USAF C-27 Spartan; the last five of those went directly from the assembly line to the boneyard, and none of them were in service for even four years. That's $1.6 billion spent to fill 21 more slots at Davis-Monthan AFB. :bleeding:
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2014, 06:32:37 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 12:19:28 AM
They're bringing the F-35s to Vermont also, to replace the F-16s. There was a decent amount of local opposition around Burlington, mainly on noise and environmental grounds, but no elected official no matter how left-liberal was going to come out against it if it means jobs. The mayor, the governor, Leahy and hell even Bernie, they were all backing it 100%.
I hope this works out better than the USAF C-27 Spartan; the last five of those went directly from the assembly line to the boneyard, and none of them were in service for even four years. That's $1.6 billion spent to fill 21 more slots at Davis-Monthan AFB. :bleeding:
Haven't they been transferred to SOCOM and the Coast Guard now?
Quote from: Agelastus on March 12, 2014, 08:07:16 AM
Haven't they been transferred to SOCOM and the Coast Guard now?
Seven went to SOCOM. Those weren't included in the 21 sent to D-M. The Coasties may get about a dozen of them, but that's not clear 9the transfer has been authorized but not appropriated).
The humorous bit about the story is that this was actually a US Army program; the Army wanted a cheap small transport for inter-base transport independent of the Chair Force but cheaper than the helos it was using. The Chair Force took over the program because they argued successfully that these planes were too big for the Army. They then killed the program because it didn't meet Chair Force needs. Yet another example of why it is disastrous for national security when a nation creates an independent chair force.
I've always been a huge fan of the A-10, but it really is no longer useful.
In a world of stealth, cheap and effective SAMs, and more importantly, drones...the A-10 is just a dinosaur.
It would never get used for the role it was designed for, since it is just too vulnerable.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trueorthodox.com%2Fpictures%2Fsteeljell.jpg&hash=dcf690de2134ec5d7d56f5b0fd292f389d98db90)
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2014, 11:10:22 AM
I've always been a huge fan of the A-10, but it really is no longer useful.
In a world of stealth, cheap and effective SAMs, and more importantly, drones...the A-10 is just a dinosaur.
It would never get used for the role it was designed for, since it is just too vulnerable.
Once you have air superiority, it is very effective in close air support role.
However, you are right we have other platforms that can do that.
Tank killer role? Never.
What about the role of being an awesome death machine with a killer chain gun in it's nose? :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 12, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What about the role of being an awesome death machine with a killer chain gun in it's nose? :mad:
What's a chain gun?
The A10 got a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger. It is a gatling-style gun, but I never heard of chain guns.
Do you mean belt-fed machineguns?
The one in the A10 is not belt fed.
Putin giving a ride to Obama in an old horse:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericandigest.org%2Fsidelines%2Fobama-putin.jpg&hash=7b34e9735c76f0e865babaa4eaaecc529fa1a919)
Look at this picture.
The gun is offset to the right.
I didn't know that.
I guess this is why it fires when the barrel is in the 9 o'clock position.
I mean, the barrels rotate but they only fire one at a time when they reach the 9 o'clock position, instead of the 12 o'clock like most gatling guns do.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F66%2FA10WarthogFront.jpg&hash=72cd4d5b75ee2bbfa31714be5e69b0907bb82f4a)
Quote from: Siege on March 12, 2014, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 12, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What about the role of being an awesome death machine with a killer chain gun in it's nose? :mad:
What's a chain gun?
The A10 got a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger. It is a gatling-style gun, but I never heard of chain guns.
Do you mean belt-fed machineguns?
The one in the A10 is not belt fed.
A chaingun is a gun that uses a chain in it's operation. The 25mm Bushmaster on the Bradley uses a chain mechanism.
I didn't know you were a Putin fanboy. Makes sense.
Quote from: Siege on March 12, 2014, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 12, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What about the role of being an awesome death machine with a killer chain gun in it's nose? :mad:
What's a chain gun?
The A10 got a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger. It is a gatling-style gun, but I never heard of chain guns.
Do you mean belt-fed machineguns?
The one in the A10 is not belt fed.
Looks some kind of belt to me. :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airforce-technology.com%2Fprojects%2Fa-10%2Fimages%2Fa10_5.jpg&hash=621c66ec5f28c5255f895e3fe5171f5cd4a31631)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:10:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 12, 2014, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 12, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What about the role of being an awesome death machine with a killer chain gun in it's nose? :mad:
What's a chain gun?
The A10 got a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger. It is a gatling-style gun, but I never heard of chain guns.
Do you mean belt-fed machineguns?
The one in the A10 is not belt fed.
A chaingun is a gun that uses a chain in it's operation. The 25mm Bushmaster on the Bradley uses a chain mechanism.
I didn't know you were a Putin fanboy. Makes sense.
Indeed. Israel has more Russians than Jews, so presumably Siege's handlers are ordering him to support Putin.
You'll notice it's the Army trying to keep it, and the Chair Force (as usual) trying to kill it. Stupid Zoomies and their
[email protected] bullshit.
QuoteAir Force plan to get rid of A-10s runs into opposition
By Christian Davenport, Thursday, April 10, 2:56 PM
It's often called the military's ugliest aircraft, a snub-nosed tank of a plane that's nicknamed "Warthog" for its appearance and ferocity. The A-10 Thunderbolt II has been the Air Force's equivalent of an in-the-trenches grunt for almost 40 years: heavily armed and armored, designed to fly low and take out the enemy at close range.
But now, after a career that has spanned from the Cold War to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed retiring the fleet as part of across-the-board cuts in defense spending. Getting rid of the remaining 283 planes would save $3.7 billion over five years, Defense Department officials say, and allow the Air Force to bring in more sophisticated aircraft, such as the F-35 Lightning II, to provide what is called close air support.
Supporters of the A-10 have launched an aggressive campaign to save an aircraft they say is unlike any other in the history of American aviation, and they rallied on Capitol Hill Thursday to make their case.
The effort has banded together some unusual factions — budget watchdogs, soldiers and pilots, and high-ranking members of Congress from both parties — who fear that cutting the program would weaken defense and ultimately cost taxpayers. The battle is one of the most striking examples of how budget cuts are forcing the Pentagon to make drastic choices as it reshapes the military after more than a decade of war.
"While no one is happy about recommending divestiture of this great old friend, it's the right military decision," Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force's chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday. "And it's representative of the extremely difficult choices that we're being forced to make."
The A-10, a slow-flying airplane designed to stay close enough to the ground for pilots to be able to distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes, has saved hundreds of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has performed in a way that modern planes — flying high and fast — never could, supporters say.
"The best close-air-support platform we have around is the A-10," Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said at a news conference Thursday, at which she was joined by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and several A-10 pilots. "And we owe it to our men and women in uniform to ensure that they have the best when it comes to this incredibly important mission."
It's beloved not just by pilots but also by ground troops under fire who equate the high-pitched whine of the A-10 and the roar of its Gatling-type cannon with salvation. In recent congressional hearings it has gotten rave reviews, particularly by the Army brass.
"The A-10 is the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet," said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's a game-changer," said Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army's vice chief of staff. "It's ugly. It's loud, but when it comes in and you hear that pffffff [of the cannon], it just makes a difference."
A plane loved by troops
It flies so low and slow that pilots expect to get hit. But that's what the A-10 is designed for.
Its twin engines are perched away from the fuel and high on the fuselage. The pilot is surrounded by a "titanium bathtub" and bulletproof glass.
But the most striking feature of the A-10 is the 30-mm cannon that sticks out of the front of the aircraft like a snake's tongue. The A-10 is really just a gun that can fly, some say.
"We can kill everything on the battlefield. The full spectrum — tanks to troops," said William Smith, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The airplane was designed to take a ton of punishment."
The A-10 was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when helicopters supporting ground troops in Vietnam were being shot down by the dozen. A new one hasn't been built in 30 years. With the military focusing on high-tech, computer-laden planes that can take off and land vertically, the A-10 is a throwback that looks more like a flying Studebaker.
It earned its tough reputation during the Persian Gulf War, taking out much of Iraq's tanks, artillery and missile sites. It has also been a mainstay of the recent conflicts, flying over rugged terrain to support ground troops, at very low speeds and altitudes lower than downtown office buildings.
Last year, two Maryland Air National Guard pilots were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor for their part in a mission that saved 90 coalition troops who were on the verge of being overrun by Taliban fighters in a valley in eastern Afghanistan.
The weather was horrible — drenching rain — and so was the visibility. After talking to the troops on the ground, Lt. Col. Paul C. Zurkowski fired a rocket from his A-10 into the ridgeline where the enemy had hunkered down. He was hit by enemy fire — although he didn't know it — and made another pass, and another, emptying his gun into the ridgeline until he had fired more than a thousand rounds. Finally, running low on fuel, he returned to base.
A few minutes later, when Maj. Christopher Cisneros, his wingman, arrived, he could tell the troops on the ground were in real trouble. They were "danger close," calling in fire virtually on top of themselves, knowing there was a chance they could get hit as well.
"They didn't have a lot of time left," said Cisneros. "They were at the point where they were being overrun."
So Cisneros led a formation of three A-10s in low over the valley, firing until the troops could break free and helicopters could come in to evacuate them. Three coalition troops were wounded, but none was killed.
Earlier in the war, Smith, the retired lieutenant colonel, was scrambled to a point in eastern Afghanistan where U.S. forces were taking fire. He guided his A-10 into the valley where the soldiers had been fighting and could see a cave on a ridgeline.
"And in the cave I can see the glow from my night-vision goggles of what appears to be a cooking fire," Smith said in a recent interview.
He radioed the coordinates to the troops on the ground, who told him to blow up the cave. But Smith refused, saying a cooking fire wasn't enough evidence to fire into the hillside, potentially causing an avalanche of rocks to fall on the village below.
Instead, he flew in close again and again, banking the airplane so that he could look at the cave with his own eyes. By now the sun was coming up, and as he made another pass, people came out of the cave waving. "There were old people, middle-aged people, and there were children," he said. "It was obviously a family."
'Hard choices'
Air Force officials argue that with the defense spending cuts that have been ordered, they have no choice but to get rid of the entire A-10 fleet. Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that officials looked at ways to save the A-10 by cutting other programs. But they ultimately decided that grounding the A-10 was the option with the lowest risk.
"The budget picture we're presenting to you today is hard choices, nothing but hard choices," Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told the committee. She called the A-10 a "wonderful aircraft. But there are other aircraft that can cover that very sacred combat air support mission."
Welsh said that the Air Force must be prepared for "a full-spectrum fight" that involves many missions in addition to close air support.
"The comment I've heard that somehow the Air Force is walking away from close air support, I must admit, frustrates me," he said. "It's a mission, not an aircraft. . . . And we do it better than anyone."
One of the aircraft to replace the A-10 will be the F-35, officials have said. But the aircraft, beset by repeated delays and skyrocketing costs, is not expected to be ready until at least 2021. And the Air Force is planning to get rid of the A-10s by 2019.
Ayotte, whose husband was an A-10 pilot, called that a dangerous gap. She has led the fight in Congress to keep the A-10, inserting language in the defense spending bill that prevents the Air Force from retiring the A-10 before the end of 2014.
In his comments at the news conference, McCain was more blunt.
"We are going to do away with the finest close-air-support weapon in history?" he said. "And we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much — and the cost is still growing — with the F-35? That's ridiculous. That's absolutely ridiculous."
Supporters also noted that this is not the Air Force's first attempt to get rid of the A-10 so that it could focus on more advanced aircraft.
A 1988 report from Congress's nonpartisan investigative arm, now known as the Government Accountability Office, said it had been tasked to look into the viability of the A-10 because "the Air Force is concerned about the A-10's ability to support the Army and survive the Soviet air defense threat of the 1990s and beyond."
I love how the proponents of the Thud 2 argue that it is a unique aircraft in aviation history, completely ignoring all of the aircraft which were designed along the same lines for the same mission. Maybe if the Chair Force had accurately named them the Sturmovik 2, people would realize that these types of planes, like all others, come and go.
Going to replace the A-10 with the F-35, a supersonic, uber expensive, leading edge tech aircraft? How will that save money, especially since the F-35 program is so expensive? I'd think that helos, drones and even unmanned helos being developed now will replace the A-10 in a close support role, not an uber expensive fighter.
Quote from: KRonn on April 11, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
Going to replace the A-10 with the F-35, a supersonic, uber expensive, leading edge tech aircraft? How will that save money, especially since the F-35 program is so expensive? I'd think that helos, drones and even unmanned helos being developed now will replace the A-10 in a close support role, not an uber expensive fighter.
No, the F-35 is not designed as a replacement for the A-10. It is a multirole aircraft, and only one of its missions is close air support.
The cost of an aircraft comes not just from its purchase price, but also from its operations and maintenance costs. Those have come down pretty dramatically from the days of the A-10's design, and both that design, and the age of the components, mean that the A-10 is more expensive to fly than the F-35 will be.
The A-10 is 40 years old. Planes wear out. The question isn't "should the USAF retire the A-10?" it is "when should the USAF retire the A-10?" The argument that 2025 or so is a better answer than 2019 hasn't been made very effectively.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 06:38:21 AM
I love how the proponents of the Thud 2 argue that it is a unique aircraft in aviation history, completely ignoring all of the aircraft which were designed along the same lines for the same mission. Maybe if the Chair Force had accurately named them the Sturmovik 2, people would realize that these types of planes, like all others, come and go.
The F-111 didnt need to be "retired", either. :mad:
Stop hating success.
If you want to increase the chances of your project getting funded, make it secret.
QuoteThe US government's spending on top secret defence projects is declining slower than the overall defence budget, according to a new study. A team at Washington-based consultancy Avascent says classified funding from 2011 to 2014 has shrunk by 3.5%, while the overall Department of Defense budget has gone down 5.3%.
In the Pentagon's 2015 budget, classified projects will account for over US$50 billion. For FY2015 the portion of the DoD budget which will go to funding classified work will be 8.9%. According to Avascent, during the previous budgetary year – FY2014 – the classified portion of the DoD budget was a larger 9.8%.
These figures do not include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts, which will add to the classified budget.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 08:12:12 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 11, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
Going to replace the A-10 with the F-35, a supersonic, uber expensive, leading edge tech aircraft? How will that save money, especially since the F-35 program is so expensive? I'd think that helos, drones and even unmanned helos being developed now will replace the A-10 in a close support role, not an uber expensive fighter.
No, the F-35 is not designed as a replacement for the A-10. It is a multirole aircraft, and only one of its missions is close air support.
The cost of an aircraft comes not just from its purchase price, but also from its operations and maintenance costs. Those have come down pretty dramatically from the days of the A-10's design, and both that design, and the age of the components, mean that the A-10 is more expensive to fly than the F-35 will be.
The A-10 is 40 years old. Planes wear out. The question isn't "should the USAF retire the A-10?" it is "when should the USAF retire the A-10?" The argument that 2025 or so is a better answer than 2019 hasn't been made very effectively.
Good points about the costs. I figured the A-10 was still cheaper even though older, because of the simpler design. I understood that the F-35 was a multi-role fighter and while I can see that the A-10's time has come to be retired, I'd think that helos are better in a close support role that of the kinds the A-10 did. Fighters and bombers have been doing much of the job with guided munitions and that role isn't going away. But for the close to the ground support that A-10s often flew, I'd think that's still necessary and that helos perform some of that role along with A-10s, and will replace the A-10 as the aircraft is phased out.
Quote from: KRonn on April 11, 2014, 09:33:37 AM
Good points about the costs. I figured the A-10 was still cheaper even though older, because of the simpler design. I understood that the F-35 was a multi-role fighter and while I can see that the A-10's time has come to be retired, I'd think that helos are better in a close support role that of the kinds the A-10 did. Fighters and bombers have been doing much of the job with guided munitions and that role isn't going away. But for the close to the ground support that A-10s often flew, I'd think that's still necessary and that helos perform some of that role along with A-10s, and will replace the A-10 as the aircraft is phased out.
CAS will actually be increasingly undertaken by upgraded MLRS batteries. The Chair Force has long striven to gain control of MLRS, because they have understood how it undermines the rationales for spending on aircraft. With drones for spotting MLRS for delivering quantities of explosives to the target, and helos for quick-reaction ops, the A-10 is increasingly limited the being the "'Hog of the Gaps."
Aren't the guided missile boats supposed to improve CAS as well?
Quote from: Brazen on April 11, 2014, 08:53:47 AM
If you want to increase the chances of your project getting funded, make it secret.
QuoteThe US government's spending on top secret defence projects is declining slower than the overall defence budget, according to a new study. A team at Washington-based consultancy Avascent says classified funding from 2011 to 2014 has shrunk by 3.5%, while the overall Department of Defense budget has gone down 5.3%.
In the Pentagon's 2015 budget, classified projects will account for over US$50 billion. For FY2015 the portion of the DoD budget which will go to funding classified work will be 8.9%. According to Avascent, during the previous budgetary year – FY2014 – the classified portion of the DoD budget was a larger 9.8%.
These figures do not include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts, which will add to the classified budget.
Maybe someone who is better at math than me can explain, but how can secret spending be declining slower than overall spending (3.5% as compared to 5.3%) but also consume a smaller percentage of total spending (8.9% of the total, as compared to 9.8%)? If the one-year decline in percentage of spending is just an anomaly when looking at the 4-year percentage of decline, why wouldn't the author mention this? The numbers seem contradictory.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 11, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
Aren't the guided missile boats supposed to improve CAS as well?
Only for the Inca.
Okay, that was funny. I :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2014, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 11, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
Aren't the guided missile boats supposed to improve CAS as well?
Only for the Inca.
Thought they used torpedo boats?
I love 12 year old jokes. It is too bad that thread died with the old board.
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2014, 02:17:01 PM
I love 12 year old jokes. It is too bad that thread died with the old board.
It didnt die, it was retired. BOARDS COME AND GO
I've forgotten the context on that one. I know it involved Crunchie but that's it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2014, 02:46:06 PM
I've forgotten the context on that one. I know it involved Crunchie but that's it.
It was an argument about which was the best type of warship and Crunchie was claiming swarms of small torpedo boats were the best I think. The Incans got in there someplace. This was actually before I started posting on Languish.
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2014, 03:00:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2014, 02:46:06 PM
I've forgotten the context on that one. I know it involved Crunchie but that's it.
It was an argument about which was the best type of warship and Crunchie was claiming swarms of small torpedo boats were the best I think. The Incans got in there someplace. This was actually before I started posting on Languish.
Crunch had a real attraction to the Incan people. It was sort of like Spellus and every obscure ethnicity in the world. You'd almost think they were the same guy, except Spellus doesn't go on about seizing the means of production and all that jazz.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2014, 03:00:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2014, 02:46:06 PM
I've forgotten the context on that one. I know it involved Crunchie but that's it.
It was an argument about which was the best type of warship and Crunchie was claiming swarms of small torpedo boats were the best I think. The Incans got in there someplace. This was actually before I started posting on Languish.
Crunch had a real attraction to the Incan people. It was sort of like Spellus and every obscure ethnicity in the world. You'd almost think they were the same guy, except Spellus doesn't go on about seizing the means of production and all that jazz.
Also I don't think Spellus was raped by blood relatives.