M14 Forum banner
61 - 73 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
brianns... The op had a good thought process in his question on if we could do it again.. We stayed off course a little bit I think.. But the jest is that a lot of folks on the forum have questions as to if we could perform at that level again..
I see a lot of old guys on the firing line these days that I for one would put my trust in.. We may be old an a little fat in the middle LOL but I think we could get it done if needed.. I pray that day never comes to this great country but the old farts will be ready!!!

Carry On!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,432 Posts
Re the OP I know an opposed beach landing will not something we would do(or at least in the rarest of occasions). Beaches and water access will be used but due to the need to land in volume when safe. So in comparison I try to think what would be so large but of something of modern nature that we need an epic size of troops and weapon systems. I mean a conflict that would energize our young to join up from all walks of life or such that the govt brings back the draft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
I'm reminded of that great answer in "Hunt For Red October".

"Sure you can, but why would you want to?"

Storming the beach was our version of fighting WW1 during WW2. We had the thinking of trench warfare still in the bones of our command staff. Like all similar actions of such command thinking, it was a glorious day because we got lucky. It could have gone far, far worse.

Sending American Citizens into the meat grinder for no especially good reason is something many of us will never again tolerate. Oh, sure, there will be propaganda encouraging it. Lord knows there was propaganda THEN that continues to this day. But there's many more today that won't accept such things. I've designed far too many weapons systems to countenance such incompetence from glory-hound brass.

Beach assaults of that nature and magnitude have gone the way of the spear and the shield and for good reason. Tennyson might have glorified "The Charge of the Light Brigade" to the schoolboys of the last century, but their sons have since learned such rubbish is pointless.
Beachhead landings were done in WWII because they had to, not because of an inability to evolve strategy and tactics. Please do explain what the allies should have done.

Tennyson glorified - "honoured" - the "noble six hundred" because despite everything, and the foolish order they were given, they did their duty though they knew they were going to die. An endorsement of tactics this poem IS NOT.

"Forward the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
someone had blundered.

Tennyson was right to glorify the men involved, as are we. While your interpretation most definitely is, the poem and Tennyson's point are far from rubbish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Please do explain what the allies should have done.
What in the world FOR?
You've already made up your mind.
You're only in this to argue.
Then you'll shovel a bunch of horsecrap into the thread while claiming some sort of superior armchair ability.
No thanks.
Tennyson's point are far from rubbish.
Total rubbish.
In our beach landing amphib craft, we had MPs ready to shoot any man not willing to get off the boat. We learned that trick from the British whose officers only carried a pistol just for such duties.
"Glorify"?? Puh-leeze!

Look, I vote no. We can't, won't, and don't want to do another D-Day.
Maybe you vote yes. Don't know; don't care.
Done and done.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,432 Posts
In our beach landing amphib craft, we had MPs ready to shoot any man not willing to get off the boat. We learned that trick from the British whose officers only carried a pistol just for such duties.
"Glorify"?? Puh-leeze!
In whose beach landing amphib craft were their MPs ready to shoot? Do you mean on an LSD if someone would not board a AAV or get off of a LST pulled up to a beach?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
What in the world FOR?
You've already made up your mind.
You're only in this to argue.
Then you'll shovel a bunch of horsecrap into the thread while claiming some sort of superior armchair ability.
No thanks.

Total rubbish.
In our beach landing amphib craft, we had MPs ready to shoot any man not willing to get off the boat. We learned that trick from the British whose officers only carried a pistol just for such duties.
"Glorify"?? Puh-leeze!

Look, I vote no. We can't, won't, and don't want to do another D-Day.
Maybe you vote yes. Don't know; don't care.
Done and done.
Whhhaaaaa??

Ok, let's back up. You said amphibious landings in WWII were unnecessary and were due to "trench warfare" mindset of our top brass. So you must think there was some better way to land millions of troops in France, or perhaps you think that wasn't necessary (too "trench warfare" maybe?)? I'm not sure where you were going with any of that, though my takeaway from your comment is that you think the whole amphibious landing method was a mistake, and I assume you believe there was a better way. What would have been a better way?

As for Tennyson, you clearly don't understand the poem or what he was saying. If you think the cavalry charge referenced in the poem was a bad idea, then you're actually agreeing with Tennyson to some degree, though his real objective was primarily to praise the men who made the charge, not the commanders who ordered it.

Curious to see how you'll interpret any of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,835 Posts
What in the world FOR?
You've already made up your mind.
You're only in this to argue.
Then you'll shovel a bunch of horsecrap into the thread while claiming some sort of superior armchair ability.
No thanks.

Total rubbish.
In our beach landing amphib craft, we had MPs ready to shoot any man not willing to get off the boat. We learned that trick from the British whose officers only carried a pistol just for such duties.
"Glorify"?? Puh-leeze!

Look, I vote no. We can't, won't, and don't want to do another D-Day.
Maybe you vote yes. Don't know; don't care.
Done and done.
I've got to ask; just where did you learn that the U.S. had MPs ready to shoot troops?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,174 Posts
I've got to ask; just where did you learn that the U.S. had MPs ready to shoot troops?
Sounds like the seen from the movie called "Enemy at the gate". In the start of the movie, the officers were shooting soldiers jumping from the boats heading up to the frontline with the Germans.

XXIV Corps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,835 Posts
Sounds like the seen from the movie called "Enemy at the gate". In the start of the movie, the officers were shooting soldiers jumping from the boats heading up to the frontline with the Germans.

XXIV Corps
It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I expect that he learned it from a movie or a liberal college professor or some veteran that was telling a story.

My father actually ran landing craft (LCVP) and landing barges during WWII and he never mentioned ever hearing that this happened.

I had 3 uncles that served in Europe during WWII, one served in Europe from the D-Day landings through to the end of the war. None of them ever mentioned that this happened.

I spent 20 plus years in the Marine Corps, I retired as a SNCO and I was never instructed or told about a policy to shoot our own people. I've known quite a few Marines that I served with that told tall tales to impress the ladies or their families so it wouldn't surprise me to find that this false information came about that way.

I'm just curious as to how this kind of false crap gets started and who pushes it on to the public. This is why we don't have any kind of uniform understanding of the real world (used to be called common sense). False propaganda in all things has destroyed any confidence that we have had in our society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,835 Posts
Bear with me, I know this isn't exactly connected to the OP's question but it is germane in that it sheds light on how our perception of how the world works is jaundiced by politicians and yellow journalism.

Wichitawrat, I'm not attacking you, I'm just using your post as proof of how common it is for our politicians and press to lie to us and how their lies then turn in to fact, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" (attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945).

So I did a little more checking and I've found that Wichitawrat has posted other questionable comments about "historical" events. One in particular is the false claim that George HW Bush signed an EO that banned assault weapons. I traced that false propaganda back to Joe Biden (then Vice President Biden) and our current yellow journalists.

In a public interview Biden talked about whether Obama could ban assault rifles and he claimed that Bush had set a precedence when he signed an EO banning assault rifles - the problem with that claim is that it's a lie. Bush never signed an EO that banned assault rifles. His EO was just an official signoff on changes that the ATF made to a Jimmy Carter EO. That ATF change was a redefinition of what a sporting rifle was and making it standard to refuse importing rifles that weren't commonly used for sporting purposes. The EO that Bush signed was just a simple boiler plate housekeeping EO that made the changes official without actually mentioning assault rifles. Biden used that document to try to justify Obama's attempt to outlaw "assault" rifles by EO. Which failed, most likely because lawmakers recognized that it was an attempt to twist the truth.

The bottom line is that our society will always do what it needs to do to survive.

Do we have the equipment to make a D-Day style landing? We have the technology but we don't have enough hardware on hand.

Do we have people that could handle the job? Much like in the 1940's and every other war period, the most capable people that would need the least amount of training are the people that come from the more rural areas of the country. Sgt. York of WWI fame was a country boy, Audie Murphey was a country boy, Carlos Hathcock was a country boy. I've trained Marines that didn't know the very basics of firearms and yet they learned.

Do we have a need to make a D-Day style landing? No, and I doubt that we will as long as modern technology is available. On the other hand, if our advanced communications and surveillance systems were compromised, then we might have to. And if that happens then the I'm sure that the propaganda machines will churn out enough "facts" that even most leftists would support whatever it would take to make that kind of landing possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Back to the OP, here's a youtoober that posits some funny and some serious military scenarios. Some of his vids are better than others (I enjoyed the "could a Marine battalion stop the Mongol horde," and "could a Marine platoon defeat a Roman Legion."). What the guy does do well is set the stage by giving you an idea of what capabilities each side has in a given scenario. I'm not endorsing his methods or results, so don't yell at me if you disagree with him. This one asks whether the United States could invade and conquer the UK.

Oh, and he takes nukes out of the equation most of the time, because nukes are probably the biggest single reason we no longer have large nation to nation conflict. And nukes sort of make things uninteresting.

 
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Top