(10-27-2013 05:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm looking for specifics, our military in general is too top-heavy. For example, there are 285 ships in the US Navy and 216 Admirals from 1 to 4 stars. Nothing justifies that level of bureaucracy in any fighting force.

Compare the force structure by grade today to what it was in WWII. Very enlightening.

There have been two drivers of which I am aware:
1. Retention. Keeping officers who could leave for more lucrative private sector jobs meant promoting them higher and faster.
2. Alliances. We are or have been in a number of alliances including NATO. They all have a number of combined commands. We wanted to be in charge of all of them, and to do that we needed more senior officers than everyone else combined. So we have created all these slots for admirals who wear a second hat as head of some NATO or other alliance command.

Doesn't the all-volunteer armed forces also put a premium on an officer-heavy standing force, with the idea that, if needed, the armed forces could institute a draft and have the command infrastructure in place to go to war? This, of course, assumes war would look like WWII, which is obviously not the case.

(10-26-2013 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm taking it they are going to begin enforcing diversity crap in the military's command structure?

Diversity itself is of zero real world value. The best man for the job, regardless of race or anything else, even the best woman, is the only thing of any value.

Diversity is the antithesis of a meritocratic system.

Why do you think the diversity BS came to play in the first place?

(10-28-2013 07:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:35 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

Yeah they can't even think of what to blame on us, that's why they blame us for their own mistakes.

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Just so we are all clear here, you're making the claim that there will be a Second American Civil War, and it will be won by the South based on the strength of it's Officer staff?

(10-28-2013 09:09 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

True, no deny the North's manufacturing advantage.

However, our generals were better. Heck, didn't Lincoln offer Lee command of the US army until Lee told him to fack off? Anyway, easier for less talented generals to gain victory when they can just throw bodies at bullets until the other side runs out of bullets.

a big component of it was the defensive strategy. the civil war was the first modern war and a lot of the tactics had yet to be perfected/figured out. we saw this very easily in ww2. in the european front where the europeans had already fought for years and had figured out the best attack strategy we had lost of success. in the pacific where the war had yet to be fought before we had insanely high causality ratio's.

being the attacker is hard enough, having to be the attacker AND figure out the tactics by which the war would be fought is very hard to overcome in the 1850s-1920s time frame.

(10-28-2013 11:30 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:35 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

Yeah they can't even think of what to blame on us, that's why they blame us for their own mistakes.

your new sig........wow.......just wow.......

(10-28-2013 11:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:09 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

True, no deny the North's manufacturing advantage.

However, our generals were better. Heck, didn't Lincoln offer Lee command of the US army until Lee told him to fack off? Anyway, easier for less talented generals to gain victory when they can just throw bodies at bullets until the other side runs out of bullets.

a big component of it was the defensive strategy. the civil war was the first modern war and a lot of the tactics had yet to be perfected/figured out. we saw this very easily in ww2. in the european front where the europeans had already fought for years and had figured out the best attack strategy we had lost of success. in the pacific where the war had yet to be fought before we had insanely high causality ratio's.

being the attacker is hard enough, having to be the attacker AND figure out the tactics by which the war would be fought is very hard to overcome in the 1850s-1920s time frame.

That's the only even close to correct historical information in your post. The rest is just completely wrong.

(10-28-2013 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:30 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:35 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

Yeah they can't even think of what to blame on us, that's why they blame us for their own mistakes.

your new sig........wow.......just wow.......

Finally got the ban lifted I see... You don't like knowing it's actually your kind holding America hostage? Hence my response above.

(10-28-2013 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:09 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

True, no deny the North's manufacturing advantage.

However, our generals were better. Heck, didn't Lincoln offer Lee command of the US army until Lee told him to fack off? Anyway, easier for less talented generals to gain victory when they can just throw bodies at bullets until the other side runs out of bullets.

a big component of it was the defensive strategy. the civil war was the first modern war and a lot of the tactics had yet to be perfected/figured out. we saw this very easily in ww2. in the european front where the europeans had already fought for years and had figured out the best attack strategy we had lost of success. in the pacific where the war had yet to be fought before we had insanely high causality ratio's.

being the attacker is hard enough, having to be the attacker AND figure out the tactics by which the war would be fought is very hard to overcome in the 1850s-1920s time frame.

That's the only even close to correct historical information in your post. The rest is just completely wrong.

the civil war & ww1 are the ones that get debated most by historians about where the split between historical warfare & modern warfare are.

the reason why i say civil war is because for 1000s of years before the military tactics were march in tight formation and face off on the open battlefield. even during the revolutionary war & war of 1812 that was not only the most commonly used tactic but the best tactic for that time period. but the advances of technology from 1840 & onwards made those tactics absolute. the civil war was a big part of the generals sendig their troops to the slaughter because they couldnt figure out how to get around the new technology. you had major advancements in artillery, accuracy, range, & loading times. as well as the first use of gattling guns, revolvers, snipers, ironclads, trenches. and for the first time the use of railroads & telegrams making it the first war where troops & info could be moved rapidly. and then theres the whole 'total war aspect" of it where crushing the other countries economy became a vital front and for the first time the targeting of civilians became common practice.

so yes by all means was the civil war the first modern war

(10-28-2013 11:47 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:30 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:35 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Hopefully by now everyone realizes that the firing of Generals based on politics is actually happening... the Southern States picking them up was what you call deductive reasoning.

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

Yeah they can't even think of what to blame on us, that's why they blame us for their own mistakes.

your new sig........wow.......just wow.......

Finally got the ban lifted I see... You don't like knowing it's actually your kind holding America hostage? Hence my response above.

i just find it funny that you use a vietnam reference to blame liberals for dragging this country down......

talk about hypocrisy

(10-28-2013 12:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:47 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:30 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Leftists using logic? Seriously? You slay me Jerry.

If it's not in a textbook or on the news, they can't "think" it.

Yeah they can't even think of what to blame on us, that's why they blame us for their own mistakes.

your new sig........wow.......just wow.......

Finally got the ban lifted I see... You don't like knowing it's actually your kind holding America hostage? Hence my response above.

i just find it funny that you use a vietnam reference to blame liberals for dragging this country down......

talk about hypocrisy

How is that hypocritical?

(10-28-2013 12:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:09 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

True, no deny the North's manufacturing advantage.

However, our generals were better. Heck, didn't Lincoln offer Lee command of the US army until Lee told him to fack off? Anyway, easier for less talented generals to gain victory when they can just throw bodies at bullets until the other side runs out of bullets.

a big component of it was the defensive strategy. the civil war was the first modern war and a lot of the tactics had yet to be perfected/figured out. we saw this very easily in ww2. in the european front where the europeans had already fought for years and had figured out the best attack strategy we had lost of success. in the pacific where the war had yet to be fought before we had insanely high causality ratio's.

being the attacker is hard enough, having to be the attacker AND figure out the tactics by which the war would be fought is very hard to overcome in the 1850s-1920s time frame.

That's the only even close to correct historical information in your post. The rest is just completely wrong.

the civil war & ww1 are the ones that get debated most by historians about where the split between historical warfare & modern warfare are.

the reason why i say civil war is because for 1000s of years before the military tactics were march in tight formation and face off on the open battlefield. even during the revolutionary war & war of 1812 that was not only the most commonly used tactic but the best tactic for that time period. but the advances of technology from 1840 & onwards made those tactics absolute. the civil war was a big part of the generals sendig their troops to the slaughter because they couldnt figure out how to get around the new technology. you had major advancements in artillery, accuracy, range, & loading times. as well as the first use of gattling guns, revolvers, snipers, ironclads, trenches. and for the first time the use of railroads & telegrams making it the first war where troops & info could be moved rapidly. and then theres the whole 'total war aspect" of it where crushing the other countries economy became a vital front and for the first time the targeting of civilians became common practice.

so yes by all means was the civil war the first modern war

By your definition, the use of weapons on the field, the Crimean War was the first 'modern' war.

(10-28-2013 11:38 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Just so we are all clear here, you're making the claim that there will be a Second American Civil War, and it will be won by the South based on the strength of it's Officer staff?

I believe there will be another American Civil War in our lifetimes. And, just like any other war - the people "calling the shots" decide what happens.

Strip away the power from these Generals for no reason, and they tend to be a little upset about it. There are plenty of people interested to know what they know... will it be a deadly war? Maybe not... but there will most certainly be some sort of war, be it electronic or physical.

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:38 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 09:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  If the Southern state Governors hire these Generals in the National Guards, the fight is over

Just so we are all clear here, you're making the claim that there will be a Second American Civil War, and it will be won by the South based on the strength of it's Officer staff?

I believe there will be another American Civil War in our lifetimes. And, just like any other war - the people "calling the shots" decide what happens.

Strip away the power from these Generals for no reason, and they tend to be a little upset about it. There are plenty of people interested to know what they know... will it be a deadly war? Maybe not... but there will most certainly be some sort of war, be it electronic or physical.

So you know why they were stripped of power?

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Strip away the power from these Generals for no reason, and they tend to be a little upset about it. There are plenty of people interested to know what they know... will it be a deadly war? Maybe not... but there will most certainly be some sort of war, be it electronic or physical.

For no reason? That's a pretty damaging allegation. You've provided no link, but looking through other media it seems that each has a reason, regardless of what one may interpret as spurious or for cause.

The Generals may be upset about their termination, but should they "be upset about it" and they decide their best course of action is to take up arms against the Republic, perhaps it is best these Generals no longer have access to military resources to assuage their personal grievances.

(10-28-2013 01:37 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:21 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Strip away the power from these Generals for no reason, and they tend to be a little upset about it. There are plenty of people interested to know what they know... will it be a deadly war? Maybe not... but there will most certainly be some sort of war, be it electronic or physical.

For no reason? That's a pretty damaging allegation. You've provided no link, but looking through other media it seems that each has a reason, regardless of what one may interpret as spurious or for cause.

The Generals may be upset about their termination, but should they "be upset about it" and they decide their best course of action is to take up arms against the Republic, perhaps it is best these Generals no longer have access to military resources to assuage their personal grievances.

Quote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Quote: He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Control of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting them (Police), by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries (ie. Blackwater)to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless African Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united (little u) States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

(10-28-2013 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

I understand what you are inferring, but where is the evidence that these Generals were politically purged?

(10-27-2013 03:22 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

Exactly - if it was not for the genius of Robert E Lee, and the fact that the North had your typical incompetent GOP President, the war should have lasted less than 3 months.

Lee did not take command of the Army of Northern Virginia till the Battle of Seven Pines. The first major battle was First Manassas, July 21, 1861. Lee took command of the ANV on June 1, 1862. Somehow the vaunted DY war-machine couldn't manage to put down the "rebels" for almost a whole year before Lee even took command of the major field army in the east. A lot more than three months.

Seems the South benefited from two things early in the war. Better officers and highly motivated soldiers. As the war went on, the better officers and motivated soldiers died or were wounded-away, while the DY's finally brought numbers into their favor. The South would have won any war that ended before the Summer of 1863, and would have lost any war after that point.

(10-28-2013 05:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:22 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:47 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Because it worked the last time they had better generals?

Touche. Yeah, we had the better generals ya'll just had more bodies your generals were willing to sacrifice.

And New York alone had twice the manufacturing capacity than all of the South combined.

Exactly - if it was not for the genius of Robert E Lee, and the fact that the North had your typical incompetent GOP President, the war should have lasted less than 3 months.

Lee did not take command of the Army of Northern Virginia till the Battle of Seven Pines. The first major battle was First Manassas, July 21, 1861. Lee took command of the ANV on June 1, 1862. Somehow the vaunted DY war-machine couldn't manage to put down the "rebels" for almost a whole year before Lee even took command of the major field army in the east. A lot more than three months.

Seems the South benefited from two things early in the war. Better officers and highly motivated soldiers. As the war went on, the better officers and motivated soldiers died or were wounded-away, while the DY's finally brought numbers into their favor. The South would have won any war that ended before the Summer of 1863, and would have lost any war after that point.

it was more a case of the "call to arms" aspect of it. the south mobilized nearly all of its male population of war age at a very early stage in the war. they had every soldier they could possibly get in the early days of the war while the north was only sending a fraction of its male population of war age into battle. however that advantage became a huge disadvantage for the south as the war progressed because they were struggling to find replacements. thats why the south had to institute a draft first and why they drafted at a much higher rate than the north