Author Topic: Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment (Read 3769 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #120 on:** September 14, 2005, 03:59:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yah, that danged Southern militia didn't know how to fight at all.

Combat Casualties

Civil War:

Union KIA 110,070

Confederate KIA 74,524

Like I said I got into this over a comment on the Founding Fathers, and as far as I know that was during the Revolutionary war not the Civil War.

Toad · « **Reply #121 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:03:24 PM »

You are too funny.

The entire 20,000 BECAME the Continental Army.

Did some go home when their enlistment was up? Sure. It took years to complete the transition from militia to "regular army".

However, look at your own quote:

Quote

On December10, despite pressures and patriotic appeals, most of the Connecticut men went home and militia from New Hampshire and Massachusetts had to be brought in to fill their places in the line.

Here's a quote for you that may help you.. but I sort of doubt it.

Quote

From this non-coordinated array of various counties’ and colonies’ amateurish militia companies encircling Boston during the summer of 1775 would develop, within four years, an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.

The process through which this development took place was neither uniformly progressive nor consistently linear. It occurred through a series of army reorganizations created by regimental designations, re-designations and consolidations, which collectively yielded a sequence of phases in the progression of the Continental Army.

Added to the complexity of these several sequential phases of the main army’s development, the entirety of the American military was composed of the Congress’s “continental” army as well as the component states’ military systems.

Toad · « **Reply #122 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:05:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said I got into this over a comment on the Founding Fathers, and as far as I know that was during the Revolutionary war not the Civil War.

LOL!

Let's see.. who just said:

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them

[/b]

Oh... it was RAIDER179 who said that.

On the field of battle, those guys that "got their bellybutton handed to them" had a much better K/D than the Union troops.

lazs2 · « **Reply #123 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:06:00 PM »

oh... and what remark about the founding fathers was I supposed to address?

I allways try to address the issues you bring up (at least till the thread gets locked).

I really think you are grasping at straws here... you seem to be saying that the militia was useless even tho they caused no end of harm to the british by hounding them and inflicting huge casualties and tying up their army. You seem to be saying that if you don't win major battles that your group is pointless. Perhaps I am not understanding you but it sure looks like you are saying that skilled riflemen are of no use to a nation or themselves in a war.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #124 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:08:56 PM »

Give it up. We didn`t actualy win guys. We are going to have to sign it all over to the British and have Beetle for our "Supreme King Type Person".
Start destroying those 50s models gas guzzlers before he arrives.
I beleive raider will be appointed Misinformation Officer.

Raider179 · « **Reply #125 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:09:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I don't mean to disturb your positon with facts but here you go:

"The British took possession of both Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill. They had won the battle, but at a terrible cost: out of 2,200 troops, 268 British soldiers and officers had been killed; another 828 were wounded."

50% casualties is pretty massive to me.

Ok lets say 50% casulties are massive. Care to put up the US losses or want me to do it for you. Here I will just do it for you...

The Americans had around 450 casulties out of a force between 1100-1400.

So the American rate was 32 - 41% Not exactly a decisive victory since the Americans were forced out of their Positions.

lazs2 · « **Reply #126 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:10:11 PM »

toad... I think my point was that regardless of who won... the south did suceed from the union and was recognized as a seperate nation. The fact that the north would not honor their wishes and brought them back by force of arms has nothing to do with it..

the north had all the cards and knew it... otherwise they would have never started the war... and even then... they did so poorly with what they had that it was allmost the worst defeat in history for them. They couldn't buy a win at first... only by outproducing and outnuimbering the south in huge numbers did they even manage to break even in the later battles.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #127 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:12:43 PM »

so raider... you consider a militia that inflicts allmost twice as many casualties as they recieve on the greatest army in the world .... an army of not only superior supplies but one of a force that is 1/3 to half again as large...to be..... useless and unnecessary?

I'm missing something here I know but you aren't helping me out..

lazs

Raider179 · « **Reply #128 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:17:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
You are too funny.

The entire 20,000 BECAME the Continental Army.

Did some go home when their enlistment was up? Sure. It took years to complete the transition from militia to "regular army".

However, look at your own quote:

Here's a quote for you that may help you.. but I sort of doubt it.

I'm sorry does 8000 = 20,000???

12,000 is not some that is more than half. Like I said problems due to using Militia as if they are regular army. They are not and do not act like them. Troops that need years of training to even become decent is not what I would call a good defense force.

Raider179 · « **Reply #129 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:19:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
LOL!

Let's see.. who just said:

Oh... it was RAIDER179 who said that.

On the field of battle, those guys that "got their bellybutton handed to them" had a much better K/D than the Union troops. [/B]

I see you quoted me instead of who brought it up originally. I was just responding.

Are you saying K/D is the only determinate in who wins?

Raider179 · « **Reply #130 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:24:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so raider... you consider a militia that inflicts allmost twice as many casualties as they recieve on the greatest army in the world .... an army of not only superior supplies but one of a force that is 1/3 to half again as large...to be..... useless and unnecessary?

I'm missing something here I know but you aren't helping me out..

lazs

Americans had fortifications prepared.... Useless might have been too strong but they were still inept.

Ok I will concede the militia did have a moment or two but in no way would I rely on them for defense or my person or my country.

lazs2 · « **Reply #131 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:24:08 PM »

who wins is the determinate of who wins. How they got there is allways interesting tho. It points out strengths and weakneses.

So far... I have seen no weakness but only strength from having a nation of riflemen and the second amendment.

if you felt that the militia did not perform as well as you would have liked.... perhaps you would care to speculate on how well they would have done if they had given up their arms to the british as was demanded of them when this whole little difference of opinon came about?

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #132 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:24:53 PM »

Here's your problem, simply stated: You are unable to understand the evolution of the Continental Army.

Again:

Quote

From this non-coordinated array of various counties’ and colonies’ amateurish militia companies encircling Boston during the summer of 1775 would develop, within four years, an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.

The militia BECAME an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.

At the start they were not an 18th Century professional standing army.

They were a militia that knew how to fight the fights they had to fight, primarily "Indian wars".

If you had been a skilled Indian fighter at the time, you'd have thought it absolute lunacy to stand in a line, take cannon fire and then take volley fire from massed enemy. I wonder how many ran from fear as opposed to how many ran from correctly figuring out that there was a better way to fight.

As the Brits retreated from Lexington and Concord, the militia fought "their fight". They fought as Indian fighters. How'd that turn out for the Brits? How many militia ran then?

Toad · « **Reply #133 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:27:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
I see you quoted me instead of who brought it up originally. I was just responding.

Are you saying K/D is the only determinate in who wins?

Oh, I see. I cannot respond to your responses. Sorry, missed that rule. I'll try to observe it in the future.

Wait...am I responding to one of your responses right now?

No, I'm saying anyone who thinks the force that had a superior K/D in actual combat "had their bellybutton handed to them" uses a far different yardstick than most other historians.

dmf · « **Reply #134 on:** September 14, 2005, 04:27:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Thats your call and no one here has a problem with that. The question is why do you have a problem with others using other means?

If you are not a felon, and follow the gun laws I don't have a problem. The problem I have with guns is that the criminals have them.
Theres just too much killing in this world. most of it for no reason, note: I said MOST of it.