Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on July 26, 2005, 12:45:45 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_hunger
So why would we help support these people? The hungrier they get, the more they'll hate their current system right? Isn't that how major gov/leader changes can occur?
Why would we relieve that kind of pressure of of the NK gov?
-
Because we're christians and humans and not savages?
-
At least we have evolved from Christians :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
Because we're christians and humans and not savages?
is *your* gov't helping out?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Because we're christians and humans and not savages?
So you continue to help prop up a dictatorship by feeding their citizens so they can spend most of their GNP on their military?
And that makes sense to you?
-
Originally posted by Shane
is *your* gov't helping out?
Common Shane, of course it's easier to justify someone ELSE spending their money on something that YOU believe in.
-
because you shouldnt allow politics to blind you into letting innocent men/women/children starve to death?
-
Originally posted by Furball
because you shouldnt allow politics to blind you into letting innocent men/women/children starve to death?
We wouldnt be... their OWN GOVERNMENT IS!!!! That's the point.
The NK gov is holding us hostage with that type of thinking.
Their Govt. spends an incredible amount of money on their military because they are counting on the exact type of statements that you just made. Those americans wont let our people starve (and if they do... we'll use THAT against them)... so hey let's spend our money on nuclear weapon development and our military.
If the NK system doesn't work and they cant feed their own people, it's up to the population to make things better for themselves instead of us just putting a bandaid on their problems.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/dallas59/4455.jpg)
it's a puppet government.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
So you continue to help prop up a dictatorship by feeding their citizens so they can spend most of their GNP on their military?
International blackmail... Pay us or we will Nuke you...
I think we will live to reget the day we didn't let Douglas MacArthur finish the job....
-
we already have.
-
lmao Hangtime:lol
-
I say we stop the shipments right on the border of international waters and demand they give up nukes and Communism.
Then tell the NK people that it's the Government holding the food back.
-
Send Kim a letter telling him how angry we are... :lol
-
"it's up to the population to make things better for themselves"
You're making baby Jesus's all over the world cry.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I say we stop the shipments right on the border of international waters and demand they give up nukes and Communism.
Then tell the NK people that it's the Government holding the food back.
The NK will never revolt. Not in our lifetime anyways. They have been "educated" by their govt that it is America that is evil. America invaced NK in the 50's and it's America's fault they are starving. I saw a pretty good documentry on DSC. and it was amazing at the amount that these people are snowed......at least the ones the filmaker showed.
On another note the reporters that have gone into NK have reported that there is an erie lack of elderly in the country and the people look like scare crows.
-
The hungrier they get, the more they'll hate their current system right?
Don't you know that the people are brainwashed to believe the hunger, power cuts, lack of medicine etc. are ALL blamed on americans?
People seriously think that when the electricity goes off, it's because you guys are stealing it from them.
I saw a document with secret camera footage and the place is just surreal. Like russia only 100 times worse..
-
Originally posted by soda72
International blackmail... Pay us or we will Nuke you...
I think we will live to reget the day we didn't let Douglas MacArthur finish the job....
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Army and Marine elements were practically spittin in the Yalu (hmmm... sounds like a classic big band tune....) after chasing the NKs up country. When the chinese came in, it was like trying to hold back water with your fingers.
MacArthur was blinded by his egotism, and sucked quite a few along with him.
-
nothing a few nukes couldn't have handled. truman was an idiot for not cutting dugout doug loose.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Army and Marine elements were practically spittin in the Yalu (hmmm... sounds like a classic big band tune....) after chasing the NKs up country. When the chinese came in, it was like trying to hold back water with your fingers.
MacArthur was blinded by his egotism, and sucked quite a few along with him.
I'm not all that sure you're right. My father was there, and he certainly did not agree. When China first entered they were a real problem. After that, the problem was Truman refusing to turn MacArthur loose and commit the supplies necessary. I'd say Truman was unwilling to risk going down in history as having used nuclear weapons twice. Dad complained bitterly for years that we had what it took to do the job, and Truman intentionally held back resources to the point where lack of supplies put men at serious risk or just plain got them killed.
Korea was fought with a political handicap, just like Vietnam, but not as bad. Washington was selecting targets and strategy once U.S./UN forces got out of the hole they started in. In fact, it was Truman's reservations and refusal to commit increased forces that emboldened the North Koreans enough to attack, and further allowed the Chinese to assume (correctly because they judged Truman well) that they could get involved without fear of anytihng happening to them.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Army and Marine elements were practically spittin in the Yalu (hmmm... sounds like a classic big band tune....) after chasing the NKs up country. When the chinese came in, it was like trying to hold back water with your fingers.
How do you stop a flood of soldiers when you can only bomb "half a bridge"?
Instead of ending the war it went on for years, with no end in site. Ike finally put an end to it, but the only reason that happen was he threated to escalate the war, saying it would no longer be confined to the Korea peninsula. Amazing how they wanted to talk about peace after that.....
-
sci... I don't get it.. "100 times worse than russia" ?? Boroda assures me that soviet russia was a paradise for all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Hardly. Here's a quick review.
25 January 1951
Eighth Army counterattacks in Operation THUNDERBOLT, which starts in the west and gradually expands eastward.
10 February
In the west, Inch'on is recaptured, as I Corps approaches the Han River
11-12 February
Chinese forces attack X Corps, forcing advancing ROK units to fall back toward Wonju.
13-15 February
Battle of Chip’yong-ni.
18 February
Reports confirm an enemy withdrawal along the entire central front.
21 February
Eighth Army launches Operation KILLER, a general advance north by IX and X Corps
28 February
Enemy resistance south of the Han River collapses.
7 March
General Ridgeway begins Operation RIPPER; the objective is Line Idaho, just south of the 38th Parallel.
14-15 March
UN troops enter Seoul, the South Korean capital.
31 March
Eighth Army is positioned along the Idaho line.
2-5 April
General Ridgeway puts Operation RUGGED into motion; the objective is Line Kansas, some ten miles above the 38th Parallel.
9 April
The I and IX Corps and the ROK I Corps reach the Kansas line; the two U.S. corps continue to advance farther north.
11 April
General MacArthur is relieved as UNC commander; General Ridgeway succeeds him.
14 April
General Van Fleet assumes command of Eighth Army.
22 April
The expected Chinese and North Korean spring offensive begins, with the strongest attacks in the west, toward Seoul.
30 April
The enemy offensive is stopped just north of Seoul.
15-20 May
The Chinese and North Koreans resume the offensive, focusing on the east-central region; General Van Fleet begins a counterattack.
31 May
The Eighth Army advances nearly to Line Kansas.
1 June
General Van Fleet strengthens the Kansas line and sends forces farther north, toward Line Wyoming.
23 June
The Soviet Union calls for armistice talks.
PHASE 5: 9 July 1951-27 July 1953 (UN Summer-Fall Offensive 1951)
10 July 1951
Armistice talks begin at Kaesong.
23 August
Communist side breaks off negotiations.
5 September
North Koreans abandon Bloody Ridge, after UN forces, led by U.S. 2d Infantry Division’s 9th Infantry, outflank it.
12 September-
13 October
2d Infantry Division, using the 72d Tank Battalion to tactical advantage, seizes Heartbreak Ridge.
3-19 October
Five UN divisions advance to Line Jamestown, some four miles beyond the Wyoming line, to protect the Seoul-Ch’orwon railway.
25 October
Armistice talks resume, now at P’anmunjom.
12 November
General Ridgway, the UNC commander, instructs General Van Fleet to cease Eighth Army offensive operations and to assume an "active defense."
Communist Chinese Forces (CCF) offensive operations begin north of Unsan on October 25th 1950. The CCF held the offensive from then until mid-January of 1951. After that, the UN Command steadily drove them back.
The truth of how it was going appears on 23 June 1951 when the SU calls for an armistice. It's obvious why they did. The phrase " beat him like a red-headed stepchild" springs to mind.
After duty as commander of the Second Army in the United States, Van Fleet was sent to Korea in April 1951, to command the American Eighth Army as the replacement for General Matthew B. Ridgway, who had succeeded General Douglas MacArthur as Far East commander.
The Eighth Army was more or less straddling the 38th Parallel. Van Fleet arrived just as the Chinese Communists and the North Koreans were preparing to launch their single greatest military effort of the Korean War.
In a fierce battle that lasted from April 22-29, he skillfully withdrew the Eighth Army's front line, shifted the IX and X Corps to prevent an enemy breakthrough to Seoul, and inflicted 70,000 casualties on the enemy.
Following the rebuff of another Communist attack in May, Van Fleet took the offensive and inflicted 200,000 casualties on the Communists in a drive north of the 38th Parallel to the Iron Triangle area of North Korea.
There Ridgway concluded that a deeper advance into North Korea would be too costly, and had Van Fleet construct fortifications on the "Kansas" and "Wyoming" lines while the United Nations (U.N.) Command pursued cease-fire talks.
-
ain't it grand? even the kids that know there was a Korean War figure we had our tulips handed to us... that it was a 'draw' at best.
*sigh*
Students of intellectual laziness; rather than students of military history abound... far easier to watch the history channel than it is to read, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hardly. Here's a quick review.
Communist Chinese Forces (CCF) offensive operations begin north of Unsan on October 25th 1950. The CCF held the offensive from then until mid-January of 1951. After that, the UN Command steadily drove them back.
The truth of how it was going appears on 23 June 1951 when the SU calls for an armistice. It's obvious why they did. The phrase " beat him like a red-headed stepchild" springs to mind.
Sorry, I guess I based my impressions on readings of the hard fought withdrawal from the Chosin Reservoir (not a defeat, but clearly evidence of overwhelming numerical inferiority -- my favorite book was Breakout by Martin Russ), and of Pork Chop Hill (which I realize occured after the "active defense" oxymoron kicked in -- particularly like On hallowed Ground by Marshall).
However, even when the defense was particualrly active, the story seemed to come down to our superior tactics and firepower vs teh Chinese' sheer numbers. While superior tactics and firepower can certainly kick the baddies' tushies, those numbers mean that any mistake can be punished mercilessly. The US Army in particular did not have its current polish, and even during the aggressive advance phase was pretty sloppy -- according to the marines who were there, not my interpretation. During Chosin, the nearby army units were essentially wiped out while the marines made their epic fighting withdrawal.
Stalin showed that sheer numbers can win battles, particularly when commanders put no value on the lives of their troops. The same conditions held in Korea, and I would argue that the cost of aggressively fighting the CCF's would have been prohibitive, even if we would have "won."
In the context of the mid 1950s, nukes were actively considered by cabinet hawks. However, Ike repeatedly refused their use against China simply because again the consequential cost -- politically and in terms of eventual likely retaliation -- was far too high.
Many besides me have argued -- based on military history, not politics or lack of education -- that MacArthur was entirely ego - driven, out of touch with combat conditions, and not particularly adept at combat management from the 1930s onward. He built his reputation by literally writing his own theater's press releases, claiming credit for any good outcome while many times outright lying about bad outcomes. Hsi management of the Phillipines battle was directly responsible for the horrors of the Bataan fight.
Originally posted by Hangtime
ain't it grand? even the kids that know there was a Korean War figure we had our tulips handed to us... that it was a 'draw' at best.
*sigh*
Students of intellectual laziness; rather than students of military history abound... far easier to watch the history channel than it is to read, I guess.
I suppose intellectual laziness extends to those who mistake different opinions for ignorance; but then, some seem particularly prone to making that mistake in multiple contexts...
-
and whitewash coupled with pro-active dodgeball doesn't excuse ignorance, regardless of venue.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Army and Marine elements were practically spittin in the Yalu (hmmm... sounds like a classic big band tune....) after chasing the NKs up country. When the chinese came in, it was like trying to hold back water with your fingers.
MacArthur was blinded by his egotism, and sucked quite a few along with him.
read about the "frozen chosin" sometime.
EDIT:
You responded after I posted but I hardly think the chinese stopped the Marines at the Chosin. THis is a huge part of Marine Corps history when Chesty puller bloodied the nose of an army that was nearly 12 times his size. Grunts and cooks alike were fighting with dropped army equipment because they couldnt be resupplied. Walking wounded were joining the line. The Marines were fighting on all sides yet the situation was at hand.
I hardly feel them boys were stopped in any way.....even if they were it took an army 10 times there size to do so.
My biggest question through all of this is why didn't the US go to war with China if we were fighting her troops in Korea?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
However, even when the defense was particualrly active, the story seemed to come down to our superior tactics and firepower vs teh Chinese' sheer numbers. While superior tactics and firepower can certainly kick the baddies' tushies, those numbers mean that any mistake can be punished mercilessly. The US Army in particular did not have its current polish, and even during the aggressive advance phase was pretty sloppy -- according to the marines who were there, not my interpretation. During Chosin, the nearby army units were essentially wiped out while the marines made their epic fighting withdrawal.
Well, it really should be it's own thread.
The NK's, which had pinned 8th Army in the Pusan perimeter in ~ 6 weeks from their initial invasion of the South, couldn't "close the deal".
However, MacArthur's 15 Sep 1950 Inchon landing pretty much reversed the way the war was going in short order. The "breakout" from Pusan commenced the next day and by 1 October.... 2 short weeks.... ROK I Corps is across the 38th parallel. By Oct 7 ROK II Corps is across the 38th; by 9 Oct 8th Army is across the 38th.
So as far as that goes, Inchon stands as a masterful stroke.
Then on Oct 25, the CCF jumps in because the NK's are essentially toast. The CCF did indeed come in huge numbers. They pretty much destroyed 2nd Inf Div as it covered the 8th Army withdrawal. Now was the Army so much inferior to the Marines? I don't know. You tell me how the Marines would have fared had they traded places with 2nd Inf Div.
The point, however, is that the massive invasion by CCF was halted and completely reversed by 18 Feb when the CCF withdrew along the entire central front. By 31 March, UN Forces are again on the 38th parallel. This while MacArthur still held command; in fact, UN Forces were about 10 miles North of the 38th with the Chinese still in a fighting retreat when MacArthur was removed from command on 11 April.
The Chinese and NK's made one more Spring Offensive and Van Fleet, commanding 8th Army made them pay a horrendous price for it. He then attacked and pushed the NK/CCF back past the Wyoming line, more then 10 miles North of the 38th. Van Fleet was ordered to halt offensive operations there. You can read Van Fleet's opinion of that order in a few places around the 'net.
...embittered by the strategy of limited war in Korea followed by the Truman administration and then by Eisenhower's administration, Van Fleet relinquished his command of the Eighth Army in February 1953, and two months later retired from the Army. On his return to the United States, he sparked controversy by charging that he had been denied the opportunity to achieve total victory in Korea by political decisions in Washington, D.C., and by the failure of Washington to provide him with adequate quantities of ammunition.
To sum up, here's what you said the caused me to post:
I seem to remember that the Chinese Army stopped "MacArthur's boys" more effectively than Truman ever could...
Army and Marine elements were practically spittin in the Yalu (hmmm... sounds like a classic big band tune....) after chasing the NKs up country. When the chinese came in, it was like trying to hold back water with your fingers.
MacArthur was blinded by his egotism, and sucked quite a few along with him.
[/b]
1. MacArthur, after reeling back under the initial huge Chinese onslaught, reversed the situation (again) and had pushed the Chinese and NK's back North of the 38th parallel in a little over three months, inflicting incredible casualties on the Chinese. Pretty amazing, really. At least IMO.
2. While there's no doubt 2nd Inf Div was sacrificed to save 8th Army, the withdrawal itself, including the Marines at Chosin was pretty well done considering the size of the Chinese forces.
3. MacArthur, from Inchon to the repulse of the Chinese back past the 38th did a pretty masterful job with the forces he was given. There is no doubt the US was completely unprepared for the Korean War; troops were green and supplies were hard to come by at first.
Slam him all you like, but there's a lot of folks, military historians included, that think Mac did a masterful tactical job in Korea.
And as to the idea that the US/UN forces got whipped.... well, battles were lost for sure. But the war was won and if one compares casualties it's clear the US/UN did WAY better than the NK/CCF.
-
Yes we were really kicking the Red's butts. I think the only reason we didn't push on or use the bomb was that if we were to threaten the very existence of NK the Soviets would probably have gotten directly involved (overtly). And the Soviets had the bomb too.
Hi btw. I'm FalconSix :) I've been following your discussions for the last few months. Great forum you've got here despite the recent problems.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
On another note the reporters that have gone into NK have reported that there is an erie lack of elderly in the country
Hmm...
Lack of elderly....shortage of food ---> Soylent Green !
-
I think they must be pretty hungry over there...
http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboPOTATOPRIDE.html
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
read about the "frozen chosin" sometime.
EDIT:
You responded after I posted but I hardly think the chinese stopped the Marines at the Chosin. THis is a huge part of Marine Corps history when Chesty puller bloodied the nose of an army that was nearly 12 times his size. Grunts and cooks alike were fighting with dropped army equipment because they couldnt be resupplied. Walking wounded were joining the line. The Marines were fighting on all sides yet the situation was at hand.
I hardly feel them boys were stopped in any way.....even if they were it took an army 10 times there size to do so.
My biggest question through all of this is why didn't the US go to war with China if we were fighting her troops in Korea?
I think we're talking about semantic differences. There's no doubt that the US forces fought better, more efficiently, and more lethally than the CCF. In that sense, they weren't beaten by any means.
However, in terms of overall battlefield outcomes, the Chinese hordes took the ground. The Marines fought brilliantly, and I wouldnt call them defeated at Chosin -- except in the battle field sense of who held the ground at the end of the day.
And that's the sense that I think the US would have had troubel winning the Korean War. With supply lines short for us and long for them, we knocked them around. If we tried to penetrate into NK -- with its poor infrastructure -- our higher tech forces would have suffered disproportionately to the CHines, whose troops had less, needed less, and would have had progressively shorter supply distances.
MacArthur ordered his men to move broadly, pell-mell to the NK/China border without attending to basics like flank protection, interlocking coverage, and lines of retreat. Despite clear rumblings of PRC concern, and clear indications of possible intervention, MacArthur acted based on what he THOUGHT his enemy would do rather than what his enemy WAS CAPABLE of doing. There are few principles of command more basic than that -- and he failed by that measure (jsut as he did in the Phillipines.)His troop management and disposition let the PRC drive us backwards; if he advanced into NK with enemy capabilities in mind, the border would now be in a different place.
And hang -- what is it with you?
"Whitewash?"
"Dodgeball?"
"Ignorance?"
Ad hominem attacks generally are the mark of intellectual poverty, dude. Take a look at Toad's and Gunslinger's posts to see how discussion's supposed to happen...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
if he advanced into NK with enemy capabilities in mind, the border would now be in a different place.
I doubt it. Van Fleet was more than 10 miles North of the 38th when ordered to halt offensive operations. Van Fleet felt he could have advanced further too. Note that after the truce, the dividing line was still the 38th.
Was it Mac's misunderstanding of enemy capabilities or Mac's misunderstanding of Washington's support? There's evidence that Mac thought he was in a "total war" with Washington's full support, which obviously was not the case.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I doubt it. Van Fleet was more than 10 miles North of the 38th when ordered to halt offensive operations. Van Fleet felt he could have advanced further too. Note that after the truce, the dividing line was still the 38th.
Was it Mac's misunderstanding of enemy capabilities or Mac's misunderstanding of Washington's support? There's evidence that Mac thought he was in a "total war" with Washington's full support, which obviously was not the case.
Yeah, after the lines had "stabilized" not much was going to change. I'm not sure about the total war idea -- I'm sure Mac wanted total war, being an old far east hand with a soft spot for the NAtionalists, but I dont know that anybody told him to expect that. And total war or not, those troop lines during the advance were pretty vulnerable reagrdless of the degree of political committment.
I was thinking that if the advancing US forces after the brilliant amphibious landing (kudos to Mac there!) had been mutaully supporting instead of strung out without regard to flanks, the stabilized lines would be farther north than they are. The horde might have been blunted and weathered without the rapid initial southward moves.
WHoo knows...
-
LOL!
"semantics"
ROFL!
-
Van Fleet didn't want to "stabilize" the lines when he was at line Wyoming. His position was that it was time to drive the enemy all the way to the Yalu and he thought he could do it. He was restrained by Washinton through Ridgway.
My comment with regard to total war is that I think Mac felt he would be given complete support and all necessary weapons/tactics. For example, I think he was very suprised when he was denied permission to have fighters pursue MiGs across the Yalu. He knew what needed to be done to win and he was a guy that believed there was "no substitute for victory". MacArthur had the agreement of President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take over the whole of North Korea. However, they did not agree to his suggestions of bombing China, including use of the atomic bomb.
-
As I understand it, the reason we couldn't really use nukes, or even take out NK was the USSR. Stalin was still a force to be recond with and they did have the bomb as well. Further, going after China too would likely have drawn the very potent Red Army into it on the side of China and NK.
We'd have been looking at the possibility of WWIII a mere decade after finishing WWII.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL!
"semantics"
ROFL!
Try reading more than one word, and the discussion might make some sense to you hang...
Originially posted by Simaril
I think we're talking about semantic differences. There's no doubt that the US forces fought better, more efficiently, and more lethally than the CCF. In that sense, they weren't beaten by any means.
However, in terms of overall battlefield outcomes, the Chinese hordes took the ground.
Again I ask, what is it with you? We're talking about history, and you're stuck at the "I'll make fun of you" level?
-
In the interest of keeping it 'civil' I deleted before posting the usual line by line debunking of both your comments on the korean war as well as your usual whitewash dodge when called to the facts by Toad & Guns.
However that one word.. 'semantics' with regards to the cold hard historical facts struck me as funny... and noteworthy as such.
Now, had you just said "I was unaware of those facts, and in that light my previous understanding of the Korean Conflict was in error.." possibly I woulda gone a different route. Instead you chose to slap on some more whitewash yet again and then yah whipped out yer trusty 'semantics' dodge.
Still, I shoulda let it all slide.. hell; any time I get to watch pompus postulations not tied to credible data with your moniker above it gettin shot down in flames is a good one for me... especially when other posters get it done better (and far more politely) than I can.
So, I apologise for the gloating goad further up thread. It was wrong and small minded of me. Really, I should know better. I'll reflect on this when I cash my intellectual bankruptcy welfare check. (from commentary you editied out of your previous post)
And on that note.. ta ta!
-
I gotta confess, I'm a little confused, Hang -- I jsut dont see the whitewash you're complaining about. I was thinking in terms of ground covered, as I said. There isnt any other way to look at the "cold historical facts" and deny that the Chinese took ground back from MacArthur, or there simply wouldnt be any NK today. In that sense, he was stopped.
Toad et al are correct in that the US forces killed more enemy and were per man more effective.
The "what if" questions are not clear cut; committed US political will vs. CCF incessant human waves is a topic for alternative history, and an interesting one.
So I'm wondering where the pompous postulations not tied to data come in...
To be honest, I still see nothing but ad hominem mockery from you, completely avoiding the actual discussion while you pretend to be more informed...
-
I've thought about what you guys have said, and after re-reading my posts I guess I can see where Hang is coming from. At the time of my original admittedly flip comment I honestly only had the time of the Chinese incursion in mind, not at all thinking about later in the war. In terms of what I had in mind, the statement was reasonable -- and I stand by the idea that the ChiCom "stopped " US forces at that time. One doesn't "sacrifice" divisions if one isnt being "stopped" after all....
What I wrote didnt make that mindset at all clear, and I can see where hang thought my clarification was dodging. I know it wasnt, because I know what I had in mind at the time -- but I could see where he got the idea. He chose to assume I was lying, "whitewashing," or whatever, and I guess that's his perogative.
My reading on the late war has honestly been limited to the Pork Chop Hill battle. I can see that grinding test of wills woudl have been different if political considerations allowed US forces to go after the bases of attack; without that ability the story too often degenerates into "hide in our bunkers and call artillery down on our own positions."
As Hang suggested, I'll freely admit that I wasnt aware of the late war "red headed stepchild" phase.
If I'm ever pompous or arrogant on these boards, call me on it -- it is never my intent. I learn a lot here, and I come in contact with people and ideas that I never would otherwise. (I'm in a smaller town and dotn really know wny local aviation or military history buffs.) Course, it's all a lot more enjoyable when it stays civil and respectful.