Author Topic: Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment  (Read 3772 times)

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #105 on: September 14, 2005, 03:10:49 PM »
Germans.  It was the germans who helped us.  The french did nothing.

Well, nothing except for give us a german to teach us.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #106 on: September 14, 2005, 03:19:14 PM »
of course yu don't agree about vouchers and probly despise home schooling... I doubt that there are many things we agree on at all.

back to the militia... if you agree with the first part of what I said... then you should probly first understand it.   I did not say that a standing army was not needed only that the militia killed british troops in an (for then) uncomventional manner.. I said that they fled not that they were useless... I said that they were considered to be cowards by the regular british troops (the losers)... they killed more british soldiers than the brits killed of them... I say that under the circumstances I would have fled too.  I meant it... it was the smart thing to do and the right use of resources..

they didn't allways flee tho... I forget the battle  some of you probly know... Washington asked them (the militia) to stand their ground for two shots... he impressed on them that it would actually be a good thing and was necessary... they believed him and stood their ground... for two volleys... by then most of em couldn't jam a bullet down the fouled barrel without first cleaning it but... they stood their ground and the battle was won.

the brits were wrong... standing upright and taking volleys and having a professional army of lousy shots (yep they were lousy shots) lousy because they had lousy (inaccurate) rifles and lousy cause they didn't train as riflemen but more as volley throwers..  

the miiltia felt that if you could kill a redcoat from a distance and cover and then run away.... you could kill another one some other time.  I find no flaw in this way of thinking given the resources of the militia.

fast forward to the civil war and every war since... just like the militia... the soldiers that came from the gun culture were crack shots... they may still need to be trained as soldiers but they didn't need to be trained to shoot.   The nation of riflemen idea has allways produced competent foot soldiers who hit what they aim at.  

You admit that rifle skills take many hours (most would say years and thousands of rounds) yet... most armies have very little time or inclination to train competent shots...  The citizen of the gun culture is still valuable..

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #107 on: September 14, 2005, 03:19:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I did not say they were different occasions so your jab there remains pointless.

they inflicted a 10 to 1 causualty ratio on the british troops during the course of the fight.  Not quite worthless.

BTW, what is your point to this hijack anyways?  Are you trying to negate the 2nd by spewing some dubious and irrelevent semi-factoids?


Dont forget the battle of Bunker hill that occurred afterwards in which That Militia got kicked out of Boston. I will admit it was a pyrhic victory for the Brits but Militia was unable to hold them off.

So you have 1 victory that was quickly beaten back. Can't really call it a victory if you can't hold on to it.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2005, 03:21:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Germans.  It was the germans who helped us.  The french did nothing.

Well, nothing except for give us a german to teach us.


Please step away from the computer and go pick up a book.

The Hessians were British Mercenaries. The french helped us big time.

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2005, 03:25:18 PM »
Again they inflicted massive casualties on the British and helped dispell the mith of British superiority.  There is more than one way to win and the militia was a major part of it whether you like it or not.

The facts remain that the colonies won their independence.  You can try to demean that all you want but history is not something that can be changed except of course if its a matter of your own mind.  You have a minor point on milita members not standing to fight the British toe to toe but they won in the end and thats what matters.


Again,  whats your point?

The hessians were german mercenaries.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2005, 03:27:28 PM »
"Ummm no he didn't. He just barely managed to keep his army alive long enough for the french to come to our rescue."

so your arguement is that he managed to win enough to win the war?

I was taught that the french were waiting to see if we had a chance of winning before they would step in.... they had their own problems... They didn't jump in till the war was about won.

Any way you look at it.... a nation of riflemen defeated the greatest standing army the world had ever seen.... or, at least the portion of it that fought us.

By the time the french came... the brits barely had a toehold in the colonies.  They had lost a most of the land they occupied and a lot of their army.   Defeats were more common for them not less toward the end.

But... like I said... I can't believe that there is anything about America that you and I would agree on... the South successfully seceeded from the union because of differences that could not be reconciled... perhaps there is no point in us trying to get along..  It might be time for the U.S. to split into a couple of nations.

lazs

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2005, 03:31:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
of course yu don't agree about vouchers and probly despise home schooling... I doubt that there are many things we agree on at all.

back to the militia... if you agree with the first part of what I said... then you should probly first understand it.   I did not say that a standing army was not needed only that the militia killed british troops in an (for then) uncomventional manner.. I said that they fled not that they were useless... I said that they were considered to be cowards by the regular british troops (the losers)... they killed more british soldiers than the brits killed of them... I say that under the circumstances I would have fled too.  I meant it... it was the smart thing to do and the right use of resources..

they didn't allways flee tho... I forget the battle  some of you probly know... Washington asked them (the militia) to stand their ground for two shots... he impressed on them that it would actually be a good thing and was necessary... they believed him and stood their ground... for two volleys... by then most of em couldn't jam a bullet down the fouled barrel without first cleaning it but... they stood their ground and the battle was won.

the brits were wrong... standing upright and taking volleys and having a professional army of lousy shots (yep they were lousy shots) lousy because they had lousy (inaccurate) rifles and lousy cause they didn't train as riflemen but more as volley throwers..  

the miiltia felt that if you could kill a redcoat from a distance and cover and then run away.... you could kill another one some other time.  I find no flaw in this way of thinking given the resources of the militia.

fast forward to the civil war and every war since... just like the militia... the soldiers that came from the gun culture were crack shots... they may still need to be trained as soldiers but they didn't need to be trained to shoot.   The nation of riflemen idea has allways produced competent foot soldiers who hit what they aim at.  

You admit that rifle skills take many hours (most would say years and thousands of rounds) yet... most armies have very little time or inclination to train competent shots...  The citizen of the gun culture is still valuable..


I have no problem with any of that. Like I said your statement on the founding fathers beliefs regarding the Militia are Wrong. And that is why I entered into this. It had nothing to do with the civil war.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2005, 03:34:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Again they inflicted massive casualties on the British and helped dispell the mith of British superiority.  There is more than one way to win and the militia was a major part of it whether you like it or not.

The facts remain that the colonies won their independence.  You can try to demean that all you want but history is not something that can be changed except of course if its a matter of your own mind.  You have a minor point on milita members not standing to fight the British toe to toe but they won in the end and thats what matters.


Again,  whats your point?

The hessians were german mercenaries.


I dont call 200 casulties massive. Maybe you do.

I only entered because lasz was wrong about the founding fathers thinking the Militia was the best defense for this country.

For the Hessians I meant they were employed to be British Mercenaries as although they were from the land that is currently Germany, Germany was not yet a country. They were Hessians not Germans.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2005, 03:35:41 PM »
The idea that miltiamen didn't enlist in and make up a large part of the Continental army is delusional.

On June 14 the Continental Congress essentially “adopted” these 20-odd thousand New England colonial milita forces around Boston and created “the American continental army".

Yeah, they required more training to fight in the "conventional" 18th Century manner... stand in lines and get your bellybutton shot off.... but they fought quite well unconventionally. It's one of the lessons Washington himself learned as a Virginia militia man fighting with the British against the Native Americans.

The evidence is there and you look pretty uninformed in your denials.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2005, 03:39:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
"Ummm no he didn't. He just barely managed to keep his army alive long enough for the french to come to our rescue."

so your arguement is that he managed to win enough to win the war?

I was taught that the french were waiting to see if we had a chance of winning before they would step in.... they had their own problems... They didn't jump in till the war was about won.

Any way you look at it.... a nation of riflemen defeated the greatest standing army the world had ever seen.... or, at least the portion of it that fought us.

By the time the french came... the brits barely had a toehold in the colonies.  They had lost a most of the land they occupied and a lot of their army.   Defeats were more common for them not less toward the end.

But... like I said... I can't believe that there is anything about America that you and I would agree on... the South successfully seceeded from the union because of differences that could not be reconciled... perhaps there is no point in us trying to get along..  It might be time for the U.S. to split into a couple of nations.

lazs


He fought a war of attrition that he might not have won if not for french help.

French entered openely after yorktown. Prior to that they were supplying us with war materials.

Take a guess why the Brits couldnt put all their forces into North America to defeat us....say it with me, they were over-extended because they were fighting all over the world. Thanks mainly to France. We had no navy to speak of and no way to stretch out the Brits military. The French were indispensible in helping with that.

The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them and were forced back into the union. A victory that is temporary is really not much of a victory at all.

Like I said the only reason I got in here is because of you and the founding father remark. Care to adress that?

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2005, 03:45:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them and were forced back into the union. A victory that is temporary is really not much of a victory at all.

 


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
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2005, 03:50:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
I dont call 200 casulties massive. Maybe you do.

I only entered because lasz was wrong about the founding fathers thinking the Militia was the best defense for this country.

For the Hessians I meant they were employed to be British Mercenaries as although they were from the land that is currently Germany, Germany was not yet a country. They were Hessians not Germans.


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.

Offline Edbert

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
      • http://www.edbert.net
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2005, 03:55:49 PM »
Consider this analogy:
Continental Army = NVA
Militia = Viet Cong

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2005, 03:57:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
The idea that miltiamen didn't enlist in and make up a large part of the Continental army is delusional.

On June 14 the Continental Congress essentially “adopted” these 20-odd thousand New England colonial milita forces around Boston and created “the American continental army".

Yeah, they required more training to fight in the "conventional" 18th Century manner... stand in lines and get your bellybutton shot off.... but they fought quite well unconventionally. It's one of the lessons Washington himself learned as a Virginia militia man fighting with the British against the Native Americans.

The evidence is there and you look pretty uninformed in your denials.


LOL please quote me where I said "NO miltia were in the Continental army" You didnt because  I didnt say it. Nice try strawman.

I am talking militia units, which I maintain were next to worthless, Not Continental Army units. You do know the difference correct???
I have already said that CA did recruit out of the Militia. The CA was no formidable force by any means.

As for the New England Militia Here is what GW said about them

"New Englanders strike me as exceedingly dirty and nasty people characterized by an unaccountable kind of stupidity and lack of discipline"

Hey since your history is so good, why don't you tell me what happened to that 20,000 strong militia? I already know but maybe you dont.

"While establishing discipline in the existing army, Washington had at the same time to form a new one enlisted directly in the Continental service. Out of conferences with a Congressional committee that visited camp in September 1775 emerged a plan for such an army, composed of 26 regiments of infantry of 728 men each, plus one regiment of riflemen and one of artillery, 20,372 men in all, to be uniformly paid, supplied, and administered by the Continental Congress and enlisted to the end of the year 1776. Except for the short term of enlistment, it was an excellent plan on paper, but Washington soon found he could not carry it out. Both officers and men resisted a reorganization that cut across the lines of the locally organized units in which they were accustomed to serve. The men saw as their first obligation their families and farms at home, and they were reluctant to re-enlist for another year's service. 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. Others, who had jeered and hooted when the Connecticut men left, also went home when their enlistment expired only three weeks later. On January 1, 1776, when the army became "Continental in every respect," Washington found that he had only slightly more than 8,000 enlistments instead of the 20,000 planned"

8000 instead of 20000. That is a huge difference. Like I said militia couldn't be counted on for anything and the French are more responsible for the creation of this country than the militia are.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2005, 03:59:17 PM »
raider come on.... you know you backed yourself into a corner...the second amendment was put there so that we would allways have a nation of riflemen to draw on and that has allways been a huge plus.   The militia had a very large part in defeating the british and harrassing them.   We could not have won without the militia.... especially if it was as close as you say (and I agree with you there).

We had no time to train and raise an army nor the money and resources to do so... this you must admit... With so little training... even the regular troops would have been far less effective in a nation that forbade men to keep and bear arms..  that is just the way it was.

Everyone was strained with enemies... the brits the french and the Amercian rebels... so what?   by the time the french got involved it was pretty much a done deal.   Yes... they did supply arms but... That is allways the case and has nothing to do with the militia issue.  The brits were defeated by a largely untrained and under supplied and outnumbered army of patriots... the british lost every battle that counted and spent a lot of effort in countering the militia that would have been used against the American army regulars.

The second amendment recognizes that a nation of riflemen is vital for defense against enemies both foriegn and domestic and it has been probven time and again that it was a sound concept.

The south did indeed suceed from the union and quite successfully... they were forced by strength of arms to return... they were a defeated nation... if not... then why were the generals and soldiers accorded the rights of enemy soldiers and not terrorists?  Even Lee (and many otheres) waited till their states declared for the Union or the confederacy before they joined the fight so as not to be considered traitors.

Another succesful secession was that of north and south virginia... ironicaly enough... the south allowed it to go in peace.

lazs