The last starfighter is a fun movie, but it’s less of a controller than it is an Arcade game.
Great article marc!
LOL Things the American Military has tried to make
-
Malachi Crunch: Do you think working on the Gay Bomb rubbed off on the creator and the Authorities feared all of America might go gay before its use on the enemy and so cancelled it?
I would rather not look in to it, just in case! -
Wife: “what are you doing today darling?”
Inventor : “working on a Gay Bomb. Don’t wait up!” -
Kasserine pass was equally as embarrassing for the Americans. Â Probably worse considering they had proper air support, and it wasn’t even an amphibious assault.
Simple. To compare military disasters you got to compare the aggregate total of loses as a % of force committed in order to make sense.
If you had 1 million men and lost 150K vs. 30k and lost 10K the second was worse as a percentage of loses.
So it’s the ‘metrics’ of comparing % of total force lost in battle.
[edited by GG] For example, in Iraq, a Lieutenant sends out a recon party in a humvee, 3 enlisted men and a medic - and they get ambushed by a suicide bomber. Everyone dies.
Is the Lieutenant now the WORST commander that ever lived? Because he had a 100% casualty rating?
-
You know what else is interesting?
CAPTURED is considered for all intensive and historical purposes a CASUALTY. Of the 6100 Canadians at dieppe, about 1200 were killed, and 2000 Captured, for casualties around 3200.
Take a look at the American performance in the defence of the phillipines.
American Strength = About 151,000
Casualties and losses = 146,000
It’s military DISASTER we are talking about after all, isn’t it?
That’s a way bigger failure than Dieppe, or Gallipoli, in terms of %.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 26, 2012, 2:25 AM Sep 25, 2012, 3:53 PM
This is a really dumb methodology. � For example, in Iraq, a Lieutenant sends out a recon party in a humvee, 3 enlisted men and a medic - and they get ambushed by a suicide bomber. Everyone dies.
I knew insane, off the wall examples would be presented. I guess i won my bet. That is not a battle [edited by GG]. We are talking about Historical battles in History. You just disagree with anything i say [edited by GG].
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 3:58 PM
CAPTURED is considered for all intensive and historical purposes a CASUALTY. Of the 6100 Canadians at dieppe, about 1200 were killed, and 2000 Captured, for casualties around 3200.
Funny that you deliberately left out the British figures to make a weak argument look plausible.
Singapore was another British disaster, far worse than Philippines.
-
85,000 surrendered?
Not 150,000…
-
Speaking of losing battles,
Is calling me names on a regular basis your only method of response?
And why did you come into this thread JUST to derail it?
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 4:12 PM
Malayan Campaign. Another unmitigated disaster for UK.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 4:14 PM
85,000 surrendered?
Not 150,000…
100% OF FORCE LOST. It is the worst if we allow captured POW as loses. See how that works?
-
So you acknowledge then that you were WRONG earlier? About Dieppe and Gallipoli?
-
Casualties are not the most important thing; meeting the objective is. For example, the Vietnamese took many more casualties than the Americans, but it was the Americans who lost that war.
-
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL. That’s the point I made.
Choosing Malaya, or the Phillinpines as the best or worst, or whatever is irrelevant.
The methodology is bad. As bad as the name calling.
You’ve also derailed this thread. Feel free to apologize.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 4:33 PM
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL.
You didn’t clarify anything, instead i used your example against you. You can’t compare losses in battle by just identifying how many, because the battles have different numbers.
But you CAN identify total % of force lost to compare them. Singapore was a 100% force lost.
Yep clear winner…me LOL
-
IL… you’re running circles around yourself.
On one hand you are saying that Gallipoli (59% casualty rate) was not as bad as Dieppe (40 or so % casualty rate).
but that based solely on % Malya(100%) was worse than the Phillinies (97%), without acknowledging that Gallipoli (59%) or Dieppe(40% or so) wasn’t as bad as either of the afformentioned.
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?You’re wrong on either count, and likely both. Congratulations.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 30, 2012, 2:05 PM Sep 25, 2012, 4:58 PM
On one hand you are saying that Gallipoli (59% casualty rate) was not as bad as Dieppe (40 or so % casualty rate).
but that based solely on % Malya(100%) was worse than the Phillinies (97%), without acknowledging that Gallipoli (59%) or Dieppe(40% or so) wasn’t as bad as either of the afformentioned.
…… you’re running circles around yourself.
Why do you even post?[edited by GG]
aforementioned not afformentioned.
Another foot stuck in that fat mouth.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 5:04 PM Sep 25, 2012, 5:02 PM
So D-day was a failure because it had >0% casualties compared to a commando raid of 4 guys who accomplish their mission with no casualties.
They sent “4 guys” to Dieppe? OK
The British navy lost at least 3 front line battleships in Gallipoli compared to a destroyer in Dieppe, now does that work on % of forces lost?
British lost like 100 planes too. Compare that.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
-
It is all a matter of perspective and overall picture. It can not be a % of causlties. Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them and they took very little casualties percent wise vs the Americans and Hawiian Populas. They failed their first objective of sinking the US Carriers. They achieved the Second objective in crippling the US Pacific fleet although they failed to eliminate it. The Completely failed their third objective which was to destroy the shipyard/dry docks which could be used to repair/refit/rearm the entire US Pacific forces. The last failure was in the Imperial govenrment failing to declare war soon enough which Unified All of North America Againt them.
-
Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10last edited by Sep 25, 2012, 5:21 PM
Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them
Military disaster for Japan? Surely not.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
-
@Imperious:
Look at the Japanese Strike on Pearl Harbor. It was a complete disaster for them
Military disaster for Japan? Surely not.
I am only talking about total men in battle and total loses of men in terms of % of committed force. Thats it.
And your still wrong LOL!
You won’t answer the question:
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?Your fear of admitting when you’re wrong is laughable. And this “fat” mouth has got you cornered.
Suggested Topics
