Last time USA was an underdog

[ginscpy]

War of 1812

 

[blastoff]

Battle of the Bulge

 

[tonystewart1]

It depends on the situation. The US is good at its own kind of warfare. Heavy machinery, heavy bombs, lots of air support. We can muster the industrial might to out produce an ememy.

Guerilla warfare does not seem to be our cup of tea. Although we can outlast about any reisistance if the US public can stomach the casulty list.

 

[whitehall]

Battle of the Bulge

The Allies already won the War. The Ardennes offensive aka the Bulge was a last desperate effort that was doomed to fail. Ike knew the war was over and let the Troops relax for a while. It was Dec. 16 and everyone was talking about being home for Christmas. You could say that the Battle of the Bulge was the worst intelligence failure in history but you can never say that Allies were the underdogs.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Battle of the Bulge

The Allies already won the War. The Ardennes offensive aka the Bulge was a last desperate effort that was doomed to fail. Ike knew the war was over and let the Troops relax for a while. It was Dec. 16 and everyone was talking about being home for Christmas. You could say that the Battle of the Bulge was the worst intelligence failure in history but you can never say that Allies were the underdogs.

Obviously in the grand scheme of things the allies had the upper hand in the war-but for that one particular battle? No, we weren't.

 

[whitehall]

Battle of the Bulge

The Allies already won the War. The Ardennes offensive aka the Bulge was a last desperate effort that was doomed to fail. Ike knew the war was over and let the Troops relax for a while. It was Dec. 16 and everyone was talking about being home for Christmas. You could say that the Battle of the Bulge was the worst intelligence failure in history but you can never say that Allies were the underdogs.

Obviously in the grand scheme of things the allies had the upper hand in the war-but for that one particular battle? No, we weren't.

The post concerned the USA as a nation. There were battles where Americans were the underdogs. Marines were the underdogs in the entire Pacific war. Guadalcanal was so risky it could be said that it was foolhardy but Marines pulled it off even though a Navy Admiral chickened out and left them stranded without food or supplies. Pop-history has convinced people that Iwo Jima was worth it so all those crippled bombers would have a place to land but I don't buy it for a number of reasons.Who in their right mind would trade 7,000 Marines killed in a month of fighting for a smelly island that could have and should have been bypassed? People who didn't know how well fortified the Japanese were or people who didn't care. The initial mission for taking Iwo Jima stated that was to keep Japanese fighter planes form harassing bombers on the way to Japan. The mission was changed after the administration learned how many Marine lives the island cost. Next thing you know crippled bombers were diverted to Iwo Jima and the war department said it was worth it.

 

[dilloduck]

and AFTER the war everyone praised the Allies for killing minorities. Too bad that wasn't the mission.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The Allies already won the War. The Ardennes offensive aka the Bulge was a last desperate effort that was doomed to fail. Ike knew the war was over and let the Troops relax for a while. It was Dec. 16 and everyone was talking about being home for Christmas. You could say that the Battle of the Bulge was the worst intelligence failure in history but you can never say that Allies were the underdogs.

Obviously in the grand scheme of things the allies had the upper hand in the war-but for that one particular battle? No, we weren't.

The post concerned the USA as a nation. There were battles where Americans were the underdogs. Marines were the underdogs in the entire Pacific war. Guadalcanal was so risky it could be said that it was foolhardy but Marines pulled it off even though a Navy Admiral chickened out and left them stranded without food or supplies. Pop-history has convinced people that Iwo Jima was worth it so all those crippled bombers would have a place to land but I don't buy it for a number of reasons.Who in their right mind would trade 7,000 Marines killed in a month of fighting for a smelly island that could have and should have been bypassed? People who didn't know how well fortified the Japanese were or people who didn't care. The initial mission for taking Iwo Jima stated that was to keep Japanese fighter planes form harassing bombers on the way to Japan. The mission was changed after the administration learned how many Marine lives the island cost. Next thing you know crippled bombers were diverted to Iwo Jima and the war department said it was worth it.

Went over my head I guess

 

[whitehall]

Obviously in the grand scheme of things the allies had the upper hand in the war-but for that one particular battle? No, we weren't.

The post concerned the USA as a nation. There were battles where Americans were the underdogs. Marines were the underdogs in the entire Pacific war. Guadalcanal was so risky it could be said that it was foolhardy but Marines pulled it off even though a Navy Admiral chickened out and left them stranded without food or supplies. Pop-history has convinced people that Iwo Jima was worth it so all those crippled bombers would have a place to land but I don't buy it for a number of reasons.Who in their right mind would trade 7,000 Marines killed in a month of fighting for a smelly island that could have and should have been bypassed? People who didn't know how well fortified the Japanese were or people who didn't care. The initial mission for taking Iwo Jima stated that was to keep Japanese fighter planes form harassing bombers on the way to Japan. The mission was changed after the administration learned how many Marine lives the island cost. Next thing you know crippled bombers were diverted to Iwo Jima and the war department said it was worth it.

Went over my head I guess

I'm not trying to put you down james. You had a reasonable argument. I'm only trying to get people interested in real history rather than the propaganda we have been fed for the last half century.

 

[ginscpy]

The post concerned the USA as a nation. There were battles where Americans were the underdogs. Marines were the underdogs in the entire Pacific war. Guadalcanal was so risky it could be said that it was foolhardy but Marines pulled it off even though a Navy Admiral chickened out and left them stranded without food or supplies. Pop-history has convinced people that Iwo Jima was worth it so all those crippled bombers would have a place to land but I don't buy it for a number of reasons.Who in their right mind would trade 7,000 Marines killed in a month of fighting for a smelly island that could have and should have been bypassed? People who didn't know how well fortified the Japanese were or people who didn't care. The initial mission for taking Iwo Jima stated that was to keep Japanese fighter planes form harassing bombers on the way to Japan. The mission was changed after the administration learned how many Marine lives the island cost. Next thing you know crippled bombers were diverted to Iwo Jima and the war department said it was worth it.

Thats exactly what I was talking about in my original post. The entire wars in their totality - not any particular battle.

I ' m not even sure America was that huge an underdog in the War Of 1812 - the Brits were preoccupied with Napolean (our ally) in Europe.

 

[ginscpy]

America would have been an underdog if the Soviets had tried to take over all of Europe at the end of WW2.

Nothing could have prevented them from driving to the English channel - 5 million battle-hardened soldiers. (not even the A Bomb)

Patton was blowing smoke up his ass...................

 

[editec]

War of 1812

Viet Nam.