What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Trump says Robert E Lee would have won in Afghanistan

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
3,669
Points
938
The Civil War line would've shot dead Napoleon's men at 200 yards, way before Napoleon's men reached effective range. Also, Civil War rifles had a bit better rate of fire than Napoleonic muskets.

It's stupid to say 50 against 200.

So now you want to change the subject? Where did I say 'Napoleon's men'? Clearly you know you're full of shit. Massing firepower is what it was all about, and it doesn't matter what the era. It's stupid not to admit who would win.
 

Sinajuavi

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
794
Points
908
They cut that statue up...destroying it. These leftists....they are so destructive....they won't stop with the statues...on to destroying the US and the world.
Oh boo hoo civilization will fall because a statue of a Confederat treasonous arsehole and mediocre general was destroyed.

Robert E. Lee was a traitor and a pig. Anyone crying over the removal of his statues is likewise.
 

Sinajuavi

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
794
Points
908
Good Gawd...the communists and their stupidity.
Lee was a brilliant tactician. Respected both in the South and North.
The North had more money and more men and more importantly more ships to block the south from getting supplies. The NORTH had the army before the war---the South had to build theirs after. Even still with all of this, without the potatoe famine in Ireland forcing their people to leave and the North forcing them into the military as soon as they arrived, the North would lost. The tiny little south did quit well under Lee.
The North won at Gettysburg because of Lee's inept leadership. Lee was clever at moving troops around and keeping his evil cause alive for several years longer than otherwise... but he proved at Gettysburg to be nothing like the image Southern traitors maintain of him as a genius, a great guy, and all that.

He was a nasty schmuck and a traitor responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
 

Sinajuavi

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
794
Points
908
Good Gawd...the communists and their stupidity.
Lee was a brilliant tactician. Respected both in the South and North.
The North had more money and more men and more importantly more ships to block the south from getting supplies. The NORTH had the army before the war---the South had to build theirs after. Even still with all of this, without the potatoe famine in Ireland forcing their people to leave and the North forcing them into the military as soon as they arrived, the North would lost. The tiny little south did quit well under Lee.
But... it all turned out well in the end. The evil South lost, the treasonous Confederats were smashed, and today we're having to repeat the narrative, a lot of Yankees moving into Virginia to turn the state blue and turn it away from the treasonous stance advocated by the resident white-right Southerners.

The South loses, loses, and loses again. It's an ongoing process.
 

Sinajuavi

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
794
Points
908
even Abe Lincoln hated blacks, though he thought they should be free

Frederick Douglass pointed this out more than once
And... so what?

Lincoln saved the Union and caused the abolition of slavery. Works for me.
 

Calypso Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
4,241
Reaction score
5,050
Points
1,938
sinajuavi said:
Robert E. Lee was a traitor and a pig. Anyone crying over the removal of his statues is likewise.

You don't know what you're talking about, bud. What are you so angry about?
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
54,143
Reaction score
28,184
Points
2,645
even Abe Lincoln hated blacks, though he thought they should be free

Frederick Douglass pointed this out more than once
Lincoln thought blacks should be free. Just not in this country.
 

longly

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
445
Reaction score
80
Points
78
No, I don't think Robert E. Lee could have won in Afghanistan Sherman could have done it, and so could have Shermans's mentor Andrew Jackson. But Robert did not have the ruthlessness to win. No doubt, he was a military genius with broadband abilities beyond the military. But the things that would have to be done to win were not even done by the Soviets. Alexander the Great defeated the Afghans, and he did it the same way as Sherman and Sheridan defeated the plains Indians and Andrew Jackson defeated the Creek Indians. He destroyed their ability to make a living to provide for their families. Before the 1860s were over, Sherman and Sheridan had crushed the plains Indians. They turned a once-proud warrior race into beggars but did it by starving men, women, and children; that's something Lee could not bring himself to do.
 

beagle9

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
30,589
Reaction score
8,171
Points
1,330
Robert E. Lee would certainly have had supply line problems to Afghanistaan. Trump is a numb nuts who NEVER thinks.
Cleverly put in your own mind, but you got caught attempting to make something out of nothing..(supply lines to Afghanistan). ROTFLMBO.
 

Pellinore

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
936
Reaction score
440
Points
190
Napoleonic muskets had trouble hitting targets at 25 yards. They practiced "volley fire" where they stood in a line and fired all at once, hoping they would randomly hit someone on the other side.

Civil War muskets were accurate out 10 times as far.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding what a huge advantage that is?
That's an advantage, but improvements to weapons or tech aren't what change the way wars are fought; fundamental changes come from new weapons forcing new tactics. The Colt revolver improved the effectiveness of cavalry, but that didn't make anything obsolete. By the Civil War, the Gatling guns were in wide use, but that leads to the second truism: It takes time.

Here, a case study: One of Lee's several mistakes at Gettysburg was ordering Pickett's Charge. It was a classic Napoleonic move: Blow the hell out of the enemy center, then march your troops through it, splitting him in two. There's evidence writ large that Lee was still using Napoleonic tactics in the Civil War. As it turns out, it failed horribly, and it was about the last time we saw Napoleonics in use.

Roosevelt demonstrated the effectiveness of massed Gatlings at San Juan Hill, and then by WWI, mass charges were madness due to all of the machine guns—and yet a few were attempted, with predictable results. (Ever see the movie War Horse? That.) Machine guns didn't just improve on existing tactics, but brought in new ones, and warfare changed, and WWI was fought mostly in trenches.

Airplanes changed that again, adding a whole new dimension. Then, tanks changed it again, and air war and blitzkrieg ruled WWII. That's how the warfare changes, not just because Minie balls could shoot farther.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
557
Points
188
Location
Over there
England could have won the revolutionary war if they had used Challenger 2 tanks against the Americans.
Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Napoleon met in the afterlife.
-"If I had tanks like Hitler's," Hannibal said " - I would not have been defeated by the romans.
-"And if I had planes like Hitler's," Alexander the Great replied, -"I would have conquered the whole world."
-"Gentlemen," Napoleon declared - "All these are trifles. If I had a Goebbels like Hitler, the world would still not know about my defeat in Russia."
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
557
Points
188
Location
Over there
...But the things that would have to be done to win were not even done by the Soviets...
I think I see the severe consequences of brainwashing... Can you tell us about the soviet horrors you're hinting at? Mass murder of women and children?
 

Otis Mayfield

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
4,425
Reaction score
4,178
Points
1,893
That's an advantage, but improvements to weapons or tech aren't what change the way wars are fought; fundamental changes come from new weapons forcing new tactics. The Colt revolver improved the effectiveness of cavalry, but that didn't make anything obsolete. By the Civil War, the Gatling guns were in wide use, but that leads to the second truism: It takes time.

Here, a case study: One of Lee's several mistakes at Gettysburg was ordering Pickett's Charge. It was a classic Napoleonic move: Blow the hell out of the enemy center, then march your troops through it, splitting him in two. There's evidence writ large that Lee was still using Napoleonic tactics in the Civil War. As it turns out, it failed horribly, and it was about the last time we saw Napoleonics in use.

Roosevelt demonstrated the effectiveness of massed Gatlings at San Juan Hill, and then by WWI, mass charges were madness due to all of the machine guns—and yet a few were attempted, with predictable results. (Ever see the movie War Horse? That.) Machine guns didn't just improve on existing tactics, but brought in new ones, and warfare changed, and WWI was fought mostly in trenches.

Airplanes changed that again, adding a whole new dimension. Then, tanks changed it again, and air war and blitzkrieg ruled WWII. That's how the warfare changes, not just because Minie balls could shoot farther.

Yeah, I was going to say, Pickett's charge was what they did during WWI all the time, but WWI had machineguns which made it even more deadly. Lots and lots of men died during WWI on those charges, including a whole generation of British middle class officer types.

But those on Pickett's charge faced mini-balls, accurate out to 250 yards, and cannon cannister which was an improved grape shot.
 

longly

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
445
Reaction score
80
Points
78
I think I see the severe consequences of brainwashing... Can you tell us about the soviet horrors you're hinting at? Mass murder of women and children?
I am not sure I know what you are getting at, but if you ask if the Soviet Union was an evil empire, the answer is yes. The USSR was a slave state, so unless you advocate for slavery, you would agree that it was an evil empire. Communism is a form of slavery where the state owns the people in the same a farmer owns his cows and can do with them as he wishes. Communism is an insidious form of slavery as that it attempts to convince the slaves that they are the actual masters. But wait until there is a food shortage, and one can easily see who the masters are. They grow fat as the people go hungry.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
557
Points
188
Location
Over there
if you ask if the Soviet Union was an evil empire, the answer is yes. The USSR was a slave state, so unless you advocate for slavery, you would agree that it was an evil empire.
Really? Looks like now I have to reevaluate all my 35 years of life in the USSR. But you seem to know this life better than I do, so... Any way, tell me more about my life as a soviet slave, it's most interesting!
 

longly

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
445
Reaction score
80
Points
78
Really? Looks like now I have to reevaluate all my 35 years of life in the USSR. But you seem to know this life better than I do, so... Any way, tell me more about my life as a soviet slave, it's most interesting!

No, if you have personal experience you tell us about your life in the worker's paradise. Tell us about the freedoms you enjoyed in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Unless it is communist propaganda which is possible, it should be interesting.​

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top