what is the lefts plan to end the war in Ukraine ?

[DonGlock26]

I knew that. I was referring to the modern era in the recent activities by the Marines.

Which amphibious landings were you referring to?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which amphibious landings were you referring to?

The ones they never conducted since Korea.

For example, I was on an LHA for almost two years. We forward loaded the 23rd MEU in GTMO in preps to possibly invade Haiti. they brought all their equipment except their tanks.

When we did exercises off NC, they brought all their equipment on board, except tanks. Being an LHA with a well deck, we were only able to accommodate only one LCAC at a time. We used LCUs instead.

 

[DonGlock26]

The ones they never conducted since Korea.

You mentioned landings without tanks. Which ones were you speaking of?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You mentioned landings without tanks. Which ones were you speaking of?

Every landing they conducted in WWII had much lighter tanks and afterward were capable of being landed by LSTs, We did away with all LSTs in the 1990s. I was across from the decomm pier in Norfolk and watched about half our fleet go to mothballs or sold to foreign countries.

The day of the tank in the Marine Corps died years ago, after the Gulf War ended.

 

[DonGlock26]

Every landing they conducted in WWII had much lighter tanks and afterward were capable of being landed by LSTs, We did away with all LSTs in the 1990s. I was across from the decomm pier in Norfolk and watched about half our fleet go to mothballs or sold to foreign countries.

The day of the tank in the Marine Corps died years ago, after the Gulf War ended.

That's odd, since the USMC used tanks in Afghanistan in 2010.

Let's recap, you were wrong about the Marines using tanks during amphibious assaults.
You are wrong about the Marines not using tanks after the Gulf War. If you want to argue about the
use of tanks by the USMC that's fine, but clearly you do not know much about the Marines' use of armor from WWII until the recent past.


This is not a LST.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's odd, since the USMC used tanks in Afghanistan in 2010.

Let's recap, you were wrong about the Marines using tanks during amphibious assaults.
You are wrong about the Marines not using tanks after the Gulf War. If you want to argue about the
use of tanks by the USMC that's fine, but clearly you do not know much about the Marines' use of armor from WWII until the recent past.


This is not a LST.


View attachment 1086025

I already mentioned LCACs. They can carry ONE tank, and nothing else. Our ship could carry ONE LCAC and nothing else.

I was a naval officer. I have forgotten more about amphibious warfare than you will ever know. I was the Boat Group Commander for the invasion of Haiti should it have been necessary in 1993.

Do you know why the Army did not barely bother to use tanks in Afghanistan? The terrain was not conducive to their weight. A former student of mine and friend to my son was a tank commander in Afghanistan. He rode in a Humvee because his tank was in Texas.

 

[martybegan]

How do you think they found NCO's during WW2?

When the Army went from 190,000 soldiers in 1940 to 8 million by 1945.

They found some junior soldiers who showed promise and slapped stripes on them.

And they trained them lavishly and had the time to do so.

Ukraine not so much.

 

[DonGlock26]

I already mentioned LCACs. They can carry ONE tank, and nothing else. Our ship could carry ONE LCAC and nothing else.

I was a naval officer. I have forgotten more about amphibious warfare than you will ever know. I was the Boat Group Commander for the invasion of Haiti should it have been necessary in 1993.

Do you know why the Army did not barely bother to use tanks in Afghanistan? The terrain was not conducive to their weight. A former student of mine and friend to my son was a tank commander in Afghanistan. He rode in a Humvee because his tank was in Texas.

You have been consistently wrong about the USMC's use of tanks.

If you were familiar with the history of the Pacific War, you would know that a handful of tanks can win battles.


"On 22 January, the Americans were able to move a light tank up their supply trail to Mount Austen. The tank proved to be the decisive factor in the battle. At 10:20, the tank—protected by 16–18 riflemen—blasted three Japanese pillboxes and penetrated into the Gifu pocket. Proceeding onward, the tank completely traversed the Gifu and destroyed five more pillboxes, breaching a gap 200 yd (180 m) wide in the Japanese line. The American infantry surged through the gap and took positions in the middle of the Gifu."

Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The surviving Shermans on the western end of the island proved considerably more effective than the lighter Stuarts. They helped push the line in to about 300 yards (270 m) from shore. One became stuck in a tank trap, and another was knocked out by a magnetic mine. The remaining tank took a shell hit to its barrel and had its 75 mm gun disabled. It was used as a portable machine gun pillbox for the rest of the day. A third platoon was able to land all four of its tanks on Red 3 around noon and operated them successfully for much of the day, but by day's end only one tank was still in action.

Battle of Tarawa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, some terrain is not good for tanks. They are used in the Pacific, which is an area they may well have to protect.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You have been consistently wrong about the USMC's use of tanks.

If you were familiar with the history of the Pacific War, you would know that a handful of tanks can win battles.


"On 22 January, the Americans were able to move a light tank up their supply trail to Mount Austen. The tank proved to be the decisive factor in the battle. At 10:20, the tank—protected by 16–18 riflemen—blasted three Japanese pillboxes and penetrated into the Gifu pocket. Proceeding onward, the tank completely traversed the Gifu and destroyed five more pillboxes, breaching a gap 200 yd (180 m) wide in the Japanese line. The American infantry surged through the gap and took positions in the middle of the Gifu."

Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The surviving Shermans on the western end of the island proved considerably more effective than the lighter Stuarts. They helped push the line in to about 300 yards (270 m) from shore. One became stuck in a tank trap, and another was knocked out by a magnetic mine. The remaining tank took a shell hit to its barrel and had its 75 mm gun disabled. It was used as a portable machine gun pillbox for the rest of the day. A third platoon was able to land all four of its tanks on Red 3 around noon and operated them successfully for much of the day, but by day's end only one tank was still in action.

Battle of Tarawa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, some terrain is not good for tanks. They are used in the Pacific, which is an area they may well have to protect.

Why do you keep going back to the past? I know all about the Marines use of tanks during WWII. That age was 80 years ago when my father was fighting in the war.

The Marines got rid of tanks because they do not meet the needs of modern warfare. The demise of the LST and invention and use of the LCAC severely limited the ability of Marines to deploy tanks in large numbers. You cannot change those facts. Amphibious deployment of tanks died in the Korean War, but it took until the 1990s for the body to quit twitching.

 

[JoeB131]

And they trained them lavishly and had the time to do so.

Ukraine not so much.

Ukraine is doing fine with what they have.

Given that they are facing a much larger enemy.

But your Boy Neville Trump is ready to stab them in the back, because reasons.

 

[martybegan]

Ukraine is doing fine with what they have.

Given that they are facing a much larger enemy.

But your Boy Neville Trump is ready to stab them in the back, because reasons.

They are losing ground bit by bit.

Your ignorance of history is just as bad as your bigotry towards jews and religious people.

You've gotten far more pathetic over the years.

 

[JoeB131]

They are losing ground bit by bit.

Your ignorance of history is just as bad as your bigotry towards jews and religious people.

You've gotten far more pathetic over the years.

At the rate Russia is losing men and material, they'll be out of troops long before they make any significant gains.

Until Neville Trump sells out the Ukraine because he wants to keep the Pee Tape in the vault.

At least Chamberlain realized he fucked up.

 

[DonGlock26]

Why do you keep going back to the past? I know all about the Marines use of tanks during WWII. That age was 80 years ago when my father was fighting in the war.

The Marines got rid of tanks because they do not meet the needs of modern warfare. The demise of the LST and invention and use of the LCAC severely limited the ability of Marines to deploy tanks in large numbers. You cannot change those facts. Amphibious deployment of tanks died in the Korean War, but it took until the 1990s for the body to quit twitching.

Because you claimed that the USMC did not use tanks in their WWII landings which was incorrect.
You seem to be avoiding admitting that you were wrong.

Who said the Marines need tanks in large numbers except for you?

That's funny because the commandant of the USMC said if the Marines need armor support, they will call
upon the Army for tanks. Apparently, the USMC still sees the need for tanks.

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.

Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

 

[martybegan]

At the rate Russia is losing men and material, they'll be out of troops long before they make any significant gains.

Until Neville Trump sells out the Ukraine because he wants to keep the Pee Tape in the vault.

At least Chamberlain realized he fucked up.

Making the same mistake Hitler and Napoleon made.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because you claimed that the USMC did not use tanks in their WWII landings which was incorrect.
You seem to be avoiding admitting that you were wrong.

Who said the Marines need tanks in large numbers except for you?

That's funny because the commandant of the USMC said if the Marines need armor support, they will call
upon the Army for tanks. Apparently, the USMC still sees the need for tanks.

I am not going to reread the thread to find that statement because I don't think I ever said that. I was referring to modern warfare.

Why do you insist on proving me correct and in the next sentence confusing yourself. It is a reading comprehension problem I would bet.

The Marines gave their tanks to the Army. They can just carry Army tanks into battle if they need them but there will not be Marines in them. That is more or less what your linked article says.

 

[DonGlock26]

I am not going to reread the thread to find that statement because I don't think I ever said that. I was referring to modern warfare.

Why do you insist on proving me correct and in the next sentence confusing yourself. It is a reading comprehension problem I would bet.

The Marines gave their tanks to the Army. They can just carry Army tanks into battle if they need them but there will not be Marines in them.

Post #404. Look it up.


You claim that the Marines don't need tanks in modern warfare, while the commandant says they will just ask for Army tanks, if they need tanks. I'm going with the commandant.

 

[BothWings]

The only goal of the "left" (let's call them the NWO, that's who they are) is to use Ukraine to weaken Russia so the West can exploit Ukraine's resources for Western corporate gain unopposed. Our country is USING Ukraine, not helping them.

 

[citygator]

Right wing logic: If we get Ukraine to surrender to Russia we are peace makers!

Fuck you guys. You've given up your freedom to Trump and now you want Ukraine to give theirs up to Putin.

 

[hadit]

for 5 weeks .. yes its only been 5 weeks since Trump took office ,the left has been vehemently criticizing Trumps strategy and plans to put an end to the war in Ukraine ? so we know the left is against Trumps plans and approach .. so the question for the left is ...What is the lefts plan on how to end the war ?

Who knows? They had 4 years to come up with one and didn't.

 

[hadit]

Trump is not providing a solution. He is providing appeasement. Putin's nuts are in a vice. So he leaned on his BFF in Washington to try and bully Zelensky into a deal. And Z rightly told them to shove it.

Heck, why do we need international diplomacy when all we have to do is ask a random internet keyboard jockey after he's read a few headlines?