DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I laugh about everything but I didn't realize they killed that many soldiers. None of my family were in either of the wars they bitched out. I have huge respect for the soldiers that fought in the wars though. The Type 93 packed a huge punch (500KG wahead) and had incredible range (20,000m +). Not only that it was VERY reliable unlike many of the other torpedos of the time. US torpedos were so bad at the start of the Pacific War that I believe the rate was something like 1 in 5 actually exploding...with about half the strength of the 93. They did have one huge drawback, though. They had poor safeguards to prevent unwanted detonations. That is to say, if a torpedo got damaged on the deck of a Japanese ship via fire/bombs/etc, it often exploded. When under an air attack, the Japanese would try to jettison all their Type-93s least they get hit and explode, surely destroying the ship. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 The Type 93 packed a huge punch (500KG wahead) and had incredible range (20,000m +). Not only that it was VERY reliable unlike many of the other torpedos of the time. US torpedos were so bad at the start of the Pacific War that I believe the rate was something like 1 in 5 actually exploding...with about half the strength of the 93.They did have one huge drawback, though. They had poor safeguards to prevent unwanted detonations. That is to say, if a torpedo got damaged on the deck of a Japanese ship via fire/bombs/etc, it often exploded. When under an air attack, the Japanese would try to jettison all their Type-93s least they get hit and explode, surely destroying the ship. So you folks are suggesting submarines as the solution? Quote
wulf42 Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Why does the west ALWAYS have to go to war? It was a welcoming peace in the world after Nam but the world, especially the US just can't take the quiet and peace. My view for Canada is to have the personnel and the equipment to protect ourselves but NOT to go off on "seek and kill" missions because the US says we should. As far as NATO, the US runnings it. The news always says the US AND NATO, not NATO. lol.....have you lost your marbles...you do remember 9/11 right???? We are at war with Radical Islam and we won t stop until we (the west) destroy the enemy, then and only then will there be peace!!!..........if Canada is spending 10 billion to rearm then i say God Damn right!!! We have a lot of Rag headed scumbags to kill so we will need the equipment! Quote
wulf42 Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 So you folks are suggesting submarines as the solution? Actually Nuclear Submarine's carrying Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterent against attack!!! they constantly move around undetected so the enemy never really knows where they are at...most of America's nuclear arsenal are SLBM'S so any attack on the U.S.A is an immediate death sentence to the attacking country!! Canada should do the same. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 lol.....have you lost your marbles...you do remember 9/11 right???? We are at war with Radical Islam and we won t stop until we (the west) destroy the enemy, then and only then will there be peace!!!..........if Canada is spending 10 billion to rearm then i say God Damn right!!! We have a lot of Rag headed scumbags to kill so we will need the equipment! FOOL! We fight against the concept of terrorism. We fight for the right to live in peace. We do not fight "Rag headed" anything. It is not a specific group of people but instead a specific inhuman concept. Those individuals who will kill to achieve what they want, they are the enemy. We will always be at war with attitudes like yours! The time has come to realize that even the smallest of thoughts that are spoken to people have consequences. The entire religious cultism and the resulting fanatics are the root cause of our problems. All religions are guilty because they all create groups of people that seek or have sought to kill in the name of their God. Yet all religions claim their God is peaceful! Organized religion that seeks to utilize politics instead of individual believe and worship is what we have created. We have caused these problems ourselves, and we cannot expect God to resolve them for us one way or another. It is time that people started taking individual responsibility for their actions. It is time people started acting responsibly. It is time for reason to overcome emotion and misguided religious beliefs. I say to all that any religion that supports violence or condones violence is merely a criminal cult, and not a religion at all. True believers would rather be killed than kill. Quote
wulf42 Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 FOOL!We fight against the concept of terrorism. We fight for the right to live in peace. We do not fight "Rag headed" anything. It is not a specific group of people but instead a specific inhuman concept. Those individuals who will kill to achieve what they want, they are the enemy. We will always be at war with attitudes like yours! The time has come to realize that even the smallest of thoughts that are spoken to people have consequences. The entire religious cultism and the resulting fanatics are the root cause of our problems. All religions are guilty because they all create groups of people that seek or have sought to kill in the name of their God. Yet all religions claim their God is peaceful! Organized religion that seeks to utilize politics instead of individual believe and worship is what we have created. We have caused these problems ourselves, and we cannot expect God to resolve them for us one way or another. It is time that people started taking individual responsibility for their actions. It is time people started acting responsibly. It is time for reason to overcome emotion and misguided religious beliefs. I say to all that any religion that supports violence or condones violence is merely a criminal cult, and not a religion at all. True believers would rather be killed than kill. oh here we go the west is at fault bit again...........your crazy with your rather be killed than kill attitude!!! If i am a soldier and it is me or some Taliban scumbag you can believe i would not hesitate one second to pop the taliban scum and would not lose a second sleep over it!!! thank god your not in charge of this country!.............and like hell were not at war with radical islam that is exactly what are brave soldiers are at war with and we will not stop until we crush the enemy and kill every damn one of them!!! The time has come to realize what a threat radical Islam is to the free world and rise up and crush it with over whelming military power! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 So you folks are suggesting submarines as the solution? Submarines would be a sollution. But an expensive one. If you recall, I thought a multi-role aircraft with very long range might be a good sollution. Tu-95 Bear-like...only modern and capable of dealing with all sorts of threats including prowling aircraft (see below) and submarines. Plus, some new type of large aircraft/helicopter capable of dropping-off and picking-up some troops anywhere up there would also be nice. The USAF used to land those C-133s and such right on the ice (no runwways at first) when bringing in construction materials to build the DEW Line. In February, two CF-18 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian bombers as they approached Canadian air space in the Arctic. Cannon pointedly criticized the Russian test flights at the time as a needless provocation, but Kremlin officials later called the flights "routine" and accused Canada of concocting a spat to score political points with Canadian voters over the hot-button issue o Arctic sovereignty.http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+Ar...1781/story.html Maybe even do a few "routine" patrols of our own...lol. But, as BC-2004 mentioned, there really isn't any aircraft or helicopters Canada can just buy off the shelf that would do this huge job. We'd have to design and build it ourselves or put it out to contract. Same goes with a big navy. You have an aircraft carrier...plus the cruisers to protect it...and the destroyers to protect them...and the sub screen to protect them. Then you have all the docking and repair facilities...then you'll even need more hookers...etc. It just gets too expensive. But that's not to say it couldn't be done if needed and we had enough time to retool our shipyards, et al. In WW2 Canada had a VERY big navy. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 oh here we go the west is at fault bit again...........your crazy with your rather be killed than kill attitude!!! If i am a soldier and it is me or some Taliban scumbag you can believe i would not hesitate one second to pop the taliban scum and would not lose a second sleep over it!!! thank god your not in charge of this country!.............and like hell were not at war with radical islam that is exactly what are brave soldiers are at war with and we will not stop until we crush the enemy and kill every damn one of them!!! The time has come to realize what a threat radical Islam is to the free world and rise up and crush it with over whelming military power! I don't blame the west at all! I blame misguided zealots whose religious beliefs are dangerous and in fact criminal by nature. I don't advocate rolling over, I advocate fighting for peace. If you can read and understand this language , than go and study my words with more care. I never said that I was willing to die, I said that true believers would rather die than kill. There is a very distinct difference here that needs to be understood, and that is that terrorism is not merely Islamic based, look at the IRA or the KKK. Those are terrorist organizations by any definition. I just don't want bigoted racist focused opinions to carry the day. One side of that equation is just as bad as the other. How many wars are fought by demonizing the opposing sides? We need to start viewing problems under the concept of the rule of law. To that end we need an international convention of the willing to abide by the rule of law and cease and desist diplomatic relations with those that do not. In addition, nations that refuse to get on the band wagon need to be shunned. We can't talk to them trade with them or even allow them to travel into our nations. Cut them off, and when they try to come out without joining the team they get wasted, plain and simple. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Submarines would be a sollution. But an expensive one. If you recall, I thought a multi-role aircraft with very long range might be a good sollution. Tu-95 Bear-like...only modern and capable of dealing with all sorts of threats including prowling aircraft (see below) and submarines. Plus, some new type of large aircraft/helicopter capable of dropping-off and picking-up some troops anywhere up there would also be nice. The USAF used to land those C-133s and such right on the ice (no runwways at first) when bringing in construction materials to build the DEW Line.Maybe even do a few "routine" patrols of our own...lol. But, as BC-2004 mentioned, there really isn't any aircraft or helicopters Canada can just buy off the shelf that would do this huge job. We'd have to design and build it ourselves or put it out to contract. Same goes with a big navy. You have an aircraft carrier...plus the cruisers to protect it...and the destroyers to protect them...and the sub screen to protect them. Then you have all the docking and repair facilities...then you'll even need more hookers...etc. It just gets too expensive. But that's not to say it couldn't be done if needed and we had enough time to retool our shipyards, et al. In WW2 Canada had a VERY big navy. All I can really say is that it will be expensive, no matter what option we choose. If I were the leader of this nation I would hand the problem over to DND and have them design and implement the means of defending the north. Just send me the bill and we will figure out how to pay for it. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 All I can really say is that it will be expensive, no matter what option we choose. If I were the leader of this nation I would hand the problem over to DND and have them design and implement the means of defending the north. Just send me the bill and we will figure out how to pay for it. Expensive for sure. An analogy would be a someone not going to the dentist for years then being surprised that there's several thousand dollars worth of work to do before they'll have that ultrabright smile. Had we kept up with the program, our military, like our teeth, would be in better shape. It would also have been MUCH cheaper. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Expensive for sure. An analogy would be a someone not going to the dentist for years then being surprised that there's several thousand dollars worth of work to do before they'll have that ultrabright smile. Had we kept up with the program, our military, like our teeth, would be in better shape. It would also have been MUCH cheaper. I must agree. The problem before us is the defense of the north. We have a use it or be willing to lose it debate going on and I think that many citizens are willing to lose the battle instead of fighting. It seems to be a dollars verse sense thing to me. Common sense dictates that we defend what is ours to the best of our ability, and dollars mitigate that into spending on social programs or defense? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Do we want shiny white teeth w/o holes or not? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Do we want shiny white teeth w/o holes or not? Yeah, well it will all come to a head soon enough. Arctic resources are about the only way out of our current problems, but only if we actually wake up and smell the coffee. Inside of the next twenty years India and China will be calling the economic ball, not the Europeans or the Americans, and Canada has the potential, unrealized at the moment, to position itself to rise to the occasion. Quote
Shraytus Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Despite our military's low number, it's well known that the CF are amongst, if not *the*, best trained regular and reserve force personnel in modern military. Bomb squad protective gear is made by a Canadian company and is the premiere for what it does, and sells to countries across the planet. The Air Command purchased, or will, a large number of the recent F-35s, what we do need, however, is, like previously said, to augment the quantity and quality of our naval force. For the country with the largest amount of coasts on the planet, but one of the smaller navies, it's the main area of the CF that needs focus, along with the Coast Guard. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Despite our military's low number, it's well known that the CF are amongst, if not *the*, best trained regular and reserve force personnel in modern military. Bomb squad protective gear is made by a Canadian company and is the premiere for what it does, and sells to countries across the planet. The Air Command purchased, or will, a large number of the recent F-35s, what we do need, however, is, like previously said, to augment the quantity and quality of our naval force. For the country with the largest amount of coasts on the planet, but one of the smaller navies, it's the main area of the CF that needs focus, along with the Coast Guard. Ya but we will still need to increase the amount of soldiers we have great training doesn't matter when you're fighting a force many times your own. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Ya but we will still need to increase the amount of soldiers we have great training doesn't matter when you're fighting a force many times your own. Oh really? Never heard of Thermopylae, I gather. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Oh really? Never heard of Thermopylae, I gather. Bad example The 300 lost overall but a good comparison specifically if your talking about the Second battle of Ypres. If we could manage a fight like that against the Russians Canada's army would get it's reputation back. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Bad example The 300 lost overall but a good comparison specifically if your talking about the Second battle of Ypres. If we could manage a fight like that against the Russians Canada's army would get it's reputation back. Good example, actually. The Spartans were only defeated via treachery. Other battles/campaigns where skill won out over odds off the top of my head... Jackson's Valley Campaign: 1862 AD The Battle of Tannenberg: 1914 AD Boudicca's Revolt: 60 AD Siege of Alesia: 52 BC Spanish Armada/Battle of Gravelines: 1588 AD Battle of Gaugamela: 331 BC Battle of Marathon: 490 BC Battle of Trafalgar: 1805 AD Battle of Salamis: 480 BC Battle of Britain: 1940 AD Siege of Khe Sahn: 1968 AD Battle of Chancellorsville: 1862 AD You get the idea... Second Ypres? As in the 1915 battle? That was almost evenly matched...which is why it was soooooooo bloody. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Good example, actually. The Spartans were only defeated via treachery.Other battles/campaigns where skill won out over odds off the top of my head... Jackson's Valley Campaign: 1862 AD The Battle of Tannenberg: 1914 AD Boudicca's Revolt: 60 AD Siege of Alesia: 52 BC Spanish Armada/Battle of Gravelines: 1588 AD Battle of Gaugamela: 331 BC Battle of Marathon: 490 BC Battle of Trafalgar: 1805 AD Battle of Salamis: 480 BC Battle of Britain: 1940 AD Siege of Khe Sahn: 1968 AD Battle of Chancellorsville: 1862 AD You get the idea... Second Ypres? As in the 1915 battle? That was almost evenly matched...which is why it was soooooooo bloody. Evenly matched? The Canadians were completly untrained in trench warfare and were fighting experianced german troops and were hit with a gas attack which was treachery and lead to alot more casulaties on both sides. They may have been evenly matched in numbers but the German training and equipment was far supperior. So maybe it's a bad comparision to the 300 but it's the only example I can think of were Canada was part of a major defensive action we were usually used for offense. Edited July 26, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote
wulf42 Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I don't blame the west at all! I blame misguided zealots whose religious beliefs are dangerous and in fact criminal by nature. I don't advocate rolling over, I advocate fighting for peace. If you can read and understand this language , than go and study my words with more care. I never said that I was willing to die, I said that true believers would rather die than kill. There is a very distinct difference here that needs to be understood, and that is that terrorism is not merely Islamic based, look at the IRA or the KKK. Those are terrorist organizations by any definition. I just don't want bigoted racist focused opinions to carry the day. One side of that equation is just as bad as the other. How many wars are fought by demonizing the opposing sides? We need to start viewing problems under the concept of the rule of law. To that end we need an international convention of the willing to abide by the rule of law and cease and desist diplomatic relations with those that do not. In addition, nations that refuse to get on the band wagon need to be shunned. We can't talk to them trade with them or even allow them to travel into our nations. Cut them off, and when they try to come out without joining the team they get wasted, plain and simple. The problem is that religious fanatics can t be dealt with....they don t want anything except to force their sharia law on the world they are just as bad if not worse than the Nazis, other than extreme force we will never be rid of these people........and no i don t consider the Taliban people, they kill young girls and they slice off the heads of their hostages........they are in my opinion are "animals" and need to be slaughtered .....human beings don t do the kind of things these vermin do! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Evenly matched? The Canadians were completly untrained in trench warfare and were fighting experianced german troops and were hit with a gas attack which was treachery and lead to alot more casulaties on both sides. They may have been evenly matched in numbers but the German training and equipment was far supperior.So maybe it's a bad comparision to the 300 but it's the only example I can think of were Canada was part of a major defensive action we were usually used for offense. I believe the PPCLI enjoyed a 100-1 kill ratio at one of the Battles of the Korean War...the Battle of Kap'yong, I think. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) I believe the PPCLI enjoyed a 100-1 kill ratio at one of the Battles of the Korean War...the Battle of Kap'yong, I think. PPCLI? Nevermind looked it up. Very cool. Oh i love this The initial Chinese attack at Kapyong engaged 3RAR on Hill 504. The Chinese then struck at the Canadian front. Wave after wave of massed Chinese troops kept up the attack throughout the night of 23 April, but the brave Canadians held them back. After a night of fierce fighting Major Bernard O'Dowd, Officer Commanding, A Company, 3 RAR, managed to get through on a radio phone to a general of the 1st U.S. Marine Division. The general was incredulous, thinking it was an enemy agent speaking. He told O'Dowd that the unit no longer existed, that it had been wiped out the night before.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong Why does it always seem like the americans don't pull there wait in these battles Edited July 26, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) PPCLI?Nevermind looked it up. Very cool. Oh i love this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong Why does it always seem like the americans don't pull there wait in these battles Oh, the Americans had their moments of doubt and pain in Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pusan_Perimeter Edited July 26, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Oh, the Americans had their moments of doubt and pain in Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pusan_Perimeter Maybe I'm biased but that doesn't seem as impressive as what the Canadians/Australians/New Zealanders did. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Maybe I'm biased but that doesn't seem as impressive as what the Canadians/Australians/New Zealanders did. Without the Americans, the Communists would have won easily. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.