"geopelia" (phildoran{at}xtra.co.nz) writes:
> "Mark Borgerson"  made more
absurd claims in
message news:MPG.1cbb771899c30fa898973f{at}news.comcast.giganews.com...
>> In article , dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>> says...
>> >
>> > "geopelia" (phildoran{at}xtra.co.nz) proved more
military ignorance:
>> > > "Mark Borgerson"
 slurped in message
>> > > news:MPG.1cbb5ae0547ca39f98973e{at}news.comcast.giganews.com...
>> > >> In article ,
dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>> > >> says...
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "J" (janderson_ishere{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> > >> > >> No, they join the Home Guard in a war.
"Dad's Army". No doubt
>> > >> > >> if invasion is threatened again we
will have a "Mum's Army" as
>> > >> > >> well.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > " No doubt ", indeed, well, among
people who know AbZero about the
>> > >> > actual military.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For those with a Polaroid of a clue, well, we
know that the
>> > >> > training that people need to be able to
competantly operate
>> > >> > modern military hardware isn't something that a
45 year old
>> > >> > can deal with, or that can be learned in a month.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't think that the technology of small arms and anti-tank
>> > >> weapons has changed that much since WWII---when 45-year-old
>> > >> home guards were used in England.   You're not going to be
>> > >> strapping those home guards into fighter aircraft or the
>> > >> gunner's position of an M1A2.
>> >
>> > Big Daddy Sir Galahad WomenFirster Borgerson apparently is so
>> > brain rotted, that he CANNOT tell the difference between a topic
>> > concerning *now*, and historical periods whose weapons and tactics
>> > are, well... *obsolete*.
>> >
>> > Well, he just proved a total ignorance of issues of the *modern*
>> > military...
>> >
>> > Idiots like him ought to stick to watching " JAG "...
>>
>> Unlike Andre,  I HAVE served in a modern military force.

Its a shame, then, that BDSG Borgerson learned *nothing* while
in...

>> (Well, it was the 1970's, but we did have F-14s,  guided
>> missiles,  nuclear weapons, and a few other 'modern' weapons.)
>> That military managed to teach me---and the rest of the
>> people in the Navy---to  avoid shooting ourselves in the
>> foot with a rifle in about 30 hours.   I suppose you could
>> do the same with a home guard.

If anyone can offer a successful example of such, let them do so...

None offered ? Claim fails.

>> > >> At 45 years of age, training to use the equipment is not
>> > >> as much an issue as is the physical training to engage
>> > >> in offensive combat operations.   That would probably limit
>> > >> older folks to defensive operations where knowledge of the
>> > >> local area might give them some small advantage.    As we've
>> > >> found out in Iraq,  it doesn't take sophisticated weapons and
>> > >> years of training to tie down several divisions of a modern
>> > >> military force.
>> >
>> > Yeah, thats why the US only needed 100 *hours* in 1991....
>>
>> Hmmm.  100 hours   to push them back to their borders before
>> raising the white flag of victory!  If your goal is just to
>> push an army back within its borders, you don't really have
>> to contend with home guard or guerilla troops.
>>
>> > Idiots.
>> >
>> > > (snip)
>> > >
>> > > Quite right.
>> >
>> > Exactly wrong.
>> >
>> > > It would be more a guerrilla operation.
>> >
>> > So, aside from places where a lot of people believe in suicide attacks,
>> > where has this ever been tried ?
>>
>> The majority of US casualties in Iraq are the result of IEDs and
>> combat with urban guerillas,  not suicide attacks.
>> Guerilla attacks were reasonably effective in the Balkans in
>> WWII.
>> >
>> > Exactly. Nowhere, other than in idiot's fantasies.
>> >
>> > > My father joined the Local Defence Volunteers (later the
Home Guard).
>> > > If Hitler had invaded everybody young and old would have fought
>> > > with whatever came to hand.
>> > > "We shall fight on the beaches.....)
>> >
>> > Lets see, a Lee Enfield, V/ a Panzer III...
>
> When he joined, just a wooden "rifle" for drill purposes!
Things improved
> later of course.

Indeed, but it's the Channel and Fighter Command that saved the UK in
1940. The " Home Guard " would have been nothing more than... speed
bumps.

>> Sort of similar to an AK-47 and a half-dozen leftover artillery
>> shells against an APC?   Hint:  Even the US doesn't do regular
>> urban patrols in heavy tanks.  The operating costs are too high.
>> >
>> > It tales an idiot to suggest that thats near to equal...
>>
>> As we have found out in Iraq,  forces don't have to be equal to
>> be expensive to an occupying army.
>> >
>> > > I think you would find if it came to an invasion that
the spirit of
>> > > those times would still be around.
>> >
>> > Lets see: In 1941-45, Japan relied on " spirit ".
>>
>> Non-Sequitur!   The US and allies didn't invade Japan!  In fact
>> the cost in casualties of such an invasion was a primary argument
>> for the use of nuclear weapons.

And yet, " spirit " didn't save their asses...

Its simply amazing how idiots who claim to have been in, know zip
about the history...

>> > That really worked well for them, didn't it ? 
Hiroshima .
>> >  Nagasaki .
>>
>> Well,  nukes are an effective way to avoid fighting against a home guard
>> on their own territory!   ;-)

A good armoured force would do as well... See " Poland, 1939...

" Idiots ! John. "

>> > " Idiots !! John ? " Lewis Black, " The Daily
Show. "

Lewis Black said it right...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/5/05 1:01:07 AM ---