Skip to comments.How many horses and bayonets did the military have?
Posted on 10/24/2012 7:48:39 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
President Obamas quip about horses and bayonets may have been the most memorable sound bite from the third presidential debate, but was it true?
The comment came after Mitt Romney asserted that our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917, because it has fewer ships. Fact-checkers have determined that statement was false, but Obama took the bait anyway.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I am sure Mitt said what he said for a reason. I don't buy Kim Geiger's bullcrap.
And by the way, the most memorable quip for me was when Romney said “We Don’t Dictate To Nations, We Free Nations From Dictators.”
NPR confirms Romney’s statement
John Lehman is advising Romney- he was a good Secretary of The Navy
They could have used a few horses and bayonets in Benghazi
In a rational world, that would be the take-away statement at the debate. Actually, it was just one of several quite powerful comments Romney made the other night.
Obama lied over and over. And yet, the DNCp still talks of an Obama win.
Sorry, but when someone lies (in effect cheats), they’re no winner. Just ask Lance Armstrong.
Obama is the political Lance Armstrong!
Mit made a claim.
Zero failed to answer the question;
instead responded like a school-yard BULLY.
More from Lehman about Romney’s defense strategy
BTW, the last president who tried to cut forces and manpower in favor of “technoloy” was Jimmy Carter and his advisor Stansfield Turner.
That didn’t turn out well.
Having a bunch of missiles you can launch long range (or for you little folks in Loma Linda, a “bunch of airplanes that land on ships”) does not substitute for assuring FON with a worldwide capable naval
^ but not by (my error)
No he is an %*&#@$%^ clown that doesn't know his corpmen deom his corpse men.
as well as some sabers and cav lances.
Obama, riding out on Bigbird and falling on his bayonet..
I would have chosen churlish..
Which "fact checkers", and how is the statement false? Number of ships, total tonnage, number of crew, firepower?
Today's ships may have more firepower than WW-1, but they are also in an environment where the enemy has cruise missiles and smart weapons too. The important point is whether we have enough naval power to totally dominate a conflict or combination, destroying the enemy with minimal casualties on our side?
If any potential opponent knows he will be easily defeated, he won't challenge us. The dangerous part comes when an opponent thinks we're weak enough to take on. Yes, we may destroy him, but we will take casualties in the process.
Actually Obozo, bayonettes ceased to be a mjor form of infantry weapon by the U.S Civil War. Horses were reduced to third class importance by WW1.
So it was a stupid comment by an very ignorant man.
Obama acted Niggardly.
I read Mitt said 1916 but I could of sworn I heard him say 1960.
RIPPED By Bayonet Co.
We’re Still Relevant!!!
But Romney's statement about navy ships was false.
False, false, false.
Its really tough keeping up with the MSM's lies.
If memory serves, he said will be if the defense cuts go through.
The army used my horses to train troops on how to pack and ride in the nearby mountains and foothills here in Montana before their deployment to Afganistan.
I remember seeing a picture of some special forces, riding horses with the Afganies early on in the Afgan war...it was a thrilling site. Horses can go in some envoirments that machines cannot and many tribes in the middle east still are proud of their horseman ship...Youtube also has a great video of (I think it is the mongolians) using trained golden eagles to bring down wolves...I was not aware that you could train golden eagles like you do falcons...
adverb archaic often offensive
I don't think so.
adjective often offensive
not generous; stingy : serving out the rations with a niggardly hand.
meager; scanty : their share is a niggardly 2.7 percent.
in a stingy or meager manner.
adverb archaic often offensive
Not the best picture, it's a great statue. Green Beret on a horse, not protecting the site of 9/11.
As to golden eagles, several threads about Old Abeof the 8th Wisconsin
who I frequently misidentify as a golden eagle. Of the few actual photos
it's an easy mistake I guess, the white isn't as prominent till they're older.
Interesting pictures. Is that horse an arabian, it appears to have that saucer face that an arabian does...if you get a change to watch the utube of golden eagles taking down a wolf its facinating....they sent one eagle out after the wolf and when it needed help, they sent the other out and they worked as a team....But another interetsting thing is their horses were quite small, and their outerwear was wolf hide.....GG
Bald eagles get their white heads at 4 years old...The U. Of Alaska has a rapture rehab center and years ago my daughter and I took a side trip...some of the raptures they can release, some are so damaged they stay at the center...If I remember correctly many get caught in electric or phone lines and end up with broken wings....up close they are beautiful. They also had several types of Owl that they were rehabing..
The composition of those ‘ships’ was predicated on supply and transportation tasks and the ships the Army had were not intended or prepared to fight naval battles.
Comparing Army ‘ships’ to Navy ‘Ships’ strictly based upon quantity is worthless because of the different nature of their assigned tasks.
Another consideration worth mentioning is that many of the Navy ships then as now perform mostly as protection for the large ‘Capital’ ships and not as assault ships.
The Capital ships of WW II were the Battleships along with the many Aircraft Carriers while today's Navy no longer has Battleships to escort and protect and the number of carriers of various types has been drastically reduced.
The WWII carrier classifications in include 3 CVS (46,000 tons), 21 cvs (30,000) tons &, 9 CVL (30,000) tons, and 90 CVE (small escort carriers) aka “Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable,” .
The actual number of carriers during WWII varied depend on status (Built, commissioned, Lent to GB, sunk, or decommissioned).
For further info on the CVE or “jeep” carriers, see: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=3
For further info on the other carrier types see: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/carriers.asp I find the info on the CVEs or "Jeep Carriers" fascinating and perhaps still a very useful concept because they would allow the larger and much more expensive CVN carriers of today to concentrate primarily on "force projection" by taking on the tasks of "force protection" at a much lower cost per ship.
The CVEs also served as aircraft transports being able to carry many more aircraft than the CVNs alone to immediately make up for aircraft lost or damage in a battle.
Depending on how the CVE is configured, they can contribute to fleet defense or go on assault missions not far from the fleet. Basically, the CVEs can be an example of Romney's philosophy of more smaller ships rather than much fewer very expensive ships.