On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:40:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:


No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your
statement that:
" There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day
landings". Note the word "landings".

Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day
landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support,
the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building
of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all
the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all
"land".

So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant
"landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed
out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were
talking about.

entire Japanese Army for one single action.

"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.

Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures
include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks
and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the
mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations,
they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army"..

Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you
have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer.

The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang,
combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of
12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the
military.

The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations
is 1 out of 10.

Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having
the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you
don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the
time - wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, you said you were in the Air Force. Apparently you do not consider the Air Force as being part of the landings simply because they provided air cover and allowed the massive numbers of para-troopers to land.

ALL of that over 2 million personnel WERE NECESSARY for that landing. That you are even arguing that makes you look like an ass. Without THOSE SUPPORT there would have been no landings at all.