|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trek X01/Bontrager Race wheels | GrandTheftVelo | Techniques | 7 | August 16th 08 12:48 AM |
Trek Fuel superior technology | LIBERATOR | Mountain Biking | 1 | September 1st 06 09:58 PM |
FS: Trek/Bontrager carbon fork | Charles Stickle | Marketplace | 0 | October 3rd 05 12:22 AM |
Stock Trek Tires (Bontrager) | Badger_South | General | 5 | June 2nd 04 07:24 PM |
The secret of Trek's OCLV technology . . . | Stan Shankman | Techniques | 21 | May 12th 04 02:50 PM |