You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #33: Not so much my problem [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Not so much my problem
Actually I live in Europe, or at least on a large island off the coast of Europe, and travel to the US as little as possible. Even then I've had enough dealing with TSA. Their pompous attitude is what really gets me. As an 18-year military officer with considerable experience, I know what efficiency in a security setting looks like, and that ain't even close. As I said before, it's the facade of security. They'll continue to catch the complete idiots now and then (even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while) but a trained operative would have very little trouble getting past them.

****************************warning: pedantic and pointless crap from this point on, and completely off-topic**************************************

As an aside to the main thread here, while the British had somewhat adopted the armored warfare theories of B.H. Liddel Hart, the French really had not. Up until early 1940 the tank was seen by the French as very much an infantry support weapon, and were assigned usually in company strength to support infantry units as mobile gun platforms. This was in contrast to the Germans who, themselves drawing on Hart's work, had organized regiments and even entire divisions of tanks to use as armored 'fists' in the attack. The French belatedly organized four armored divisions in early 1940, but it was too late in the game to try to build decades of armor doctrine, and the French armored divisions were largely ineffective despite the impressive technical superiority of the French tanks and their overall larger numbers. Again, the French planned for the last war, not the next war. But that's what everyone tends to do, so not their fault by any stretch. As an army they put up quite a fierce resistance to the German forces, and on a number of occasions they were the ones who saw the Germans off the field.

Pointless trivia for you: the commander of the French Army's 4th Armored Division (by far the most effective one) was a colonel named Charles de Gaulle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC