Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

reply to post by Vitruvian


You come off as an autonomous bot. Obama was right, we do use less bayonets.

Showing some pictures of drill teams wont change that fact. I'm surprised you didn't post a picture of the US Marines Silent Drill Team.

I thought Obama's retort about our modern navy vs. bayonets was clever.

However, I think Romney is correct in needing a strong and massive Navy.

The USA is essentially a continental sized island and that has played to our favor in numerous conflicts. The barrier of two oceans on either side of our shores has impeded any real threat by assault or invasion.

We also have major interests around the world...Panama Canal, South Korea, Japan, Philipines, Straits of Hormuz, not to mention the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Arctic... all need protection by sea. And if you use air power, chances are it is sea based.

Take into consideration that probably about a third of the fleet is under maintainance most months and in rotation in and out for service, shore leave of personnel,etc ..suddenly a 300 ship navy is down to 200 ships.

Then throw in a few regional conflicts, maybe a 3rd world govt collapsing and Americans need immediate evacuation, add a tidal wave or earthquake and another fleet is needed to transport and support rescue equipment and supplies...suddenly 200 ships are cut back to maybe 150 or less...

Of those, there are more naval support craft than actual combat craft like a destroyer or carrier... you have supply ships, fuel ships, hospital ships, ship tenders for repair at sea...

Suddenly, this big ass navy is really not that big.

Then have the expected "unexpected" event...Israel hits Iran or China invades Taiwan or in a trade war China embargoes VietNam or North Korea strikes South Korea....

Suddenly, you need ships and you need then fast.

And if there are casualties and ships are lost... how long does it take to replace a modern, computerized frigate, destroyer, or God forbid... an aircraft carrier...? 2years?... 5years?

As the president said, this isn't WWI or WWII, BUT if we lost a ship it would be irreplacable for the near future... certainly not before the conflict was over.

So you need replacement ships NOW and in reserve... not 5years from now.

All that being said, that is why we need a strong, massive, and numerous navy on hand and at the ready.

That is why I don't agree with Mr Obama.

Originally posted by butcherguy

And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Use the slider under the pic. The Marines in the photo are training on the flight deck of a ship. Ships are used to deploy Marines. Whether or not they are going on a deployment or not, I can not say for certain, but your phrase 'Still in training' causes me to wonder what familiarity you have with the military. Training is a never ending thing in the military.

Sounds like you groping and grasping - very amusing I was trained to use a bayonet - now you are acting out of DESPERATION because you are losing the argument!!! - are calling me a liar (standard liberal tactic btw) by implying that I was not in the US Army? ..

The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.

read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.

The President was wrong.

So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by SrWingCommander

 

President Obama never claimed anyone stopped using bayonets. He said we use less bayonets, which is true.

Bayonets are generally for close quarters fighting. War has changed, and tactics have changed, weapons have changed, and fighting from a distance has become the norm. So there is less and less close quarters fighting, and less need for a bayonet.

I love all the armchair military out there...........

I mean is this the real issue? The real issue should be how we are implementing our military in the first place.....

That being said......

there is still PLENTY of close quarters fighting, I suppose everyone who loves Obamas response on this has completely forgot about all the urban fighting and house clearing we (yes i said we cause i was one of the many who had to do it) had to, and still have to do?

Having a large knife at arms length you can use while being able to stay out of striking range is def preferable....

Not to mention the stop and go gun battles that happen quite often, ammo starts to run scare.....guess what happens then?

How bout we keep the speculation and b.s. to a minimum and actually listen to people who were in the service, instead of pretending to be experts eh?

edit on 23-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

So servicemember to servicemember...when was the last time you fixed your bayonet?

Trained with a bayonet in Basic training but after that I can’t remember ever seeing one in the armory but I always carried a knife usually a Gerber but I also had a Fixed blade Buck Knife my father gave me that he carried in Vietnam. That knife has seen 4 different wars.

The people that do not understand what Obama said and are trying change his words to we do not have bayonets or that he was implying that our navy is obsolete are twisting words and flat out lying about what he said. It’s hard for me to believe people are that stupid but then I remember who some of the congressmen are that sit on the science board so I guess there may be some people confused.


I am more inclined to believe this is just fake outrage because I believe most people are smarter than this. If I am wrong then this is really sad.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Who know's if the Chinese use bayonets...we don't.

And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.

WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S!!!

As someone else said, when was the last time the order "Fix Bayonet's" was given?

I never heard it...

Looking at the photo again...actually the Chinese bayonets do appear to be decoration. They appear to be at some ceremony. Those are not their battle weapons...

edit on 24-10-2012 by DZAG Wright because: To add on

LINK TO PHOTO - VA: Virginians joust with Obama over bayonets, horses, ships

1996 DEPLOYMENT OFFICIAL PHOTO

BTW - I am a disabled veteran and we used bayonets!!! We trained with them and we carried them at all times - either fixed on in the scabbard!!!

edit on 24-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)

My man...those are soldiers/marines aboard a ship training...probably as a punishment for something...so their CO made them do bayonet training as a light punishment.

Show me a photo of a soldier/marine with boots on the ground while downtown and they have a freaking bayonet on their rifle!

Disabled vet or not, this isn't 1972...WE DO NOT USE BAYONET'S!! You must have served during WWI?

Originally posted by butcherguy

The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.

read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.

The President was wrong.

So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.

FINALLY A SANE VOICE (thanks for that)...........BHO was not only wrong and an outright LIAR - he was behaving like the fool that he is.........a Chicago politico - a democrat thug and a hood. BTW - his tactic of trying to demean his opponent BACKFIRED big time........The American voters are on to him.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I thought Obama's retort about our modern navy vs. bayonets was clever.

However, I think Romney is correct in needing a strong and massive Navy.

No man, give me 1 machine gunner over 200 phalax soldiers any day.

A few battleships and a aircraft carrier can sit off the coast of anywhere and topple most nations on earth singlehandedly. Add that with long range aircrafts for dropping, and you got a war on a shoestring.


If we weren't into nation building, we could quite possibly prosecute war on many fronts with what we have...unfortunately for the west, war means both the fall of the government in question, then the long work of rebuilding the nation we just exploded.

And in that case, we need more psychologists than anything else as they are more equipt to deal with the natives once we are done blowing their stuff up.

Originally posted by butcherguy

And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Use the slider under the pic. The Marines in the photo are training on the flight deck of a ship. Ships are used to deploy Marines. Whether or not they are going on a deployment or not, I can not say for certain, but your phrase 'Still in training' causes me to wonder what familiarity you have with the military. Training is a never ending thing in the military.

We would occassionally train for stuff we and our commanders KNEW we would never see again. The training was always a joke, punishment or moral builder.

If you have any "familiarity" with the military, I wouldn't need to say BASIC TRAINING because you would have known what was meant...

reply to post by AlreadyGone


But the military has been drawing down since at least '96!

It's nothing that was initiated by Obama...

reply to post by Vitruvian


Your frothing at the mouth has you replying to the wrong person....

Originally posted by butcherguy

The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.

read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.

The President was wrong.

So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.

Its would be safe to say that in 1916, 100% of military ground forces would be extensively trained in the use of bayonets. Would the same still be said today?

gah, nevermind...if you have to explain a joke, its no longer funny.

There are probably more horses also in the military service, but that doesn't mean they are useful anymore outside of show.

Originally posted by butcherguy

The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.

read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.

The President was wrong.

So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.

Are you retarded...must someone break it down to you...I mean seriously?

Who cares if we have 3 million bayonet's sitting in a supply room? There are plenty of other outdated equipment in supplyrooms all over the military.

WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

Now there may be a couple of geeky soldiers everyone else is laughing at who attach themselves to a bayonet (though if one in my squad had that thing I'd tell him to invest in a real blade) but on the whole, we don't use them.

What is the sickness that affects you guys minds that won't allow you to admit losing even a simple point?

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Your frothing at the mouth has you replying to the wrong person....

YOU ARE WRONG - I responded to butcherguy.

QUOTE BELOW

Originally posted by butcherguy

The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.

read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.

The President was wrong.

So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Was his statement correct?

I have been hearing all through this thread how there are fewer bayonets today....

It was a joke now.
It wasn't a joke, it was the President 'being rhetorical', IOW, trying to make an arse out of his opponent during the debate.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

Your main statement here is incorrect.
The troops are issued bayonets.
They train with them.
They still use them.

I won't go where you did with references to people that have different abilities than others, it really isn't very nice to use the 'R' word, you know?

reply to post by Vitruvian


Obama said we USE less... which is true.... He didn't say we OWN less...

Give it up already.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY -HERE ARE A FEW FACTS FROM THE LA TIMES

Indeed, many Army soldiers are issued bayonets, and the Marine Corps includes bayonet training in boot camp for close-quarter combat and knife fighting. All Marines deployed in combat zones are issued bayonets.

The Army has 419,155 bayonets in its current inventory, Army spokesman Wayne V. Hall said Tuesday. The Marine Corps plans to buy 175,061 bayonets this year, in addition to the 195,334 bayonets it bought in 2004, said Captain Kendra N. Motz, a Marine spokeswoman. Even assuming some were lost or damaged in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military probably has more than 600,000 bayonets on hand.

It is unknown how many bayonets the military owned in 1916 or 1917, but it’s likely that almost all soldiers and Marines were issued bayonets back then, historians say.

“At that point in time, in 1916, we didn’t have tanks on the battlefield, we didn’t have helicopters on the battlefield,” said Hall, the Army spokesman. Today, “members of a tank crew would have no reason to be issued bayonets.”

So one way to guess how many bayonets the military owned back then is to consider the size of the forces -- and to note that the U.S. military grew considerably in 1916 and 1917 as the nation ramped up for World War I.

I understand the remarks of those that do not agree with my support of a strong navy, and if the world was not a dangerous place, I would agree with you whole heartedly.

However, the fun loving, peaceful, capitalistic Chinese are building UP their military at about an 18percent increase every year. They are building landing craft and offensive weaponry at an alarming rate.

Sure, the aircraft carrier they debuted recently is outdated and amusing to some. But it is a base for developement, skills training, and the first step to building their own carrier fleet. Do not underestimate their intentions.

This is not WWII where we can roll cookie cutter ships off the assembly line every week. Modern ships take years to construct and since most future large scale conflicts will be over in a matter of weeks or months... you will fight that war with what you bring to the table.

reply to post by Vitruvian


More propaganda...

The Army and Marines are issued combat knives. These combat knives have multiple purposes for survival. They just so happen to double as bayonets if ever the need arises. The need to use these combat knives as bayonets has significantly reduced over the years, and it could be argued that they don't even use them as bayonets anymore. They mostly use them as multipurpose survival knives, not bayonets.

Let's play a game... Count the fixed bayonets...