36 réponses à ce sujet

[CassandraSaturn's Ring]

.

[Fidite Nemini]

Should've used Head'n'Shoulders and he might've kept his scalp.

[CassandraSaturn's Ring]

He had fantastic hair and wasn't scalped.

[Beerfish]

It was like watching Brazil vs Germany in the world cup.

[mybudgee]

I need to lay off the booze

:/

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

apparently his last words were "Ouch that hurt. i think i hear my mom calling me for my Tea."

[X Equestris]

Custer was an overconfident fool, much like Fetterman was. And just like Fetterman, his overconfidence cost his men their lives.

[Jstatham1227]

he had it coming? 

[AventuroLegendary]

Are we still trying to paint a child-murdering narcissist's death as a tragedy?

[General TSAR]

Custer was a General? Oh yeah, posthumously.

Are we still trying to paint a child-murdering narcissist's death as a tragedy?

It is a tragedy but it's an even bigger tragedy that so many had to die for his tragic mistakes. 

[AventuroLegendary]

Custer was a General? Oh yeah, posthumously.

It is a tragedy but it's an even bigger tragedy that so many had to die for his tragic mistakes. 

 

True. Leading his men into the meat grinder was a dick move to say the least.

 

On the other hand, his death prevented a massacre of an entire village, so good job, I guess.

[General TSAR]

True in a way.

 

The American-Indian Wars were bruuuuutal.

[C9316]

If Custer's death was a tragedy then the I'm sure Andrew Jackson forcing natives off their land was called the Trail of Tears because they were overcome with joyous emotion whilst happily complying. 

[DeathScepter]

Custer's bighorn was little.

[CassandraSaturn's Ring]

General Custer - a brave man?

[mousestalker]

I prefer his sister, Vanilla. Although his brother, Chocolate, wasn't bad.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Custer was a General? Oh yeah, posthumously.

 

From what I read of him, he actually was a General shortly before he died.

[Inquisitor Recon]

He was a general during part of the Civil War. Yet that wasn't his "true" rank and instead reflected the massive size of the Union forces, the vast majority were state volunteer regiments and not US Army regulars. Once the war ended he and many other officers who stayed in the US Army were "demoted" although their honorary higher rank would be recognized for some purposes.

[X Equestris]

Yeah, he had a brevet promotion to Major General during the Civil War, and after the war he reverted to his previous rank of Captain. By the Little Bighorn, he was a Lieutenant Colonel.

[Captain Crash]

As said, overconfidence was part of it.  I think mainly it was his vanity and pride.  He underestimated how well organized the Native Americans were and decided to attack despite being greatly outnumbered as he himself could do it alone.  He had the option to wait for the rest of army he was with, but decided to go in himself so he would get the glory rather then anyone else.

 

A perfect example (of many) of hubris leading to downfall.

[Jelena Jankovic]

A single death is a tragedy

 

268 deaths is a statistic 

[mousestalker]

The South had a much better general.

[bEVEsthda]

If Custer's death was a tragedy then the I'm sure Andrew Jackson forcing natives off their land was called the Trail of Tears because they were overcome with joyous emotion whilst happily complying. 

 

 

Mmmm,  ...Well, he did lead some soldiers to death. And his defeat didn't really lead to terribly much good for the natives either. But Custer wasn't any natural...

 

Maybe it did lead to more respect for the natives in the very long run. And maybe american military haven't really done any really big, arrogant mistake again - on their own, without help from politicians -, ever since. (...until the F-35  ).

[Inquisitor Recon]

Maybe it did lead to more respect for the natives in the very long run. And maybe american military haven't really done any really big, arrogant mistake again - on their own, without help from politicians -, ever since. (...until the F-35  ).

Mistakes were made during the F-35 program for sure but to categorize it as an "arrogant" mistake doesn't make sense. The politicians are the ones who love trying to make one aircraft do everything. The ALF concept wasn't a bad idea, but by 1994 some bean counters had decided to make a carrier variant and meanwhile the ATF (F-22) was steadily trimmed back putting more burden on the JSF. Then for a few years Lockheed program management seemed to be a complete failure but eventually that was corrected, now is the usual media feeding frenzy that occurs with every military project where (item A) will cost the whole budget forever, melt through ships, burst into flames if looked at funny, and kill your dog.

 

Ultimately they will throw money at it until it works because it has to work and it will work eventually much like the V-22 program.

[bEVEsthda]

Mistakes were made during the F-35 program for sure but to categorize it as an "arrogant" mistake doesn't make sense. The politicians are the ones who love trying to make one aircraft do everything. The ALF concept wasn't a bad idea, but by 1994 some bean counters had decided to make a carrier variant and meanwhile the ATF (F-22) was steadily trimmed back putting more burden on the JSF. Then for a few years Lockheed program management seemed to be a complete failure but eventually that was corrected, now is the usual media feeding frenzy that occurs with every military project where (item A) will cost the whole budget forever, melt through ships, burst into flames if looked at funny, and kill your dog.

 

Ultimately they will throw money at it until it works because it has to work and it will work eventually much like the V-22 program.

 

 

It doesn't matter how much money you throw on the F-35. They can't correct the main problem, which is the airframe design itself.

The systems are very advanced, and if they can be made to work reliably, those will be just fine.

But there are still three problems with that: When you try to take as big steps as that, at the bleeding edge, it typically leads to huge costs. Another typical consequence is poor reliability. Finally, as they eventually becomes reliable, they will also soon be obsolete, with newer technology delivering better performance and better reliability much cheaper. But by then, you're still paying for your huge investment in the big step. You've already spent your money. But okay, let's assume the systems will be fine.

 

Remains the problem that they're fitted to an aircraft which has very disappointing performance for a future plane. This is not something media has made up. Anybody with any knowledge about aerodynamics and aircraft architecture can see that written all over the wall. It's literally minutes slower at trans-sonic acceleration than the F-16 (a 1970'ies design), which also means it's gonna burn up lots of fuel in the process as well. If it turns hard, it's going to lose speed in a dramatic fashion, and when it's slow it turns even worse. At the best, it can only sustain somewhat more than 4g in a turn. And that's not good. You're catapulted many decades back in time, to compare with aircraft which at least had much better supersonic and transonic performance. And its payload*range is nothing to write home about either. It's decent, but not really as good as one would expect from an aircraft 40 years after the F-16.

The F-35's performance' main justification is made in comparisons with F-16 & F-18 with lots of stores under their wings. That's somewhat valid, but still doesn't represent what one have reasons to expect from a new and modern plane.

 

The main reason the performance of the F-35 is so secret to media and the public (it's not so secret to the competition; it's fairly obvious what ballpark it's in, from weight, wing area and engine), is that it compares very unfavorably with the aircraft (in clean condition) it is supposed to replace. Every time a curious journalist, spurred by the vitriolic criticism that can be picked up outside the invested circle, tries to question test pilots about the aircraft, those test pilots concentrate on describing how "easy to fly" the F-35 is. Same with press conferences/panels where the military have pilots appear. Focus on "easy to fly".

 

It will have to perform all its missions with very advanced weapons. A good idea if it works. But where's the contemporary payload? That internal weapon bay doesn't take much. And what rate of sorties will it be able to fly?

 

They say about critics, that we don't understand that it isn't about aircraft performance any longer. That it's about the weapons, stealth, and systems. That the new weapons make aircraft performance obsolete. Do you think they're right?

 

The military very much wants the new systems. Thus they want the plane. But it was a mistake to try to build the same aircraft for all services. From what I've seen it's not even working. There's only like 35% commonality between the versions.

 

 

Edit: Scaled back my hyperbole somewhat.