Home

Posting here because I can't find the original thread, and got a "reply" notification. 

Backstory:  This is all part of the complete meltdown and retardery around the A10, almost always by people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

In the thread, someone once again did the "just convert them for carrier use and give them to the Marines. Simple," retardery someone in my previous thread claimed was a straw man. Funny, I hear that several times a week, obviously from retards.  While we're at it, why don't we simply redesign it to be supersonic and convert into a giant battle robot?  Seriously, go fuck yourself, shit for brains. You're retarded. (I'm repeating that word because retards are slow learners.)(If the use of the word "Retarded" offends you, go fuck yourself.)

Then another idiot chimed in, about how "we need the A-10 to avoid friendly fire."  Except that, oh, wait---the A-10 has had friendly fire incidents, too. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/  In fact, it tops the list.  Next time, have a fucking clue what you're talking about, or at least do some googling.

Then I got this response:

Brian Wheaton mentioned you in a comment.

Brian Wheaton
October 29 at 10:33am

Michael Z. Williamson Weather itss called bule on blue, friendly fire, or fratricide doesn't mater to the recipient. The Army has required spotters to observe the fall of shot for inderect fire, yes it still happens. To address your retort more directly the Air Force does not nor has it ever required an observer on the ground, I will point and laugh if you mention ALOC, since you mentioned artillery which do you think accout for more dammage and loss of life since WWII stary artillery or air drop ordnance?

~~~

Okay, Brian, let me see if I can parse your comments:

Yes, targeting errors occur in war. It's war.  We agree. Moving on:

Wait, so YOU want the support, YOU call for the support, but you expect SOMEONE ELSE to doublecheck your math?  Hey, thanks for admitting Airmen are smarter than Soldiers! 

BTW, you're wrong.  There are at least two USAF AFSCs devoted to providing fire support to the Army--Tactical Air Control and Combat Control. And the Army can have them pretty much any time it asks.  If they don't ask...so now you're demanding the USAF tell the Army how to do its mission? Well, seeing as you're trying to tell the USAF how to do theirs, at least you're consistent. And yet, when told the A10 won't be around much longer, you then get all smart and try to tell the USAF how much you know about CAS aircraft.

So, wait, after a steady diet of "The Infantry is the only part of the military that matters," we're now being told, "As long as a bunch of other people help us do the job"?  Well, yes.  EVERYTHING is a team effort, which, when you work with expensive aircraft or ships, you know instinctively. Fifty people can cause an aircraft to crash even before it leaves the ground, and I suspect hundreds of Sailors could each have the opportunity to fuck up a ship, because I suspect the Navy doesn't take anyone aboard they don't need, given the cramped quarters and resource consumption.

The difference being, ship drivers and pilots are typically respectful to their teams and appreciate their support.

But frequently, some grunt (ASVAB requirement: 31) comes along and tries to tell everyone smarter (almost everyone), and frequently stronger (better than half) than he is how they're complete shit and don't matter.  It would be insulting if the speaker was smart enough to matter. As it is, it's just cute watching them go past full retard all the way to rutabaga.  No, it's not ALL infantrymen, but 7 times out of 10, that behavior is an indicator. The other three, it's someone who either wanted to be a grunt and couldn't, or is trying to white knight for them.

As to your last comment, air power has caused more casualties and damage. That's what it's for. So, you're admitting the USAF is superior to the Army in that respect.

Now, we can very roughly divide war into two components--A: smashing the enemy. 2) causing them to accede in person.  The first we do with lots of bombs, the second with boots on the ground.

That, added to your bleats, supports once again my theory that the Army should be incorporated into the USAF as a Ground Corps, much like the Navy has the Marine Corps. First, the USAF will smash the enemy, then it will send its ground corps in to secure things. And since they'll be in the USAF, they won't be able to bitch about how the USAF doesn't support them.  But I'm sure they still will.

Basically, if the USAF provides support, you'll bitch, and if they don't, you'll bitch, and if they don't provide it exactly the way you think it should be done, even though you have no fucking clue how it's done, you'll bitch.

I guess my only advice is to stop being a little bitch.

And stop trying to tell people who are smarter than you how to do their jobs.

Not the answer you wanted? Well, too bad.

I expect now you'll threaten to never read my books, or never read them again.

I'm cool with that.