|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2009 21:16:25 GMT -6
So following your logic you believe hundreds were hit because the troopers were poor marksmen. After all if the troopers were good marksmen the Indians would be ducking there would be fewer casualties the better the shooters. Also explains why you think the Indians were worse shots. They killed the whole battalion.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 25, 2009 7:54:38 GMT -6
Again, West Point. The logic stream, if such it can be called and if actually inculcated by WP, is so corrupt in the synapses of conz that, if typical, rather damns the place. Fortunately, we can know conz doesn't represent it.
Another bad showing for Bevo Boy; brace for the blizzard of posts to distract from that.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 25, 2009 8:45:47 GMT -6
"...I HAVE seen a real flying saucer..."I have always suspected so. BS Thank you. I was born on Cape Canaveral, after all. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 25, 2009 8:49:15 GMT -6
So following your logic you believe hundreds were hit because the troopers were poor marksmen. After all if the troopers were good marksmen the Indians would be ducking there would be fewer casualties the better the shooters. Also explains why you think the Indians were worse shots. They killed the whole battalion. Think about it...the more deadly weapons become, the less percentage of armies are killed/hit in battles. In the ancient days, it was rather the norm that the loser of the battle loss 80-100% of their forces. As warfare became more modern and weapons more effective, the number of casualties as a percentage of combatants went down and down. Why, do you figure? As for Indian casualties, of maybe 400 Warriors "hit," probably 60 of them were greater than 100 yards. I think all the rest were wounded or killed in close combat. I think the number of Warriors wounded in close combat was about equal to the number of Soldiers wounded or killed in close combat. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 25, 2009 8:53:39 GMT -6
Again, West Point. The logic stream, if such it can be called and if actually inculcated by WP, is so corrupt in the synapses of conz that, if typical, rather damns the place. Fortunately, we can know conz doesn't represent it. Another bad showing for Bevo Boy; brace for the blizzard of posts to distract from that. Better my blizzard of distracting posts than the vile you spew on this forum, dc. You should be ashamed of yourself...but of course you are not. Or probably are, but revel in it. Wouldn't it be nice if anyone could ever engage dc in a sensible discussion of something relevant to LBH? I think he is just jealous that I served, and he didn't. Oh...that is probably distracting. Just as distracting as most every post he (or she) has made. Rather the pot calling the kettle black, aren't you, dc, "Bevo Academian?" There...I've done my "dc venting" for the day. Getting back into character. That WAS kinda fun, though...will try not to make it a habit, poor people... Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 25, 2009 14:21:00 GMT -6
conz keep cool under attacks you know what you learned at WP I disagree very often (always) with conz but recognizes that he has 2 qualities, stays polite whatever we tell him, and second animates a board otherwise sleepy so if DC with his superior writing power could adapt to his opponent we can continue have some fun rewriting history
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 25, 2009 14:21:34 GMT -6
So following your logic you believe hundreds were hit because the troopers were poor marksmen. After all if the troopers were good marksmen the Indians would be ducking there would be fewer casualties the better the shooters. Also explains why you think the Indians were worse shots. They killed the whole battalion. I think these resumes about 5 pages
|
|