Comments by "Be Kind To Birds" (@BeKindToBirds) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

Overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Cavalry can create an opportunity that artillery exploits and infantry can exploit the victory achieved by artillery or cavalry. Catechisms are often wrong and doubly so when applied to war.
6
@adm0iii They aren't. You can read books written in the in america where it references "cannon" and books written in england where it talks about a ships "cannons" They are both used in the same way for the same things only one has gone out of fashion because cannon got replaced by artillery (which is as you can see, also plural) It is nothing at all like the examples you used.
6
@adm0iii They are both used in different grammar contexts. When talking about how something is equipped cannons is used. (As it was during napoleon's time) When talking about a group of cannon, cannon is used. There are many contemporary sources where a ships "cannons" are referenced. They were used differently to speak of different kinds of groupings. Cannon is still used in its same context in america today but the context doesn't come up because of the way artillery itself evolved.
5
@adm0iii America also uses Cannon as a plural.
4
So they forgot it for ...4-5 years? What a foolish and ignorant quote. At no point in history has any commander ever 'forgotten' the role of infantry. The US tried to keep it's investment in the war as low as possible for as long as possible, they didn't "forget" about infantry I have little respect for TR Fehrenbach. He was trying to push a narrative in everything he did and his contributions otherwise are an aside. What an absolutely stupid quote.
2
But flat desert, mountain desert like Afghanistan...that doesn't count
1
Did anyone else see the krieg helmet jack in the box
1
Wiesel!
1
@Dildobagginses go away trump supporter
1
@lamwen03 Quoting a man who wrote history to suit his own narrative as he talks about something he saw from the lowest level is not going to get you anywhere. From the very beginning of time the role of infantry was understood and it wasn't a sudden realization or 'forgetfullness' as to why soldiers weren't on the ground at the start. Or maybe we forgot again in the gulf, and in syria, and in iraq, and in ww2, and in the war of 1812... He was a narrative builder and trying to re write history and his quote is garbage. Every single person knew we might have to have "boots on the ground" but they tried to avoid it as much as possible by simply supporting the koreans. The policy was to provide support for the Koreans on the ground. The army and navy and air force didn't suddenly go "oh crap we forgot about infantry." The quote is absolute dog dung and the narrative the man was trying to sell was garbage. "Ever since the last war, americans have been trying to keep as little investment of mass soldier deployments as possible while still supporting our geopolitical goals and our allies, often we are forced to invest significant manpower regardless" ...Is a far more accurate quote. Or maybe he forgot how ww2 started. And how ww1 started. And *every single war in human history. The man was trying to sound smart and criticize the American public for not wanting to deploy troops just 5 years after the end of the worst war in human history. He was an idiot who made his money re writing history to suit the narratives he wanted to push. But maybe you don't remember how every single war since for every single nation on earth has started with air raids and naval action before the mass commitment of men. Or maybe the entire world just keeps "forgetting" about infantry 🙄 Ask yourself if it's more likely that all the allied militaries just forgot that infantry are needed (as they have been since the dawn of mankind) or that a mass troop deployment five years after a war would possibly be something to avoid? Is it more likely that America "forgot" five years after deploying troops to every corner of the world what the role of troops are or is it more likely that *every single conflict abroad since the invention of aircraft and ships has begun with the investment of ships and airplanes before the investment of men. Garbage quote trying to build a narrative from a man who was a hack. No one forgot anything and his whining about the US not commiting troops at the first sign of trouble is stupid. Our goal was to support the troops already there and it didn't take five years for American to forget the principles of warfare that has held true for thousands of years. Everyone knew troops were needed, were were trying to avoid using our troops and instead provide support to the Korean troops who were already there fighting for their own homeland. It's accurate to the man who said it, that doesn't make it accurate to life AT ALL. ... Because we had troops on the ground from the start. We invested more men than any other country and that decision was made one month and two days after the conflict began. And oh yeah, we didn't want to commit more ground troops to fight the soviets and possibly restart a global conflict. And oh yeah we couldn't deploy troops because we weren't prepared to do so in korea, our strategic planning hadn't accounted for such. And oh right we couldn't because we had to physically fight for a place to land them! Garbage quote that sounds pretty if you don't know about the korean war. Makes you feel fluffy about infantry but it is vapid nonsense on examination. Or maybe, just maybe ...he was bitter that more troops didn't get there earlier. Maybe just maybe, he was bitter the US didn't want to commit a land army to fight the soviets just 5 years after the end of ww2. Or maybe, we forgot in the five years... Which is why we had land armies and troops stationed around the world at that very time holding territory including in Korea But sure, believe one guy who famously wrote history to suit his narratives and not the contemporary and public accounts from the actual decision makers. Again, you have to be 100% ignorant of the korean war to think this man has a point about forgetting. Hyperbolic crap covered by flowery language is all the quote is.
1
@lamwen03 I believe you that it is a real quote. I am saying it is a pretty sounding but ultimately idiotic quote from a man who should have known better. Here is a much better quote from a much more respectable source: "Artillery conquers and infantry occupies." – J.F.C. Fuller (From decades before TF wrote his drivel)
1
@lamwen03 It isn't informative, it is intentionally misleading to suit the man's narrative is my point. It leads people to the wrong conclusions and obfuscates the truth.
1
Napoleon's tactics became the foundation of all modern artillery. Such that the us army officer ringgold was merely doing what napoleon already had done with mobility, he merely formalized it into the US artillery doctrine.
1