1
   

Next Week's New Yorker Cover

 
 
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2012 08:23 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/121015_2012_p465.jpg

I say again, I don't know of any really adequate analogy from the realm of prize fighting, the best analogy to what happened Wednesday night is probably Bismarck vs. HMS Hood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbz6Oa5PQuA
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,882 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 12:17 am
Romney is no Hood. More like a leaky ferry. And a prick.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 12:43 am
Gunga Dim is obsessed with Hood and its sinking--not that he knows a damned thing about it, but he loves to bring it up, no matter how irrational the context.
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:31 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Gunga Dim is obsessed with Hood and its sinking--not that he knows a damned thing about it, but he loves to bring it up, no matter how irrational the context.


Well, two boards of enquiry concluded that it was a lucky shot from Bismarck's 5th salvo which sunk Hood by penetrating her aft magazine. Not superior tactics or seamanship on the part of Lindemann. Anyhow, the Royal Navy sank Bismarck two days later, so I am not sure what point exactly he is trying to make.

gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:37 am
Hood was not built properly for any sort of a surface fight with battleships, it had light upper armor and was highly vulnerable to descending fire of any sort.

Bork Obunga likewise is basically a bantomweight and, again, the analogy is fairly good.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:42 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Hood was not built properly for any sort of a surface fight with battleships, it had light upper armor and was highly vulnerable to descending fire of any sort.

Bork Obunga likewise is basically a bantomweight and, again, the analogy is fairly good.


She was built in 1916 and a planned upgrade was forestalled by the outbreak of war. Anyhow, Obama and Romney are human politicians and not battleships, and the next 4 years of a great country should not be (and won't be) decided by a couple of televised "debates".
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:54 am
@contrex,
His standard bullshit is that it is an example of what happens when you take on superior firepower. However, that's bullshit because they were both equipped with 15" naval rifles in the main batteries. However, the Royal Navy rather whitewashed the inquiries. Hood was laid down in 1916, but the savaging of the RN's fast cruisers in the battle of Jutland lead to radical design changes in Hood and the cancellation of the other three ships which were projected for her class. The Royal Navy rather whitewashed the Jutland inquiry, too, lamely saying that it had been a victory because their ships were ready for sea sooner than the German capital ships. In fact, the one thing which made it a strategic victory and not just a tactical disaster was the Kaiser's pathological addiction to Mahan's theories, which lead him to keep the High Seas Fleet in port, so that he would have a "fleet in being." Mahan was not that shallow, however, and would never have approved of the German failure to capitalize on the strong tactical victory of Jutland. Not only did the High Seas Fleet do far, far more damage to the Royal Navy than was done to them, but most of their losses were in older, even obsolete classes of ship, and the RN's newest fast cruisers were savaged, precisely because of the limitations of their armor, particularly their deck armor.

Hood had had a major refit in the 1920s, a common enough practice--you don't pay for behemoths like that and then just replace them wholesale. (Most of the battleships in the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii in 1941, for example, were built during or even before the First World War.) But her continuing defect, and the one which allowed the Germans at Jutland to so heavily damage the RN's fast cruisers, was insufficient armor, especially deck armor. Even so, Hood's refit had included heavy armored caps for the magazines, and she might have survived had it not been for the other major problem--Admiral Holland's fatal tactical choice.

Holland decided to run down and enage Bismarck and Prinz Eugen as quickly as possible, fearing they would try to escape. (This was not an unwarranted assumption, Lütjens hesistated to give Lindemann permission to return fire, because his orders were to get into the Atlantic and avoid an engagement.) However, that meant that he was approaching on a perpendicular course, rather than angling in to get on a parallel course. That meant that Hood and Prince of Wales could only use their forward batteries, cutting their fire-power in half. But the fatal consequence was that a shell from Bismarck glanced off the armored cap of the mid-ships magazine, and penestrated the wall of the after magazine. Had they been steaming on parallel courses, this would not have happened. For that matter, adequate deck armor would also have prevented the catastrophe. Holland, of course, paid for his unwise decision with his life.

Neither after Jutland, nor the sinking of Hood would the Royal Navy publicly admit that their fast cruisers and the battlecruiser were inadequately armored.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:56 am
It's interesting and almost incredible that Gunga Dim seems actually to have learned something here. This is the first time that he's taken notice of the problem with Hood's armor, rather than falsely claiming Bismarck had superior fire-power.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 01:57 am
@contrex,
Quote:
Anyhow, Obama and Romney are human politicians and not battleships, and the next 4 years of a great country should not be (and won't be) decided by a couple of televised "debates".


You don't know that. Prior to now, Obunga has been sheltered by the rogue US media; by all accounts he is not qualified for the job but the American public by and large has not had a way of knowing that. Mitt Romney just fixed that problem. If the people should in fact re-elect Obunga NOW, they will at least know what they are getting.
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 02:58 am
I prefer to think of Romney as the Eder Dam and Obama as Guy Gibson in G-George, but that's just me. Or what about Romney as the dock gate at St Nazaire and Obama as the Campbelltown?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 06:07 am
@contrex,
You're deluding yourself, nobody saw any sort of an upside for Obunga in that debate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/4/why-obama-will-lose-president-has-met-his-match-in/

Quote:

Mitt Romney won Round 1 decisively. Wednesday’s presidential debate marked the beginning of the end for President Obama. His Republican challenger was articulate, polished, substantive and on the offensive. More importantly, Mr. Romney achieved the one goal he needed to: He looked presidential. In fact, as the night wore on, it was Mr. Obama who appeared diminished, demoralized and defeated. In contrast to the president, Mr. Romney came across as a competent, experienced chief executive who is capable of governing. It was the teacher versus the student, the adult versus the adolescent, the capitalist versus the socialist.
Mr. Obama’s drubbing should come as no surprise. For four years, he has been propped up by his media allies. Without a teleprompter, he looked amateurish and — at times — lost. The debate revealed Mr. Obama’s central weakness: He’s out of his depth. Leaving ideology aside, Mr. Obama is the least-qualified person to occupy the White House in living memory. He spent years as a “community organizer” — essentially, a glorified activist. His stints as an Illinois state senator and U.S. senator were brief and unimpressive. His record was thin. Regardless, the media establishment sold him as the most brilliant leader since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. They dissembled.
That giant fib was finally exposed at the debate. As Mr. Obama mumbled and stumbled, Mr. Romney exuded confidence and demonstrated a command of the facts. He articulated a pro-growth, tax-cutting agenda. On almost every issue — Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform and deficit spending — Mr. Romney was right and Mr. Obama wrong. The former Massachusetts governor showed that Mr. Obama’s statist policies have not only failed but are suffocating the private sector. Obamacare is a multitrillion-dollar entitlement monstrosity America cannot afford, which imposes massive costs on businesses. Dodd-Frank is squeezing many regional and small banks, preventing entrepreneurs from borrowing and drying up much-needed investment capital. Mr. Obama’s skyrocketing deficits threaten our very economic security.
Mr. Romney demolished the Obama team’s seminal campaign narrative: class warfare. At its heart is the repeated — and false — claim that Mr. Romney will raise taxes on middle-class families by more than $2,000 to pay for “huge tax cuts” for “the wealthy.” Mr. Obama’s strategy has been simple and crude: Paint Mr. Romney as a ruthless, greedy tycoon — the second coming of Gordon Gekko. This caricature has come back to haunt the Obama campaign. Instead, voters saw a GOP candidate who champions sweeping tax reform that lowers rates for everyone, but will get rid of most deductions and carve-outs — the very items frequently exploited by corporations and upper-income earners. Revamping the tax code will unleash growth, make America more competitive and jump-start job creation. Rather than being a Bain Capital corporate raider, Mr. Romney showed himself to be a brainy economic manager who understands that free-market capitalism is the greatest anti-poverty program ever invented.
In the face of Mr. Obama’s poor performance, liberals are blaming the debate’s moderator, Public Broadcast Service host Jim Lehrer. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says Mr. Lehrer should have challenged Mr. Romney more — in other words, deliberately aid and abet the president. On his own network, Current TV, former Vice President Al Gore — I could not make this up — said Denver’s high “altitude” was responsible for Mr. Obama’s lethargic responses. Apparently, the thin air did the president in. The left is doing what it always does: Blame everything — and everyone — but itself for liberalism’s failures.
The problem is not the moderator, the format or the altitude. It’s the president, especially his disastrous socialist policies. He lost because he has no record to run on. For more than three years, unemployment has remained at more than 8 percent. Inflation is rising. Gas prices have soared. He has amassed trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year — and still the economy remains anemic. In fact, growth is slowing to a meager 1.5 percent. We are on the verge of a major double-dip recession. His administration has accumulated nearly $6 trillion in debt. The national debt stands at $16 trillion. We are now the most indebted nation in history. Under his budget proposals, the administration plans to add at least another $6 trillion to the debt. By his own future spending projections, Mr. Obama will push America off the fiscal cliff. We are heading toward Greece or Spain — a European-style basket case. Mr. Obama’s legacy is one of economic ruin and looming national bankruptcy. All Mr. Romney had to do was point out the obvious. This is why he won — and won big.
Mr. Obama’s team believes there is still time to turn the momentum around. The media is spinning that the foreign policy debate will showcase the president’s strengths. They are deluding themselves. Libyagate, the murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the rise of the Muslim Brothers, Iran, Syria, the failed “reset” with Russia — other than the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama has presided over a series of foreign policy debacles. Mr. Romney will rightly paint him as the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
The Obama regime is imploding — it is crumbling under the crushing weight of its own incompetence. The president has been unmasked. After Wednesday night’s debate, he even looked defeated — pale, tired and shaken. He is exiting the political stage not with a bang but a whimper. It is dawning on him: He will lose in November. He has met his match in Mr. Romney.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and host of “The Kuhner Report” on AM-680 WRKO (www.wrko.com) in Boston.


Read more: KUHNER: Why Obama will lose - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/4/why-obama-will-lose-president-has-met-his-match-in/#ixzz28WIbQ5Jp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 06:52 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

You're deluding yourself, nobody saw any sort of an upside for Obunga in that debate.


Note I said I prefer to think. Also, you failed to miss my sarcasm, where I proposed some other World War II British derring-do scenarios to replace the one you hijacked.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 11:47 am
@gungasnake,
I think Bismark is a very good analogy to Romneys campaign. Remember how successful Bismark was in re invigortaing gungas hero's navy? We all recall the 3rd Reichs wonderful battleships and carriers dont we? All Bismark did was "fill the Brit navy with an untiring resolve"


Hitler had no inkling about things like "Aircraft carriers". It only took too little planes to wreck Bismarks steering , thus it slowed down so the Brits could finish her up. Then the Brits moved on to more important tasks
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 11:54 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Then the Brits moved on to more important tasks


Like the dock gate at St Nazaire (and Tube Alloys, of course, without which...)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2012 12:06 pm
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/155194_10151041253796269_421904808_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Next Week's New Yorker Cover
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 09:51:15