XPost: calgary.general, can.general, can.politics
XPost: edm.general
From: donw102@shaw.ca
"Robert Weldon" wrote in message
news:4FRGd.102885$8l.53659@pd7tw1no...
> "Jon Flamming" wrote in message
> news:20050116231957388-0700@news.telusplanet.net...
>> In Don Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jon Flamming" wrote in message
>>> news:20050116181504567-0700@news.telusplanet.net...
>>>> In <1105911628.864007.140910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>>>> bcpg@canada.
>>>> com wrote:
>>>>> "Press your nose and make a buzzer sound" Glen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The question was: "How many Presidents have fought in combat in
>>>>> the
>>>>> last 200 years?"
>>>>> ..
>>>>> The answer is still "zero". No Presidents have *ever* been in
>>>>> combat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> George Washington saw combat during the French and Indian War.
>>>> Not
>>>> the
>>>> most successful part of his career, however.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Jackson commanded troops at the Battle of New Orleans.
>>>>
>>>> U.S. Grant, during the Mexican War, commanded infantry in the
>>>> field.
>>>>
>>>> Harry Truman commanded a tank regiment in WWI.
>>>
>>> Sorry, Harry was Artillery and as a Captain, was certainly shot
>>> at.
>>
>> Great photo of him standing on an early tank though. Must have been
>> traded. Or, maybe I mixed him up with MacArthur.
>>
>> Artillery sees combat, but only if the other side's artillery
>> shoots
>> back. other than that, they're miles from where anyone can find
>> them.
>>
>
> That may be true now, but in WWI, artillery was still pretty short
> range, and was frequently used in the direct fire role in support of
> the infantry. Their firing lines were usually placed at or just
> behind the front lines, well within range of enemy sniper, mortar
> and rifle fire. And as such, they saw a lot of combat, as well as
> being shelled by enemy artillery and being a prime target for
> aircraft raids.
Any artillery is subject to Counter-battery fire
Don Wagner
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
