RE: Re: D-Day was Shermans

>My point is that there wouldn't be a mass invasion against a "hot"
beach.
A debacle like Omaha wouldn't be excuted again simply because  

insert "we believe that"

>we have the capability and precision to neutralize the kind of defenses
that were present on the beaches then.

Even if we do have the capacity to do that against a comparable level
opponent, we're not the only military force on the planetr, and some of
them might be willing to try an invasion even without wundertech.

>  Also there's the sheer scale of the
operation.  I'm not sure a situation would arise where an operation on
that
scale would be necessary.

People's Republic vs Republic of China in about 15 years.

>  Of course there's also the argument that most
modern militaries wouldn't attempt a static defense simply because a
mobile
defense in depth has proven much more effective.

Under what circumstances?
a)  If you can catch'em coming in, they're a lot more vulnerable. 
Granted you need a mobile *reserve* but that doesn't mean there's no
point in waterline defenses.
b)  this assumes you have "depth" that you don't mind losing.  That's
not always the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .