tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4925440002419172812..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: A Ship's A Fool To Fight A FortComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49886341882392678022017-10-22T07:57:49.614-07:002017-10-22T07:57:49.614-07:00"shortness of the range of a typical USN figh..."shortness of the range of a typical USN fighter"<br /><br />You seem to be turning the premise of the post into a general discussion about war and carriers. That's fine but not the topic of this post.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74766823376492658582017-10-22T07:54:42.325-07:002017-10-22T07:54:42.325-07:00"Poke a hole in a runway, and I suspect it ca..."Poke a hole in a runway, and I suspect it can be repaired in hours"<br /><br />Did you read the comments? I addressed this, specifically. An airbase functions because it has fuel storage facilities, munitions storage, command and control facilities, mission planning facilities, computers, spare parts storage, maintenance areas, etc. Sure, a hole in a runway can be filled in a few hours (maybe) but the other necessary functions, equipment, and facilities cannot be. Destroy an airbase's fuel storage and nothing is going to fly from that base for a long time. Sure, you could truck some fuel in but that would only support a couple of aircraft at a time - hardly a functioning airbase. Destroy the maintenance facilities and operations grind to a halt after one or two sorties. And so on. <br /><br />Airbases are quite vulnerable. Hardened shelters can provide a measure of protection for individual aircraft but, as I said, the aircraft are almost the least important part of an airbase.<br /><br />As ex-Navy, you should know all this.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6709435596099043972017-10-22T07:47:06.162-07:002017-10-22T07:47:06.162-07:00"You can Mission Kill a super carrier with a ..."You can Mission Kill a super carrier with a burst of 20MM."<br /><br />Oh, good grief. That can't happen in any remotely realistic scenario. I suspect you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make a point. If not, your credibility is suffering. I would suggest you review the Enterprise and Forrestal conflagrations to get an idea of the degree of damage a carrier can absorb and the difficulty in even mission killing one. In both of those cases, after absorbing the equivalent of a dozen or so major caliber bomb hits and untold gallons of blazing jet fuel, both could have resumed flight ops, albeit in a somewhat degraded fashion, after only a brief pause had there been a compelling reason. As it happened, the Enterprise completed repairs in 51 days (at a leisurely pace during peacetime) and resumed her deployment.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74562432482042347092017-10-21T20:35:50.268-07:002017-10-21T20:35:50.268-07:00Mission Kill on a carrier, and it has to head for ...Mission Kill on a carrier, and it has to head for a shipyard for a year or so. Poke a hole in a runway, and I suspect it can be repaired in hours while the aircraft take off from taxiways or nearest freeway.<br />You can Mission Kill a super carrier with a burst of 20MM.<br />To scratch a Chinese airbase, you'd have to hit it with multiple GBU-57s and we only have a few dozen at Whiteman AFB. And they can only be delivered by B-2's. Note that the Chinese bunkers have multiple entrances, and I'm certain they're plenty of construction equipment to clear any debris.<br />http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7012/the-air-force-desperately-needs-a-stealth-tanker<br />China now has the ability to push our tankers and AWACS aircraft away from the coast, so USAF is now looking at stealth tankers.<br />https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/retreat-from-range-the-rise-and-fall-of-carrier-aviation#.VkEgYvmrSUk<br />Is just one of the studies pointing out just the shortness of the range of a typical USN fighter. Yep, you can self tanker...especially since they trashed all their S-3 tankers, but the sortie rate goes to hell, and there aren't that many attack aircraft on a carrier to start with. <br /><br />Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76079229351970624982017-10-21T20:08:38.221-07:002017-10-21T20:08:38.221-07:00It wasn't mines that caused the disaster at th...It wasn't mines that caused the disaster at the Dardanelles...it was hubris of which the US has plenty.<br />I understand you mean a coordinated attack...but it's hard to see how USAF can contribute much, given the incredible vulnerability of all of our airfields anywhere near China. Recall what happened at Clark in the Philippines in WW2. Study Kadena in google maps. Count the tankers. They're placed there because, USAF can't touch China without extensive tankering. Look up the B-2 strike on Libya and note how many times they had to be tanked up and how many tankers were involved.<br />https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9800/RB9858z2/RAND_RB9858z2.pdf <br />And if they forward base the bombers(in actual combat scenario), they sitting ducks on the ground. Look up the B-2 strike on Libya and note how many times they had to be tanked up and how many tankers were involved.<br />https://medium.com/war-is-boring/america-has-20-stealth-bombers-guess-how-many-can-fly-right-now-9f0575cd52ff<br />Seems about right...hard to see how USAF could get more than two or three B-2 sorties a day over China. And since they're part of our strategic bomber force, don't know that you want to commit them to dropping conventional stuff on China.<br />And as Rand pointed out, B-52's and B-1's can't operate over China.<br />http://www.viewzone.com/chinabases/base1.html <br />I think you seriously under estimate how elaborate these bases are. It'd of course be pretty stupid to leave all the vulnerable stuff out in the open. And we're able to cram all that stuff into a relatively small volume aka aircraft carrier. Google any airbase, and the facilities you mention take up much less than the area devoted to parking the aircraft. And of course munitions are probably the easiest to disperse being stored in bunkers anyway. Fuel? Pipelines, fuel trucks, easily dispersed.<br />Of course, the biggest danger to a carrier is its air wing parked naked, fueled and loaded with munitions. As proven in Vietnam, carriers are capable of "mission killing" themselves. You ain't gotta throw much crap to torch off the air wing.<br />How you gonna "mission kill" an airbase. We fired fifty plus Tomahawks at a Syrian Airbase, and they were open for business at sunrise.<br />Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73645837486952382952017-10-21T11:00:46.839-07:002017-10-21T11:00:46.839-07:00Your contribution is welcome but I have to say tha...Your contribution is welcome but I have to say that you appear to have missed most of the salient points. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment?<br /><br />For example, you seem to be suggesting that I've suggested that a few ships can stand off the coast of China and beat them into submission. Nothing could be further from the truth! <br /><br />Here's the applicable quote from the post,<br /><br />"History, then, suggests that there is no particular problem with approaching land as long as the attacking force is prepared for the defenses that are present."<br /><br />The attacking naval force must be prepared. Part of the preparation includes utilizing all warfighting assets available to the attackers such as Air Force bombers and/or cruise missiles to destroyer the very large, very obvious, fixed Over-The-Horizon radar systems in order to eliminate one of the enemy's means of detection.<br /><br />I can cite several other examples of missing the salient points.<br /><br />For example, you note the hardened nature of Chinese airbases and note the "unsinkable" nature of those bases. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. As naval professionals understand, a mission kill is almost as good as a sink. The same applies to an airbase except that an airbase is even more vulnerable. I discussed this exact issue in the comments. You might want to check it out. In short, an airbase is more than the aircraft - in fact, the aircraft are the least important aspect of the operability of a base. The more important, and more vulnerable components are the fuel storage facilities, munitions storage, spare parts storage, maintenance areas, etc. Unless the entire base is built into a mountain (which creates an enormous vulnerability to being sealed off!) those components are relatively easily destroyed. Yes, those components can eventually be rebuilt but not in the time frame that's relevant to the attacking naval force.<br /><br />Honestly, I think you missed the main point which is not that a ship can wage a single-handed war against an entire country with impunity but that naval forces have no need to be frightened of operating near land, IF THEY ARE SUITABLY PREPARED, as stated in the post. The Dardanelles, which everyone seems to want to cite as proof that I'm wrong, actually proves what I said. The attacking naval force WAS UNPREPARED for the mines and failed, thus proving my statement.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6006733442285952032017-10-21T10:27:18.742-07:002017-10-21T10:27:18.742-07:00Google Chinese mines. Got lots of those and the me...Google Chinese mines. Got lots of those and the means to spread them about in the various bottlenecks. Have I skipped anything<br />What would be Russia's stance? Seeing that they kept trawlers sitting off the fantails of the US Carriers and off the end of the runway at Andersen during the Vietnam War do you assume the Russian wouldn't make their Satellite Intel, etc., available to China. A Sino-US war would greatly enhance their Geopolitical situp. Putin's not my buddy.<br />Since China's airbases, missile pads, etc., are actually in China, at the outset of any fighting, we've got to attack the Chinese MAINLAND. I assume they'd go bugfuck and feel obligated to attack US Territory. Already, the H-6, with tankering, can hit Hickam with cruise missiles from well out of detection, interception range. Ditto with their nuclear attack subs, which can easily sit off the West Coast and lob cruise missiles. Just blow up the Hollywood sign and the American public, already petrified of their own shadows, would go bananas. Last time I was in San Diego, we had three carriers tied up at or near North Island vulnerable to cruise missile attack.<br />Rest assured, we ain't gonna f**k with China.Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47823391817645132952017-10-21T10:06:33.324-07:002017-10-21T10:06:33.324-07:00Finding the carriers?
I suspect the Chinese will b...Finding the carriers?<br />I suspect the Chinese will be swamped with data coming in as to the location of any US Carriers.<br />First, WestPac is a pretty damn crowded place...recall how the Hornet had to launch the Doolittle Raid ten hours early when it was spotted by a Japanese picket boat. You really think you'll be able to sneak a CSG within a thousand miles of China without somebody spotting it.<br />The Chinese Maritime Milita...heard of it.<br />https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/chinas-maritime-militia.pdf<br />"The only estimate of the size of the Maritime Militia obtained during the course of this research<br />was from a source published in 1978, which put the number of personnel at 750,000 on approximately 140,000 craft. In its 2010 Defense White Paper, China stated that it had 8 million<br />primary militia members nationwide.<br />If they can put 1% out with, A fishing boat with a satellite phone is all you need.<br />SOSUS Sonar. Certainly no ship on the planet is louder than a Nuke Carrier at 30 KTS.<br />http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-undersea-great-wall-16222<br />Certainly the Chinese will hear the CSG, especially since, if one looks at the map, lots of shallow water and bottlenecks that'd funnel a CSG. The PLAN attack subs already outnumber ours, and all they got to do is sit on the bottom and await the arrival. And today's conventional subs are quieter and damn good, especially in the defensive posture. Nukes have the speed advantage when cranked up but noisy as hell, as any sub is over 20kts. Range? Don't need range when you're close to home.<br />Over the Horizon radar? China's got it. How accurate? Since a radar seeking warhead can go zipping fifty miles off the aim point, I suspect China can drop a warhead in the "basket" to pick up a carrier.<br />China has geosynchronous sats, SAR radar sats, elint sat, etc. And with only a small area in which to concentrate, and the various types of orbits available to maximize TOT.<br />And nowadays, imaging satellites are small, can be launched in great numbers...if China decided it was necessary.<br />https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/flock_1<br />https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-launches-satellite-constellation-to-image-the-whole-planet-daily/<br />But I suspect they've their near Coastal Waters covered.<br />Plus I haven't mentioned the aircraft China could launch in search. And until the shooting starts, we can do nothing about ships/aircraft/subs/drones/fishing boats, CNN chartered aircraft.<br />We're the ones who have to collect our forces for months from across the Globe and go to their backyard presumably in the first stages of a crisis...I doubt they're ready to challenge us off Guam, Hawaii, yet.Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64430191803987734212017-10-21T09:18:48.590-07:002017-10-21T09:18:48.590-07:00Don't expect USAF to bail you out.
https://www...Don't expect USAF to bail you out.<br />https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR392/RAND_RR392.pdf Page 51.<br />Then Google Earth Kadena, Andersen, etc., and lookit all the hardware parked in the open and the depressing small number of bunkers.<br />Study the Pershing II(banned) and see what missiles 40 years ago were capable of doing. 30 G maneuvering, terminal seeking, etc. The DF-21 and DF-26 plus sub-munitions, MIRV's radar seeking warheads, depressed trajectory, 30yard CEP, these ain't you Daddy's ballistic missiles.<br />PS We(and Russia) don't have these(500-5500km range land based ballistic missiles) because of the INF treaty. They are, as is the Russian Iskander <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander fantastic weapons.<br />But we got lots of MRAPs.Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87141129908059761762017-10-21T09:01:28.468-07:002017-10-21T09:01:28.468-07:00Long thread, haven't read every entry but as a...Long thread, haven't read every entry but as an ex-Navy Officer, ME ,VN vet, I'd like to throw in a few factors.<br />China has a large number of super hardened "fighting" air fields aka Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers.<br />http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-01.html<br />If one Google Earth's some of these, you'll see in most cases, the taxiways connect with the local road network with lots of straights. These tunnels aren't going to be scratched with anything the Navy currently possesses.<br />The adage "a ship's a ...etc", I think against a "near peer" it holds. By the time the US fleet attacked Okinawa, etc., the peer power days were long gone. Can't think of a case when ships successful duked it out with a peer power. Think the Dardanelles. That went well, even a against a 3rd rate power. Lots of ships sitting on the bottom.<br />And of course, how long would it take the US to strip its Atlantic, Med and Persian Gulf fleets and muster enough ships in WestPac to even approach being a near peer to China.<br />The USN would be hard pressed to muster five carriers in the WestPac to go up against the entire Chinese military, PLAN, PLAAF, PLARF and about 30-40 unsinkable Aircraft Carriers.<br />Monsoon Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643507574906001130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70684740333186918322017-03-09T05:14:21.352-08:002017-03-09T05:14:21.352-08:00You've answered your own question. Did you ha...You've answered your own question. Did you have a point to make?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39321241369429363492017-03-08T19:27:55.447-08:002017-03-08T19:27:55.447-08:00Appears to be half speed, for over quadruple of ef...Appears to be half speed, for over quadruple of efficiency in fuel (and major stress reduction).janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01531817659983377719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2183597960846222182017-03-08T19:21:37.968-08:002017-03-08T19:21:37.968-08:00What would be cruising speed of ww2 ship with top ...What would be cruising speed of ww2 ship with top speed of 30 knots?janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01531817659983377719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57612616613550841422016-07-19T18:01:15.250-07:002016-07-19T18:01:15.250-07:00A few corrections.
Firstly I meant India's Mi...A few corrections.<br /><br />Firstly I meant India's Mig-21s; they also anticipated the airfield strikes from Pakistan and relocated suppliers to these temporary bases.<br /><br />Secondly, the "tarp" method of crater repair is the old method. We currently use a binary chemical mixture to fill in craters, and dependant on the size of the hole, it takes around an hour to hardened.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83671591860073514232016-07-18T17:26:58.232-07:002016-07-18T17:26:58.232-07:00From the start I said theoretically possible. I ag...From the start I said theoretically possible. I agree with you it isn't a practical long term solution, just a short term one. The last time I could find this being used in a combat was the India-Pakistan war of 1971, with Pakistan rebasing their Mig-21s to runway strips and operating them from there.<br /><br />I forgot to mention the damaged runway would have to be repaired for the aircraft to be repaired, good catch. I did discuss that with that horizontal unit thou, they said they would fill it in and put a specialized tarp on it that basically good for taking off on.<br /><br />UAV of course are simpler to do in this secenario and in real life. The runway they constructed would need additional resources to handle jets.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51740479759451764652016-07-18T06:37:05.094-07:002016-07-18T06:37:05.094-07:00"... 2 days to actually clear & build the..."... 2 days to actually clear & build the airfield and dugouts. The vechiles then parked in the dugouts began UAV operations."<br /><br />You didn't specify the type of UAVs in your example but you do understand that F-15/35/22/16s are an order of magnitude (at least!) more complex than any UAV? They require far, far more diagnostics, support, spares, fuel, specialized tools, technicians, mission planning, munitions, etc.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63924561376546151502016-07-18T06:33:58.216-07:002016-07-18T06:33:58.216-07:00It may be theoretically plausible (what isn't?...It may be theoretically plausible (what isn't?!) but not practical nor practiced. It's one thing to operate a few UAVs for a few days but it's another thing, entirely, to operate an air wing (even a reduced one) on an on-going basis.<br /><br />Consider spare parts. Let's be ridiculous to illustrate the point. Let's suppose you can fit all the spare parts in one fully loaded truck (an actual airbase has warehouses full of parts - it would require many, many trucks). So, we've got a fully loaded truck of spare parts. A tech decides he needs a new conipulator valve. How does he get it? Well, unless the part just happens to be in the very back wall of parts on the truck, he has to unload the entire truck, part by part, slowly working his way from the back of the truck to the front, until he finds/reaches the one he wants. That's insane. <br /><br />The only workable way to "truck" spare parts is to set up the truck like a store with shelves on one side (or both sides, depending on the width of the truck) and a large walkway the length of the truck to enable access to any part on the truck. That, unfortunately, reduces the actual storage capacity from a theoretical 100% to, perhaps, 10%-20%. Thus, instead of being able to use one fully loaded parts truck, we now need 5-10 partially loaded trucks for that same load.<br /><br />Now, apply that to the warehouses full of parts on an actual airbase and you see where the huge numbers of trucks come from.<br /><br />I can go through this explanation item by item for all the things that make up a functioning airbase but you get the idea.<br /><br />By the way, have you thought of the first non-starter in this chain of events? When the airbase initially gets hit and the runways are pitted and there is no fuel, munitions, parts, control tower, radar, etc. How do you even get the aircraft out of that devastation and to a road or wherever the new truck-base is? The aircraft can't take off. They need to be checked for damage, the runways are non-functional, the diagnostic computers are destroyed, there's no fuel, etc.<br /><br />As you contemplate all this, recall the original premise - that a ship can penetrate to their attack point, attack, and leave before a counterattack can be mounted. In our airbase scenario, even allowing for a truck base for sake of discussion, it would still take multiple days to get set up (as you noted in your UAV example where they started with no problems whatsoever). By that time, the ships are long gone.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1244285693994798182016-07-17T22:27:09.691-07:002016-07-17T22:27:09.691-07:00After further research into the (surprisingly vagu...After further research into the (surprisingly vague) subject and talking to my unit's horizontal assets, I still feel it is a plausible, (thou as I stated in earlier posts not efficient or preferred) means of continuing combat sorties in spite of airbase being damaged or destroyed.<br /><br />Temporary airfields or highway strips can used as staging point for parts and other supplies till the original airfield can be repaired. In fact most countries (Switzerland, China, Pakistan, and The US to name a few) actively incorporate highways stripes in ti road systems for that purpose, with ground support equipment being store near it so it can be utilised as a airbase. If any aircraft survive the the original attack, they'll most likely be sent to these temporary runways.<br /><br />While Air traffic control can theoretically be conducted by anything with a radar, there are purpose built platforms for the purpose, with the p-18 I cited before being a prime example, and it requires three trucks to operate.<br /><br />Fuel, parts, and ammo is the biggest problem, due to the larger logistical supply train as you stated. In my experience thou, a mechanized brigade while be larger and requiring more supplies, has around only 3 heavy cargo trucks per company, with around I guess 75 trucks per brigade. I arrived at that firgure by multiplying the number of trucks with in my company, by the number of companies in a battlion, to the number of battalions with a brigade. Thats nearly 5000 thousand personnel and several hundred tanks and armoured vechiles that require extensive maintenance daily to operate. If we can do that with 75 trucks, why wouldn't we be able to support the remnants of an airwing for a few sorties a day or every other day?<br /><br />Side note, it took the horizontal unit less then 2 days to actually clear & build the airfield and dugouts. The vechiles then parked in the dugouts began UAV operations. That was I admit, was just training, but further illustrates the possibility of operating from improvised conditions.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18934822009124514952016-07-16T07:21:07.496-07:002016-07-16T07:21:07.496-07:00Look at the keyword listings that involve "Ch...Look at the keyword listings that involve "China" or "Chinese" and you'll see many posts that cover a variety of topics from ship classes to geopolitics! If you haven't already done so, you need to get caught up. Most people spend an hour or so every night reading and rereading posts because of the vast amount of accumulated wisdom contained therein.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30569063558938649082016-07-16T05:15:44.820-07:002016-07-16T05:15:44.820-07:00What the real threats are and how to deal with the...What the real threats are and how to deal with them with in chinese held waters. If you have already done a post on that, please link the name off the article and the year and Ill brush up on what was discussed.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30476770558378147572016-07-14T07:34:26.968-07:002016-07-14T07:34:26.968-07:00"... I feel the Chinese "fortress" ..."... I feel the Chinese "fortress" problem should get revisited."<br /><br />I have done some posts on this. What aspect do think needs further examination? I'm always looking for good subject matter.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11163991222617270082016-07-14T07:03:11.061-07:002016-07-14T07:03:11.061-07:00I think I understand what your saying and in that ...I think I understand what your saying and in that context yes, ships are relatively safe approaching shore to strike targets.<br /><br />I mentioned North Sentinel island because at the time I was taking the "fort" concept to be entirely focus on China, and was trying to illustrate the two extremes of the spectrum. Barring China and taking what I think you mean by "fort" to mean any target to include those deep inland, for quick hit and run launches, I agree with your assessment of the adage is false, with in the scenario. I feel, even thou you have done several posts already on it, I feel the Chinese "fortress" problem should get revisited.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55942128749384987612016-07-14T06:51:05.876-07:002016-07-14T06:51:05.876-07:00As fate would have it, my units horizontal enginee...As fate would have it, my units horizontal engineering section just got tasked with constructing a temporary airfield for UAV and rotary wing. If you dont mind, ill talk with them on this matter more in depth when I see them in a week or so and revive this discussion with hard facts and their opinions.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28632712530436567202016-07-13T19:02:37.660-07:002016-07-13T19:02:37.660-07:00This is not the first instance of a quote being fa...This is not the first instance of a quote being fabricated and then misattributed by the fabricator. Mark Twain never said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes"; it was the poet John Robert Colombo who put those words in his mouth in 1970. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90838445421196595322016-07-13T05:51:21.990-07:002016-07-13T05:51:21.990-07:00What do you think Im implying?What do you think Im implying?Andrew S.noreply@blogger.com