Win OR Lose World War II ???

Last evening good friends and I sitting around had an interesting discussion, and I'd like to have all your honest input into this question: If this Government that we have today, and the current Main Stream Media were in place on Dec. 7th, 1941; do you think we could have won WWII????

We tried to be fair and honest in our opinions, and the group agreed We'd probably be Dead, goose stepping, and heil Hitlering, or bent over in rice paddies growing food for our honorable Masters. SCARY ISN'T IT? al b03

If you took todays leadership and put them in charge in 1941 with the 1941 population of the United States we would have still won the war. I believe if the leadership of 1941 had the U.S. population of today the issue would definately be in doubt.

Not to mention our industry then and now.
Bob

A great topic, I had to think about it awhile.

Our military is still top notch and technologically ahead of other countries. But it won't be for long. What the bunch in Washington don't (or can't) realize is we have to keep advancing. Our fighters are the best in the world but you can bet that Russia and China are burning the midnight oil to catch up.

We have to be thinking about what happens 5 years down the line, 10 years. And we have to be prepared for any threat, some not even out there yet.

So, if you are asking if I think the bunch in Washington has these thoughts in mind?????

Do I have to answer that?

No for several reasons.
First lend lease to aid the British before we entered the war. I don't think we would have supported them and it's likely they would have fallen to the Germans.
Remember there was a lot of anti-war pressure before we entered the war. Roosevelt did a lot of backdoor support with Churchill. We had a lot of our politians supporting Germany.

On the Pacific side not so sure, but again let the Japenese have the captured area and make peace. We still have people that think we were wrong to fight them in the Pacific and that they were only reacting to American aggression in the area.

It wouldn't have taken much to change the outcome of WW2. There were several critical points where a different attack/retreat would have lost us the war.

I would guess it would not have made any difference. The world then was in a major conflict, not like the gorilla wars going on with terrorists today. The attack a Pearl and the attack on the World Trade Center were basically the same and the US population rallied to the call united. At least for a while. I believe the difference was the mandate of the UN to get Sadam out of Kuwait rather than an all out war as happening in Europe at the time.

The current administration as it is, would have had to change. If you recall, our nation was somewhat neutral except for the lend lease of equipment and arms to England etc. It was "their war" until Pearl and then it became our war since Japan, Germany and Italy had signed their treaties. With the Pacific fleet destroyed, the concern was our west coast and the US had to take the fight to Japan.

The media on the other hand could not change the facts as they were happening. Japans attack changed the attitude of the US population as did the attack on the Twin Towers. Todays population may not see the threat as it really is, but if the terrorists get though current safe guards, and bombings start happening on our streets such as those in Bagdad, I am sure you will se a change in attitude and expect the "government" to do something. And of course the governement is us.

So you think Obami and Pelosi and Reedi, and the gutless leberals in Washington would have been able to make the very diffucult decisions to fire bomb Japanese cities, Berlin, etc. To send our troops into almost impossible intense fire on the beaches of Normandy? To Lose 40 plus bombers at a time over Germany? The media would be screaming about the civilian losses. I don't think these Actors could muster the country into the united effort that built the most powerful military in the world. Not these spineless liberals.

I don't think they would have any choice in the matter. The public would require it. I also think we will also see a change in administration this next time around because of the attitude the people you have mentioned have taken. The population is seeing that you can not make peace from a weak position. I have also seen some reporting recently by individuals who believe the positions of canceling some weapons systems such as the F 35 Strike Fighter are wrong as is others. I don't recall seeing that happen when the B2 contract was scraped. It is little changes that I see here and there that are beginning to take place and with more speaking out. Same with Obama's plan to change over to private insurance for the military vets. There is still some strong unity in this country.

The United States was far from "united" in the run up to World War 2. There were strong pacifist, isolationist, anti interventionist and even Nazi sympathizer forces that were very strong, very well organized had a lot of influence and collaborated with each other. Many influential Private Citizens like Charles Lindburgh and Avery Brundage were either defeatest, had Nazi sympathies or both. With little support from congress for intervention in Europe and even less for intervention in Asia the United States would probably never have entered the war except for the attack on Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor there would have been a diminishing of support for a war in Europe had Hitler not foolishly declared war on the United States.

Once that happened there was an overwhelming shift in public opinion to win the war and whether Roosevelt or Obama was in charge I think the result would have been the same.

It would have been a harder slog with Obama though. I don't think he would have supported the huge military buildup tha Roosevelt began in the middle of the great depression that paid big dividends during the war. I do believe, however, the outcome would have eventually been the same, though the war may have lasted a year longer.

There would not have been a war. The President would have apologized to Japan for our actions in interfering with a peaceful Hawaiian cruise by the Imperial Japanese Navy, invited Yamamoto to the White House and given him command of all U.S. forces, then told the Japanese to take Hawaii and to establish bases on the west coast. Then the President would have made a trip to Germany to bow to Hitler and explain that the U.S. could never support an imperialist country like England against a noble socialist state like Germany. The President would explain a picture of him giving the Nazi salute by saying that he was simply reaching for a basketball.

Jim

We have elected not a Roosevelt but rather a Neville Chamberlain. Considering obama's toadying to the muslim world, Hitler would have had no problem enacting his "jewish solution" The Grand Mufti of jerusalem would have been invited to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom.

We have elected a "Chamberlain" but nothing is as simple as it seems. Chamberlain was the prime minister who ultimately declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. He remained Prime Minister until May, 1940 when he resigned, realizing his political position was untenable, after narrowly surviving a "no confidence" vote.

Despite Chamberlain and his very flawed policies the United Kingdom not only was on the winning side but was essential to winning the war.

As to Roosevelt, I have said before he is on my list of the 5 greatest presidents at number 3 because he foresaw the conflict and for years had been preparing for it. Not because of the "New Deal" which ultimately was a failed policy.

The big problem with Obama is that, like Chamberlain, he makes the prospect of war greater by trying to avoid it. Do I wish we had elected a "Roosevelt" on foreign policy? Emphatically yes.

I still think we would have ultimately won the Second World War anyway.

We should not forget that many Americans openly supported Hitler before the war and many remained secret Nazi backers during the war. One who backed Hitler was Joseph Kennedy, who was so steeped in Irish rhetoric that he believed any enemy of England was his friend. In appreciation of Kennedy's political contributions, Roosevelt, with a nasty sense of humor, made him ambassador to the Court of St. James; Churchill finally told FDR to pull him out or England would declare him persona non grata, a serious insult to a diplomat and the country he serves. Roosevelt obliged.

Many other Americans admired the Nazis, either because they hated Jews or because they admired the efficiency of dictatorships in "making the trains run on time" (said about Mussolini), or bringing prosperity. Few cared that Germany's prosperity came from war preparations, or that efficiency came at the cost of freedom and democratic process.

Most Americans didn't like the Japanese or Japanese-Americans, a factor in both underestimating the enemy and in the use of internment camps for American citizens. While it was not the whole story, Adm. Kimmel's statement that "we didn't think the little yellow b*****ds could do it" certainly was a factor in the unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor.

Jim

Amen Jim. To put an exclamation point on that the German American Bund held a rally in 1939 in New York City that attracted 20,000 people.

I do remember the German-American Bund.

As for Obama. "I have talked with the muslims and they assure me that .......Peace in our time"

Chamberlain damm near left Britain defenceless with his concilatory programmes and it was only through the efforts of others that Britain held out.

One could put a good spin on Obama's overtures to the Muslim world; after all, we should try to get along with everyone. But Iran told him bluntly that they will talk to him only after he converts the U.S. to Islam.

And Saudi Arabia, in spite of Obama's bowing to the king, is really no more friendly and allows its oil billionaires to keep Al Qaeda going with million dollar contributions. (If reports are true, they also contributed heavily - and illegally - to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign; that might explain why Homeland Security is eager to crack down on mythical "right wing extremists" rather than on real Islamic terrorists.)

Jim

We went to war because we had no choice. The brutal Japanese actions in the Phillippines (like the Bataan Death March) and the execution of prisoners at other places (Wake Island, for example) were clearly unforgiveable by any politician of any stripe. Only one member of Congress voted against declaring war on Japan, and her elevator clearly didn't go all the way to the penthouse.

And Germany declared war on us, not the other way round.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, there is no way events could have unfolded differently. Even people who strongly opposed war prior to Pearl Harbor came on board. Charles Lindberg, for example, tried to get back on active duty and was denied by Roosevelt as punishment. As a Lockheed employee, he went out to the Pacific, as an exepert on the P-38. He sweet-talked his way into flying with a combat group, and shot down a Japanese plane.

I don't belive we have the will to win ANY war.Put a fork in us ,it's over.

In 1941, the commies in this country were willing to go along with anything that would save Stalinist Russia from the mean old Nazis. In 2009, the commies are in charge here, and they will continue to push for their worker's paradise. They will disregard our Constitution and our successful capitalist culture to return the wealth of this country to it's "rightful owners". Before long we can expect the pressure to mount for the removal of our "dangerous" weapons from irresponsible hands (ours). They will only fight against a perceived enemy of the socialist state, but they will be brutal in that fight. Personal and civil liberties will be crushed in the name of "the people". No, we would not win a major war. The media and the average citizen do not care about our country. The media wants a story, and the citizen wants to be on Survivor and win the lottery. Regards, Clark

Until the Whermacht crossed the Russian border, the communists in this country were against our helping Britain in WW2. Then "Uncle Joe" told them his buddy hitler was a "bad person" and they switched overnight!

John is exactly right about the Communists opposing our entering the war against Germany. Although I didn't mention it in my first post about people who opposed us entering the war, the Communists did until Hitler invaded Russia and the Communist Party was large and politcally influential in the United States in the 1930's.

Remember that Roosevelt broke the law by aiding Britain in many ways in defiance of Congressional Neutrality legislation. He basically (and illegally) promised Churchill that the US would eventually enter the war -- keep fighting, boys!

Now, Roosevelt broke the law on numerous occasions. On this one the lawbreaking was on the side of the angels.

Perhaps I'm not a fair commentator; one of my ancestors died at Auschwitz.

Was not the neutral theory somewhat the same as today. Aid the side to keep the status even. Russia has equiped one side, we equip the other. At times it is equip both sides to keep the status even with arms. Example, Isreal and Egypt. Now it is helping Iraq to keep Iran out. Just a thought anyway.

You cannot compare "today's" environment with the World War 2 years. During WW2, the US was more self-reliant than now. The people felt our way of life was threatened and joined in a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. It is interesting but during WW2, the US quickly determined that that all necessary war materiale would be manufactured in this Country rather than in foreign countries. There were just a few items (ie rubber) that had to be imported, but there were several attempts at making synthetic rubber rather than relying on foreign imports. The problem with foreign imports is that they could be stopped by the enemy. This is not the case today.

This is the reason that America was called the "Great Arsenal of Democracy" by Roosevelt. During those years, this Country was heavily industrialized, proudly using the phrase a "smokestack industry".

Sadly, today, you'd be lucky to find any smokestacks. The smokestacks are long gone deemed hazardous by the EPA. No more are most of the "tools of war" made in this country. Most of the war materiale is imported or made to foreign specifications based on UN design.

Could we win WW2 if it was fought today?? Doubtful...with the present political climate, we'd be trying to make friends with the Axis powers and subsequently bombed into submission.

Very few realize how close Hitler came to winning WW2. If several things had gone "his way", then the Nazis would have developed Nuclear fission. Coupled with the Nazis' development of rocket powered engines, we'd be in serious trouble none the less.

I think the question was could the United States of 1941 have won the war with the leadership we have today. My answer is still yes but it would have been a much harder slog.

I think it should be remembered that the response to the 911 bombings was the invasion of Afganistan. It was quick, decisive, and to this day almost nobody, including Obama will say the response wasn't appropriate.

As to the United States being able to fight World War 2 today, it isn't just the fact that our industrial capacity is so degraded. There are other issues as well. I firmly believe that any attempt at conscription would be met with massive civil disobedience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M1 Rifleman

Most of the war materiale is imported or made to foreign specifications based on UN design.

---

Which past or present U.S. DoD weapons were designed by the U.N.?

The answer to your question, The U.N. Flag, an updated version of the white one.

Way too many people do not have any concept of history. Here is just one example "our industrial capacity is so degraded." Hello??

Our "industrial capacity" is about 100X what it was in the 1930's. The miracle of WWII is we built almost everything from the ground up and we did it in months not years. Aircraft, armor, jeeps, ships, munition, and logistics facilities were created from scratch.

Think about Iran and No. Korea. They have been working to develop a nuke for 20 years and haven't gotten there yet. Using 1940's technology, we did it in about 3 1/2 years! We sent men to the moon in the 1960's and no body else has done that even to this day.

But we can't do it now... because why?

Because there are three toed rats that are more important than life, liberty, and the pursuit...

Because developing and maintaining superior weapons and military forces is not politically correct...

Because the USA is the bad guy in the world. We have the highest standard of living, the best food, and the best medical system in all the world only because we have stolen these things from the rest of the world...

My America is apparently dead. Hard work and honesty is no longer rewarded. Morality has descended into the abyss. Love and marriage no longer go together... It is OK to lie cheat and steal because everybody does it... A BJ is not sex... Honey, I promise I won't...

Sorry... rant is done. Where is my Wild Turkey?

:madsmile::bash:

Way too many people do not have any concept of history. Here is just one example "our industrial capacity is so degraded." Hello??

Our "industrial capacity" is about 100X what it was in the 1930's. The miracle of WWII is we built almost everything from the ground up and we did it in months not years. Aircraft, armor, jeeps, ships, munition, and logistics facilities were created from scratch.

Think about Iran and No. Korea. They have been working to develop a nuke for 20 years and haven't gotten there yet. Using 1940's technology, we did it in about 3 1/2 years! We sent men to the moon in the 1960's and no body else has done that even to this day.

But we can't do it now... because why?

Because there are three toed rats that are more important than life, liberty, and the pursuit...

Because developing and maintaining superior weapons and military forces is not politically correct...

Because the USA is the bad guy in the world. We have the highest standard of living, the best food, and the best medical system in all the world only because we have stolen these things from the rest of the world...

My America is apparently dead. Hard work and honesty is no longer rewarded. Morality has descended into the abyss. Love and marriage no longer go together... It is OK to lie cheat and steal because everybody does it... A BJ is not sex... Honey, I promise I won't...

Sorry... rant is done. Where is my Wild Turkey?

:madsmile::bash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al b03

Last evening good friends and I sitting around had an interesting discussion, and I'd like to have all your honest input into this question: If this Government that we have today, and the current Main Stream Media were in place on Dec. 7th, 1941; do you think we could have won WWII????

We tried to be fair and honest in our opinions, and the group agreed We'd probably be Dead, goose stepping, and heil Hitlering, or bent over in rice paddies growing food for our honorable Masters. SCARY ISN'T IT? al b03

---

Although its a good topic for discussion, in the world of 1941 it could not happen. Obama would be working as a menial someplace, with no chance of being elected to any public office. I think even the liberal government that we have today, had they been confronted with something as horrendous as Pearl Harbor (and they very well still might be) would have to change course and confront the enemy. The problem is that they are leading us down the path to another disaster, and part of their solution, as has been said, will be to crush civil liberties for the sake of expediency. Its been done before, but this time the restrictions will probably be permanent. Our only hope is if enough people wake up to the menace of the Left. I think if they win the upcoming midterm elections, this country will never be the same again.:surrender::bow:

Red, you have made some good points there. Our country can do what is needed once the country makes up its mind to do so. It has done so in the past and can do it again. It might come down to the question of do we have the talent, inovative people to do the job. It appears there could be some doubts when you look at our education systems graduates compared to the rest of the world. By this I mean those in K-12 currently. From the test results I have viewed via the newpaper, I have some doubt.

Pete-

The most striking example of using foreign designations would be the various calibers of ammunition employed by the US. The standard US Service pistol is the BERETTA 92F in 9mm (note: Italian designed). The fabled M16 shoots a 5.56mm cartridge (.223 caliber). Ammunition today is coded in millimeters rather than caliber. Both are of recent manufacture (within the last 40 years).

The US standard Service Rifle during WW2 was the M1 Garand in .30-06. The same cartridge was used in the B-A-R (Browning Automatic Rifle); the M1903 (the Springfield) series'; and the two mainstay machine guns, the water-cooled and air cooled. The US Standard service pistol was the US M1911a1, which used a .45 caliber round. The little M1 Carbine used a .30 caliber Carbine round.

This clearly shows that the US converted their arms to metric dimensions, as is used by the rest of the World, rather than staying with the English system of measurement (ie calibers).

The fact that we call the .223 cal round 5.56 mm does'nt change the fact that we were the first to implement the caliber. You are right, the 9mm Beretta is definately an example of us going along with the rest of NATO. There was definately nothing wrong with the old 1911a1 in .45 ACP.

Just a point, the 9mm was long established for years as such, so changing the designation to inches would be worthless.
However why we went to that cartridge is a mystery. Sure the magazine holds more rounds, You will NEED those extra rounds to stop the bad guys.
Even with what we now have running the country, I should think we are still capable of supplying .45 calibre ammunition to our military, and when you are using FMJ, Bigger is better.

Depends on how you use it... right? Well in this case size was dictated by a large extent because our new women warriors couldn't handle the recoil of the 1911. From the beginning of time it has been the female of the species that defines the term "big."
:lol:

We had large developed oil reserves which by the end were already being depleted. We had something like 15 major auto and truck manufacturers which easily could be converted into making guns, tanks, jeeps trucks and halftracks. We produced most if not all of our steel. Had sources of strategic metals either here or in South America, and a large rural population that could be easily trained and used. There were also many, many really good businessmen and capitalists who knew what to do to succeed. People like Henry Ford who could shift his talents to build airplanes (he had some limited experience) as well as cars and trucks. These people put America on a war footing immediately and converted practically any manufacturer of something into making something needed for the war. More than anything else, this helped to win the war.

Our present government has pitifully few free thinkers or driven individuals. Today impression trumps substance every time. Talented businessmen today know how to turn a quick buck by using and exploiting cheap labor abroad and wall street crooks are applauded as geniuses because they can make money. That is the yardstick for success today; not how well a company performs and endures over the long haul, but how much money one man can make for himself. There is no common goal other than greed. I find it doubtful that we could do WW2 over again if we had to wait until Korea decided to send over more steel, or China could get those army boots and uniforms done on time. We are actually in a position much like that of pre war Japan; dependent on others for success and not at all prepared to ramp up on a big scale. Our existing population is not as well educated as the pre war one was and certainly not as motivated as those post depression kids were. If we got into a shooting war today, the Chinese or Russians would have to sink a dozen nuclear carriers (which they already can), and we would be in a world of hurt.

As for leadership, Obama couldn't hold Roosevelt or Truman's lunch pail.

Bob got it right.

In WWII we built 200,000 airplanes, 15,00 p-51s at $55,00 each, 12,000 B-17s at about $240K .. we launched a Liberty Ship every day, built them faster than the Nazis could sink them. We had a merchant marine to carry men and materiel over ..

My grandmother worked for the Office of War Production which imposed a planned economy on the idle industrial plant of the depression-era US. During that war we developed methods for organizing a command economy that were later adopted by the Soviets - once they had caught up.

Now we have billion-dollar destroyers, we are looking at the F-22, A 500-million dollar plane, our industrial base continues to shrink, we haven't had a merchant marine since Nixon killed it in 1970.

If we had to deal with a modern-day Axis, would we be able to pull it off? War has changed,for sure. I think we could do it as long as we could wipe the enemy out in a few weeks. A protracted war against an enemy with his own indutrial base and naval forces, might be a differnet story.

just a few thougts.

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RED

Depends on how you use it... right? Well in this case size was dictated by a large extent because our new women warriors couldn't handle the recoil of the 1911. From the beginning of time it has been the female of the species that defines the term "big."
:lol:

---

It's BS that women can't handle a .45. But in any case you can always issue them an M16.

We started with a .45, but went to a .38 and learned the hard way it didn't stop people, so we went back to a .45. Apparently the current generation of soldiers is finding out the same lesson again, but it hasn't percolated to the perfumed princes in the pentagon as yet.:rolleyes:

I would be very fearful.

At one time dedicated federal workers would rise above politics & do whatever was necessary to protect the nation, but no longer. The two biggest reasons this changed are 1) elimination of the Civil Service (applies to employees hired > 1/1/84, & 2) affirmative action (technically illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Most of you who have dealt with the Federal government in recent years know what I mean. Sadly, they no longer try to hire the best & the brightest, but those who are politically connected.

Win a war after attacks on US soil? Not likely.

Myers:
What in the hell are you talking about. The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was supplanted by Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) on the date mentioned. Civil Service remains intact. Come to NIH, USDA, FDA, NASA, FBI, NSA etc and we'll show you that meritocracy is VERY ALIVE AND WELL. I am probably one hell of a lot farther up the food chain that you probably were and can tell you that there was never a problem and will never be a problem in hiring good folks for the feds. I have heard the BS about EEO being an impediment but have never found it to be so.

I don't know how the question asked got twisted into the last few posts. First -thank God we had the Greatest Generation was to fight the war in 1942. I'm not sure the current generation would make as good of a showing.

As far as the government question - I believe that is a whole different topic. Government is a necessary evil and nothing more. Government has gotten too big and too many government employees are "pot-lickers". I retired (early retirement) as a CSRS retiree 12 years ago, because I could no longer stomach the BS. And politicians only pervert good programs into welfare of one kind or the other. There are some good government employees - but they are greatly outnumbered by the pot-lickers. I tip my hat to the good government employees, but have nothing but contempt for the sub-standard bureaucrats.

I find that there have been some very good responses by all since my last visit to this thread. It has always been my impression that the .223 and 9mm were adopted for uniformity between our allies just as the .308 was adopted by many other nations withing the group. Finding that the 9 mm is not a results orentated as the .45 was seems to be the experince of our troops because we have the highest number there. Other nations, other and the UK have token forces when you consider numbers.

Now that having been said, how "costly" would it be to equip our troops with the .45 again. I am sure there is a bean counter somewhere that would object. I recall and could be wrong but I thought not long ago, more 9mm were purchased.

I also know that no matter what business is out there, there are slackers when it comes to a large number of employees. Many can be seen readily in the Postal System and the service there is no longer what it use to be at the counter at the branches.

There is greed and corruption. The Cleveland area is under going a large investigation of kick backs, hiring practice etc. The county sherrif has not hired new employees using the Civil Service Exam for something like 20 years.
County employees are being hired via friends and family in an umbelievable numbers. It goes on and on.

If you read the contract regarding the proposed Medical Mart operations it would make your head swim between getting around specific laws, lease backs and the like and the County taxpayers are financing this through a tax we were not allowed to vote on. A real sweet deal for Medical Mart.

If we have it here that bad, just imagine what Chicago has or the other larger cities. Greed is rampant.

Do we have any real organizers left that could make the grade with a war time effort such as WW2? That is the biggest question that would provide the answer to the original question. The same would apply to politics. Do we have any real Statesmen anymore?

I think I have said enough for now and I wish to say, I believe this to be one of the best threads in a long time that has caused some deep thinking by all the contributors.

My thanks for having been in such good company.

If IRC the deal was struck by NATO in exchange for going with the 5.56 over the 7.62 NATO the US went to the 9mm over the .45. This was to standardize ammo specs throughout the NATO nations. You have to speculate on why the US decided on the 5.56 but one would have to think that McNamara had a huge hand. Being the bean counter he was they did away with the Arsenal system that worked so well for us through Korea and up into the 60's to go with the lowest bidder. You can make (2) 5.56 cartridges for the price of (1) .308. Of course one marginal hit with (1) .30 caliber bullet will take most people out of a fight compared to how many hits from a delicate .22 caliber bullet. This destruction of the arsenal system gave way to inferior weapons and cartridges that put our boys and girls even farther into harms way. My idea of waging war is to kill the other guy before he kills you. Do it quickly and efficently and you win. Any other way and you get Viet Nam. Remember that the USSR spent several years in Afganistan using a .22 caliber bullet and lost.

We bought the 9mm Berreta because the Italians bought our F16's.
NOT because it was the best handgun.

While it is true that we are a part of NATO, I do believe we are still able to provide .45 calibre ammunition to our military if we wanted to.

It was the Greatest Generation that prevailed in World War 2,darn good book to.By Tom brokaw!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Sukey

We bought the 9mm Berreta because the Italians bought our F16's.
NOT because it was the best handgun.

While it is true that we are a part of NATO, I do believe we are still able to provide .45 calibre ammunition to our military if we wanted to.

---

I couldn't agree more on the baretta or the cartridge. And it seems our Special Forces units still prefer the .45 for special ops. :dancingbanana: