On Mar 19, 4:17*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 11:04 am, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
> > > concerning logistics.
>
> > > On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > >> > An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> > >> > Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>
> > >> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
> > >> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
> > >> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
> > >> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
> > >> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
> > >> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
> > >> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages..
> > >> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
> > >> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
> > >> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
> > >> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
> > >> in a single day.
> > >> Chris Manteuffel
>
> > > The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,
> > > (I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),
> > > I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
> > > ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
> > > get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
> > > A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.
>
> > This is a ludicrous claim that only an idiot would make.
>
> You'll need to LEARN how Ford assembled model T's,
> (engloshers never understood mass productivity).
>
> > Andrew Higgins had a superbly efficient organisation for
> > building landing craft. He employed 30,000 people directly
> > and built some 24,000 barges during the course of the
> > war. This did not include the workforce building and
> > assembling engines and other mechanical parts. At the
> > peak of production his yards turned out 700 boats a month.
>
> Well some Engishman is an idiot, SOP, are we to use a 'Higgins"
> as some sort of benchmarck?
> Limey's spend most of their time drinking tea and feeling each
> other up their kilts, it's no wonder they always lose wars.
>
> Ford proved he could employ low skilled workers (such as
> yourself), and crank out 1000's of engines a day.
>
> Frankly I find English are queer, and spend an inordinate
> amount of time decorating the interior of their crap.
> Here in canuckistan, we'd laff at anyone who bought an
> english car, if the temp went below 50F it needed to be
> boosted, and cuz the electrics were always cross wired,
> spit on the car and it wouldn't start.
>
> > Do the math.
>
> Well do you know what a 1000 man hours is, I do,
> I actually do work, even did time study for a gigantic co.
>
> > > Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
> > > if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).
>
> > Julius Caesar launched his raids in 55 BC and 54 BC , as invasions
> > they were less than successful. He died in *44 BC
>
> > > Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
> > > impair a Brit counter-attack, and once the Nazi's get a farmers
> > > field to do Me-109's, with air support from France, well things
> > > would get hairy,
>
> > Lots of luck manhandling an 88 mm AA gun on and off a
> > canal barge - they weigh around 7 tons
>
> I spec'd the barge at 10'x40' so use a tractor, tow it,
> (I gotta think of everying).
>
> > > A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>
> > Where does their fuel and ammunition come from are are
> > they just intended as targets ?
>
> LOL, What are 30,000 barges/month used for, carry around the
> retarded royal family to watch the invasion? SOP for Engloshers.
>
> > Keith
>
> Yeah, try to keep a sense of humor, not that Engloshers have
> any.
> Ken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCVP

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 19, 11:04 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
>> > concerning logistics.
>>
>> > On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>> >> > Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>
>> >> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
>> >> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
>> >> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
>> >> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
>> >> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
>> >> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
>> >> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
>> >> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
>> >> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
>> >> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
>> >> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
>> >> in a single day.
>> >> Chris Manteuffel
>>
>> > The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,
>> > (I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),
>> > I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
>> > ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
>> > get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
>> > A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.
>>
>> This is a ludicrous claim that only an idiot would make.
>
> You'll need to LEARN how Ford assembled model T's,
> (engloshers never understood mass productivity).
>
>> Andrew Higgins had a superbly efficient organisation for
>> building landing craft. He employed 30,000 people directly
>> and built some 24,000 barges during the course of the
>> war. This did not include the workforce building and
>> assembling engines and other mechanical parts. At the
>> peak of production his yards turned out 700 boats a month.
>
> Well some Engishman is an idiot, SOP, are we to use a 'Higgins"
> as some sort of benchmarck?

Higgins was from Louisiana and his yards were around New Orleans

Why don't you try and get something right for a change ?

Keith

On Mar 19, 2:04*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> ...
None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.
I suspect that like an irresistible force striking an immovable object
there would have been an inconceivable concussion resulting in
irreparable damage.

jsw

On Mar 19, 4:46*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 11:04 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
> >> > concerning logistics.
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris > wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> >> >> > Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>
> >> >> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
> >> >> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
> >> >> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
> >> >> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
> >> >> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
> >> >> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
> >> >> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
> >> >> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
> >> >> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
> >> >> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
> >> >> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
> >> >> in a single day.
> >> >> Chris Manteuffel
>
> >> > The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,
> >> > (I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),
> >> > I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
> >> > ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
> >> > get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
> >> > A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.
>
> >> This is a ludicrous claim that only an idiot would make.
>
> > You'll need to LEARN how Ford assembled model T's,
> > (engloshers never understood mass productivity).
>
> >> Andrew Higgins had a superbly efficient organisation for
> >> building landing craft. He employed 30,000 people directly
> >> and built some 24,000 barges during the course of the
> >> war. This did not include the workforce building and
> >> assembling engines and other mechanical parts. At the
> >> peak of production his yards turned out 700 boats a month.
>
> > Well some Engishman is an idiot, SOP, are we to use a 'Higgins"
> > as some sort of benchmarck?
>
> Higgins was from Louisiana and his yards were around New Orleans
>
> Why don't you try and get something right for a change ?
>
> Keith

Which is why the U.S. WWII/D-Day Museum is in New Orleans.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
> concerning logistics.
>
> On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
>> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
>> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
>> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
>> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
>> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
>> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
>> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
>> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
>> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
>> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
>> in a single day.
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,

Using a labour intesive design not lending itself to outboard motors.

> (I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),

Sure you have.

> I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
> ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
> get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
> A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.
> Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
> if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).
>
Different type of war, different circumstances etc. There wasn't a
unified UK, no fire arms, electronic communications, air capability...etc.


> Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
> impair a Brit counter-attack,

How big is an 88? How do you get it across the Channel, in one of
your barges? Do you fire it while still in the barge? How do you get it
off the barge and onto solid land? Do you ask the Brits to take a tea
break while you do it?

and once the Nazi's get a farmers
> field to do Me-109's, with air support from France, well things
> would get hairy,
> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 19, 3:09*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> ...
> >Not in 1940. Fuzing problems and depth-keeping difficulties nearly as
> >bad as those of US weapons, though fixed much more urgently.
>
> I'd thought the time periods were similar?
....
> Peter Skelton

The story of the Mark 14 torpedo centers on this man:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/h/Christie_Ralph_W.htm

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 19, 2:04 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> ...
> None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
> relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
> weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
> Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
> to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.

The RAF did NOT have to attack one set of ships, its task was to prevent
the Luftwaffe attacking the RN

There was an completely unequal balance of force between the
RN and the Kriegsmarine in favour of the RN

> I suspect that like an irresistible force striking an immovable object

The Luftwaffe was not irresistible - see Battle of Britain

> there would have been an inconceivable concussion resulting in
> irreparable damage.
>

To the Wehrmacht as most post war war games have shown and
the smarter German commanders knew.

Keith

In message
>, Jim
Wilkins > writes
>None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
>relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
>weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
>Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
>to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.

I'd go with Crete as an amphibious attack far from the enemy's bases and
with total air supremacy, as a good example (and after a year of further
combat experience for the Luftwaffe)

If the Germans can't protect their force with those advantages, indeed
can't even get *any* past the RN, how can they land troops in the UK and
support and reinforce them enough to win?

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

In message >, Dan >
writes
>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>
> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.

He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Mar 19, 6:34*am, Alexander > wrote:

> Germany was concentrating on an Armored war in the East. If the decision
> had been to retain Russia as an ally, Germany would have found the where
> with all to toast England. As for starving England out..Why not...That
> is what England did to Germany after the Armistice in WWI. America had
> no place in either war. England handed us the dirty end of the stick and
> we had morons in Corporate America what war profiteered by jumping at
> the chance.

> England was a paper tiger as proven by the taking of Poland. Even in WWI
> The English had lost the war when Germany first offered a stand down and
> to return to its original borders. But oh no..Wilson had to furnish more
> war materials to England and when a ship load of that got sunk...Pull
> isolationist America into a European conflict for which America got
> nothing but egg on its face.

> Actually he never planned to invade England. That is just Paranoia.
> If his original plans were to invade, Germany would have been tooling up
> in 1934, just like American corporate Government did. America stashed
> all the steel and materials and redesigned it planes and battle fleets
> in 1934. When Roosevelt finally goaded Japan into attacking us, It only
> took short weeks before Fletcher class destroyers came off the assy line
> by the gross. Planes also.. All designs with 1934 copyrights.

> The English Empire started its own destruction in WWI. Its primary goal
> was to pirate Germanys rich colonies. They got ****ed when the
> Bolsheviks took Russia out of the equation as an ally. One bloody war
> led to the next one. Bolsheviks were and are Jews by the way. The same
> batch of assholes that fled Russia for Israel and are now the
> assassinating settlers on Palestinian soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Chris Manteuffel

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Dan >
> writes
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>
>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>
> He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.
>


I thought those were still most secret. I sure hope no one mentions
the av gas and diesel fountains in every shire.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >,
Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris > wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander > wrote:
>> > ...
>>
>> > As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for
>> > what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy.
>> > The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking
>> > ships that the comparison is ludicrous.
>> > ...
>> > Chris Manteuffel
>>
>> Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary
>> ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese
>> weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for
>> example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective
>> as Wildcats at protecting the ships.
>
>Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
>were at bombing ships in the open sea.

The answer, of course, is "far better than anyone expected, based on extensive
experience against the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica"...

And the Luftwaffe in 1940 was much, much less effective against shipping than
the specialist anti-ship units in the Med' in '41 on which that assessment had
been based. As witness their unimpressive performance during DYNAMO.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
>>>>>> war materials and massive military direct aid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, assuming they could get there, which they couldn't...
>>>>
>>>> Are you really daft enough to believe that would always be?
>>>> That is a very short Channel.
>>>
>>> Actually its about 300 miles long. At its narrowest its only about 22
>>> miles
>>> wide but that has its own problems.
>>>
>>> The topography at its narrowest point is rather unfriendly to the
>>> invader.
>>> Landing on the beach between Folkestone and Deal leaves you at the
>>> foot of precipitous cliffs riddled with tunnels and batteries of guns.
>>>
>>> Think Omaha beach x 10
>>>
>>> If you head NE to the beaches around Deal , Sandwich and Ramsgate
>>> you greatly increase the length of the sea crossing. Not a good idea
>>> when
>>> your barges can only do 4 knots especially given that the tidal race in
>>> those parts can run at 2-4 knots. Of course there is the little
>>> matter that
>>> it brings you closer to the RN ships at Harwich, Ramsgate and Chatham
>>>
>>> That leaves you landing on the beach between Folkestone and Rye.
>>>
>>> This is an area the British Army had been planning to defend since
>>> the Napoleonic wars. Apart from the fixed defenses there were gun
>>> batteries placed back from the coast with pre-surveyed fields of fire.
>>>
>>> There were five fully equipped infantry divisions covering this area
>>> with another 5 and an armoured division held in reserve. The Germans
>>> would have little or no armour or heavy guns but would be equipped
>>> with infantry weapons and a few mountain guns and mortars. Pity
>>> the poor soldier of the Heer short of food and ammunition trying
>>> to cross the royal military canal under fire from 7.2" and 25 pounder
>>> artillery into the teeth of the machine gun fire from the concrete
>>> pillboxes
>>> on the other side.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the home guard was NOT so much to fight the German Army
>>> as to release regular troops from routine security tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>> <paranoid racist diatribe deleted>
>>>
>>> Keith
>>
>> Lots of Concrete Liberty ships would do the job just fine.
>
> List of concrete liberty ships built worldwide

Are you daft? They were coming off the slipways every 3 to 4 days in
America. Had a drop in diesel Engine..and went asailing for the British
Isles.

>
> <Start of List>
> <End of List>
>
>> The point is really that the UK should learn from its past massive
>> mistakes and never get in this fix again.
>
> That was achieved in 1945 with the dismantling of the detestable Nazi
> regime.
>
> Keith

There would never have been a detestable Nazi regime without murderous
Bolsheviks and Imperialistic Brits. Of course The Brits love the many
Communists they have harbored within their Government.

Dan wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Alexander wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> Face it.. You people started 2 wars against
>>>> Germany, which if we had not interfered would have kicked your asses
>>>> bloody. For Christs sake, learn your lesson and don't start any more
>>>> damned wars. Same goes for us.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Read a history book. Germany invaded her neighbours unprovoked at
>>> the start of both world wars.
>>
>> Bull****. Provocation was there and it would have ended very quietly,
>> except for the English perfidy. Damned limeys were forever tinkering
>> in the business of others.
>
> The "limeys" didn't invade Poland, Russia and France in WW2 nor did
> they invade Russia or France in WW1. There might have been a lot of
> bluster all around prior to both wars, but Germany started shooting first.

So you think its wrong to shoot the SOB that threatens your security?
Ding dong! Ding Dong!
>
> No one in America wanted any part of that war.
>
> Not true.
>
>> The Idiot Wilson decided he needed some imperialism to beat Teddy
>> Roosevelt in the upcoming 1917 election.
>
> So, Zimmeran's telegram and the ongoing sinking of commerce had no
> influence on Wilson's request for a declaration of war? Under the
> Constitution only Congress can issue a declaration of war.
>
> Even Teddy thought it was a
>> stupid move. It was.
>>
>> Noting your bias against the UK and Israel I'm
>>> sure you will find a way to blame those 2 countries anyway.
>>
>> I lay blame where blame is due. Obviously you neglected your oxygen a
>> few too many times. Our business is America. Do try and remember that.
>> Even the US Airforce's business is America. By the way...Some of
>> Englands loudest critics are the English themselves. There is no true
>> UK anymore. Israel just told America to go **** itself. They did the
>> same to President Eisenhower. We do not have any need to keep
>> destroying our economy for the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews of Israel.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> I can see why!
>
> No, you can't see why. It's simple, I did 20+ years.

Lots of 20 year dead wood there.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

You are full of ****. Poland was encouraged to stick Hitler in the ass
by The Brits. The Brits Guaranteed Poland protection as did France.
The Danzig corridor was a real sore point. Poland threatened to invade
Germany on several occasions.

Chris wrote:
> On Mar 19, 6:34 am, Alexander > wrote:
>
>> Germany was concentrating on an Armored war in the East. If the decision
>> had been to retain Russia as an ally, Germany would have found the where
>> with all to toast England. As for starving England out..Why not...That
>> is what England did to Germany after the Armistice in WWI. America had
>> no place in either war. England handed us the dirty end of the stick and
>> we had morons in Corporate America what war profiteered by jumping at
>> the chance.
>
>> England was a paper tiger as proven by the taking of Poland. Even in WWI
>> The English had lost the war when Germany first offered a stand down and
>> to return to its original borders. But oh no..Wilson had to furnish more
>> war materials to England and when a ship load of that got sunk...Pull
>> isolationist America into a European conflict for which America got
>> nothing but egg on its face.
>
>> Actually he never planned to invade England. That is just Paranoia.
>> If his original plans were to invade, Germany would have been tooling up
>> in 1934, just like American corporate Government did. America stashed
>> all the steel and materials and redesigned it planes and battle fleets
>> in 1934. When Roosevelt finally goaded Japan into attacking us, It only
>> took short weeks before Fletcher class destroyers came off the assy line
>> by the gross. Planes also.. All designs with 1934 copyrights.
>
>> The English Empire started its own destruction in WWI. Its primary goal
>> was to pirate Germanys rich colonies. They got ****ed when the
>> Bolsheviks took Russia out of the equation as an ally. One bloody war
>> led to the next one. Bolsheviks were and are Jews by the way. The same
>> batch of assholes that fled Russia for Israel and are now the
>> assassinating settlers on Palestinian soil.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Don't even begin to think I will waste time on link bull****.

Chris wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>
> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
> in a single day.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Chris.. You keep proving yourself an idiot. Its fools like you that
always underestimate the competition.

Dan wrote:
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> In message >, Dan >
>> writes
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>>
>>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>>
>> He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.
>>
>
>
> I thought those were still most secret. I sure hope no one mentions
> the av gas and diesel fountains in every shire.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Particularly the under water gas fountains. They were designed to
give visiting infantry a warm reception. Too warm.

Andrew Swallow

Alexander wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Alexander wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Alexander wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Face it.. You people started 2 wars against
>>>>> Germany, which if we had not interfered would have kicked your
>>>>> asses bloody. For Christs sake, learn your lesson and don't start
>>>>> any more damned wars. Same goes for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read a history book. Germany invaded her neighbours unprovoked at
>>>> the start of both world wars.
>>>
>>> Bull****. Provocation was there and it would have ended very quietly,
>>> except for the English perfidy. Damned limeys were forever tinkering
>>> in the business of others.
>>
>> The "limeys" didn't invade Poland, Russia and France in WW2 nor did
>> they invade Russia or France in WW1. There might have been a lot of
>> bluster all around prior to both wars, but Germany started shooting
>> first.
>
> So you think its wrong to shoot the SOB that threatens your security?
> Ding dong! Ding Dong!

Invading France,Belgium, The Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Russia or
Poland had exactly what to do with Britain? In another part of this
thread you tell us Britain wasn't much of a threat to Germany now you
tell us she was a big enough threat to justify Germany starting wars.


>> No one in America wanted any part of that war.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>>> The Idiot Wilson decided he needed some imperialism to beat Teddy
>>> Roosevelt in the upcoming 1917 election.
>>
>> So, Zimmeran's telegram and the ongoing sinking of commerce had no
>> influence on Wilson's request for a declaration of war? Under the
>> Constitution only Congress can issue a declaration of war.
>>
>> Even Teddy thought it was a
>>> stupid move. It was.
>>>
>>> Noting your bias against the UK and Israel I'm
>>>> sure you will find a way to blame those 2 countries anyway.
>>>
>>> I lay blame where blame is due. Obviously you neglected your oxygen a
>>> few too many times. Our business is America. Do try and remember that.
>>> Even the US Airforce's business is America. By the way...Some of
>>> Englands loudest critics are the English themselves. There is no true
>>> UK anymore. Israel just told America to go **** itself. They did the
>>> same to President Eisenhower. We do not have any need to keep
>>> destroying our economy for the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews of Israel.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> I can see why!
>>
>> No, you can't see why. It's simple, I did 20+ years.
>
> Lots of 20 year dead wood there.

Prove it. On any event, at least I served, what have you done?

>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> You are full of ****. Poland was encouraged to stick Hitler in the ass
> by The Brits. The Brits Guaranteed Poland protection as did France.
> The Danzig corridor was a real sore point. Poland threatened to invade
> Germany on several occasions.

Prove there ever was a Polish threat, not invented by the Nazis, to
invade Germany. Danzig wouldn't have been a problem had Germany not
started WW1 and lost fair and square.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Alexander wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 6:34 am, Alexander > wrote:
>>
>>> Germany was concentrating on an Armored war in the East. If the decision
>>> had been to retain Russia as an ally, Germany would have found the where
>>> with all to toast England. As for starving England out..Why not...That
>>> is what England did to Germany after the Armistice in WWI. America had
>>> no place in either war. England handed us the dirty end of the stick and
>>> we had morons in Corporate America what war profiteered by jumping at
>>> the chance.
>>
>>> England was a paper tiger as proven by the taking of Poland. Even in WWI
>>> The English had lost the war when Germany first offered a stand down and
>>> to return to its original borders. But oh no..Wilson had to furnish more
>>> war materials to England and when a ship load of that got sunk...Pull
>>> isolationist America into a European conflict for which America got
>>> nothing but egg on its face.
>>
>>> Actually he never planned to invade England. That is just Paranoia.
>>> If his original plans were to invade, Germany would have been tooling up
>>> in 1934, just like American corporate Government did. America stashed
>>> all the steel and materials and redesigned it planes and battle fleets
>>> in 1934. When Roosevelt finally goaded Japan into attacking us, It only
>>> took short weeks before Fletcher class destroyers came off the assy line
>>> by the gross. Planes also.. All designs with 1934 copyrights.
>>
>>> The English Empire started its own destruction in WWI. Its primary goal
>>> was to pirate Germanys rich colonies. They got ****ed when the
>>> Bolsheviks took Russia out of the equation as an ally. One bloody war
>>> led to the next one. Bolsheviks were and are Jews by the way. The same
>>> batch of assholes that fled Russia for Israel and are now the
>>> assassinating settlers on Palestinian soil.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> Don't even begin to think I will waste time on link bull****.

I'll save you the trouble, little man. "Word salad" means you
connected words in such a way as to produce nothing of value or sense.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>> In message >, Dan
>>> > writes
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>>>
>>>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>>>
>>> He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I thought those were still most secret. I sure hope no one mentions
>> the av gas and diesel fountains in every shire.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Particularly the under water gas fountains. They were designed to
> give visiting infantry a warm reception. Too warm.
>
> Andrew Swallow

So much for the Official Secrecies Act.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>>> In message >, Dan
>>>> > writes
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>>>>
>>>>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>>>>
>>>> He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought those were still most secret. I sure hope no one
>>> mentions the av gas and diesel fountains in every shire.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> Particularly the under water gas fountains. They were designed to
>> give visiting infantry a warm reception. Too warm.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> So much for the Official Secrecies Act.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No longer secret.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>>>> In message >, Dan
>>>>> > writes
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought those were still most secret. I sure hope no one
>>>> mentions the av gas and diesel fountains in every shire.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> Particularly the under water gas fountains. They were designed to
>>> give visiting infantry a warm reception. Too warm.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> So much for the Official Secrecies Act.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> No longer secret.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Well, not anymore.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message >, Alexander
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> So, what, they're swimming? No armour, no artillery, no vehicles, no
>>supplies beyond what they can swim across with?
>> Going to make the rest of their invasion of Britain interesting...
>
>Bottom line is that the Germans would have figured a very effective way
>if that had been their goal.

The way they figured out a very effective way to take North Africa?
Moscow? Stalingrad?

And presumably the Germans must have made "having their country overrun
and Berlin seized by the Soviets" a goal, since they achieved that so
successfully?

Curious definition of "effective", mind you...

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Dean" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >Look up "Mulberry"
>>>
>>> I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
>>> solution. What was the rest of it?
>>
>> Capturing Cherbourg.
>
>That was part of it but until a port was captured and repaired the
>allies relied on a combination of Mulberry harbours and landing supplies
>on the beach. The allies used large numbers of specialist landing craft and
>landing ships along with the DUKW amphibious trucks.
>
>The Germans had none of these methods available in 1940.
>
THe allies improved the beaches, look up 'gooseberry', for
example

Peter Skelton

"Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

>>> Lots of Concrete Liberty ships would do the job just fine.
>>
>> List of concrete liberty ships built worldwide
>
> Are you daft? They were coming off the slipways every 3 to 4 days in
> America. Had a drop in diesel Engine..and went asailing for the British
> Isles.
>

They were of welded steel construction and typically had triple
expansion steam engines.

Who is the daft one here ?

PS the original design came from the shipyards of
NE England and the first ships built were called the Ocean Class.
When the United States Maritime Commission adopted the design
they substituted welding for the original rivetted construction
and replaced the coal fired boilers with oil burners.

Keith

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:54:19 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Dan >
>writes
>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.
>>
>> No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.
>
>He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.

But wasn't that the era of the horrible mks blight? It took years
to graft more onto fps rootstock and bring them to production.

Peter Skelton

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:42:25 -0500, Alexander
> wrote:

>Chris wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 6:34 am, Alexander > wrote:
>>
>>> Germany was concentrating on an Armored war in the East. If the decision
>>> had been to retain Russia as an ally, Germany would have found the where
>>> with all to toast England. As for starving England out..Why not...That
>>> is what England did to Germany after the Armistice in WWI. America had
>>> no place in either war. England handed us the dirty end of the stick and
>>> we had morons in Corporate America what war profiteered by jumping at
>>> the chance.
>>
>>> England was a paper tiger as proven by the taking of Poland. Even in WWI
>>> The English had lost the war when Germany first offered a stand down and
>>> to return to its original borders. But oh no..Wilson had to furnish more
>>> war materials to England and when a ship load of that got sunk...Pull
>>> isolationist America into a European conflict for which America got
>>> nothing but egg on its face.
>>
>>> Actually he never planned to invade England. That is just Paranoia.
>>> If his original plans were to invade, Germany would have been tooling up
>>> in 1934, just like American corporate Government did. America stashed
>>> all the steel and materials and redesigned it planes and battle fleets
>>> in 1934. When Roosevelt finally goaded Japan into attacking us, It only
>>> took short weeks before Fletcher class destroyers came off the assy line
>>> by the gross. Planes also.. All designs with 1934 copyrights.
>>
>>> The English Empire started its own destruction in WWI. Its primary goal
>>> was to pirate Germanys rich colonies. They got ****ed when the
>>> Bolsheviks took Russia out of the equation as an ally. One bloody war
>>> led to the next one. Bolsheviks were and are Jews by the way. The same
>>> batch of assholes that fled Russia for Israel and are now the
>>> assassinating settlers on Palestinian soil.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
>Don't even begin to think I will waste time on link bull****.

Why should you when you have such a rich domestic source?


Peter Skelton

"Dean" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> > wrote:
> >Look up "Mulberry"
>
> I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
> solution. What was the rest of it?

Capturing Cherbourg.


Pipe Line Under The Ocean = PLUTO

On Mar 19, 5:43*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> The RAF did NOT have to attack one set of ships, its task was to prevent
> the Luftwaffe attacking the RN....
> Keith

Coastal Command was part of the RAF. Are you saying the Beauforts and
Sunderlands etc would have sat idle?

jsw

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:32:43 -0700 (PDT), Dean >
wrote:

>On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Look up "Mulberry"
>>
>> I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a
>> solution. *What was the rest of it?
>
>Capturing Cherbourg.

Was Cherbourg operational? If so, what did they do there?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Dean" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >Look up "Mulberry"
>>>
>>> I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
>>> solution. What was the rest of it?
>>
>> Capturing Cherbourg.
>
>That was part of it but until a port was captured and repaired the
>allies relied on a combination of Mulberry harbours and landing supplies
>on the beach. The allies used large numbers of specialist landing craft and
>landing ships along with the DUKW amphibious trucks.
>
>The Germans had none of these methods available in 1940.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. :-)

There's the crux of the matter. The Allies in '44 had THOUSANDS of
small, specfifically designed ships that could support land forces by
delivering supplies acrross a beach. Or at a quay. They could make
multiple trips. They had (at least at the LST level) limited self
defense capability. And until Antwep was captured and put back into
service they were the lifeline for the Allied armies.

Excatly how many LSTs were in the KM order of battle? Or any other
ship of similar capability? How many Mulberries did the KM have? How
many miles of undersea petrolium piping could they lay to deliver fuel
to their forces?

If the Germans had invaded they would have had about 48 hours to win
or they would have had to either withdraw of die slowly of starvation.
The "logistics tail" to support any sort of extended campaign did not
exist.

On Mar 20, 8:21*am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Dean" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >Look up "Mulberry"
>
> >>> I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a
> >>> solution. *What was the rest of it?
>
> >> Capturing Cherbourg.
>
> >That was part of it but until a port was captured and repaired the
> >allies relied on a combination of Mulberry harbours and landing supplies
> >on the beach. The allies used large numbers of specialist *landing craft and
> >landing ships along with the DUKW amphibious trucks.
>
> >The Germans had none of these methods available in 1940.
>
> Thank you, thank you, thank you. *:-)
>
> There's the crux of the matter. *The Allies in '44 had THOUSANDS of
> small, specfifically designed ships that could support land forces by
> delivering supplies acrross a beach. *Or at a quay. *They could make
> multiple trips. *They had (at least at the LST level) limited self
> defense capability. *And until Antwep was captured and put back into
> service they were the lifeline for the Allied armies.
>
> Excatly how many LSTs were in the KM order of battle? *Or any other
> ship of similar capability? *How many Mulberries did the KM have? *How
> many miles of undersea petrolium piping could they lay to deliver fuel
> to their forces?
>
> If the Germans had invaded they would have had about 48 hours to win
> or they would have had to either withdraw of die slowly of starvation.
> The "logistics tail" to support any sort of extended campaign did not
> exist.

It was just a little wider river crossing, no need for special ships.
Peter Fleming mentions the use of railroad ferries to bring the tanks,
other methods like "Dr. Feder-type concrete barges" and Krupp's
"Lendkreuzer".


"Another unlikely project was a proposal by Gottfried Feder, a Nazi
official who was a civil engineer by training, to create what he
called a "war crocodile" for use in the anticipated invasion of
England. Feder's brainchild, as described in Ronald Wheatley's 1958
book Operation Sea Lion: German Plans for the Invasion of England,
1939-1942, was a an immense amphibious blockhouse of ungainly
proportions - 90 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 12 feet high-made of
concrete, which could move across the water under its own power and
then crawl ashore on caterpillar tracks to disgorge either 200
soldiers or tanks and artillery. The German Naval Ordinance Office had
serious doubts about whether the crocodile's slender concrete body
would withstand the vibration of an engine powerful enough to move it,
but nevertheless, according to William Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich, the crocodile actually was discussed at
length by Hitler himself before being discarded.

German arms maker Krupp dreamed up another immense vehicle, the
Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster, by placing an 800 mm Dora artillery
cannon-the sort normally towed on a railway car-atop a giant tank
chassis powered by two to four U-Boat engines. The Monster, as
described in My Tank is Fight! Zack Parsons', Mike Doscher's, and Josh
Hass' 2006 book on improbable World War II weapons, would have weighed
in at 2,500 metric tons, served by a crew of 100, and plodded along
the battlefield at six to nine miles an hour-making it a pathetically
easy target for Allied aircraft. Albert Speer, the Nazi minister for
armaments and war production, worried that the Monster's sheer size
would appeal to Hitler, and reportedly forbade Krupp to build a
prototype."

http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com/blog/2009/06/

On Mar 20, 8:21*am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> ...
>
> If the Germans had invaded they would have had about 48 hours to win
> or they would have had to either withdraw of die slowly of starvation.
> The "logistics tail" to support any sort of extended campaign did not
> exist.

Britain had excellent first-hand knowledge of an inadequately planned,
operated and supported invasion:
http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/gallipoli_ww1.htm
It's said that the loser learns more than the victor and that seems to
have been the case between World Wars 1 and 2.

The US had the advantage of unimportant islands to bungle a few
invasions on and learn the right way to do them, though at a high
cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa

jsw

In article >,
Chris > wrote:
>On Mar 19, 6:34*am, Alexander > dribbled on the
keyboard:

<naught but noise>

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq07-fwit.html

seems more apposite in this case.

As, indeed, is the linked FAQ:

ttp://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/fwit-faq.html

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales
"The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact
with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with
dental floss.." (Charlie Stross)

Alexander wrote:


>> Well now given that Hitler denounced Hess on German radio BEFORE
>> Hess had chance to meet anyone this seems an odd conclusion.
>
> You have your dates wrong. Hitler denounced Hess after the betrayal by
> Churchill.

Hitler gave orders to shoot Hess down before he left German air space.


There is no way Hess would have traveled to Scotland without
> an invitation by Churchill and the express wishes of the Nazi party.
>

Do you have any proof of any of this nonsense?

There should be some documentation somewhere and I very much doubt that
file would still be secret.


>> Churchill never wavered in his opposition to the Nazis, change your
>> medication
>> there's a good chap.
>
> Churchill was a Political schill. His ****ups during WWI got him the
> eventual sack. But you royalty loving buttocks reinstated him for WWII.
> Sadly him and Mounty were the best you people could front. The only
> leadership worse was the French. Actually you limeys were the prime
> ignitors of that war. You just kept prodding Hitler with the Polish
> corridor and we all paid the price. Of course the Jewish death grip on
> the German economy created their own nemeses in the form of the Nazi
> party and Adolph Hitler&troupe.

Ah.

You're still insane...

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:36 am, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>>
>>> I think the source is reliable, my Old Boy was a WW2 vet spook who
>>> had more access to info than any historian will ever get, and
>>> explained
>>> it to me.
>> My my, someone on the BIGOT list and who had access to ULTRA.
>> That's about a dozen people below general officer rank.
>> Shouldn't be too hard to identify him.
>> That said, I don't want to play 'what if' games, ok.
>
> Not sure about the "BIGOT" acronym, a

Why am I not surprised...

It's not an acronym, it's a code word.


> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> cabinet, probably still classified.

Oh no they won't be.

> He had access to everything, as you can imagine, but the only
> person he'd talk to about it was me, and only at the cottage we
> built when we were alone, after drinking he'd loosen up a bit, but
> he was always careful about what he said.

Nobody except the heads of state and the joint chiefs committee had
access to everything.

Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.

>> Have you considered reading a book?
>
> Which book did you read?

Start with Churchill.

>
>>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>>> Paint a few hundred barges black and gliders too, move out at 10 or
>>> 11 pm, and by 5 am the king is being raped in the ass by Nazi's.
>>> As I said, no sweat.
>> Aren't we forgetting someone?
>> This being a naval group and all...
>
> The RN was pretty much useless, recall Pearl Harbor,

Recall Taranto and Cape Matapan...

suppose the
> Nazi's
> float a bunch of cheap boats, the RN responds and the Luftwaff
> would've put
> a lot of iron in the channel.
> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.

And so easy to sink, especially at night.

Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
that date.


>> Oh yes, and assuming they do land. How on earth do they get over the
>> Military Canal in a night?
>
> 40 miles = 8 x 5, how long is a night?
> (please don't tell me I need to prove math).

You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Alexander wrote:

>
> And here you sit in America. the country that took the P51 from a mere
> thought to design and production in less then 90 days.

Contract NA-73X was laid in March 1940.

First combat use, by the RAF, (the aircraft was designed for the
British not the USAAF) was in May 1942.

They used an extant engine design...

I wonder where they got that from...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:59 pm, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2:47 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> The RN was pretty much useless, recall Pearl Harbor, suppose the
>> This feels like I'm being punked, but let's go ahead and treat this as
>> a real argument.
>>
>> If you are trying to say that airplanes will surely sink the RN and
>> allow Sealion to continue because a lot of ships were sunk at Pearl
>> Harbor, then your argument fails.
>>
>> The Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. They would not be
>> involved in a Sealion invasion.
>>
>> What you need to understand is that the IJN was the best in the world
>> at sinking ships at this time. The period from before Pearl Harbor
>> through to the middle of the Guadalcanal campaign or so is their high
>> water mark. Saying that because the Japanese in that time frame could
>> sink a lot of ships in a few hours (especially when they are
>> obligingly stationary in port during daylight) therefore the Germans
>> could to (at night while steaming at 20+ knots) is like saying that
>> because LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers beat the Lakers, me
>> and my friend's who play pick-up basketball will too (even if we give
>> them a 15 point head start) .
>>
>> Let's do a quick comparison of the Luftwaffe (and this is mighty
>> Fliegerkorps X a year later, specially trained for attacking ships-
>> but not in September 1940) and the IJN. During the evacuation of Crete
>> HMS Fiji and HMS Gloucester operated inside Luftwaffe air range for
>> over two days, with no fighter support, and were only sunk when the
>> two cruisers ran out of AA ammo. During Operation C the Kido Butai's
>> dive bombers (the torpedo bombers held their weapons, hoping for
>> better targets) put HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire both underwater
>> within a half-hour of the first bomb falling.
>>
>> That is the level of difference we are talking about between the
>> Japanese and the Germans: an order of magnitude in effectiveness. And
>> then factor in the difference between hitting ships that are moving
>> and hitting ships that are berthed in port, and I begin to suspect
>> that you are not fully serious with this argument.
>>
>>> Nazi's
>>> float a bunch of cheap boats, the RN responds and the Luftwaffe
>> Were would they get these cheap boats? They didn't have enough to
>> carry their invasion force, even by essentially ending all river
>> traffic and causing significant economic dislocation (in particular,
>> coal transport was seriously curtailed, meaning that steel production
>> was way down- see Tooze, _Wages of Destruction_). Barges were critical
>> for German economic activity, and they didn't have enough (largely
>> because Hitler had focused on other things, allowing most of the
>> transportation infrastructure to degrade severely- the Reichsbahn
>> suffered quite badly too).
>>
>> I am leaning towards the conclusion that this argument of yours must
>> be some sort of elaborate hoax, though I am at a loss as to the
>> purpose.
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> As a hobby I build houses, cottages and track vehicles, here's pix,
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35156618@N03/sets/72157616995388478/
>
> that's for fun.

I have some news.

They're NOT tanks...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Alexander wrote:
> Actually Kaiser of America built thousands of liberty ships out of
> Fero-concrete. Diesel Engine dropped in minutes

Welded steel and fuel oil fired triple expansion engines.

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Alexander wrote:

> Willie read the Talmud.. You know the book that gives people like Willie
> the right to be superior to Gentiles.
>

It's very hard not to to feel superior to you.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Mar 20, 1:37*pm, William Black > wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
> > Actually Kaiser of America built thousands of liberty ships out of
> > Fero-concrete. Diesel Engine dropped in minutes
>
> Welded steel and fuel oil fired triple expansion engines.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.

Note the ferro-concrete ships were smaller,4600 tons, than the
Liberties, 14,000 tons, and took longer, three to six weeks, compared
to the Kaiser-built ship every ten days. And, the ferro-concretes
generally were only made late, 1944-5.

Don Ocean wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> >,
>>>> Ken
>>>> S. Tucker > writes
>>>>
>>>> >I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that the Japanese could have conquered the US in five
>>>> days in 1941 if they'd only bothered to try? (Land in California,
>>>> commandeer weapons and transport from the cowardly fleeing populace,
>>>> race the bad news to Washington, impose Imperial hegemony, declare
>>>> victory while forcibly recruiting all white females between seven and
>>>> seventy for "recreational services"?)
>>>>
>>>> I think whoever was telling you this, was pulling your leg so hard it's
>>>> still out of its socket, and they're still telling the story of "some
>>>> clueless guy called Tucker" who didn't just swallow the hook but took
>>>> the line, and the sinker, and tried to eat the rod as well.
>>>
>>> I think the source is reliable, my Old Boy was a WW2 vet spook who
>>> had more access to info than any historian will ever get, and
>>> explained
>>> it to me. That said, I don't want to play 'what if' games, ok.
>>> But I'll let you in on a secret, the Brits had thousands of cannons
>>> after
>>> Dunkirk, available for Nazi photo recon, made of wood logs, that's all
>>> the Brits had was bluff, but I think it was good in any case, the
>>> croats
>>> figured it was real.
>>>
>>
>> Britain was not at war with Croatia.
>>
>>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>>
>> Apart from those in the hands of the 11 infantry divisions and
>> 2 armoured brigades deployed for home defense.
>>
>> Those 2 or 3 rifles came in rather handy in defeating the large
>> Italian army that invaded Egypt
>>
>>
>>> Paint a few hundred barges black and gliders too, move out at 10 or
>>> 11 pm, and by 5 am the king is being raped in the ass by Nazi's.
>>> As I said, no sweat.
>>
>> There are a few minor problems, 50+ destroyers, a couple of dozen
>> cruisers
>> 5 or 6 Battleships and 20 bomber squadrons would be taking turns
>> at shooting up those barges which would be moving at a slow
>> walking pace. Oops.
>
> All sunk of course.

Who by?

The German air force had problems hit a collier running up the channel
at 7 knots in those days and their ship had this nasty habit of sinking
if they occupied the space adjacent to any RN ships of the same size,
mainly because the RN had a lot more ships...

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> You have the benefit of wearing rose colored glasses, but be careful,
> you may end up paying for "easy" wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and ...
> OTOH, it's good to have realistic hard cold logical analysis.
> Ken

I don't ever remember anyone saying that Afghanistan would be easy.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Alexander wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> You are dreaming. Very few War Historians believe that the English
>>>> Lion would not succumb in the event Germany had turned to England
>>>> rather then Russia.
>>>
>>> How do they get there to inflict this defeat?
>>>
>> And even if they do get to England how does the German Army resupply?
>> The Royal Navy would find sinking unarmed merchant ships and barges in
>> the Channel a turkey shoot. Unlike land battles ordinary trunks on
>> ordinary roads/railways cannot be used.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> If the ports are over run who refuels, rearms the ships that are now
> toothless.

How the hell do the Germans over-run Scapa.

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Alexander wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>>
>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> You are dreaming. Very few War Historians believe that the English
>>> Lion would not succumb in the event Germany had turned to England
>>> rather then Russia.
>>
>> How do they get there to inflict this defeat?
>
> That has already been answered. Move on.

Well, no it hasn't.

How do you defeat the Royal Navy?

Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

In message >, William Black
> writes
>Alexander wrote:
>> That has already been answered. Move on.
>
>Well, no it hasn't.
>
>How do you defeat the Royal Navy?
>
>Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?

The Germans have a plan. Their chief weapon is a cunning plan...a
cunning plan and cool uniforms...cunning plan and shiny jackboots....
Their two weapons are a cunning plan and their nifty uniforms...and
their ruthless Teutonic efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are a
cunning plan, cool uniforms, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.... their *four*...no... *Amongst*
their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as cunning
plans, smart uniforms.... I'll come in again?

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 12:36 am, "William Black" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> >>> I think the source is reliable, my Old Boy was a WW2 vet spook who
> >>> had more access to info than any historian will ever get, and
> >>> explained
> >>> it to me.
> >> My my, someone on the BIGOT list and who had access to ULTRA.
> >> That's about a dozen people below general officer rank.
> >> Shouldn't be too hard to identify him.
> >> That said, I don't want to play 'what if' games, ok.
>
> > Not sure about the "BIGOT" acronym, a
>
> Why am I not surprised...
> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.

Well I missed that memo.

> > After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> > cabinet, probably still classified.
>
> Oh no they won't be.

In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
you
get the memo.

> > He had access to everything, as you can imagine, but the only
> > person he'd talk to about it was me, and only at the cottage we
> > built when we were alone, after drinking he'd loosen up a bit, but
> > he was always careful about what he said.
>
> Nobody except the heads of state and the joint chiefs committee had
> access to everything.
> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.

Old Boy told me he was a corporal, he was ordered to de-brief RCAF
personel, and I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
him a de-briefer, and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did, where
results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.

> >> Have you considered reading a book?
>
> > Which book did you read?
>
> Start with Churchill.

Ya think a politician is unbiased do you?

> >>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
> >>> Paint a few hundred barges black and gliders too, move out at 10 or
> >>> 11 pm, and by 5 am the king is being raped in the ass by Nazi's.
> >>> As I said, no sweat.
> >> Aren't we forgetting someone?
> >> This being a naval group and all...
>
> > The RN was pretty much useless, recall Pearl Harbor,
>
> Recall Taranto and Cape Matapan...
>
> suppose the
>
> > Nazi's
> > float a bunch of cheap boats, the RN responds and the Luftwaff
> > would've put
> > a lot of iron in the channel.
> > Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>
> And so easy to sink, especially at night.

But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.

> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
> that date.

As good or better than anyone.

> >> Oh yes, and assuming they do land. How on earth do they get over the
> >> Military Canal in a night?
>
> > 40 miles = 8 x 5, how long is a night?
> > (please don't tell me I need to prove math).
>
> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
> Mr. Black

Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
what
the girls liked to swim across too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Bell
Is that what you mean?
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
> wrote:


>> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
>
> Well I missed that memo.

You're not kidding.

>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
>>> cabinet, probably still classified.
>> Oh no they won't be.
>
> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
> you
> get the memo.

********.

It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.


>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>
> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,

So he didn't actually have any access at all.

I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.

You mean he was an intelligence clerk.

> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
> him a de-briefer

Not a chance.

Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.


>, and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,

Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
been allowed within a mile of ULTRA


where
> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.

Corporals don't.


>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
>
> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.

Barges son, barges...

>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
>> that date.
>
> As good or better than anyone.

Nope.

They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some stuff
standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
performance was dreadful.


>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
>> Mr. Black
>
> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
> what
> the girls liked to swim across too.

The Military Canal is not the Channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal

It's not getting into it, it's getting out.

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Mar 20, 11:15*am, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>
> >Alexander wrote:
> >> *That has already been answered. Move on.
>
> >Well, *no it hasn't.
>
> >How do you defeat the Royal Navy?
>
> >Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?
>
> The Germans have a plan. Their chief weapon is a cunning plan...a
> cunning plan and cool uniforms...cunning plan and shiny jackboots....
> Their two weapons are a cunning plan and their nifty uniforms...and
> their ruthless Teutonic efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are a
> cunning plan, cool uniforms, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
> fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.... their *four*...no... *Amongst*
> their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as cunning
> plans, smart uniforms.... I'll come in again?
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

Wow, I didn't expect the Nazi inquisition!

BB

William Black > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
>>
>> Well I missed that memo.
>
> You're not kidding.
>
>>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a
>>>> filing cabinet, probably still classified.
>>> Oh no they won't be.
>>
>> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
>> you
>> get the memo.
>
> ********.
>
> It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but
> historians.

Exactly.

My father's last post before retirement was as the Senior Research
Officer in the Directorate of History of NDHQ in Ottawa from about '71
to '82. One of his secondary duties was directorate security officer. As
such, he was responsible for more classified documents than anyone else
in NDHQ, and he, under the instructions of the Director, controled access
to every classifed document in RG24 at the National Archives. They had
tonnes of documents in 600 filing cabinets and safes in the Ogilvie Annex
of NDHQ, and every six months he had to go through a classified document
muster.

My father's magnum opus in his last years was to help draft the Access to
Information Act's declassification sections. He did it with a view to
releasing as much as possible as soon as possible, because he knew that
keeping secrets is expensive. However, he knew that some secrets might
have to be kept forever. (I suspect that the "forever" secrets have more
to do with our allies than our erstwhile enemies.)

>>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>>
>> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>
> So he didn't actually have any access at all.

Corporals working on BIGOT material likely only handled envelopes and
folders, or PA'ed documents to file and little else.

> I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
>> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
>> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
>> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>
> You mean he was an intelligence clerk.

Tucker appears to have woven an old boy's yarn into whole cloth.

>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
>> him a de-briefer,
>
> Not a chance.

Anyone the RCAF took the trouble to train as a navigator went on to
flying duties--unless he washed out for medical or other reasons.

> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>
>
>> and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
>> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>
> Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
> been allowed within a mile of ULTRA

And any secret stuff people on flying duties saw had a very, very short
shelf life.

>> where
>> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
>> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>
> Corporals don't.
>
>
>>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>>> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
>>
>> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>
> Barges son, barges...
>
>>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
>>> that date.
>>
>> As good or better than anyone.
>
> Nope.
>
> They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some
> stuff standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
> performance was dreadful.
>
>
>>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
>>> Mr. Black
>>
>> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
>> what
>> the girls liked to swim across too.
>
> The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>
> It's not getting into it, it's getting out.

You're getting a good demonstration of how resistant Canadian brick
masonry is to logic, William.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Mar 20, 3:43*pm, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> William Black > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> It's not an acronym, *it's a code word.
>
> >> Well I missed that memo.
>
> > You're not kidding.
>
> >>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a
> >>>> filing cabinet, probably still classified.
> >>> Oh no they won't be.
>
> >> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
> >> you
> >> get the memo.
>
> > ********.
>
> > It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but
> > historians.
>
> Exactly.
>
> My father's last post before retirement was as the Senior Research
> Officer in the Directorate of History of NDHQ in Ottawa from about *'71
> to '82. One of his secondary duties was directorate security officer. As
> such, he was responsible for more classified documents than anyone else
> in NDHQ, and he, under the instructions of the Director, controled access
> to every classifed document in RG24 at the National Archives. They had
> tonnes of documents in 600 filing cabinets and safes in the Ogilvie Annex
> of NDHQ, and every six months he had to go through a classified document
> muster.
>
> My father's magnum opus in his last years was to help draft the Access to
> Information Act's declassification sections. He did it with a view to
> releasing as much as possible as soon as possible, because he knew that
> keeping secrets is expensive. However, he knew that some secrets might
> have to be kept forever. (I suspect that the "forever" secrets have more
> to do with our allies than our erstwhile enemies.)
>
> >>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>
> >> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>
> > So he didn't actually have any access at all.
>
> Corporals working on BIGOT material likely only handled envelopes and
> folders, or PA'ed documents to file and little else.
>
> > I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
> >> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
> >> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
> >> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>
> > You mean he was an intelligence clerk.
>
> Tucker appears to have woven an old boy's yarn into whole cloth.
>
> >> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
> >> him a de-briefer,
>
> > Not a chance.
>
> Anyone the RCAF took the trouble to train as a navigator went on to
> flying duties--unless he washed out for medical or other reasons.
>
> > Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>
> >> and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
> >> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>
> > Take it from me, *anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
> > been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
>
> And any secret stuff people on flying duties saw had a very, very short
> shelf life.
>
>
>
> >> *where
> >> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
> >> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>
> > Corporals don't.
>
> >>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
> >>> And so easy to sink, *especially at night.
>
> >> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>
> > Barges son, *barges...
>
> >>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
> >>> that date.
>
> >> As good or better than anyone.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > They had some real problems sinking anything. *They could hit some
> > stuff standing still, *but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
> > performance was dreadful.
>
> >>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
> >>> Mr. Black
>
> >> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
> >> what
> >> the girls liked to swim across too.
>
> > The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>
> > It's not getting into it, *it's getting out.
>
> You're getting a good demonstration of how resistant Canadian brick
> masonry is to logic, William.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Never underestimate the power of the EM's mess and the Club to
circulate all of the material that is handled so carefully, out into
the civilian access area. Corporals make flight schedules and arrange
meetings and sometimes are given the minutes of the previous meeting
and the outline of the next. Not really classified, above your office
level, but informative to one who hears things in the office to fill
in the gaps.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:


>It was just a little wider river crossing, no need for special ships.
>Peter Fleming mentions the use of railroad ferries to bring the tanks,
>other methods like "Dr. Feder-type concrete barges" and Krupp's
>"Lendkreuzer".

Lubber's thinking.

> "Another unlikely project was a proposal by Gottfried Feder, a Nazi
>official who was a civil engineer by training, to create what he
>called a "war crocodile" for use in the anticipated invasion of
>England. Feder's brainchild, as described in Ronald Wheatley's 1958
>book Operation Sea Lion: German Plans for the Invasion of England,
>1939-1942, was a an immense amphibious blockhouse of ungainly
>proportions - 90 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 12 feet high-made of
>concrete, which could move across the water under its own power and
>then crawl ashore on caterpillar tracks to disgorge either 200
>soldiers or tanks and artillery. The German Naval Ordinance Office had
>serious doubts about whether the crocodile's slender concrete body
>would withstand the vibration of an engine powerful enough to move it,
>but nevertheless, according to William Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and
>Fall of the Third Reich, the crocodile actually was discussed at
>length by Hitler himself before being discarded.
>
>German arms maker Krupp dreamed up another immense vehicle, the
>Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster, by placing an 800 mm Dora artillery
>cannon-the sort normally towed on a railway car-atop a giant tank
>chassis powered by two to four U-Boat engines. The Monster, as
>described in My Tank is Fight! Zack Parsons', Mike Doscher's, and Josh
>Hass' 2006 book on improbable World War II weapons, would have weighed
>in at 2,500 metric tons, served by a crew of 100, and plodded along
>the battlefield at six to nine miles an hour-making it a pathetically
>easy target for Allied aircraft. Albert Speer, the Nazi minister for
>armaments and war production, worried that the Monster's sheer size
>would appeal to Hitler, and reportedly forbade Krupp to build a
>prototype."
>
>http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com/blog/2009/06/

Tell me again about how they were going to build these devices, get
them into position, move them accross the water, and then support the
troops they had in them? All without opposition?

On Mar 20, 4:03*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> > wrote:
> >It was just a little wider river crossing, no need for special ships.
> >Peter Fleming mentions the use of railroad ferries to bring the tanks,
> >other methods like "Dr. Feder-type concrete barges" and Krupp's
> >"Lendkreuzer".
>
> Lubber's thinking.
>
>
>
> > "Another unlikely project was a proposal by Gottfried Feder, a Nazi
> >official who was a civil engineer by training, to create what he
> >called a "war crocodile" for use in the anticipated invasion of
> >England. Feder's brainchild, as described in Ronald Wheatley's 1958
> >book Operation Sea Lion: German Plans for the Invasion of England,
> >1939-1942, was a an immense amphibious blockhouse of ungainly
> >proportions - 90 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 12 feet high-made of
> >concrete, which could move across the water under its own power and
> >then crawl ashore on caterpillar tracks to disgorge either 200
> >soldiers or tanks and artillery. The German Naval Ordinance Office had
> >serious doubts about whether the crocodile's slender concrete body
> >would withstand the vibration of an engine powerful enough to move it,
> >but nevertheless, according to William Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and
> >Fall of the Third Reich, the crocodile actually was discussed at
> >length by Hitler himself before being discarded.
>
> >German arms maker Krupp dreamed up another immense vehicle, the
> >Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster, by placing an 800 mm Dora artillery
> >cannon-the sort normally towed on a railway car-atop a giant tank
> >chassis powered by two to four U-Boat engines. The Monster, as
> >described in My Tank is Fight! Zack Parsons', Mike Doscher's, and Josh
> >Hass' 2006 book on improbable World War II weapons, would have weighed
> >in at 2,500 metric tons, served by a crew of 100, and plodded along
> >the battlefield at six to nine miles an hour-making it a pathetically
> >easy target for Allied aircraft. Albert Speer, the Nazi minister for
> >armaments and war production, worried that the Monster's sheer size
> >would appeal to Hitler, and reportedly forbade Krupp to build a
> >prototype."
>
> >http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com/blog/2009/06/
>
> Tell me again about how they were going to build these devices, get
> them into position, move them accross the water, and then support the
> troops they had in them? *All without opposition?

I think we are missing the point. There never was going to be a German
invasion if they did not continue on from Dunkirk right across the
channel and land as many men as they could get across. A sort of
reverse of Dynamo, although that doesn't sound too good either. It
probably wouldn't have been a success but it might have stirred the
British Parliament into some sort of truce or armistice.

Jack Linthicum wrote:

> Never underestimate the power of the EM's mess and the Club to
> circulate all of the material that is handled so carefully, out into
> the civilian access area. Corporals make flight schedules and arrange
> meetings and sometimes are given the minutes of the previous meeting
> and the outline of the next. Not really classified, above your office
> level, but informative to one who hears things in the office to fill
> in the gaps.

This guy is supposed to know EVERYTHING.

Including how the UK didn't have a chance...

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:10 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, William Black
> writes
>>Alexander wrote:
>>> That has already been answered. Move on.
>>
>>Well, no it hasn't.
>>
>>How do you defeat the Royal Navy?
>>
>>Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?
>
>The Germans have a plan. Their chief weapon is a cunning plan...a
>cunning plan and cool uniforms...cunning plan and shiny jackboots....
>Their two weapons are a cunning plan and their nifty uniforms...and
>their ruthless Teutonic efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are a
>cunning plan, cool uniforms, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
>fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.... their *four*...no... *Amongst*
>their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as cunning
>plans, smart uniforms.... I'll come in again?

I thought Monty was a British general.

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:10 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
>> In message >, William Black
>> > writes
>>> Alexander wrote:
>>>> That has already been answered. Move on.
>>> Well, no it hasn't.
>>>
>>> How do you defeat the Royal Navy?
>>>
>>> Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?
>> The Germans have a plan. Their chief weapon is a cunning plan...a
>> cunning plan and cool uniforms...cunning plan and shiny jackboots....
>> Their two weapons are a cunning plan and their nifty uniforms...and
>> their ruthless Teutonic efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are a
>> cunning plan, cool uniforms, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
>> fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.... their *four*...no... *Amongst*
>> their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as cunning
>> plans, smart uniforms.... I'll come in again?
>
> I thought Monty was a British general.
>
> Peter Skelton

Monty thought so too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
> > wrote:
> >> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
>
> > Well I missed that memo.
>
> You're not kidding.

It's a habit, learning to not read unimportant junk, you know.

> >>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> >>> cabinet, probably still classified.
> >> Oh no they won't be.
>
> > In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
> > you
> > get the memo.
>
> ********.
>
> It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.

Nope, contrary to what Mr. Chaplin reports, it's burn after reading.
only the low level crap is available for his daddy, thoughts clear.
He don't know spooks, I'll provide a hint, from this link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X

"Records pertaining to Camp X were either locked away under the
Official Secrets Act
or destroyed after World War II."

"locked away" or "destroyed", what does that mean?


> >> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>
> > Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>
> So he didn't actually have any access at all.
>
> I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
>
> > cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
> > except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
> > his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>
> You mean he was an intelligence clerk.

That's close but not quite, he had girl's, booze and cigs to relax the
men in order to report what they learned

> > RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
> > him a de-briefer
>
> Not a chance.
> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.

Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.

> >, and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
> > likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>
> Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
> been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
>
> where
>
> > results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
> > based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>
> Corporals don't.

Well I guess them guys choose Corporal rank as it is a confidential,
nobody would tell an a officer squat, cuz they will rat ya out,
whereas a Corporal won't, SOP.

> >>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
> >> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
>
> > But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>
> Barges son, barges...
>
> >> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
> >> that date.
>
> > As good or better than anyone.
>
> Nope.
>
> They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some stuff
> standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
> performance was dreadful.

Well the Nazi's didn't expect the Brit's to run away so fast, so they
weren't prepared for that contingency, is that what you mean?

> >> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
> >> Mr. Black
>
> > Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
> > what
> > the girls liked to swim across too.
>
> The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>
> It's not getting into it, it's getting out.
> Mr. Black

Yup.
Ken

On Mar 20, 5:53*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
> wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
> > > wrote:
> > >> It's not an acronym, *it's a code word.
>
> > > Well I missed that memo.
>
> > You're not kidding.
>
> It's a habit, learning to not read unimportant junk, you know.
>
> > >>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> > >>> cabinet, probably still classified.
> > >> Oh no they won't be.
>
> > > In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
> > > you
> > > get the memo.
>
> > ********.
>
> > It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.
>
> Nope, contrary to what Mr. Chaplin reports, it's burn after reading.
> only the low level crap is available for his daddy, thoughts clear.
> He don't know spooks, I'll provide a hint, from this link,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X
>
> "Records pertaining to Camp X were either locked away under the
> Official Secrets Act
> or destroyed after World War II."
>
> "locked away" or "destroyed", what does that mean?
>
> > >> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>
> > > Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>
> > So he didn't actually have any access at all.
>
> > I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
>
> > > cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
> > > except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
> > > his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>
> > You mean he was an intelligence clerk.
>
> That's close but not quite, he had girl's, booze and cigs to relax the
> men in order to report what they learned
>
> > > RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
> > > him a de-briefer
>
> > Not a chance.
> > Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>
> Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
> Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>
> > >, and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
> > > likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>
> > Take it from me, *anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
> > been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
>
> > * where
>
> > > results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
> > > based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>
> > Corporals don't.
>
> Well I guess them guys choose Corporal rank as it is a confidential,
> nobody would tell an a officer squat, cuz they will rat ya out,
> whereas a Corporal won't, SOP.
>
>
>
> > >>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
> > >> And so easy to sink, *especially at night.
>
> > > But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>
> > Barges son, *barges...
>
> > >> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
> > >> that date.
>
> > > As good or better than anyone.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > They had some real problems sinking anything. *They could hit some stuff
> > standing still, *but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
> > performance was dreadful.
>
> Well the Nazi's didn't expect the Brit's to run away so fast, so they
> weren't prepared for that contingency, is that what you mean?
>
> > >> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
> > >> Mr. Black
>
> > > Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
> > > what
> > > the girls liked to swim across too.
>
> > The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>
> > It's not getting into it, *it's getting out.
> > Mr. Black
>
> Yup.
> Ken

It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:53 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
>>>> Well I missed that memo.
>>> You're not kidding.
>> It's a habit, learning to not read unimportant junk, you know.
>>
>>>>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
>>>>>> cabinet, probably still classified.
>>>>> Oh no they won't be.
>>>> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
>>>> you
>>>> get the memo.
>>> ********.
>>> It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.
>> Nope, contrary to what Mr. Chaplin reports, it's burn after reading.
>> only the low level crap is available for his daddy, thoughts clear.
>> He don't know spooks, I'll provide a hint, from this link,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X
>>
>> "Records pertaining to Camp X were either locked away under the
>> Official Secrets Act
>> or destroyed after World War II."
>>
>> "locked away" or "destroyed", what does that mean?
>>
>>>>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>>>> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>>> So he didn't actually have any access at all.
>>> I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
>>>> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
>>>> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
>>>> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>>> You mean he was an intelligence clerk.
>> That's close but not quite, he had girl's, booze and cigs to relax the
>> men in order to report what they learned
>>
>>>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
>>>> him a de-briefer
>>> Not a chance.
>>> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>> Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
>> Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>>
>>>> , and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
>>>> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>>> Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
>>> been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
>>> where
>>>> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
>>>> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>>> Corporals don't.
>> Well I guess them guys choose Corporal rank as it is a confidential,
>> nobody would tell an a officer squat, cuz they will rat ya out,
>> whereas a Corporal won't, SOP.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>>>>> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
>>>> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>>> Barges son, barges...
>>>>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
>>>>> that date.
>>>> As good or better than anyone.
>>> Nope.
>>> They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some stuff
>>> standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
>>> performance was dreadful.
>> Well the Nazi's didn't expect the Brit's to run away so fast, so they
>> weren't prepared for that contingency, is that what you mean?
>>
>>>>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
>>>>> Mr. Black
>>>> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
>>>> what
>>>> the girls liked to swim across too.
>>> The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>>> It's not getting into it, it's getting out.
>>> Mr. Black
>> Yup.
>> Ken
>
> It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff

The whole 'Camp X' and 'William Stephenson' pages on Wikipedia are full
of ghastly errors.

Stuff like Churchill being an opposition MP in 1936 and SOE being part
of MI-6.

It reads like a bad novel.

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
> wrote:
<snip>

>>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
>>> him a de-briefer
>> Not a chance.
>> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>
> Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
> Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>
Do try to read for comprehension. If he had been accepted for
pathfinder navigation he would have been promoted to sergeant. If he had
then been sent back to ground ops as a corporal he must have been
washed out of school.

As to why you'd want a sergeant rather than corporal for debriefing
let me give you a modern analogy in the USAF. Debriefing air crews,
while supposed to be done by checklist, required experience on the part
of the debrief personnel. The USAF prefers 7 levels (think technician)
which requires the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). There's no such thing
as an E-4 7 level. Does this mean they don't use 5 levels to debrief?
No, but they aren't about to assign those with limited experience.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> ...
>
> It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff

The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".

jsw

On Mar 20, 4:54*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>
> The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".
>
> jsw

I hated the "Shred, Ingest, Burn."

BB

On Mar 20, 8:30*pm, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:54*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>
> > The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".
>
> > jsw
>
> I hated the "Shred, Ingest, Burn."
>
> BB

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2006/10/28/daves-afterburner-chili-recipe/

jsw

William Black wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
>
>
>>> Well now given that Hitler denounced Hess on German radio BEFORE
>>> Hess had chance to meet anyone this seems an odd conclusion.
>>
>> You have your dates wrong. Hitler denounced Hess after the betrayal by
>> Churchill.
>
> Hitler gave orders to shoot Hess down before he left German air space.
>
>
> There is no way Hess would have traveled to Scotland without
>> an invitation by Churchill and the express wishes of the Nazi party.
>
> Do you have any proof of any of this nonsense?
>
> There should be some documentation somewhere and I very much doubt that
> file would still be secret.
>
>
>>> Churchill never wavered in his opposition to the Nazis, change your
>>> medication
>>> there's a good chap.

Churchill had only been in office for a few weeks when Hess flew over.
A big loss does not make a new leader's job secure. Hess may have been
trying to conspire with Churchill's rivals - Chamberlain (more
appeasement) or Lord Halifax (negotiated settlement). Either being
in power would have made it easier for Germany to attack the USSR.

Andrew Swallow

Dan wrote:
{snip}

> Do try to read for comprehension. If he had been accepted for
> pathfinder navigation he would have been promoted to sergeant. If he had
> then been sent back to ground ops as a corporal he must have been
> washed out of school.
>
> As to why you'd want a sergeant rather than corporal for debriefing
> let me give you a modern analogy in the USAF. Debriefing air crews,
> while supposed to be done by checklist, required experience on the part
> of the debrief personnel. The USAF prefers 7 levels (think technician)
> which requires the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). There's no such thing
> as an E-4 7 level. Does this mean they don't use 5 levels to debrief?
> No, but they aren't about to assign those with limited experience.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If basically you are debriefed by someone of your own rank, what rank
were the tail gunners?

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> {snip}
>
>> Do try to read for comprehension. If he had been accepted for
>> pathfinder navigation he would have been promoted to sergeant. If he
>> had then been sent back to ground ops as a corporal he must have been
>> washed out of school.
>>
>> As to why you'd want a sergeant rather than corporal for debriefing
>> let me give you a modern analogy in the USAF. Debriefing air crews,
>> while supposed to be done by checklist, required experience on the
>> part of the debrief personnel. The USAF prefers 7 levels (think
>> technician) which requires the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). There's
>> no such thing as an E-4 7 level. Does this mean they don't use 5
>> levels to debrief? No, but they aren't about to assign those with
>> limited experience.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> If basically you are debriefed by someone of your own rank, what rank
> were the tail gunners?
>
> Andrew Swallow

I never said one was debriefed by someone of the same rank. Debrief
has to be done by someone who knows the systems, in the case of
maintenance, and someone who knows the mission, in the case of
operations. Even with checklists there may be questions that need to be
asked. In your tail gunner case wouldn't it be nice to have someone who
understands the equipment get the word straight from the man who
discovered a problem? If not, why not simply have a paper pusher do debrief?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article
>,
BlackBeard > wrote:

> On Mar 20, 4:54*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
> >
> > The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".
> >
> > jsw
>
> I hated the "Shred, Ingest, Burn."
>
> BB

After which Rolaids only helped so much.

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article
> >,
> BlackBeard > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 20, 4:54 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>> On Mar 20, 6:17 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>>> The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".
>>>
>>> jsw
>> I hated the "Shred, Ingest, Burn."
>>
>> BB
>
> After which Rolaids only helped so much.

"These are your secret orders on where you are to go. Do not open
them until you get there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 20, 3:20 pm, William Black > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 5:53 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
> >>>> Well I missed that memo.
> >>> You're not kidding.
> >> It's a habit, learning to not read unimportant junk, you know.
>
> >>>>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> >>>>>> cabinet, probably still classified.
> >>>>> Oh no they won't be.
> >>>> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
> >>>> you
> >>>> get the memo.
> >>> ********.
> >>> It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.
> >> Nope, contrary to what Mr. Chaplin reports, it's burn after reading.
> >> only the low level crap is available for his daddy, thoughts clear.
> >> He don't know spooks, I'll provide a hint, from this link,
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X
>
> >> "Records pertaining to Camp X were either locked away under the
> >> Official Secrets Act
> >> or destroyed after World War II."
>
> >> "locked away" or "destroyed", what does that mean?
>
> >>>>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
> >>>> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
> >>> So he didn't actually have any access at all.
> >>> I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
> >>>> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
> >>>> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
> >>>> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
> >>> You mean he was an intelligence clerk.
> >> That's close but not quite, he had girl's, booze and cigs to relax the
> >> men in order to report what they learned
>
> >>>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
> >>>> him a de-briefer
> >>> Not a chance.
> >>> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
> >> Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
> >> Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>
> >>>> , and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
> >>>> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
> >>> Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
> >>> been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
> >>> where
> >>>> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
> >>>> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
> >>> Corporals don't.
> >> Well I guess them guys choose Corporal rank as it is a confidential,
> >> nobody would tell an a officer squat, cuz they will rat ya out,
> >> whereas a Corporal won't, SOP.
>
> >>>>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
> >>>>> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
> >>>> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
> >>> Barges son, barges...
> >>>>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
> >>>>> that date.
> >>>> As good or better than anyone.
> >>> Nope.
> >>> They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some stuff
> >>> standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
> >>> performance was dreadful.
> >> Well the Nazi's didn't expect the Brit's to run away so fast, so they
> >> weren't prepared for that contingency, is that what you mean?
>
> >>>>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
> >>>>> Mr. Black
> >>>> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
> >>>> what
> >>>> the girls liked to swim across too.
> >>> The Military Canal is not the Channel.
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
> >>> It's not getting into it, it's getting out.
> >>> Mr. Black
> >> Yup.
> >> Ken
>
> > It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>
> The whole 'Camp X' and 'William Stephenson' pages on Wikipedia are full
> of ghastly errors.
>
> Stuff like Churchill being an opposition MP in 1936 and SOE being part
> of MI-6.
>
> It reads like a bad novel.

No guff, "permanently bound to secrecy", the Old Boy was very
quiet when we visited Camp X. We'd visit veterans grave yards too,
it's hardly stories that you share with children.
I can say I felt it was important to be respectful.
Ken

On Mar 20, 3:41 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making>>> him a de-briefer
> >> Not a chance.
> >> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>
> > Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
> > Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>
> Do try to read for comprehension. If he had been accepted for
> pathfinder navigation he would have been promoted to sergeant. If he had
> then been sent back to ground ops as a corporal he must have been
> washed out of school.
> Dan

Generally I didn't ask Old Boy direct questions of that sort of
nature,
I was a passive ear, I could say things like, "I understand such &
such"
then if he wanted he'd fill in the blanks.
He said he didn't like being a Corporal cuz all his friends were
Privates,
so I doubt he would accept a promotion, (Corporals had to snitch).

> As to why you'd want a sergeant rather than corporal for debriefing
> let me give you a modern analogy in the USAF. Debriefing air crews,
> while supposed to be done by checklist, required experience on the part
> of the debrief personnel. The USAF prefers 7 levels (think technician)
> which requires the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). There's no such thing
> as an E-4 7 level. Does this mean they don't use 5 levels to debrief?
> No, but they aren't about to assign those with limited experience.

I wrote a day or so ago, that a very important part of a de-briefer
was to
prepare a hardened combat veteran for civilian life, many fought
Me-109's
in Lanc's and firebombed cities. Old Boy explained that don't snap
fingers
or even drop a pencil, cuz they are jumpy, makes sense empathizing
with a fella who flew a 100 missions over Germany,
that's not quite natural for men to do.
It's important to get men relaxed and encourage them to be be
talkative,
was his thinking, that might be important.
I tried to explain, it wouldn't matter what his rank is, he was de-
briefing
EX-service personel, could even be a General, his business was to
treat
them as civilians, capishy?
Ken

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:34:03 +0000, William Black wrote:

> Alexander wrote:
>
>
>> And here you sit in America. the country that took the P51 from a mere
>> thought to design and production in less then 90 days.
>
> Contract NA-73X was laid in March 1940.
>
> First combat use, by the RAF, (the aircraft was designed for the
> British not the USAAF) was in May 1942.
>
> They used an extant engine design...
>
> I wonder where they got that from...

Uhm, no, they didn't.
What North American did have were the wind tunnel data and
design calculations for the Curtiss XP-46, Curtiss's idea for a P-40 successor,
which didn't work so very well.

What North American did do was start the rough designs of the NA-73 before
the Brits came around looking for a second source of P-40s.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:28:50 -0400, Bill Kambic wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
>>Look up "Mulberry"
>
> I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
> solution. What was the rest of it?

Gooseberry, and Pluto,
Pluto was probably the most important.
It's a lot better to send fuel by pipeline than in tankers
or as break-bulk in barrels.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:55:17 -0400, Bill Kambic wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:34:42 -0500, Alexander >
> wrote:
>
>>If the ports are over run who refuels, rearms the ships that are now
>>toothless. Germany do a helluva a job resupplying their troops megamiles
>>away in Russia. That is until American Airpower mixed with what little
>>airpower England had left wiped out their supply lines. Germany was
>>basically starving to death from 1943 onward and yet damned near turned
>>the tide at the battle of the bulge. With out American logistics England
>>and Russia were flat ****ed! Get over it. You fools made bad decisions
>>and we bailed you out. Now we have made some bad economic decisions and
>>I doubt any of you will even stir to bail us out. Of course we will turn
>>this around on our own as we always have in the past.
>
> How did the Allies supply themselves in Normandy without any operational
> ports? Since the Germans would not have any operational ports, how
> would they supply themselves?

Ah, but the Allies did have operational ports.
They just brought them with them.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

On Mar 21, 12:19 am, Peter Stickney > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:28:50 -0400, Bill Kambic wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Look up "Mulberry"
>
> > I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
> > solution. What was the rest of it?
>
> Gooseberry, and Pluto,
> Pluto was probably the most important.
> It's a lot better to send fuel by pipeline than in tankers
> or as break-bulk in barrels.

Let me get this straight.
The Nazi's build a pipeline to England for Sea Lion, then when the
Brits want to invade France they rent the pipeline from the Nazi's.
But Sunoco built and owns the pipeline and supplies oil to both
sides, so neither don't want to **** off Sunoco, so it's safe, and
nobody will bomb it.
I'll buy that, I think that is that SOP.
Ken

On Mar 21, 3:57*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
>
> Let me get this straight.
> The Nazi's build a pipeline to England for Sea Lion, then when the
> Brits want to invade France they rent the pipeline from the Nazi's.
> But Sunoco built and owns the pipeline and supplies oil to both
> sides, so neither don't want to **** off Sunoco, so it's safe, and
> nobody will bomb it.
> I'll buy that, I think that is that SOP.
> Ken


I've heard of sleep walking but not sleep posting.

Dan > wrote in :

> Steve Hix wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> BlackBeard > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 4:54 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 20, 6:17 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>>>> The one I disliked was "Burn While Reading".
>>>>
>>> I hated the "Shred, Ingest, Burn."
>>
>> After which Rolaids only helped so much.
>
> "These are your secret orders on where you are to go. Do not open
> them until you get there.

An idea sometimes echoed in the manoeuvre arms: "Move NOW! Route: later.
Orders in five minutes."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Mar 21, 8:08*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
> ...
>
> > * *"These are your secret orders on where you are to go. Do not open
> > them until you get there.
>
> An idea sometimes echoed in the manoeuvre arms: "Move NOW! Route: later.
> Orders in five minutes."
> --
> Andrew Chaplin

In my experience the default destination in such cases was the mess
hall. At least that was the best place to find a newbie who had been
sent out to find a muffler bearing.

jsw

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>> Tell me again about how they were going to build these devices, get
>> them into position, move them accross the water, and then support the
>> troops they had in them? *All without opposition?
>
>I think we are missing the point. There never was going to be a German
>invasion if they did not continue on from Dunkirk right across the
>channel and land as many men as they could get across. A sort of
>reverse of Dynamo, although that doesn't sound too good either. It
>probably wouldn't have been a success but it might have stirred the
>British Parliament into some sort of truce or armistice.

Agreed on the "it's not going to happen."

I serious disagree on a Parliament genetated peace as they would have
seen the failure as clearly as everyone esle.

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Let me get this straight.
>> The Nazi's build a pipeline to England for Sea Lion, then when the
>> Brits want to invade France they rent the pipeline from the Nazi's.
>> But Sunoco built and owns the pipeline and supplies oil to both
>> sides, so neither don't want to **** off Sunoco, so it's safe, and
>> nobody will bomb it.
>> I'll buy that, I think that is that SOP.
>> Ken
>
>
> I've heard of sleep walking but not sleep posting.

It's tucker, no one should ever accuse him of being conscious.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:20 pm, William Black > wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On Mar 20, 5:53 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 20, 12:04 pm, William Black >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 20, 10:21 am, William Black >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's not an acronym, it's a code word.
>>>>>> Well I missed that memo.
>>>>> You're not kidding.
>>>> It's a habit, learning to not read unimportant junk, you know.
>>>>>>>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
>>>>>>>> cabinet, probably still classified.
>>>>>>> Oh no they won't be.
>>>>>> In canuckistan it's secret or once declassified it's burned, didn't
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> get the memo.
>>>>> ********.
>>>>> It's filed away and released when of no interest to anyone but historians.
>>>> Nope, contrary to what Mr. Chaplin reports, it's burn after reading.
>>>> only the low level crap is available for his daddy, thoughts clear.
>>>> He don't know spooks, I'll provide a hint, from this link,
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X
>>>> "Records pertaining to Camp X were either locked away under the
>>>> Official Secrets Act
>>>> or destroyed after World War II."
>>>> "locked away" or "destroyed", what does that mean?
>>>>>>> Many commanders in chief weren't given ULTRA access.
>>>>>> Old Boy told me he was a corporal,
>>>>> So he didn't actually have any access at all.
>>>>> I presume said personel were ordered to provide full
>>>>>> cooperation, so he wouldn't need to give a rat's ass about ULTRA,
>>>>>> except how effective it was, to feedback into the chain of command,
>>>>>> his duties in that respect were more than clerical.
>>>>> You mean he was an intelligence clerk.
>>>> That's close but not quite, he had girl's, booze and cigs to relax the
>>>> men in order to report what they learned
>>>>>> RCAF trained him for a year in Pathfinder Navigation prior to making
>>>>>> him a de-briefer
>>>>> Not a chance.
>>>>> Aircrew were all promoted to sergeant on selection.
>>>> Why would ya need to be sergeant for de-briefing?
>>>> Ya don't understood the de-briefer rank.
>>>>>> , and navigation involves a lot of secret stuff, so he
>>>>>> likely ended up knowing more about ULTRA than ULTRA did,
>>>>> Take it from me, anyone selected for aircrew training wouldn't have
>>>>> been allowed within a mile of ULTRA
>>>>> where
>>>>>> results are concerned, and then write a synopsis for strategists,
>>>>>> based on de-briefing from fielded and experienced personel.
>>>>> Corporals don't.
>>>> Well I guess them guys choose Corporal rank as it is a confidential,
>>>> nobody would tell an a officer squat, cuz they will rat ya out,
>>>> whereas a Corporal won't, SOP.
>>>>>>>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>>>>>>> And so easy to sink, especially at night.
>>>>>> But look at what you're risking, to sink a cheap barge.
>>>>> Barges son, barges...
>>>>>>> Now look up how good the Germans were at sinking ships with bombs at
>>>>>>> that date.
>>>>>> As good or better than anyone.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>> They had some real problems sinking anything. They could hit some stuff
>>>>> standing still, but at Dunkirk, bombing stationary ships, their
>>>>> performance was dreadful.
>>>> Well the Nazi's didn't expect the Brit's to run away so fast, so they
>>>> weren't prepared for that contingency, is that what you mean?
>>>>>>> You don't know what the Military Canal is do you?
>>>>>>> Mr. Black
>>>>>> Well we had lakefront property on Lk Ontario, the Englosh Channel is
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> the girls liked to swim across too.
>>>>> The Military Canal is not the Channel.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Canal
>>>>> It's not getting into it, it's getting out.
>>>>> Mr. Black
>>>> Yup.
>>>> Ken
>>> It's "burn before reading" for the important stuff
>> The whole 'Camp X' and 'William Stephenson' pages on Wikipedia are full
>> of ghastly errors.
>>
>> Stuff like Churchill being an opposition MP in 1936 and SOE being part
>> of MI-6.
>>
>> It reads like a bad novel.
>
> No guff, "permanently bound to secrecy",

Rubbish.

The 'Station X' (Bletchley Park) staff wee sworn to perpetual secrecy.

The bloke that wrote the book that blew that one was a former head of
security...

No WWII stuff is still Secret. Some is considered private because it
involves people still alive, but that's about it.


the Old Boy was very
> quiet when we visited Camp X.

Why?

No graves there.

And his background seems to indicate that he'd never served there.


We'd visit veterans grave yards too,
> it's hardly stories that you share with children.

It is stories that have to be shared with children.



--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Mar 21, 2:56*pm, William Black > wrote:
> ...
> > it's hardly stories that you share with children.
>
> It is stories that have to be shared with children.

After one of those hand-wringing nuclear aftermath movies on TV a
friend said his young son watched with growing impatience and finally
demanded "Where are all the mutants?"

jsw

"Ken S. Tucker" > writes:

> On Mar 19, 3:37 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> >, Ken
>> >> S. Tucker > writes
>> >>> On Mar 18, 12:36 am, "William Black" >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Aren't we forgetting someone?
>> >>>> This being a naval group and all...
>>
>> >>> The RN was pretty much useless, recall Pearl Harbor,
>>
>> >> Ships sunk in port on a Sunday. Relates to ships at night, mixed in with
>> >> your invasion force, how?
>> >>> suppose the
>> >>> Nazi's
>> >>> float a bunch of cheap boats, the RN responds and the Luftwaff
>> >>> would've put
>> >>> a lot of iron in the channel.
>>
>> >> At night?
>>
>> >> The Luftwaffe was pretty poor at sinking ships in 1940.
>>
>> > Stukas did a very credible job.
>>
>> > They got four of
>> >> forty destroyers at Dunkirk over days, when they were stopped to take on
>> >> troops: here they have to sink forty destroyers very fast, at night,
>> >> while they're making thirty knots.
>>
>> > I would more attribute that to your air cover. Ships then as now were
>> > sitting ducks. Or did you forget massive air battles at the Coral Sea,
>> > Wake Island, Midway Island etc. Japanese aircraft did a real job at Pearl
>> > harbor on both anchored ships and fast moving destroyers in the outer
>> > harbor at Pearl Harbor.
>>
>> List of fast moving destroyers sunk at Pearl Harbor
>>
>> <Start of List>
>> <End of List>
>>
>> The 3 destroyers 'sunk' at Pearl Harbor were all in dry dock at the
>> time and were repaired and returned to service.
>>
>> The only destroyer on patrol damaged was the USS Helm. The
>> bombs aimed at her missed but some damage was done by
>> strafing. It was minor and she stayed on patrol joining the escort
>> group of the USS Saratoga.
>> Keith
>
> I read that Brit's used biplanes carrying torpedoes to get Bismarck,
> Brits practically invented torpedoing ships from air.
> Nazi torps were likely better than the Brits torps any brit stuff in
> the
> channel would be luftwaffe fodder, japs proved that.

duh! Do you have an F- in logic? :-) The Japanese proved that a
well-trained force could do what they did. Fact. And general
theory. Something others had to learn how to copy. The Germans sure did
not know how to. How about the Japs could overrun American positions
with their heavy tanks, the Germans proved that.

> The notion of using expensive a/c (bombers, spits, whatever) to sink
> a channel barge(s) in light of Luftwaffe air superiority is near
> suicidal.

Strafing alone would be near good enough. No AA defences except the odd
rifle that I daresay would be somewhere within 2 degrees of arc of the
target some of the time.

> Consider the tactics, low flying strafing a cheap barge that could be
> empty, and getting pounced by Me-109's.
> Kiss the RAF good-bye.

Spits up high, Hurries down low.

Jim Wilkins > writes:

> On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander > wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for
>> what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy.
>> The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking
>> ships that the comparison is ludicrous.
>> ...
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary
> ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese
> weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for
> example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective
> as Wildcats at protecting the ships.

I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
coupled with the a) ease with which they aircraft would get shot down
owing to lack of armour and self-sealing tanks, plus b) the introduction
of VT fuses by the Americans.
Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
Gernot

Chris > writes:

> On Mar 19, 6:04*am, Alexander > wrote:
>
>> The outer Harbor is obviously past the antisub gates.
>
> On which end of the channel? The harbor side or the ocean side?
>
> [Re: USN Destroyers hit by the Japanese]
>
>> Still took hits.
>
> Please provide the name of any maneuvering destroyer hit by a Japanese
> bomb or torpedo.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Edsall? Effectively sunk by Ryujo's aircraft after sailing extremely
unhappily all afternoon through the shell splashes from 14", 8" and
assorted smaller calibre fire....

OK, so not PH but still, a stirring story of a brave ship, that should
count for something!

Hermann > writes:

> Chris wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>
>> Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
>> you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
>> there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
>> some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
>> their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
>> actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
>> specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
>> If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
>> completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
>> of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
>> produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
>> in a single day.
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> Chris.. You keep proving yourself an idiot. Its fools like you that
> always underestimate the competition.

Hey hey, not so fast young man. Chris is right, you could have been like
the John Law (or Ben Bernanke) or the time, giving people something for
nothing until they realize they are getting nothing for something.

"Paul J. Adam" > writes:

> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>>Alexander wrote:
>>> That has already been answered. Move on.
>>
>>Well, no it hasn't.
>>
>>How do you defeat the Royal Navy?
>>
>>Magic pixies with ship destroying oofle dust?
>
> The Germans have a plan. Their chief weapon is a cunning plan...a
> cunning plan and cool uniforms...cunning plan and shiny
> jackboots.... Their two weapons are a cunning plan and their nifty
> uniforms...and their ruthless Teutonic efficiency.... Their *three*
> weapons are a cunning plan, cool uniforms, and ruthless
> efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Fuhrer.... their
> *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their
> weaponry...are such elements as cunning plans, smart uniforms.... I'll
> come in again?

It's amazing how this stuff never gets old. That must mean it is
classic, or at least has some budding delusions of grandeur.
Gernot

-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me wrote:
> Jim Wilkins > writes:
>
>> On Mar 18, 11:45 pm, Chris > wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, Alexander > wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for
>>> what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy.
>>> The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking
>>> ships that the comparison is ludicrous.
>>> ...
>>> Chris Manteuffel
>> Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary
>> ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese
>> weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for
>> example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective
>> as Wildcats at protecting the ships.
>
> I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
> they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
> coupled with the a) ease with which they aircraft would get shot down
> owing to lack of armour and self-sealing tanks, plus b) the introduction
> of VT fuses by the Americans.
> Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
> suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
> Gernot

They also lost their best maintainers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Alexander wrote:
>>> I would more attribute that to your air cover. Ships then as now were
>>> sitting ducks. Or did you forget massive air battles at the Coral
>>> Sea, Wake Island, Midway Island etc. Japanese aircraft did a real job
>>> at Pearl harbor on both anchored ships and fast moving destroyers in
>>> the outer harbor at Pearl Harbor.

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> List of fast moving destroyers sunk at Pearl Harbor
>>
>> <Start of List>
>> <End of List>
>>
>> The 3 destroyers 'sunk' at Pearl Harbor were all in dry dock at the
>> time and were repaired and returned to service.
>>
>> The only destroyer on patrol damaged was the USS Helm. The
>> bombs aimed at her missed but some damage was done by
>> strafing. It was minor and she stayed on patrol joining the escort
>> group of the USS Saratoga.

Alexander wrote:
> Good God...Don't you read the whole story or just what suites you? There
> is even a plaque in the Admin building at Pearl. You missed the Fleet
> tug that was in Floating Drydock along with 2 subchasers.


Alexander... dude, keep it coming, you have me in stitches. I haven't
laughed so hard over someone's misbegotten posts in, like, forever.
Do you read this stuff before you hit 'Send'?

You asserted that Japanese aircraft "did a real job" on 'fast-moving
destroyers' during the Pearl Harbor attack. When Keith properly showed
that no moving destroyers were damaged other than by strafing, the best
you can do is talk about tugs and subchasers?


Keep it coming!




Jeff
--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Robert Heinlein

On Mar 23, 12:55*am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
so-tickle-me wrote:

> I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
> they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was

It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.

> Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
> suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.

What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
damage.

Chris Manteuffel

On Mar 23, 11:21*am, Chris > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:55*am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
>
> so-tickle-me wrote:
> > I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
> > they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
>
> It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
> somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
> first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
> cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
> it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.
>
> > Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
> > suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
>
> What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
> defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
> were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
> attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
> on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
> damage.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
attack pilots been lost during the BoB?

jsw

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 11:21*am, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 12:55*am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
>>
>> so-tickle-me wrote:
>> > I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
>> > they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
>>
>> It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
>> somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
>> first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
>> cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
>> it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.
>>
>> > Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
>> > suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
>>
>> What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
>> defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
>> were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
>> attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
>> on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
>> damage.
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
>The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
>Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
>attack pilots been lost during the BoB?
>
nothing from nothing leaves nothing

Peter Skelton

On Mar 23, 2:51*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:

> The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
> Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
> attack pilots been lost during the BoB?

Germany never had pilots as skilled at hitting ships as the Japanese
did at the beginning of the war. If you want to know how the Germans
might have done against the RN during Sealion, look at their fairly
poor experience at Crete (as an example, or the convoy battles around
Malta as another) about a year later, with pilots who had some
training in attacking ships (Fliegerkorps X was not ready to attack
ships until January 1941 or thereabouts).

My entire point has been that any comparison between the Japanese and
the Germans is a waste of time, because the Japanese were so much
better. If you want to understand how effective the Germans would have
been, you have to look at their complete inability to stop the RN in
the Med. Basing any conclusions about the Germans on the Japanese is a
false equivalence.

Chris Manteuffel

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 11:21*am, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 12:55*am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
>>
>> so-tickle-me wrote:
>> > I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
>> > they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
>>
>> It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
>> somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
>> first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
>> cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
>> it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.
>>
>> > Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
>> > suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
>>
>> What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
>> defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
>> were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
>> attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
>> on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
>> damage.
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
>The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
>Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
>attack pilots been lost during the BoB?

IIRC the RAF and the Luftwaffe both had extensive air-sea rescue
programs. If I further remember correctly the IJN had none. So a
Brit or Jerry knocked down had a chance of rescue and return to duty.
An Jap who got shot down just learned it was his time to die for the
Emperor.

This was a serious waste of manpower by the IJN, but was completely
consistent with with their "warrior ethic." While that might (note
the conditional) have made sense in 1742 by 1942 it was the height of
foolishness.

Further, again from memory, the Germans had a much more robust
replacement pilot program than did the Japanese.


>
>jsw

On Mar 23, 3:58*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 23, 11:21 am, Chris > wrote:
> >> On Mar 23, 12:55 am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
>
> >> so-tickle-me wrote:
> >> > I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
> >> > they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was
>
> >> It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
> >> somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
> >> first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
> >> cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
> >> it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.
>
> >> > Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
> >> > suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.
>
> >> What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
> >> defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
> >> were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
> >> attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
> >> on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
> >> damage.
>
> >> Chris Manteuffel
>
> >The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
> >Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
> >attack pilots been lost during the BoB?
>
> IIRC the RAF and the Luftwaffe both had extensive air-sea rescue
> programs. *If I further remember correctly the IJN had none. *So a
> Brit or Jerry knocked down had a chance of rescue and return to duty.
> An Jap who got shot down just learned it was his time to die for the
> Emperor.
>
> This was a serious waste of manpower by the IJN, but was completely
> consistent with with their "warrior ethic." *While that might (note
> the conditional) have made sense in 1742 by 1942 it was the height of
> foolishness.
>
> Further, again from memory, the Germans had a much more robust
> replacement pilot program than did the Japanese.
>
>
>
> >jsw
>
>

The German air sea rescue operations were sea-planes escorted in one
instance by 12 Bf 109s, the German pilots got flotation devices and
all the requisite gear if they had to land in the sea. The RAF had
none of those. But they did have rescue boats instead of big white sea
planes covered with 8 red crosses.

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

>>The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
>>Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
>>attack pilots been lost during the BoB?
>
> IIRC the RAF and the Luftwaffe both had extensive air-sea rescue
> programs. If I further remember correctly the IJN had none. So a
> Brit or Jerry knocked down had a chance of rescue and return to duty.
> An Jap who got shot down just learned it was his time to die for the
> Emperor.
>
> This was a serious waste of manpower by the IJN, but was completely
> consistent with with their "warrior ethic." While that might (note
> the conditional) have made sense in 1742 by 1942 it was the height of
> foolishness.
>

I'd argue that it made no sense in 1742 either. We know the Japanese
were not so inflexible during WW1 or the Russo Japanese war.
British troops who fought alongside the Japanese at Tsingtao
were very complimentary and the German POW's taken were
treated exceptionally well. Japanese guards who were disrespectful
towards their German 'guests' were punished.

The militarists invoked a perverted version of the code of Bushido
in the interwar period to justify their brutality in precisely the same
way the Nazis tried to portray themselves as mediaeval Knights.

The Japanese army in particular deliberately adopted a policy
of brutality within its own ranks. Japanese officers were encouraged
to beat juniors who's actions displeased them and Japanese soldiers
were taught that they could do the same to their 'inferiors'

This had no justification in the ancient warrior codes of the
Samurai, it was instead a cynical method of ensuring their
own control.


> Further, again from memory, the Germans had a much more robust
> replacement pilot program than did the Japanese.
>

Indeed but ultimately not as robust as that of the allies. By 1940
Britain and its Commonwealth alone were training more pilots
than Germany.

Keith

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 23, 3:58 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

>>
>> Further, again from memory, the Germans had a much more robust
>> replacement pilot program than did the Japanese.
>>
>>
>>
>> >jsw
>>
>>
>
> The German air sea rescue operations were sea-planes escorted in one
> instance by 12 Bf 109s, the German pilots got flotation devices and
> all the requisite gear if they had to land in the sea. The RAF had
> none of those. But they did have rescue boats instead of big white sea
> planes covered with 8 red crosses.
>

Later in the war the RAF had ASR flying boats as well in the shape of
the Supermarine Walrus. It is estimated that the Walrus saved around 5,000
pilots shot down around Britain and 2,500 in the Mediterranean.

Keith

In article >,
Chris > wrote:
>On Mar 23, 2:51*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
>> The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
>> Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
>> attack pilots been lost during the BoB?
>
>Germany never had pilots as skilled at hitting ships as the Japanese
>did at the beginning of the war. If you want to know how the Germans
>might have done against the RN during Sealion, look at their fairly
>poor experience at Crete (as an example, or the convoy battles around
>Malta as another) about a year later, with pilots who had some
>training in attacking ships (Fliegerkorps X was not ready to attack
>ships until January 1941 or thereabouts).
>

Or, even more to the point, at their capabilities during the Norway
campaign, which were pretty lamentable.

It was only after Norway that the Luftwaffe woke up to the need for
anti-shipping specialist units, but these units weren't ready in the
summer of '40 and played no part in the BoB. They debuted in the Med.
at the start of '41, where they proved much more formidable than
anything the Italians or, still more, the Germans had fielded against
ships before - but still came nowhere even close to the capability of
the Japanese naval air arm.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article >,
Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>On Mar 23, 3:58*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Mar 23, 11:21 am, Chris > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 23, 12:55 am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
>>
>> >> so-tickle-me wrote:
>> >> > I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
>> >> > they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this
>problem was
>>
>> >> What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
>> >> defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
>> >> were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
>> >> attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
>> >> on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
>> >> damage.
>>
>> >The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
>> >Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
>> >attack pilots been lost during the BoB?
>>
>> IIRC the RAF and the Luftwaffe both had extensive air-sea rescue
>> programs. *If I further remember correctly the IJN had none. *So a
>> Brit or Jerry knocked down had a chance of rescue and return to duty.
>> An Jap who got shot down just learned it was his time to die for the
>> Emperor.
>>
>
>The German air sea rescue operations were sea-planes escorted in one
>instance by 12 Bf 109s, the German pilots got flotation devices and
>all the requisite gear if they had to land in the sea. The RAF had
>none of those. But they did have rescue boats instead of big white sea
>planes covered with 8 red crosses.

And, more pertinently, the RN also operated an exensive force of ASW
craft (adapted Fairmile MLs in the main), which were heavily armed.
Most pertinently of all, RAF air spottin g of survivors and RN/RAF
launch rescue were well-co-ordinated: this greatly increased the
chances of survivors getting picked up whilst still alive (the channel
being a cold place).

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)