"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

[mike]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio.html

Vanishing American Air Superiority

By J.R. Dunn
The debate over the F-22 Raptor has been carried out at the customary
level of simplemindedness we've become used to when Congress handles
military questions. Since the early '60s, the favored method of
killing a military program has been to come up with an argument easily
expressed in a sound bite and stick with it. This time, the sound bite
was, "Why do we need two fighter planes, anyway?"

The answer is even simpler: We need two fighters because we need two
fighters. The historical record clearly reveals this: Every air
campaign carried out with two distinct and particularly formulated
fighter designs has been a success, and every attempt to do otherwise
has resulted in disaster.

U.S. Air Force doctrine on fighter procurement is known as the high/
low mix. The "high" component consists of a dedicated air-superiority
fighter, utilizing the latest aeronautical technology, fitted with
state-of the-art electronics, and carrying the most advanced air-to-
air weapons. These aircraft have one mission -- to kill enemy
airplanes. This is the paramount goal of a fighter force. Without it,
nothing else can be accomplished. That being the case, the high-end
fighter is the more expensive and complex part of the mix. They are
rare assets, to be utilized accordingly.

The "low" end is encompassed by the swing-role fighter, more commonly
known as the fighter-bomber. Though designed and built with slightly
less technical sophistication than the air-superiority models, these
aircraft fill a much wider role. They carry out interdiction missions
using bombs and rockets, provide ground-support for troops, and at the
same time can acquit themselves adequately in the air-to-air role if
enemy fighters show up. As such, they can supplement and reinforce the
air-superiority aircraft if massive air battles develop. The swing-
role fighter is cheaper and more easily and quickly constructed than
its haughtier brother, so there tend to be larger numbers of
them.

The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty, so an ad hoc strategy
developed during the Battle of Britain (August 12-September 15, 1940)
in which Spitfires attacked the fighter escorts while the Hurricanes
hit the slower bombers. This strategy worked well enough to force the
Luftwaffe to abandon daylight raids in September 1940, denying Hermann
Goering the appellation of "Tamer of Britain."

As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role. A dedicated ground-
attack version, the Hurribomber, with increased bomb load and heavy
wing cannon, began operating against Rommel's Afrika Korps in 1942.
Hurribombers served throughout the war North Africa, Italy, and Burma.

The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
time agile enough to outfly most opponents.

As the P-51 arrived in large numbers in the U.K. in early 1944, the
P-47 was shifted to the fighter-bomber role. Fitted with wing racks
for rockets and bombs, the P-47 flew constant escort over Allied tank
spearheads as they moved across northwest Europe into the Reich,
demolishing organized armored and artillery resistance. At the same
time, the Jug, as the pilots called it, could more than hold its own
against enemy fighters. Whenever some sorry remnant of the Luftwaffe
attacked P-47 wings (as in Operation Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe's
January 1, 1945 last stand), they often got the worst of it.

Following the war, the high-low mix was carried on into the jet age.
At the outbreak of the Korean War, a superb air-superiority aircraft,
the F-86 Sabre, was entering service, while two first-generation
fighter jets, the F-80 Shooting Star and the F-84 Thunderjet, covered
the fighter-bomber role. As the war settled into an uneasy stalemate
in 1951, USAF F-86s established a barcap (barrier combat air patrol)
along the Yalu River to prevent communist MiG-15s flown variously by
Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean pilots from attacking U.N. forces.
Not a single successful incursion was made by communist air forces
during the war. In the meantime, F-80s and F-84s continually harassed
North Korean and Chinese forces.

The high-low mix proved itself in both WWII and Korea. But it was
abandoned during the era of specialization, the 1950s. The "century
series" fighters were, excepting the F-100 Super Sabre, the pioneer
supersonic fighter. The model was quickly superseded by more advanced
aircraft, designed for certain specific, limited roles, with no
attempt to cover either the air-superiority or fighter-bomber mission.
The F-101B, the F-102, and the F-106 were high-speed interceptors, the
F-105 a "fighter-bomber" designed to drop nuclear weapons, the F-104
an indescribable and dangerous oddity.

Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
superiority role. This was discovered immediately over Vietnam, where
American aircraft were hard put to match Soviet-supplied MiGs during
the early years of the war. It required a suite of improved air-to-air
weapons and a complete overhaul of tactics before U.S. air forces
could dominate the skies in their accustomed manner.

Much of those novel tactics were the work of Major John Boyd, a vastly
talented and wildly eccentric fighter pilot who in later years was to
trigger a revolution in military strategy. During the mid-'60s, he was
in charge of developing the USAF's new tactical fighter. This effort
followed a fiasco involving the General Dynamics F-111, which might be
called liberalism's attempt to build a combat aircraft. Though
intended as a fighter, the production F-111 was a monster aircraft the
size of a medium airliner, and just about as maneuverable. Though the
F-111 eventually found its role as a precision bomber, a large hole
remained where the USAF's future fighter aircraft was supposed to be.
Boyd's job was to fill that hole.

At first, it appeared that Boyd would be presiding over F-111: The
Sequel. General Dynamics sent him a proposal for a plane weighing no
less than 60,000 lbs. Boyd sent it back outlining exactly what he
expected: half the weight, powered by engines that hadn't even reached
the test stage yet, and with electronics and weapons systems that
nobody could quite comprehend. It was a sure formula for failure in
other hands, but everything broke the Mad Major's way, with advanced
engines and avionics becoming available at just the right moment. The
result was the F-15 Eagle.

But Boyd was not quite satisfied. He was perfectly aware of the
benefits of the high-low mix, and on his own, without permission from
anyone, began development of the necessary "low"-end aircraft. Working
out the design parameters to match a series of "Energy
Maneuverability" curves he had formulated (in large part from
reinterpreting the aircraft as a thermodynamic system), Boyd coaxed
several aircraft companies to produce prototypes to compete in a
flyoff. Unusually, both prototypes were successful. One became the
Navy's standard fighter, the F/A-18 Hornet. The other became the F-16
Falcon (though most pilots call it the "Viper").

Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
loss in air-to-air combat.

It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
military concept ever gets. All the same, we're in the process of
dumping it in pursuit of false economy. To the battle cry of "who
needs two fighters anyway!" the U.S. is dropping the high end of the
equation -- the F-22 Raptor -- in the mistaken conviction that the
low end -- the F-35 Lightning II -- can cover all the bases.

The F-22 is the most effective air-superiority weapon ever devised --
the sole current operational example of the fifth-generation fighter.
With its full stealth, supersonic cruise capability, and electronics
that make the Starship Enterprise look like a birchbark canoe, it is
utterly unmatched as a fighter aircraft. Its kill/loss ratio is
estimated at 100 to 1 and is probably much higher.

The F-35 is a good little airplane, well-fitted for the swing role. It
possesses partial stealthing ("forward stealthing," which prevents an
enemy from knowing it's coming), performance matching most operational
fighters, and a good electronics suite. It has several minor failings
-- among them limited a internal weapons carriage, rendering underwing
carriage necessary (thus negating most of its stealth advantages),
along with an inability to fire its air-to-air weapons at maximum
speed. All the same, when matched against current fighter designs, it
would probably come out on top.

But the problem is that the F-35 will not be facing current designs.
Technical superiority in all fields -- and in the military more than
any other -- is the most ephemeral of assets. Even as the F-22 debate
winds down, Sukhoi, Russia's premier aircraft company, is preparing to
produce its own fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-FA. Fast, stealthy,
and with state-of-the-art electronics, the PAK-FA is known as the
"Raptor killer." It will probably have even better luck with the F-35.
As for China, persistent rumors have been circulating concerning tests
of a new fifth-generation fighter. (Interestingly, the Chinese have
adapted the high-low mix for their own fighter force even as the U.S.
seems about to abandon it.)

In a fifth-generation fighter environment, current tactics utilizing
long-range detection by AWACS planes, which then hand off interception
to individual fighters, will no longer be feasible. You can't play
that game with stealth aircraft. We will instead return to the tactics
of WWII and Korea, where opposing aircraft elements hunted each other
across the wide blue sky and whoever had the best eyesight struck
first. In that tactical environment, piloting skill and numbers will
make all the difference.

Production of the F-22 has been capped at 187. That's it as of next
September, and there won't be any more. Furthermore, rule of thumb has
it that at least a third of all high-performance aircraft are at any
given time laid up for maintenance or refitting, which leaves us with
approximately 120 F-22s ready for action at any given time. The
Russians and Chinese, on the other hand, have a slaphappy habit of
making more weapons than they actually need. Suppose, if things get
hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
fighter aircraft.) What happens then?

We know what happens then because we've been through it before. When
WWII began in the Pacific, the Japanese possessed a world-class air-
superiority fighter in the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. American forces
attempted to challenge the Zero with a variety of low-end, often
obsolete aircraft such as the F-4F Wildcat, the P-39 Airacobra, and
the P-40 Warhawk. (And that says nothing the pathetic Brewster F-2A
Buffalo, which didn't even belong in the same historical epoch as the
Zero.) The result was a savage, year-long battering ended only by a
complete revision of tactics. It wasn't until 1943 that a crash
program involving direct flyoffs against a captured Zero resulted in
the F-6F Hellcat, which outmatched the Zero in all factors and at last
turned the tide in our favor.

Similarly, the Soviets, with the help of the British labor government
that sold them the rights to the Rolls-Royce Nene engine and the
Rosenberg spy ring who helpfully provided swept-wing wind tunnel data,
made a dramatic technological leap in the late '40s with the MiG-15.
Over Korea, USAF pilots were forced to contend with an enemy aircraft
that was as fast as theirs and more maneuverable at altitude. Only
superior U.S. training kept communist air forces at bay until, almost
by accident, the new model F-86E Sabre, fitted with hydraulic
controls, at last overcame the MiG advantage and handed air
superiority to U.N. forces.

We'll be facing such a situation again, and sooner than we'd like. One
of these days, over the Taiwan Straits or Central Asia, we will learn
that eternal air superiority is not guaranteed to the United States as
some kind of codicil to Manifest Destiny. American air forces will
inevitably suffer a whipping unlike any they've endured in decades,
and American troops and sailors will have to learn how to operate in
conditions where we lack air superiority, something unheard of since
1943. (Heads up, Ralph Peters!)

One of the major failings of American politics involves its short-time
horizon. American voters and politicians simply cannot grasp that
actions taken today can have consequences years and decades down the
line, and that, in a majority of cases, there will be no second
chances. Barack Obama has proven to have far more limited foresight
than even the average American pol. The F-22 cancellation is a clear
example of this. There will be plenty more to come.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker, and will be editor
of the forthcoming Military Thinker.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio.html
>
> Vanishing American Air Superiority

what a load of ****.

[Walt[_5_]]

Some wrong facts there. Not A-35, but A-36. The A-35 was a completely
different aircraft and manufacturer. And the the A-36 was designed to
British specifications.
The F-86 was operational earlier than stated. I first became
operational in 1949 with SAC.
This is where I stopped reading.
I agree with the concept though. Air superiority and fighter bomber.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST), Mike >
wrote:

>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio.html
>
>Vanishing American Air Superiority
>
>By J.R. Dunn
>The debate over the F-22 Raptor has been carried out at the customary
>level of simplemindedness we've become used to when Congress handles
>military questions. Since the early '60s, the favored method of
>killing a military program has been to come up with an argument easily
>expressed in a sound bite and stick with it. This time, the sound bite
>was, "Why do we need two fighter planes, anyway?"
>
>The answer is even simpler: We need two fighters because we need two
>fighters. The historical record clearly reveals this: Every air
>campaign carried out with two distinct and particularly formulated
>fighter designs has been a success, and every attempt to do otherwise
>has resulted in disaster.
>
>U.S. Air Force doctrine on fighter procurement is known as the high/
>low mix. The "high" component consists of a dedicated air-superiority
>fighter, utilizing the latest aeronautical technology, fitted with
>state-of the-art electronics, and carrying the most advanced air-to-
>air weapons. These aircraft have one mission -- to kill enemy
>airplanes. This is the paramount goal of a fighter force. Without it,
>nothing else can be accomplished. That being the case, the high-end
>fighter is the more expensive and complex part of the mix. They are
>rare assets, to be utilized accordingly.
>
>The "low" end is encompassed by the swing-role fighter, more commonly
>known as the fighter-bomber. Though designed and built with slightly
>less technical sophistication than the air-superiority models, these
>aircraft fill a much wider role. They carry out interdiction missions
>using bombs and rockets, provide ground-support for troops, and at the
>same time can acquit themselves adequately in the air-to-air role if
>enemy fighters show up. As such, they can supplement and reinforce the
>air-superiority aircraft if massive air battles develop. The swing-
>role fighter is cheaper and more easily and quickly constructed than
>its haughtier brother, so there tend to be larger numbers of
>them.
>
>The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
>U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
>doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
>a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
>home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
>the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
>was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
>Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
>Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty, so an ad hoc strategy
>developed during the Battle of Britain (August 12-September 15, 1940)
>in which Spitfires attacked the fighter escorts while the Hurricanes
>hit the slower bombers. This strategy worked well enough to force the
>Luftwaffe to abandon daylight raids in September 1940, denying Hermann
>Goering the appellation of "Tamer of Britain."
>
>As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
>the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role. A dedicated ground-
>attack version, the Hurribomber, with increased bomb load and heavy
>wing cannon, began operating against Rommel's Afrika Korps in 1942.
>Hurribombers served throughout the war North Africa, Italy, and Burma.
>
>The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
>frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
>with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
>That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
>leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
>defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
>mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
>Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
>fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
>time agile enough to outfly most opponents.
>
>As the P-51 arrived in large numbers in the U.K. in early 1944, the
>P-47 was shifted to the fighter-bomber role. Fitted with wing racks
>for rockets and bombs, the P-47 flew constant escort over Allied tank
>spearheads as they moved across northwest Europe into the Reich,
>demolishing organized armored and artillery resistance. At the same
>time, the Jug, as the pilots called it, could more than hold its own
>against enemy fighters. Whenever some sorry remnant of the Luftwaffe
>attacked P-47 wings (as in Operation Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe's
>January 1, 1945 last stand), they often got the worst of it.
>
>Following the war, the high-low mix was carried on into the jet age.
>At the outbreak of the Korean War, a superb air-superiority aircraft,
>the F-86 Sabre, was entering service, while two first-generation
>fighter jets, the F-80 Shooting Star and the F-84 Thunderjet, covered
>the fighter-bomber role. As the war settled into an uneasy stalemate
>in 1951, USAF F-86s established a barcap (barrier combat air patrol)
>along the Yalu River to prevent communist MiG-15s flown variously by
>Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean pilots from attacking U.N. forces.
>Not a single successful incursion was made by communist air forces
>during the war. In the meantime, F-80s and F-84s continually harassed
>North Korean and Chinese forces.
>
>The high-low mix proved itself in both WWII and Korea. But it was
>abandoned during the era of specialization, the 1950s. The "century
>series" fighters were, excepting the F-100 Super Sabre, the pioneer
>supersonic fighter. The model was quickly superseded by more advanced
>aircraft, designed for certain specific, limited roles, with no
>attempt to cover either the air-superiority or fighter-bomber mission.
>The F-101B, the F-102, and the F-106 were high-speed interceptors, the
>F-105 a "fighter-bomber" designed to drop nuclear weapons, the F-104
>an indescribable and dangerous oddity.
>
>Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
>missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
>developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
>excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
>fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
>superiority role. This was discovered immediately over Vietnam, where
>American aircraft were hard put to match Soviet-supplied MiGs during
>the early years of the war. It required a suite of improved air-to-air
>weapons and a complete overhaul of tactics before U.S. air forces
>could dominate the skies in their accustomed manner.
>
>Much of those novel tactics were the work of Major John Boyd, a vastly
>talented and wildly eccentric fighter pilot who in later years was to
>trigger a revolution in military strategy. During the mid-'60s, he was
>in charge of developing the USAF's new tactical fighter. This effort
>followed a fiasco involving the General Dynamics F-111, which might be
>called liberalism's attempt to build a combat aircraft. Though
>intended as a fighter, the production F-111 was a monster aircraft the
>size of a medium airliner, and just about as maneuverable. Though the
>F-111 eventually found its role as a precision bomber, a large hole
>remained where the USAF's future fighter aircraft was supposed to be.
>Boyd's job was to fill that hole.
>
>At first, it appeared that Boyd would be presiding over F-111: The
>Sequel. General Dynamics sent him a proposal for a plane weighing no
>less than 60,000 lbs. Boyd sent it back outlining exactly what he
>expected: half the weight, powered by engines that hadn't even reached
>the test stage yet, and with electronics and weapons systems that
>nobody could quite comprehend. It was a sure formula for failure in
>other hands, but everything broke the Mad Major's way, with advanced
>engines and avionics becoming available at just the right moment. The
>result was the F-15 Eagle.
>
>But Boyd was not quite satisfied. He was perfectly aware of the
>benefits of the high-low mix, and on his own, without permission from
>anyone, began development of the necessary "low"-end aircraft. Working
>out the design parameters to match a series of "Energy
>Maneuverability" curves he had formulated (in large part from
>reinterpreting the aircraft as a thermodynamic system), Boyd coaxed
>several aircraft companies to produce prototypes to compete in a
>flyoff. Unusually, both prototypes were successful. One became the
>Navy's standard fighter, the F/A-18 Hornet. The other became the F-16
>Falcon (though most pilots call it the "Viper").
>
>Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
>on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
>While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
>filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
>theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
>loss in air-to-air combat.
>
>It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
>military concept ever gets. All the same, we're in the process of
>dumping it in pursuit of false economy. To the battle cry of "who
>needs two fighters anyway!" the U.S. is dropping the high end of the
>equation -- the F-22 Raptor -- in the mistaken conviction that the
>low end -- the F-35 Lightning II -- can cover all the bases.
>
>The F-22 is the most effective air-superiority weapon ever devised --
>the sole current operational example of the fifth-generation fighter.
>With its full stealth, supersonic cruise capability, and electronics
>that make the Starship Enterprise look like a birchbark canoe, it is
>utterly unmatched as a fighter aircraft. Its kill/loss ratio is
>estimated at 100 to 1 and is probably much higher.
>
>The F-35 is a good little airplane, well-fitted for the swing role. It
>possesses partial stealthing ("forward stealthing," which prevents an
>enemy from knowing it's coming), performance matching most operational
>fighters, and a good electronics suite. It has several minor failings
>-- among them limited a internal weapons carriage, rendering underwing
>carriage necessary (thus negating most of its stealth advantages),
>along with an inability to fire its air-to-air weapons at maximum
>speed. All the same, when matched against current fighter designs, it
>would probably come out on top.
>
>But the problem is that the F-35 will not be facing current designs.
>Technical superiority in all fields -- and in the military more than
>any other -- is the most ephemeral of assets. Even as the F-22 debate
>winds down, Sukhoi, Russia's premier aircraft company, is preparing to
>produce its own fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-FA. Fast, stealthy,
>and with state-of-the-art electronics, the PAK-FA is known as the
>"Raptor killer." It will probably have even better luck with the F-35.
>As for China, persistent rumors have been circulating concerning tests
>of a new fifth-generation fighter. (Interestingly, the Chinese have
>adapted the high-low mix for their own fighter force even as the U.S.
>seems about to abandon it.)
>
>In a fifth-generation fighter environment, current tactics utilizing
>long-range detection by AWACS planes, which then hand off interception
>to individual fighters, will no longer be feasible. You can't play
>that game with stealth aircraft. We will instead return to the tactics
>of WWII and Korea, where opposing aircraft elements hunted each other
>across the wide blue sky and whoever had the best eyesight struck
>first. In that tactical environment, piloting skill and numbers will
>make all the difference.
>
>Production of the F-22 has been capped at 187. That's it as of next
>September, and there won't be any more. Furthermore, rule of thumb has
>it that at least a third of all high-performance aircraft are at any
>given time laid up for maintenance or refitting, which leaves us with
>approximately 120 F-22s ready for action at any given time. The
>Russians and Chinese, on the other hand, have a slaphappy habit of
>making more weapons than they actually need. Suppose, if things get
>hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
>fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
>fighter aircraft.) What happens then?
>
>We know what happens then because we've been through it before. When
>WWII began in the Pacific, the Japanese possessed a world-class air-
>superiority fighter in the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. American forces
>attempted to challenge the Zero with a variety of low-end, often
>obsolete aircraft such as the F-4F Wildcat, the P-39 Airacobra, and
>the P-40 Warhawk. (And that says nothing the pathetic Brewster F-2A
>Buffalo, which didn't even belong in the same historical epoch as the
>Zero.) The result was a savage, year-long battering ended only by a
>complete revision of tactics. It wasn't until 1943 that a crash
>program involving direct flyoffs against a captured Zero resulted in
>the F-6F Hellcat, which outmatched the Zero in all factors and at last
>turned the tide in our favor.
>
>Similarly, the Soviets, with the help of the British labor government
>that sold them the rights to the Rolls-Royce Nene engine and the
>Rosenberg spy ring who helpfully provided swept-wing wind tunnel data,
>made a dramatic technological leap in the late '40s with the MiG-15.
>Over Korea, USAF pilots were forced to contend with an enemy aircraft
>that was as fast as theirs and more maneuverable at altitude. Only
>superior U.S. training kept communist air forces at bay until, almost
>by accident, the new model F-86E Sabre, fitted with hydraulic
>controls, at last overcame the MiG advantage and handed air
>superiority to U.N. forces.
>
>We'll be facing such a situation again, and sooner than we'd like. One
>of these days, over the Taiwan Straits or Central Asia, we will learn
>that eternal air superiority is not guaranteed to the United States as
>some kind of codicil to Manifest Destiny. American air forces will
>inevitably suffer a whipping unlike any they've endured in decades,
>and American troops and sailors will have to learn how to operate in
>conditions where we lack air superiority, something unheard of since
>1943. (Heads up, Ralph Peters!)
>
>One of the major failings of American politics involves its short-time
>horizon. American voters and politicians simply cannot grasp that
>actions taken today can have consequences years and decades down the
>line, and that, in a majority of cases, there will be no second
>chances. Barack Obama has proven to have far more limited foresight
>than even the average American pol. The F-22 cancellation is a clear
>example of this. There will be plenty more to come.
>
>J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker, and will be editor
>of the forthcoming Military Thinker.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio.html
>>>
>>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>>
>>what a load of ****.
>>
>>
> That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> finest.
>
> What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> hi/lo mix?
>
> You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>


what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
else.

the points the author makes are false strawman types.

the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
building them.

maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.

technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
1935.

what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste

[Richard[_11_]]

On Mar 5, 12:39*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Mike" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio....
>
> >>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>
> >>what a load of ****.
>
> > That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> > finest.
>
> > What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> > hi/lo mix?
>
> > You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>
> what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
> else.
>
> the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> building them.
>
> maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>
> technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
> manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
> 1935.
>
> what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
> expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste

Worse. Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.

[150flivver]

On Mar 5, 6:35*pm, Richard > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:39*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>"Mike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio...
>
> > >>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>
> > >>what a load of ****.
>
> > > That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> > > finest.
>
> > > What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> > > hi/lo mix?
>
> > > You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>
> > what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
> > else.
>
> > the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> > the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> > building them.
>
> > maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> > if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>
> > technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
> > manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
> > 1935.
>
> > what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
> > expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
>
> Worse. *Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
> support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.

Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
engaged a manned fighter. Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. UAVs may
be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.

[Paul Saccani[_2_]]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST), Mike >
wrote:

>The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
>frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
>with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
>That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
>leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
>defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
>mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
>Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
>fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
>time agile enough to outfly most opponents.

This is quite mistaken.

The Merlin was first fitted to five aeroplanes (with the USAAC
designation P-51) of the first batch of Mustang Mk. 1s. These aircraft
were named Mustang Mk X. They were definitely not the A36 Apache
(the A35 was a version of the A31 Vengenance).

This wasn't accidental, deficiencies above 15,000 feet with the
Allision powerplant at altitudes above 15,000 feet were identified in
early testing, and Air Chief Marshall Wilfrid Freeman authorised test
and development of a Merlin engined version in April 1942. This was
before the A36 had even been ordered.

The A36 was ordered simply because USAAC funds for fighters in Fiscal
year 1942 had already been exhausted. General Oliver Nichols and
Major Benjamin Kelsey decided to use funds allocated for Attack
Bombers and had NAA make the minimum changes needed to legally produce
a genuine attack version. But the first 150 P-51 were already ordered
before this decision, and the first 150 P-51 for USAAC were already
flying before the follow on expedient A36 was flying.

The A36 hadn't even had first flight by the time that Merlin engined
Mustang Mk Xs were already flying. And Packard Merlin engined Mustang
Mk 1As were ordered from NAA before the A36 had even been thought of.


Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST), Mike >
> wrote:
>
>>The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
>>frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
>>with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
>>That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
>>leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
>>defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
>>mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
>>Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
>>fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
>>time agile enough to outfly most opponents.
>
> This is quite mistaken.
>
> The Merlin was first fitted to five aeroplanes (with the USAAC
> designation P-51) of the first batch of Mustang Mk. 1s. These aircraft
> were named Mustang Mk X. They were definitely not the A36 Apache
> (the A35 was a version of the A31 Vengenance).
>
> This wasn't accidental, deficiencies above 15,000 feet with the
> Allision powerplant at altitudes above 15,000 feet were identified in
> early testing, and Air Chief Marshall Wilfrid Freeman authorised test
> and development of a Merlin engined version in April 1942. This was
> before the A36 had even been ordered.
>
> The A36 was ordered simply because USAAC funds for fighters in Fiscal
> year 1942 had already been exhausted. General Oliver Nichols and
> Major Benjamin Kelsey decided to use funds allocated for Attack
> Bombers and had NAA make the minimum changes needed to legally produce
> a genuine attack version. But the first 150 P-51 were already ordered
> before this decision, and the first 150 P-51 for USAAC were already
> flying before the follow on expedient A36 was flying.
>
> The A36 hadn't even had first flight by the time that Merlin engined
> Mustang Mk Xs were already flying. And Packard Merlin engined Mustang
> Mk 1As were ordered from NAA before the A36 had even been thought of.
>

the whole article was bull****.

[g lof2]

On Mar 5, 8:16*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST), Mike >
> > wrote:
>
> >>The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
> >>frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
> >>with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
> >>That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
> >>leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
> >>defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
> >>mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
> >>Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
> >>fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
> >>time agile enough to outfly most opponents.
>
> > This is quite mistaken.
>
> > The Merlin was first fitted to five aeroplanes (with the USAAC
> > designation P-51) of the first batch of Mustang Mk. 1s. These aircraft
> > were named Mustang Mk X. *They were *definitely not the A36 Apache
> > (the A35 was a version of the A31 Vengenance).
>
> > This wasn't accidental, deficiencies above 15,000 feet with the
> > Allision powerplant at altitudes above 15,000 feet were identified in
> > early testing, and Air Chief Marshall Wilfrid Freeman authorised test
> > and development of a Merlin engined version in April 1942. *This was
> > before the A36 had even been ordered.
>
> > The A36 was ordered simply because USAAC funds for fighters in Fiscal
> > year 1942 had already been exhausted. *General Oliver Nichols and
> > Major Benjamin Kelsey decided to use funds allocated for Attack
> > Bombers and had NAA make the minimum changes needed to legally produce
> > a genuine attack version. *But the first 150 P-51 were already ordered
> > before this decision, and the first 150 P-51 for USAAC were already
> > flying before the follow on expedient A36 was flying.
>
> > The A36 hadn't even had first flight by the time that Merlin engined
> > Mustang Mk Xs were already flying. *And Packard Merlin engined Mustang
> > Mk 1As were ordered from NAA *before the A36 had even been thought of..
>
> * the whole article was bull****.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ray, once agian you shown you don't know anything about technology.
Yes the artical has problem, mostly because it uses that the
nomenclature that has cripple you military planner, designers and
enginners since WWII. If we stop thinking in terms like fighter,
destroyer, and frigates, and stick with name that express purpose and
mission, then explaining these facts would be a lot easier.

What we call fighters today are actual two different types of
airplanes. They are not a high cost and low cost version of a single
type of combat aircraft as most people think of them, Instead they
have two compleatly different mission, one the air superiority
airplane destroyer designed to shooting enemy aircraft from the sky,
and the second a high speed ground attack aircraft design to destroyer
targets on the ground. The latter is a much simplier mission to
accomplish, which has resulted in this type of aircraft been cheaper
to build, and therefore thpugh by many to be the "low cost fighter."

Now we come to today problem. while UAV technology has advance enough
that unmanned aircraft can preform certain land attack missions, they
can not profrom them all. And UAV technology can not accomplish air to
air combat until they are able to match the situational awareness and
reaction time of man aircraft.

Yes, the F-22 has it share of problem, mostly because of the insane
system we created for designing, and manufacturing weapons in the USA.
A long time ago the AF should had told Lockheeds engineers to redesign
to reduce the F-22 unit cost, This in turns would have made the
higher, more economical, production runs politically possible. Etc etc
etc.

And Ray, as to the main conclusion of Dunn story, that the US need air
superiority manned fighters, it is you who is full of BS.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Ray O'Hara ha scritto:

> the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> building them.
>
> maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.

OK plese try this:

Take one of the best and with the most refined flight models WWII a/c
sims, and try to fly spitfires and hurricane at low, medium and high
altitudes, doing also combat acrobatics, and notice the differences....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio

(mantained the X-post to competent NGs)

[guy]

On 5 Mar, 18:39, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio...
>
> >>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>
> >>what a load of ****.
>
> > That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> > finest.
>
> > What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> > hi/lo mix?
>
> > You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>
> what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
> else.
>
> the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> building them.

What utter rubbish, what the RAF needed in 1940 was more pilots.
Comparing the Hurri and Spit with the F-22 and F-35 is absurd, the
Hurricane was not a second string cheaper fighter.
The RAF had plenty of Hurricanes thanks to the foresight of Tom
Sopwith (and despite the Air Ministry - Keep building Hurricanes with
Fabric covered wings - and build plenty of metal wings to replace the
fabric covered ones - duh)
Everyone knows that the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain
Anyone with an interest in military aviation knows that the Hurricane
achieved more kills than all the other defenses put together during
the BoB
A few people know that 14000 Hurris achieved 50% of all RAF kills in
WW2, 24000 Spits achieved 33% RAF Kills (aprox figs)

Guy
>
> maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>
> technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
> manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
> 1935.
>
> what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
> expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 6, 4:06*am, guy > wrote:
> ...
> Anyone with an interest in military aviation knows that the Hurricane
> achieved more kills than all the other defenses put together during
> the BoB
> A few people know that 14000 Hurris achieved 50% of all RAF kills in
> WW2, 24000 Spits achieved 33% RAF Kills (aprox figs)
>
> Guy
....

Scroll down to (3)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbf109.htm
"...the Hurricane, though vastly more manoeuvrable than either the
Spitfire or the Me 109..."

jsw

[frank]

On Mar 5, 8:52*pm, 150flivver > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:35*pm, Richard > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 12:39*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
> > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>"Mike" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio...
>
> > > >>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>
> > > >>what a load of ****.
>
> > > > That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> > > > finest.
>
> > > > What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> > > > hi/lo mix?
>
> > > > You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>
> > > what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
> > > else.
>
> > > the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> > > the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> > > building them.
>
> > > maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> > > if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>
> > > technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
> > > manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
> > > 1935.
>
> > > what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
> > > expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
>
> > Worse. *Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
> > support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.
>
> Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
> fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
> engaged a manned fighter. *Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
> There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
> GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. *UAVs may
> be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
> range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.

Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.

I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
wal mart and taking 2 of them.

[frank]

On Mar 6, 2:22*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Ray O'Hara ha scritto:
>
> > the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>
> > the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> > building them.
>
> > maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> > if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>
> OK plese try this:
>
> Take one of the best and with the most refined flight models WWII a/c
> sims, and try to fly spitfires and hurricane at low, medium and high
> altitudes, doing also combat acrobatics, and notice the differences....
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio
>
> (mantained the X-post to competent NGs)

Be very careful young Skywalker about using sims. Real world much
different. Wind tunnel engineers blow much smoke as programmers.

Now have another glass of that great vino on me. Sigh, Italia....wine,
cheese, women - whoops, scratch the last, I'm married.......

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 6, 12:51*pm, frank > wrote:
> ..
> Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
> jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.
>
> I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
> Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
> we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
> wal mart and taking 2 of them.

Never mind fighters, AI and remote control aren't nearly good enough
yet to drive a bus in city traffic.

jsw

[hcobb]

On Mar 6, 8:35*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> Today our real concern is total numbers. With the Raptor buy
> apparently over, we really don't have a nucleus of a globally
> effective operational fleet. 187 aircraft, minus not-in-commission
> frames, minus training aircraft, minus periodic maintenance aircraft
> leaves you with roughly a half-dozen squadrons.
>
> You've got to have more airplanes and that means F-35 numbers in the
> absence of F-22s. The flexibilty of the F-35 with A/G optimization and
> reasonable A/A capability makes it the next iteration of F-16 paired
> with F-15 air superiority.

Against which nation will the USAF require more than six squadrons of
Raptors to shoot down all of their high end fighters? Either now or
anytime in the next two decades.

The F-16 comparison is apt. The F-15 and the F-22 were designed for
the BVR long range high speed interceptor mission that the USAF has
never ever done. The F-16 and the F-35 were designed for the swing
missions of dog fighting and ground support that have been very
common.

The T-50 is a stealth compromised airframe precisely in the way those
last generation engines are mounted onto that airframe. The PAK-FA
can either go forwards with some RAM spackled onto that cow or start
from scratch and have a fifth generation fighter ready to build in two
decades.

The F-35 will not fly as high, as fast or as far as the PAK-FA. It
won't out turn it and it won't be able to chase it down.

What will happen is that the F-35 will do its missions and when the
PAK-FA comes into range the only thing it will see are incoming
missiles mysteriously appearing from out of the blue. Sometimes it
may even spot these in time to evade them.

-HJC

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 6, 1:33*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 8:35*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > Today our real concern is total numbers. With the Raptor buy
> > apparently over, we really don't have a nucleus of a globally
> > effective operational fleet. 187 aircraft, minus not-in-commission
> > frames, minus training aircraft, minus periodic maintenance aircraft
> > leaves you with roughly a half-dozen squadrons.
>
> > You've got to have more airplanes and that means F-35 numbers in the
> > absence of F-22s. The flexibilty of the F-35 with A/G optimization and
> > reasonable A/A capability makes it the next iteration of F-16 paired
> > with F-15 air superiority.
>
> Against which nation will the USAF require more than six squadrons of
> Raptors to shoot down all of their high end fighters? *Either now or
> anytime in the next two decades.
>
> The F-16 comparison is apt. *The F-15 and the F-22 were designed for
> the BVR long range high speed interceptor mission that the USAF has
> never ever done. *The F-16 and the F-35 were designed for the swing
> missions of dog fighting and ground support that have been very
> common.
>
> The T-50 is a stealth compromised airframe precisely in the way those
> last generation engines are mounted onto that airframe. *The PAK-FA
> can either go forwards with some RAM spackled onto that cow or start
> from scratch and have a fifth generation fighter ready to build in two
> decades.
>
> The F-35 will not fly as high, as fast or as far as the PAK-FA. *It
> won't out turn it and it won't be able to chase it down.
>
> What will happen is that the F-35 will do its missions and when the
> PAK-FA comes into range the only thing it will see are incoming
> missiles mysteriously appearing from out of the blue. *Sometimes it
> may even spot these in time to evade them.
>
> -HJC

More you have to think of any mission/war in which the United States
will not be the attacking nation. The Pentagon has been looking for a
near-peer, a nation that might want to fight the U.S.. for about 20
years. There do not seem to be any. The F-22 and possibly even the
F-35 seem to be over designed for the real probable use, ground
support in a distant battlefield. Imagine the current situation in
Afghanistan with only those two aircraft for support. The FA-18 can do
that job, now.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>,
Mike > writes
>The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
>U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
>doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
>a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
>home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
>the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
>was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
>Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
>Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,

Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge
on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.
>
>As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
>the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.

So did the Spitfire and Seafire: aircraft that had no value once the
enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility.


I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and
Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground
targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.


There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
potential.

Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which
were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft
that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly
punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had
the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective
as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end"
compared to the Spitfire?)

>Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
>missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
>developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
>excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
>fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
>superiority role.

During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
inadequate...)

Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
for high-speed dogfighting.

Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
field it in large numbers at the frontline.

>Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
>on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
>While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
>filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
>theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
>loss in air-to-air combat.

However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
target drones.

>It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
>military concept ever gets.

What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
"low end" tank?

>Suppose, if things get
>hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
>fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
>fighter aircraft.) What happens then?

Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".

In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over
from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are
largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at
least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern
aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while
increasing individual capability.

Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
of their limited endurance.



The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.
However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against
traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and
development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited
procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile
hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a
F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality.

The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been
a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter
and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if
hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).

But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
than rational argument.


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

Paul J. Adam

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 6, 4:35*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message
> >,
> Mike > writes
>
> >The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
> >U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
> >doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
> >a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
> >home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
> >the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
> >was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
> >Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
> >Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,
>
> Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge
> on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.
>
>
>
> >As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
> >the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.
>
> So did the Spitfire and Seafire: aircraft that had no value once the
> enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility.
>
> I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
> superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and
> Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground
> targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.
>
> There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
> and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
> Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
> didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
> Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
> potential.
>
> Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which
> were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft
> that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly
> punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had
> the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective
> as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end"
> compared to the Spitfire?)
>
> >Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
> >missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
> >developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
> >excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
> >fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
> >superiority role.
>
> During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
> for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
> ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
> curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
> inadequate...)
>
> Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
> oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
> Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
> airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
> boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
> sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
> for high-speed dogfighting.
>
> Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
> most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
> less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
> cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
> field it in large numbers at the frontline.
>
> >Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
> >on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
> >While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
> >filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
> >theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
> >loss in air-to-air combat.
>
> However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
> Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
> bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
> the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
> allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
> target drones.
>
> >It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
> >military concept ever gets.
>
> What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
> very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
> "low end" tank?
>
> >Suppose, if things get
> >hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
> >fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
> >fighter aircraft.) What happens then?
>
> Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
> that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
> pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".
>
> In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
> advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over
> from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are
> largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at
> least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern
> aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while
> increasing individual capability.
>
> Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
> alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
> invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
> of their limited endurance.
>
> The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.
> However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against
> traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and
> development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited
> procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile
> hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a
> F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality.
>
> The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been
> a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter
> and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
> skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if
> hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).
>
> But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
> than rational argument.
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

I got an email once from someone who had been at Nelles AFB when Boyd
was spreading his gospel, both on the ground and in the air. IIRC he
said Boyd was a really insufferable ass but a damn good pilot.

[hcobb]

On Mar 6, 1:55*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:35*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In message
> > >,
> > Mike > writes
>
> > >The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
> > >U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
> > >doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
> > >a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
> > >home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
> > >the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
> > >was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
> > >Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
> > >Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,
>
> > Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge
> > on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.
>
> > >As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
> > >the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.
>
> > So did the Spitfire and Seafire: aircraft that had no value once the
> > enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility.
>
> > I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
> > superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and
> > Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground
> > targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.
>
> > There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
> > and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
> > Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
> > didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
> > Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
> > potential.
>
> > Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which
> > were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft
> > that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly
> > punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had
> > the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective
> > as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end"
> > compared to the Spitfire?)
>
> > >Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
> > >missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
> > >developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
> > >excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
> > >fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
> > >superiority role.
>
> > During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
> > for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
> > ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
> > curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
> > inadequate...)
>
> > Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
> > oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
> > Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
> > airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
> > boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
> > sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
> > for high-speed dogfighting.
>
> > Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
> > most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
> > less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
> > cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
> > field it in large numbers at the frontline.
>
> > >Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
> > >on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
> > >While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
> > >filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
> > >theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
> > >loss in air-to-air combat.
>
> > However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
> > Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
> > bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
> > the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
> > allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
> > target drones.
>
> > >It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
> > >military concept ever gets.
>
> > What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
> > very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
> > "low end" tank?
>
> > >Suppose, if things get
> > >hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
> > >fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
> > >fighter aircraft.) What happens then?
>
> > Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
> > that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
> > pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".
>
> > In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
> > advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over
> > from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are
> > largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at
> > least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern
> > aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while
> > increasing individual capability.
>
> > Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
> > alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
> > invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
> > of their limited endurance.
>
> > The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.
> > However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against
> > traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and
> > development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited
> > procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile
> > hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a
> > F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality.
>
> > The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been
> > a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter
> > and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
> > skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if
> > hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).
>
> > But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
> > than rational argument.
>
> > --
> > He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> > Paul J. Adam
>
> I got an email once from someone who had been at Nelles AFB when Boyd
> was spreading his gospel, both on the ground and in the air. IIRC he
> said Boyd was a really insufferable ass but a damn good pilot.

Assholes are the fathers of invention.

Those that get along, don't rock the boat.

-HJC

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
>>for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
>>ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
>>curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
>>inadequate...)
>
>The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
>and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
>for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
>than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
>specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
>at play.

And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed
untouchable bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster
for US military procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?)
would have produced a better result.

>>Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
>>oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
>>Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
>>airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
>>boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
>>sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
>>for high-speed dogfighting.
>
>Whoa. While Boyd's concept of a high/low mix, his vision of
>specialization for a A/A and A/G team, and his E/M calculations were
>all significant contributions to extend "light weight fighter" to the
>F-104 is a reach.

Doesn't it fit many of his goals? Maximised energy, stripped of tedious
irrelevances like self-protection ECM, fast and agile with guns and
basic IR-AAMs.

And for sure Boyd would have *despised* that notably useless and
ineffective aircraft from Republic, the F-105 Thunderchief: Ed, can you
shed any light on how badly it performed and how hated it was by its
pilots? :)

>The F-104 was the product of a period of fascination with Mach 2 and
>expanding the envelope of performance. It was optimized for speed but
>hardly for agility. It was extremely limited in first generation
>versions as a weapon system in almost any mission beyond day VFR WVR
>fighter.

But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
fighter' needed?)

>>Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
>>most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
>>less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
>>cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
>>field it in large numbers at the frontline.
>
>Actually the USAF never operated the F-5 as an operational system. The
>F-5A assets were support for Foreign Military Sales training of
>customer air forces. The Skoshi Tiger deployment was an Operational
>Training & Evaluation exercise to determine suitabilty for a purchase
>of operational airframes. The F-5E aggressors were training assets and
>adoption of aircraft which had been destined for VNAF when the war
>ended. No operational F-5s for the USAF.

I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the
F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost,
see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a
contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not
much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe
the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat?

>>However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
>>Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
>>bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
>>the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
>>allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
>>target drones.
>
>Actually Boyd was gone by the time the pounds for A/G were added to
>the Eagles and the radar missile capability was fitted to Vipers.

I know, but it's amusing to read "The Pentagon Paradox" with the benefit
of hindsight. And Boyd was gone by the time that the F-15 and F-16
achieved most of their successes.

>If there could be a real achievement of those Pentagon basement
>warriors known as the Fighter Mafia it would be the conversion of the
>USAF from a nuclear strike force and the incorporation of leadership
>which could exploit tactical conventional forces rather than heavy
>massed bombers.

On this I agree: I just read about the period in question, you were
wearing the uniform and flying combat missions at the time.


>>What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
>>very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
>>"low end" tank?
>
>Bradley.

By that argument the AC-130 is a "fighter". Armour and IFVs are
inherently different beasts, even if from a distance they're both metal
boxes on tracks with gun turrets. (Similarly, anyone who tries to call a
British Warrior, or Scimitar or Sabre CVR(T), a "tank" is just exposing
ignorance)

It's interesting that both the US and British Armies go high-end-only
for armour, while going for a high-low (or high-middle-low, or more
recently a bizarre flexible spectrum) for infantry units.

>Actually it is more organizational than equipment. Building
>divisions as Armor or Mech Infantry gives you a high/lo emphasis.

If you send tank-only units into battle they die, quickly and nastily.
The question becomes whether you support them with troops in IFVs that
can keep pace on a cross-country move and fight all the way, or whether
you use troops on foot or in light vehicles that can't fight beyond
self-defence but can keep pace with the tanks and carry the infantry's
kit and first-level supplies.

(Come on, Ed, you were an ALO, you picked some of this up...)

>>Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
>>alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
>>invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
>>of their limited endurance.
>
>The issue isn't one of defending the US from a swarm of enemy
>aircraft. It is of responding after an unconventional attack such as a
>limited nuclear missile strike or similar. It is of being able to
>control airspace to support your offensive operational forces.
>
>As long as the US has a global leadership role we will face a
>probability of engaging in combat operations somewhere in the world.
>That will require air dominance and force projection.

The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.

>>The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been
>>a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter
>>and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
>>skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if
>>hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).
>>
>>But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
>>than rational argument.
>
>Only on Usenet does the detailed argument for more aircraft get
>reduced to irrationality.
>
>The key is exactly what you say. It takes time to develop and tool up
>for a modern aircraft. The existing flight is obsolescent. The
>Raptor/JSF are available as immediate replacements and the next-gen is
>over-the-horizon.
>
>The bleating is about filling the gaps for 25 years with 1980s
>airplanes like 15/16/18s even in the latest blocks.

Even the US can't afford the F-22 in numbers (I said years ago that
while the F-22 was individually superior to the Typhoon, that even the
US would end up with fewer Raptors than we're getting Typhoons...) The
F-35 is also escalating in cost at a worrying rate, which is a concern
in the UK since we're also intending to rely on it. This isn't
catastrophic for the expeditionary-warfare case since the limit always
is "where can we base them?" and even the UK has run out of ramp space
before running out of full-capability airframes in the last decade or
two.

One suggestion is to "develop a new next-generation aircraft at a
sensible price". But I recall that the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" was
absolutely, definitely, guaranteed to come in at less than fifty million
dollars per airframe so it could replace F-15s on something approaching
a one-for-one exchange. Easy to say, harder to do. (I'll make the effort
as project manager, on a consultancy basis, if you give me a waiver for
the NOFORN issues, but I can't *guarantee* success)

There is no spare cash lying around in the UK for new defence projects
and I'd hazard that the US is not too different. Is the US at a real
risk of losing air superiority over the battlespace of its choosing in
the next decade? If not, then perhaps the priority for limited funding
is to get the next-generation aircraft started *now* and maintaining the
cadre of experienced pilots and ground crews for operations, and the
industrial base while some experienced hands can be kept. It's a risk:
we take enough of them already that either one more is no big deal or
else someone needs to persuade voters to pay to cover it.






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

Paul J. Adam

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message
> >, Mike
> > writes
>>The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
>>U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
>>doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
>>a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
>>home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
>>the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
>>was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
>>Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
>>Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,
>
> Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge on
> the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.
>>
>>As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
>>the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.
>
> So did the Spitfire and Seafire: aircraft that had no value once the enemy
> air force was defeated, were of limited utility.
>
>
> I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
> superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and Tigercats)
> all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground targets once they
> had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.
>
>
> There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
> and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
> Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
> didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
> Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
> potential.
>
> Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which were
> fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft that were
> ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly punish any
> enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had the Typhoon,
> designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective as a strike
> aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end" compared to the
> Spitfire?)
>
>>Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
>>missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
>>developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
>>excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
>>fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
>>superiority role.
>
> During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs for
> every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1 ratio.
> (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's curious how
> smiting two enemy for every loss is considered inadequate...)
>
> Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
> oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
> Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
> airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
> boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
> sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft for
> high-speed dogfighting.
>
> Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
> most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was less
> than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere, cheap,
> agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to field it
> in large numbers at the frontline.
>
>>Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
>>on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
>>While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
>>filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
>>theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
>>loss in air-to-air combat.
>
> However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules. Curiously,
> as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were bewailing the
> manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting the "useless
> rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that allowed them to be
> worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned target drones.
>
>>It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
>>military concept ever gets.
>
> What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
> very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the "low
> end" tank?
>
>>Suppose, if things get
>>hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
>>fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
>>fighter aircraft.) What happens then?
>
> Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
> that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
> pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".
>
> In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
> advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over from
> the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are largely
> outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at least the
> same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern aircraft as the
> US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while increasing individual
> capability.
>
> Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
> alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
> invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
> of their limited endurance.
>
>
>
> The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.
> However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against
> traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and
> development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited
> procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile
> hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a
> F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality.
>
> The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been a
> quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter and
> that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
> skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if hurried)
> or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).
>
> But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
> than rational argument.
>

The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
equals. the Spit is prettier
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

as for aerial kill loss ratios, claims well exceed kills that is true for
every war.

Eric Hammel in his Books on Guadalcanal took a perverse delight in exposing
Joe Foss's claims of kills as being hollow
he cross referenced Foss'sclaims with Japanese records and found on several
occasions when Foss had victories, especially multiple victories Japanese
records showed no losses.
and Joe wasn't the only over-claimer

in the days of gunfighters speed, rate of climb and ceilling seemed to
matter more than turning.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
>>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
>>>for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
>>>ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
>>>curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
>>>inadequate...)
>>
>>The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
>>and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
>>for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
>>than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
>>specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
>>at play.
>
> And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
> circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable
> bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military
> procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced
> a better result.
>

What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases?
it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out
of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree.

and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently"
shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 8:34 am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
.....

> >> The F-22 is another AVRO Arrow, a wonderful plane designed to fight the
> >> last
> >> war{the one we didn't have}.

> > A really good weapon system, like the F-22, may never need to be used,
> > because it's an intimidating deterence, that way it prevents conflict.
> > Walk softly, carry a big stick.
> > Ken
>
> the only weapon in history that can make that claim is the A-Bomb. and we
> still have plenty of those.

Ever heard of going to a gunfight with a rubber knife.
Ken

[Paul Saccani[_2_]]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:54:20 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> wrote:


> The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
>equals. the Spit is prettier

The Spitfire and Hurricane were not isolated from one another - in
order to make the Hurricane more competitive against the Bf109, they
got the more powerful versions of the Merlin, with the Spitfire still
able to be superior with the lower powered versions. This was one of
Freeman's decisions to make best use of the available resources.

>British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
Indeed, to say the least.
Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

[Andrew Swallow]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}

>
> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

frank wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver > wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio...
>>>>>>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
>>>>>> what a load of ****.
>>>>> That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
>>>>> finest.
>>>>> What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
>>>>> hi/lo mix?
>>>>> You've given us so much to think about Ray.
>>>> what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
>>>> else.
>>>> the points the author makes are false strawman types.
>>>> the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
>>>> building them.
>>>> maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
>>>> if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
>>>> technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
>>>> manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
>>>> 1935.
>>>> what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
>>>> expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
>>> Worse. Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
>>> support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.
>> Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
>> fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
>> engaged a manned fighter. Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
>> There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
>> GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. UAVs may
>> be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
>> range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.
>
> Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
> jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.
>
> I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
> Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
> we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
> wal mart and taking 2 of them.

The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.

Andrew Swallow

[Alan Dicey]

Paul Saccani wrote:
> > wrote:
>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
> Indeed, to say the least.

*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th
was such a shock.

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."

[William Black[_1_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
> {snip}
>
> Next wars -
>
> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...

> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just
forment a coup and deal with the military.

> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
> of the current war)

The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter
who the government is or what they say.

> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?

> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
> may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Andrew Swallow]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
{snip}

>
> The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
> better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
> ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.

(Ex-)Prime Minister Tony Blair has been making it clear for several
years that he wanted something done about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, no
African country was willing to permit use of their airports.

Andrew Swallow

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> frank wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard > wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> >>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio...
> >>>>>>> Vanishing American Air Superiority
> >>>>>> what a load of ****.
> >>>>> That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
> >>>>> finest.
> >>>>> What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
> >>>>> hi/lo mix?
> >>>>> You've given us so much to think about Ray.
> >>>> what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
> >>>> else.
> >>>> the points the author makes are false strawman types.
> >>>> the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
> >>>> building them.
> >>>> maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
> >>>> if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
> >>>> technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
> >>>> manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
> >>>> 1935.
> >>>> what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
> >>>> expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
> >>> Worse. *Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
> >>> support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers..
> >> Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
> >> fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
> >> engaged a manned fighter. *Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
> >> There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
> >> GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. *UAVs may
> >> be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
> >> range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.
>
> > Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
> > jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.
>
> > I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
> > Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
> > we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
> > wal mart and taking 2 of them.
>
> The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
> that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab
driver delivering the gunman to to the target?

[Andrew Swallow]

William Black wrote:
>
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>> {snip}
>>
>> Next wars -
>>
>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>

Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.

>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>
> Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
> just forment a coup and deal with the military.

The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.

>
>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>> of the current war)
>
> The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
> amtter who the government is or what they say.
>

Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
Americans.

>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>
> Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?
>

Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
launch satellites on its own rockets.

>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>> may decide to stay out.)
>
> Interesting idea.
>
> How does China get their army there?
>
Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

Andrew Swallow

[William Black[_1_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:

>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>
>> Interesting idea.
>>
>> How does China get their army there?
>>
> Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
> security guard as occupation.

I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.

Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Andrew Swallow]

William Black wrote:
>
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Black wrote:
>
>>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>>
>>> Interesting idea.
>>>
>>> How does China get their army there?
>>>
>> Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
>> security guard as occupation.
>
> I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.
>
> Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?
>
Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned
security guards.

Andrew Swallow

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 7, 8:42*am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> William Black wrote:
>
> >>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
> >>>> may decide to stay out.)
>
> >>> Interesting idea.
>
> >>> How does China get their army there?
>
> >> Guess. *On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
> >> security guard as occupation.
>
> > I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.
>
> > Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?
>
> Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned
> security guards.
>
> Andrew Swallow

I would view that concept with a jaundiced eye

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
> {snip}
>
> Next wars -
>
> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>
> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
> of the current war)
>
> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>
> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
> may decide to stay out.)
>
> Andrew Swallow

we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
Aftica is a likely scenario.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>
>>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>> Next wars -
>>>
>>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>>
>> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>>
>
> Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.
>
>>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>>
>> Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
>> just forment a coup and deal with the military.
>
> The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.
>
>>
>>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>>> of the current war)
>>
>> The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
>> amtter who the government is or what they say.
>>
>
> Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
> Americans.
>
>>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>>
>> Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?
>>
>
> Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
> launch satellites on its own rockets.
>
>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>
>> Interesting idea.
>>
>> How does China get their army there?
>>
> Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
> security guard as occupation.
>
> Andrew Swallow

we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force?

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> Paul Saccani wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>> Indeed, to say the least.
>
> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>
> We still won.
>
> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason
> why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a
> shock.
>
> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."


won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
"won" the battle.

[hcobb]

On Mar 7, 2:58*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> > The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
> > that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.
>
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab
> driver delivering the gunman to to the target?

Sixth generation jet fighter pilots are going to be the leaders of
swarms of robotic aircraft.

Since they are already officers, this won't be much of a change for
them.

And fortunately they will grow up playing real-time strategy video
games.

-HJC

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:27:36 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
>>Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
>>for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
>>fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
>>(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
>>fighter' needed?)
>
>We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
>'65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
>was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
>Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
>in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
>Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.

Found it in "The Pentagon Paradox" as being allegedly used during
AIMVAL/ACEVAL for the F-14 and F-15.

"During the work-up phase prior to the actual tests, the Red Force used
a modified Fuzz Buster. The modification cost approximately $100. It was
so successful that the Blue Force complained and the Red Force had to
stop using it because radar warning receivers held the potential of
revealing how easily radar guided missiles could be defeated and were
therefore not permitted."

It's the usual hype from that clique. Even if the RWR warns you of an
incoming missile, you still burn off a lot of energy to avoid it,
putting you at a disadvantage if you survive to the merge: and with BVR
weapons against an enemy without, you have the option to snipe from
range and then decline to close, should tactics and mission permit.

>>I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the
>>F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost,
>>see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a
>>contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not
>>much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe
>>the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat?
>
>Thousands of airplanes mean exponentially more aircrews and manpower.
>Mission flexibility, payload/range, weapons system integration, etc.
>are all missing in the F-5. We used to joke at Williams AFB with the
>guys flying the training mission that they were like MGs; every
>fighter pilot should have one for fun but they weren't a daily driver.
>(PS, the F-5 didn't have Lucas electrics.)

We're having similar problems here in the UK armed forces where there's
a proposal to buy "hundreds" of Super Tucanos for close air support.

After all, the airframe's cheap... and yet again the grown-ups have to
explain that once you take your cheap airframe, equip it with the
sensors, comms and countermeasures needed to get in, find and hit the
target and get out alive, trained the pilots, stockpiled the spare
parts, built up the ground crews, established the forward operating
bases, set up the force protection and logistics for those bases... then
your "cheap" airframe is delivering less capability for more money than
a fast jet, and the pointy-nose fast-mover is usable in higher-intensity
conflicts as well (so you still need them, and the Tucanos end up an
extra not a replacement).

It's like the 1990s "Bring Back the Battleships!" enthusiasts, who never
really got their heads around the fact that - considering just the costs
to reactivate the four Iowa-class BBs - the thousand or so shells they
fired in action could have been one-for-one replaced with TLAMs and
still worked out cheaper (as well as delivering many times the actual
explosive with more accuracy).

>>The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
>>better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
>>ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.
>
>That's a specious argument. Blue water operations can't reach an
>incredible amount of land. Start drawing lines on continents that are
>more than about 150-200 miles from the coast and you'll disclose how
>much you can't service.

And yet back in 2008, the HARRY S. TRUMAN was putting twenty sorties a
day into Iraq, most well over the 200-mile line from her station, and
some into Afghanistan. Carriers don't replace land-based air, but they
get you some usable airpower faster while the land-based side spools up
(and they retain utility when you've got political sensitivity about
flying armed aircraft out of allied bases, but tankers are acceptable: a
good case study was ALLIED FORCE where much of the British input
consisted of Sea Harriers flying off Ark Royal in the Adriatic, because
the Italians wouldn't let us fly offensive sorties out of Aviano).

The example carrier aficionados like to cite is from 1992 or so, when
Saddam Hussein tried to rattle what was left of his sabre post-GRANBY:
the USN put a CVBG into the Gulf in three days and were flying
operational sorties immediately. The USAF put a wing of, if memory
serves, F-15Es into Saudi Arabia and were flying operationally within a
week. There are times when four days without air cover is four days too
long...

>CBGs are incredibly inefficient. The US has always operated as "one
>up/two back" and occasionally tried "one up/one back" but it's tough
>to keep the carriers on station without the numbers. Then take your
>combat capability and start factoring in self-defense requirements
>(include subs, cruisers, destroyers as well) add typical operational
>readiness rates to a 72 airplane air wing and you wind up with an
>assett that hovers around 40% offensive air capability. It's not a
>good bargain. Throw in slow deployment and you really don't have a
>solution for all your eggs in one basket.

Absolutely agree it's not the sole solution, but as one tool in the box
it opens up many options. (And land-based air has its own baggage of
logistics, force protection and so forth).


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

Paul J. Adam

[Dan[_12_]]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
> o.uk...
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>> Indeed, to say the least.
>> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>>
>> We still won.
>>
>> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason
>> why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a
>> shock.
>>
>> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
>
>
> won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
> "won" the battle.
>
>

Check your history.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Stephen Harding[_2_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
> Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
> for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
> fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
> (Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
> fighter' needed?)

I know there was more to Boyd himself than that although perhaps
his "acolytes" (as is often the case) may have promoted the ideas
of their inspiration beyond what their master might have approved
of (???).

At any rate, the above sounds very much like the Japanese ideas of
a great fighter during the pre-WWII and early war years.

Build a light agile fighter that shoots down anything that tries
to dogfight it and ranges out for a thousand miles. Don't needlessly
"burden" the system with radios, armor plating, self sealing fuel
tanks or additional system or pilot saving weight that might otherwise
enhance survivability through ruggedness.

Although it produced spectacularly successful results early on, it
wasn't a war winner.

Somewhere, as in most anything, there is a "correct" balance between
stripped down and pigged out.


SMH

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
>> o.uk...
>>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>>> Indeed, to say the least.
>>> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>>> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>>>
>>> We still won.
>>>
>>> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>>> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
>>> reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th
>>> was such a shock.
>>>
>>> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
>>
>>
>> won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
>> "won" the battle.
>
> Check your history.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

check yours.
before the Germans misdirected their efforts they were winning.
it's all moot as the Germans had no amphiious capability and the mostlt
unpowered river barges they collected would have foundered in the channel
chop.

[Andrew Swallow]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>> {snip}
>>
>> Next wars -
>>
>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>>
>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>>
>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>> of the current war)
>>
>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>>
>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>> may decide to stay out.)
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
> Aftica is a likely scenario.
>
>

I suspect that it is the other way round. African governments trying
to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. This is just
repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires.

Andrew Swallow

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 7, 9:32 am, Dan > wrote:
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
....
> > UAV are the coming thing, we are working on thwem now.
> > what we have is better than what any potential enemy has.
> > we don't need something better than what we have , all we need is something
> > better than what they have and we do.
> > we can't currently afford F-22s thanks to the chimplers adventures in Iraq
> > and we don't currently need it.

> Guess what, UAV air to air capabilities are years away, F-22 is here.
> Dan

Dan, since when do they use manned AAM's?
An AAM is a UAV.
Ken

[Andrew Swallow]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>> Next wars -
>>>>
>>>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>>> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>>>
>> Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.
>>
>>>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>>> Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
>>> just forment a coup and deal with the military.
>> The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.
>>
>>>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>>>> of the current war)
>>> The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
>>> amtter who the government is or what they say.
>>>
>> Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
>> Americans.
>>
>>>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>>> Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?
>>>
>> Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
>> launch satellites on its own rockets.
>>
>>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>> Interesting idea.
>>>
>>> How does China get their army there?
>>>
>> Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
>> security guard as occupation.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force?
>
>
I am just listing possible wars. Choose your own planes.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:58 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 4:56 am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>>> The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
>>> that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.
>>> Andrew Swallow
>> Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab
>> driver delivering the gunman to to the target?
>
> Sixth generation jet fighter pilots are going to be the leaders of
> swarms of robotic aircraft.
>
> Since they are already officers, this won't be much of a change for
> them.
>
> And fortunately they will grow up playing real-time strategy video
> games.
>
> -HJC

The length of satellite links can cause variable delays of the order
of 1 second. If 1 second reaction times are too slow during a dog
fight then the drone flying weapons officer needs to be within
about 100 miles of the fight. That puts him in the air.

Andrew Swallow

[frank]

On Mar 6, 12:42*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:33*pm, hcobb > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:35*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > > Today our real concern is total numbers. With the Raptor buy
> > > apparently over, we really don't have a nucleus of a globally
> > > effective operational fleet. 187 aircraft, minus not-in-commission
> > > frames, minus training aircraft, minus periodic maintenance aircraft
> > > leaves you with roughly a half-dozen squadrons.
>
> > > You've got to have more airplanes and that means F-35 numbers in the
> > > absence of F-22s. The flexibilty of the F-35 with A/G optimization and
> > > reasonable A/A capability makes it the next iteration of F-16 paired
> > > with F-15 air superiority.
>
> > Against which nation will the USAF require more than six squadrons of
> > Raptors to shoot down all of their high end fighters? *Either now or
> > anytime in the next two decades.
>
> > The F-16 comparison is apt. *The F-15 and the F-22 were designed for
> > the BVR long range high speed interceptor mission that the USAF has
> > never ever done. *The F-16 and the F-35 were designed for the swing
> > missions of dog fighting and ground support that have been very
> > common.
>
> > The T-50 is a stealth compromised airframe precisely in the way those
> > last generation engines are mounted onto that airframe. *The PAK-FA
> > can either go forwards with some RAM spackled onto that cow or start
> > from scratch and have a fifth generation fighter ready to build in two
> > decades.
>
> > The F-35 will not fly as high, as fast or as far as the PAK-FA. *It
> > won't out turn it and it won't be able to chase it down.
>
> > What will happen is that the F-35 will do its missions and when the
> > PAK-FA comes into range the only thing it will see are incoming
> > missiles mysteriously appearing from out of the blue. *Sometimes it
> > may even spot these in time to evade them.
>
> > -HJC
>
> More you have to think of any mission/war in which the United States
> will not be the attacking nation. The Pentagon has been looking for a
> near-peer, a nation that might want to fight the U.S.. for about 20
> years. There do not seem to be any. The F-22 and possibly even the
> F-35 seem to be over designed for the real probable use, ground
> support in a distant battlefield. Imagine the current situation in
> Afghanistan with only those two aircraft for support. The FA-18 can do
> that job, now.

Big problem is range. That was a problem in the Libya mission in the
80s, it was a problem in Afghanistan. Carriers are nice if you are
going against coastal nations, supporting Marines hitting a beachhead,
or islands. Start looking a huge hunks of territory, you need an Air
Force and that means bases, tankers, and a bunch of grunts to keep the
bad guys away from the air conditioned O club that is serving steaks.

Hanging a ton of stuff on fighters is nice. Sometimes you just need a
damn boat load of bombs over a target. Bombers do that well. Or you
need a lot of bombs that can loiter over an area for hours and hours.
Bombers did that really well in Afghanistan for probably the first
time. Add on smart bombs to the mix, its one bomb one target.

The gomers aren't as stupid as we think they are. Get a fighter on
target they can count for a half an hour or whatever until he's out of
gas. Time on station depends on range and gas. You can rotate out and
tank but for the most part, you build lots of iddy biddy airplanes and
send them over in waves.

Thing is, we can't build them cheap anymore. And I don't think
Republic has a locomotive works. Sorry, can't see us buying Mitsubishi
for fighters.

Its as much funds as the willingness to just say we need fighters,
bombers, tankers, destroyers, carriers, subs, whatever. Block it out.
Just because we built one doesn't mean we can sit on our laurels and
say the world is fine. That way you end up with sometimes something
that doesn't work, is obsolete quickly (mother nature is a bitch, but
technology is a real mf..) or you wake up and surprise 30 year old
airframes.

Technology is nice, keep the mark I brain out of the cockpit, but
remember when in Desert Storm somebody started to tally up the cost of
each of those $2 million Tomahawks that were neat to watch on the
news. Compare that to a $500 Mk82, or even a smart bomb, and you know
what the heck all those Tea Party people are going to say, and they're
not on this list and they vote. Or at least make a lot of noise. Which
drives rationality from any congressperson.

Frankly I don't see a lot of work on either this is a defense strategy
for the uber long term, a way to cut costs, and getting what the
warfighter needs being done. Lots of contractors with slick brochures
and suits. But they've been along for decades. We used to be a lot
smarter at doing all this.

We may be getting a lot closer to that old joke about the AF spending
all its budget on one airplane.

[frank]

On Mar 6, 4:24*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:55*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:35*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > In message
> > > >,
> > > Mike > writes
>
> > > >The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
> > > >U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
> > > >doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
> > > >a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
> > > >home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
> > > >the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
> > > >was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
> > > >Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
> > > >Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,
>
> > > Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge
> > > on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.
>
> > > >As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
> > > >the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.
>
> > > So did the Spitfire and Seafire: aircraft that had no value once the
> > > enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility.
>
> > > I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
> > > superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and
> > > Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground
> > > targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.
>
> > > There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
> > > and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
> > > Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
> > > didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
> > > Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
> > > potential.
>
> > > Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which
> > > were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft
> > > that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly
> > > punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had
> > > the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective
> > > as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end"
> > > compared to the Spitfire?)
>
> > > >Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
> > > >missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
> > > >developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
> > > >excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
> > > >fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
> > > >superiority role.
>
> > > During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
> > > for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
> > > ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
> > > curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
> > > inadequate...)
>
> > > Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
> > > oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
> > > Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
> > > airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
> > > boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
> > > sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
> > > for high-speed dogfighting.
>
> > > Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
> > > most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
> > > less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
> > > cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
> > > field it in large numbers at the frontline.
>
> > > >Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
> > > >on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
> > > >While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
> > > >filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
> > > >theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
> > > >loss in air-to-air combat.
>
> > > However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
> > > Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
> > > bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
> > > the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
> > > allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
> > > target drones.
>
> > > >It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
> > > >military concept ever gets.
>
> > > What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
> > > very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
> > > "low end" tank?
>
> > > >Suppose, if things get
> > > >hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
> > > >fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
> > > >fighter aircraft.) What happens then?
>
> > > Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
> > > that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
> > > pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".
>
> > > In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
> > > advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over
> > > from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are
> > > largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at
> > > least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern
> > > aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while
> > > increasing individual capability.
>
> > > Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
> > > alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
> > > invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
> > > of their limited endurance.
>
> > > The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.

[frank]

On Mar 7, 12:06*am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in . ..
>
>
>
> > In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > > writes
> >>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >>>During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
> >>>for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
> >>>ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
> >>>curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
> >>>inadequate...)
>
> >>The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
> >>and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
> >>for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
> >>than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
> >>specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
> >>at play.
>
> > And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
> > circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable
> > bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military
> > procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced
> > a better result.
>
> What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases?
> it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out
> of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree.
>
> and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently"
> shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war.

Not only that, but virtually every conflict since. Dubai in the Gulf,
Saudi Arabia. Not to mention a lot of commercial air and shipping to
move supplies and troops were never touched. Somebody gets smart and
whacks some of that and gets the insurance premiums through the roof,
we may just lose a war someday.

Lots of stuff from Taiwan haven't been put into the history books.
Which is a damn shame. Lots of spooks and sheep dipped types. Japan
also.

[frank]

On Mar 7, 3:35*am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>
>
> > you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards.
> > do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>
> {snip}
>
> Next wars -
>
> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>
> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
> of the current war)
>
> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>
> China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
> may decide to stay out.)
>
> Andrew Swallow

Water and natural resources. Africa mainly. Somewhat in Latin America,
but probably very low key there.

Want to scare an Aussie, tell him about refugees coming in from SEA.
By the tankerload.

Who predicted Panama, Haiti, Grenada, all that? Might not be a big war
but if its your carcass in the body bag, yeah, its a big deal.

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >
> >But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
> >Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
> >for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
> >fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
> >(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
> >fighter' needed?)
>
> We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
> '65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
> was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
> Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
> in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
> Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.

The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been
mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to
surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak
up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past.

[David E. Powell]

On Mar 7, 3:18*pm, frank > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:06*am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in . ..
>
> > > In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > > > writes
> > >>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > wrote:
> > >>>During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
> > >>>for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
> > >>>ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
> > >>>curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
> > >>>inadequate...)
>
> > >>The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
> > >>and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
> > >>for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
> > >>than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
> > >>specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
> > >>at play.
>
> > > And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
> > > circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable
> > > bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military
> > > procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced
> > > a better result.
>
> > What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases?
> > it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out
> > of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree.
>
> > and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently"
> > shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war.
>
> Not only that, but virtually every conflict since. Dubai in the Gulf,
> Saudi Arabia. Not to mention a lot of commercial air and shipping to
> move supplies and troops were never touched. Somebody gets smart and
> whacks some of that and gets the insurance premiums through the roof,
> we may just lose a war someday.
>
> Lots of stuff from Taiwan haven't been put into the history books.
> Which is a damn shame. Lots of spooks and sheep dipped types. Japan
> also.

It wasn't so much the "untouchable" thing either, the air defenses in
South Korea and Japan were good. The Russians and Chinese sort of had
to use the border as cover. There was also at least one Russian
encroachment on a US Navy carrier, which was driven off by the fighter
Combat Air Patrol. Yes, a US vs. Russia dogfight.

Taiwan, good question, though China and Taiwan skirmished a lot. I
agree about those history books. Maybe stuff was tried in that regard
that we haven't heard about yet for various reasons.

I agree about the air stuff today. A few years back I remember a DHL
jet in Afghanistan making a dicey landing after someone hit it with a
shoulder-launched missile.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>> Next wars -
>>>
>>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>>>
>>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>>>
>>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>>> of the current war)
>>>
>>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>>>
>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
>> Aftica is a likely scenario.
>>
>>
>
> I suspect that it is the other way round. African governments trying
> to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. This is just
> repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires.
>
> Andrew Swallow

gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil.
foreigners with guns should always rule.

[David E. Powell]

On Mar 7, 9:11*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>> {snip}
>
> >>>> you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards.
> >>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
> >>> {snip}
>
> >>> Next wars -
>
> >>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> >>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>
> >>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
> >>> of the current war)
>
> >>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>
> >>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
> >>> may decide to stay out.)
>
> >>> Andrew Swallow
>
> >> we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
> >> Aftica is a likely scenario.
>
> > I suspect that it is the other way round. *African governments trying
> > to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. *This is just
> > repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires.
>
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil.
> foreigners with guns should always rule.

Owning one's resources is not evil, but inviting someone to help
develop them with you as a partner and then stealing their agreed-on
share of the profits is generally considered a nasty thing to do. See:
Venezuela.

[Paul Saccani[_2_]]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:58:27 +0000, Alan Dicey
> wrote:

>Paul Saccani wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>> Indeed, to say the least.
>
>*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

Actually, the poms didn't exaggerate their claims to help moral. They
understated their losses instead.

Their exaggerated claims continue to be used even today. An
interesting issue is that Hurricane units exaggerated their claims
three times more than Spitfire units.

And the biggest exagerators of them all were Defiant units.

The motivations would appear to be more those of the individuals
concerned than any official attempt to exagerate.

Even today, those grotesque exagerations result in difficulties in
understanding the lessons of the battle, particularly the relatively
greater exageration by the Hurricane units versus Spitfire units, and
by "Big Wing" formations versus the smaller formations.

Even today, there are still people who think that the Balboas were a
successful tactic.

>We still won.
>
>The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft.

They did, but your juxtaposition of the intelligence assessment is
illogical. They thought they had dramatically curtailed production
of fighter aircraft. They were mistaken.

> It's one
>reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th
>was such a shock.

I would've said that the biggest shock was that it that it managed to
be formed in time - that was only because of careless planning by the
Germans, who neglected to make any feints and allowed their intentions
to be clearly determined whilst they were still over France.

You know the real losses were only 56 to 27, don't you?

>"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."

Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

[Paul Saccani[_2_]]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan > wrote:

>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
>> o.uk...
>>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>>> Indeed, to say the least.
>>> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>>> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>>>
>>> We still won.
>>>
>>> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>>> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason
>>> why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a
>>> shock.
>>>
>>> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
>>
>>
>> won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
>> "won" the battle.
>>
>>
>
> Check your history.

He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British
carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a
certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against
London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories.

If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of
collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved
air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production
capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly
effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they
attempted an invasion.

AFAIK, Sea Lion was always a high level deception against Russia in
any case.

Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
> >> >Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
> >> >for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
> >> >fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
> >> >(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
> >> >fighter' needed?)
> >>
> >> We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
> >> '65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
> >> was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
> >> Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
> >> in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
> >> Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.
> >
> >The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been
> >mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to
> >surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak
> >up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past.
>
> By the time the NVANG had Rhinos all F-4s were caring RWR gear, APR-46
> on most -E models. Digital warning, prioritized threat, software tie
> to weapons type, etc.

OK. I can scratch that one off.

[hcobb]

On Mar 8, 6:13*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> Question: if the "new" air arms are a mother ship piloted aircraft
> with a covey of UAV "attack" or "defense" as responsibility and the
> pilot's job is simply to fly the UAV operators to the scene of the
> crime, is that pilot a "fighter pilot"?

Since the pilot is in the air "at the scene of the crime" and may be
requested to take evasive maneuvers at any time...

Yes!

Unless he happens to be a Naval Aviator of course.

-HJC

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan > wrote:
>
>>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
>>> o.uk...
>>>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>>>> Indeed, to say the least.
>>>> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>>>> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>>>>
>>>> We still won.
>>>>
>>>> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>>>> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
>>>> reason
>>>> why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such
>>>> a
>>>> shock.
>>>>
>>>> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
>>>
>>>
>>> won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against
>>> London
>>> "won" the battle.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Check your history.
>
> He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British
> carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a
> certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against
> London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories.
>


The decision to switch the target to London was taken at a meeting
of the Luftwaffe staff in The Hague on Sept 3 1940. Kesselring had
been pressing for a sustained attack on London and since Hitler had
removed the prohibition on bombing the British capital on Aug 30th.

At the meeting Kesselring who was chief of staff repeated his recommendation
for an attack on London. Sperle disagreed arguing that the attacks on
the fighter fields should be continued.

Goering supported Kesselring saying.

<Quote>
My fellow commanders, we are now on the brink of victory. An assault and an
invasion of England is now more promising than ever before. Our intelligence
has now informed us that the RAF is now down to less than a hundred fighter
aircraft, the airfields protecting London are out of action because of the
superb and accurate bombing of our bomber forces, their communications are
in disarray, and now we are told, their air commanders are arguing with each
other.

Gentlemen, another phase is now almost complete. The RAF is now no longer
the great threat that it used to be, and we can now draw every available
fighter plane that the RAF has into the air, because the next target must be
London itself.......

</Quote>

In fact the RAF had more single seater fighters ready for action than had
been the case at the start of the Battle having replaced the Belnheims and
Battles with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

> If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of
> collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved
> air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production
> capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly
> effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they
> attempted an invasion.
>


This overstates the case but does nicely point out the differences between
the commanders.

While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command
as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat.
Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he
should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100
pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take
pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for
Dowding
was moving squadrons to airfields north of London.

In the same period Sperle reported that the Luftwaffe was suffering
seriously
from attrition. Squadrons were below strength , typically at 80-90% of
their establishment at the start of the battle.

They were not replacing aircrews or aircraft at the rate they were being
lost and he was worried that the Luftwaffe intelligence reports greatly
underestimated RAF strength.

He was overuled. Goering and Kesselring estimated that the RAF was
down to 20% of its nominal strength.

That gross failure of intelligence explains the decision to switch targets.
Hitler gave the Luftwaffe Staff permission to make the mistake and they
took it.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 8, 2:36*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> ...
> While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command
> as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat.
> Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he
> should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100
> pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take
> pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for
> Dowding
> was moving squadrons to airfields north of London.
> ....
> Keith

Bader wrote as if 12th Group could fill the gap any time they were
invited.

jsw

[Typhoon502]

On Mar 7, 11:00*am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
>
> >> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>> {snip}
>
> >>>> you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards.
> >>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
> >>> {snip}
>
> >>> Next wars -
>
> >>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> >> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>
> > Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.
>
> >>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>
> >> Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. *They usually
> >> just forment a coup and deal with the military.
>
> > The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.
>
> >>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
> >>> of the current war)
>
> >> The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
> >> amtter who the government is or what they say.
>
> > Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
> > Americans.
>
> >>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>
> >> Possible. *What will Iran use for weapons?
>
> > Iran has its own armaments factories. *As well as IEDs Iran can now
> > launch satellites on its own rockets.
>
> >>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
> >>> may decide to stay out.)
>
> >> Interesting idea.
>
> >> How does China get their army there?
>
> > Guess. *On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
> > security guard as occupation.
>
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> *we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force?

We need it to survive Iranian air defense so we can defeat its air
force.

[American Eagle]

Typhoon502 wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:00 am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
>>>>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>> Next wars -
>>>>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>>>> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>>> Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.
>>>>> USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America
>>>> Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
>>>> just forment a coup and deal with the military.
>>> The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.
>>>>> West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
>>>>> of the current war)
>>>> The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
>>>> amtter who the government is or what they say.
>>> Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
>>> Americans.
>>>>> USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil
>>>> Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?
>>> Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
>>> launch satellites on its own rockets.
>>>>> China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
>>>>> may decide to stay out.)
>>>> Interesting idea.
>>>> How does China get their army there?
>>> Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
>>> security guard as occupation.
>>> Andrew Swallow
>> we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force?
>
> We need it to survive Iranian air defense so we can defeat its air
> force.

At present we have no business in Iran. If the Jews do not like Iran,
let them do the attacking and with us as a neutral nation..Providing
nothing in materials, money, training or support of any kind to either.
No more of Israels mantra of " Onward Christian soldiers". Diplomacy
might just be in our national interests for a change.

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 8, 2:36 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>> ...
>> While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command
>> as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for
>> combat.
>> Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he
>> should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100
>> pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take
>> pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for
>> Dowding
>> was moving squadrons to airfields north of London.
>> ....
>> Keith
>
> Bader wrote as if 12th Group could fill the gap any time they were
> invited.
>

Bader never lacked confidence in his own abilities. From a purely technical
point of view he may have had a point but in a democracy there is a
political aspect. To have abandoned London and the SE could have
lead to the replacement of Churchill with a leader more likely to
make peace.

Keith

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan > wrote:
>
>>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
>>> o.uk...
>>>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>>>> Indeed, to say the least.
>>>> *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
>>>> sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.
>>>>
>>>> We still won.
>>>>
>>>> The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
>>>> reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
>>>> reason
>>>> why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such
>>>> a
>>>> shock.
>>>>
>>>> "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
>>>
>>> won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against
>>> London
>>> "won" the battle.
>>
>> Check your history.
>
> He's right.

No he is wrong.

> The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British
> carried out a larger strikes against German cities.

Central London was hit on 24 August at night, day strikes on
targets in the Greater London area had begun on 16 August.

The RAF flew its first mission against Berlin on 25 August, and the
reason was partly the German bombs on London and partly
German bombs on other UK cities. It should be noted the RAF had
been attacking targets in Germany for weeks with quite bad accuracy,
so the Germans already had plenty of examples of inaccurate bombing.

As did the British from German night bombers that had been operating
over England for about the same amount of time but in larger numbers
once the battle began. From July to September the Luftwaffe launched
around 2 night bomber sorties per 3 day bomber sorties, the week of
1 to 7 July saw around 275 day and 75 night sorties, the next week 400
day and 100 night sorties.

The 25 August raid managed to destroy a summer house and injure
2 people in Berlin, most of the "Berlin" bombs hit country areas to
the south of the city. The hits on the farms lead to the joke "They
are trying to stave us out.". The raid of the 28th killed 4 people, that
changed the mood.

The symbolism of the enemy capital is quite high, the 8th Air Force
struck Berlin for the first time on 6 March 1944, (though there was
a raid on the 4th on targets in the Berlin suburbs) then did it again on
the 8th and the 9th. One reason for the repeats was the weather,
another the way the Germans opposed the strikes, another was it
being the German capital.

> This enraged a
> certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against
> London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories.

No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
quickly break the RAF resistance. The two options were to continue
the direct airfield attacks, plus the aircraft factories, which had the
problem of leaving very little to nothing for pre invasion support, or
attack a vital target that the RAF felt it had to defend, but London had
the disadvantage of longer flight times over England.

Hitler came down on the decisive blow side.

> If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of
> collapse (in their own assessments),

Again no. Keith Park noted the damage to the airfields was a problem,
but given most were large grass fields at the time only Manston had
been knocked out for over a day. The bigger problem was the control
rooms, located above ground on the airfields, the control system was
being degraded as they were hit.

> the Germans would have achieved
> air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production
> capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly
> effected.

Again no, the Luftwaffe found it could only fly day bomber missions
within Bf109 range, that did not put a large amount of the UK war
economy within reach. The results of Luftflotte 5 missions made it
very clear what the limits were.

The reality was the best result for the Luftwaffe would have been the
temporary abandonment of some RAF airfields to the South East of
London.

On 3 August the RAF had over the previous week an average of
1,052 fighters in operational squadrons, with 708 of these operational.

Week ending 14 September the figures were 1,046 and 725.

The greatest fighter strength of the battle was the week ending 31
August, 1,181 aircraft, 764 operational.

In terms of pilots strength on 3 August was 1,434, on 14 September
1,492.

According to Williamson Murray the Luftwaffe had 1,110 fighter pilots
available on 1 May 1940, of which 1,010 were operationally ready.

On 1 July it was 1,126 and 936, on 1 August 1,118 and 869, on
1 September 990 and 735. Murray thinks the Luftwaffe lost 229
fighter pilots in September, versus 168 in August and 124 in July.
Replacement Bf109 pilots were being rushed into units, some
had not to have actually fired 20 mm cannons in training. On the
bomber crew side as of 20 August the limit became one officer per
crew.

On 7 September Luftflotte 2, 3, 5 had 831 Bf109s of which 658
were operational, along with 206 Bf100s of which 112 were
operational. This is not counting the 26 Bf109 and Bf110 fighter
bombers in SKG210 or the Bf110s in reconnaissance units.
On 10 August for units "deployed against England" there were 934
Bf109s of which 805 were operational and 289 Bf110s of which
224 were operational. The Luftwaffe tended to have a spare parts
problem or most of the war. The RAF was not much better in 1940.

As is known Fighter Command was forced into classifying its fighter
squadrons onto class A, fully operational, class B able to replace a
class A squadron, and class C suitable for attacks on unescorted
bombers and training. The Luftwaffe fighter force was actually under
more strain. As the Bf109 force declined so did the Luftwaffe
offensive power.

Simply put both sides were wearing each other down, the Luftwaffe
had fewer replacements. It seem there was an idea to re-equip
JG77 with captured French fighters to free up Bf109s for the fighting
for example.

London was first bombed on 7 September. Not much activity
on the 8th, some airfield raids, on 9 September a strike against
London, Brooklands and targets in the Thames estuary was largely
broken up before the targets were reached. Bomber formations
were ordered to break off attacks "if the defences are too strong,
or if fighter protection was weak."

Not much activity on the 10th. The 11th saw raids on London,
plus 4 major airfields, also Portsmouth and Southampton. Plus
an attack on a convoy.

Not much activity on the 12th. Small raids on London on the 13th,
basically single machines, plus attacks on Biggin Hill and targets in Kent.

On the 14th large raids on London but mainly composed of fighters.

The Germans had rated the RAF response on the 11th and 14th as
poor, so time for a big strike.

So it was not the case the Luftwaffe gave up bombing RAF airfields
to only attack London. Also I am very interested in the idea that
the raids on London 7, 9, 11 and 14 September were the difference
between defeat and victory. Why?

Especially as the Luftwaffe over rated the effects of bombing, reporting
on 4 September it had destroyed 18 airfields.

The relief for the defenders caused by bad weather was a reason the
allies accepted using radar bombing aids, so they could attempt bombing
raids on days of bad weather. The 8th Air Force operations in the period
November 1943 to February 1944 were important as they did not allow
the Luftwaffe fighter force its usual winter rest and rebuilding period, as
well as for the losses inflicted.

Total Luftwaffe day bomber sorties 9 to 15 September 1940 are put at
975, along with 1,875 fighter sorties.

Luftwaffe Battle of Britain estimated sorties, date, day bomber, fighter
22 Jul - 4 Aug / 200 / 700
5 Aug - 11 Aug / 575 / 1,950
12 Aug - 18 Aug / 1,650 / 3,825
19 Aug - 25 Aug / 750 / 1,975
26 Aug - 1 Sep / 875 / 4,700
2 Sep - 8 Sep / 1,225 / 4,050
9 Sep - 15 Sep / 975 / 1,875
16 Sep - 22 Sep / 750 / 1,200
23 Sep - 29 Sep / 1,175 / 1,325
30 Sep - 6 Oct / 575 / 1,250

The big German fighter sortie push was largely over by the time the
Luftwaffe turned to bombing London.

According to the listings in the Battle of Britain Then and Now around
73% of Hurricane and Spitfire losses on operations could have been
caused by German fighters, that is losses listed to enemy fighter, to
enemy aircraft and to unknown causes. The RAF lost something like
580 Hurricanes and 370 Spitfires on operations 1 July to 31 October
1940.

Or around 700 Hurricanes and Spitfires to enemy fighters, assuming
all unknown cause losses and all losses to enemy aircraft were in fact
due to German fighters. The minimum number of kills the Luftwaffe
fighters achieved is around 500 according to the listings.

Luftwaffe bomber gunners are credited with around 100 Hurricanes and
Spitfires versus around 500 credited to fighters. "Enemy aircraft" shot
down around 190 aircraft, so say 160 to fighters, 30 to bombers, giving
the Luftwaffe fighter pilots around 650 to 660 kills versus claims of
slightly under 2,000 such kills.

In the period 10 July to 31 October 441 Bf109s are credited to RAF
fighters in the loss listings, versus 465 Hurricanes and Spitfires credited
to Bf109s and Bf110s (at least 44 to Bf110s) remembering of course
the losses listed under other categories (36 Bf109s and Bf110s lost on
operations to unknown causes, 55 to enemy action). Some 922 Spitfires
and Hurricanes lost on operations, versus 600 Bf109s and 248 Bf110s.

You can add another 49 Bf109s, 22 Bf110s, 17 Hurricanes and 11
Spitfires lost on non operational sorties.

The British built some 1,025 Hurricanes and 638 Spitfires July to
October 1940.

Bf109 production averaged around 150 per month in 1940, specific
figures I have are 180 in June, 195 in September, 144 in October,
60 in November and 115 in December.

> Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they
> attempted an invasion.

Correct, the major under estimation of the problems of such an invasion
is probably best seen in the German estimates of allied capabilities in
1944.

> AFAIK, Sea Lion was always a high level deception against Russia in
> any case.

No, Sea Lion was a major and real effort. The cost to Germany of taking
that many barges out of service and fitting them for invasion duties for
example.

It all came down to what people believed air power was capable of doing.

The Germans knew they only had a fleeting chance of invading England
in 1940, any such invasion in 1941 would meet much stronger land
and air defences and so would require much more effort.

As of June 1940 it seemed the pre war ideas on air power had been
proved largely correct. Plenty of material about how enemy air power
had been decisive. The air men of course believed the best stories.

Think of it this way, the Luftwaffe helped the Heer to advance, in turn
the advance disrupted allied air power as it was not set up to be very
mobile. That made the Luftwaffe's job easier, the Luftwaffe of course
tended to ignore the effects of the advance on the opposing air forces.
It also appears to have ignored the large cost in aircraft during the
fighting, the return of men captured by the French meant the personnel
losses were not as serious.

So if the pre war theories were correct then it was quite possible for
the Luftwaffe to do all the necessary duties. That is defeat and keep
defeated the RAF, interdict the RN and provide battlefield support
for the invasion.

Of course what it did prove is defeating the enemy air force is a
rather hard to do if the front line does not move. The replacement
pipeline keeps feeding new men and aircraft into the battle. You
can degrade the effectiveness as experienced men become casualties,
but not stop the enemy force from being maintained.

In effect that was what was happening in 1940, and the RAF could
sustain the effort for longer, thanks to a mainly defensive posture and
better supply lines.

The Luftwaffe fighter force grew significantly in 1944, but it declined
even more significantly in quality but that quality decline required
sustained allied air operations.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
> equals. the Spit is prettier
> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over
France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
the description for the bomber gunners?

Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
at the time than it was.

The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
. au...
> "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
>> equals. the Spit is prettier
>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>
> During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
> If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
> 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
> bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over
> France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
> over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
> the description for the bomber gunners?
>
> Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
> deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
> number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
> claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
> at the time than it was.
>
> The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
> 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
> Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
> to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>


Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill.
one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other.
especially the waist gunners.

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 9, 9:55*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" >
wrote:
> ...
> No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
> quickly break the RAF resistance. *...

What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
their airfield plan?

jsw

[Typhoon502]

On Mar 9, 11:14*am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 7, 11:00 am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > William Black wrote:
>
> > >> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > >>> {snip}
>
> > >>>> you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
> > >>>> do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
> > >>> {snip}
>
> > >>> Next wars -
>
> > >>> Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.
>
> > >> Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...
>
> > > Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 9, 1:26*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:55*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" >
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
> > quickly break the RAF resistance. *...
>
> What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
> their airfield plan?
>
> jsw

That might have ironically boosted the fighter pilots in 12 group's
morale. They disliked being the baby sitters for the 11 group's fields
and wanted to get into the action. Bringing more German bombers in to
attack the airfields would have provided them targets and disabused
their concept of who was getting a free ride.

Len Deighton, Fighter

[Typhoon502]

On Mar 9, 2:37*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:41*am, Typhoon502 > wrote:

> Those fancy weapons would only be useful against targets at know
> locations.

Yeah, just like the BAT...oh, wait, that can be pitched into an attack
area then autonomously identify and kill targets based on SONAR and IR
imaging. So the technology for post-launch autonomous target location
and designation not only exists but has been fielded. And it's not
hard to zero in on an emitting radar even if you don't have its exact
location fixed before you're airborne. Wild Weasels figured out how to
attack pop-up SAM threats 35 years ago. With a stealthy platform, you
can tease radars into coming up with even more finess than relying on
terrain masking.

[hcobb]

On Mar 9, 12:34*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> Or you get data updates from AWACS or JSTARS or satellite or Predator
> or ground observer or...
>
> But if you are low observable in your Raptor and you are supporting
> low observable F-35s, you really aren't too concerned about radar or
> IR based SAMs.

Exactly.

As long as there are F-35s to escort it, the F-22 can keep to the high
and fast overwatch mission.

It excels at the role, with ceiling, supercruise, stealth and long
range radar.

As long as nothing else comes close it'll be fine.

The one thing the F-22 will not do is face the PAK-FA in combat.

Why?

It's because the biggest difference between the F-22 and the PAK-FA is
two decades of development.

By the time the PAK-FA is finally combat ready the F-22s will be
retired from service.

-HJC

[Andrew Swallow]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
{snip}

> But define "exposure to enemy response". If the pilot of a 5th
> generation fighter is blowing 3rd and 4th generation fighters out of the
> sky at 50 or 100 nm range, with total impunity, exactly what enemy
> response is he exposed to?
>
> AHS

Possibly one of the enemy planes separated from the rest and flew
around the other side of the mountain. Close range combat is about
to commence.

Andrew swallow

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" >
wrote:
> ...
>> No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
>> quickly break the RAF resistance. ...

>What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
>their airfield plan?

Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no
change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted
much longer.

The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to
launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which
were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight,
or the defences would have a day when most things went right
and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. Also the tightly
packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF
bombers, losses were going up.

The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on
operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses
for both sides. So it is not like the fighting stopped on
September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you
would have expected it to show in the second half of September
and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing
London by day.

Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the
RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe.

August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on
operations.

The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after
that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive
fighter sorties in 1941.

The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses,

July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1
August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1
September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1
October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
> . au...
>> "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were
>>> basically equals. the Spit is prettier
>>> British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>>
>> During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
>> If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
>> 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
>> bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over
>> France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
>> over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
>> the description for the bomber gunners?
>>
>> Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
>> deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
>> number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
>> claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
>> at the time than it was.
>>
>> The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
>> 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
>> Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
>> to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.
>
> Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill.
> one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other.
> especially the waist gunners.

Since you describe over claiming by 2 to 1 as "vastly exaggerated"
could you please indicate what 3 to 1, 5 to 1 and more than 5 to 1
should be described as.

When I did a basic check of cause of loss of B-17s in the 8th Air
Force something like 3 were listed as lost to other B-17s. How
many USAAF were damaged by fellow bomber's gunners is rather
hard to determine, given the damage done by the German fighters
that caused the bomber gunners to open fire in the first place.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Typhoon502]

On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> > I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
> > capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
> > to arm it"?
>
> Like the F-16?

Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
maintains its stealthy profile. <eyeroll>

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> > > I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
> > > capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
> > > to arm it"?
>
> > Like the F-16?
>
> Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
> maintains its stealthy profile. <eyeroll>

The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for
any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's
scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span.

[hcobb]

On Mar 10, 6:20*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> The F-22 and -35 are no longer dependent upon self-carried sensors
> with a forward looking pie-shaped observation field. They now carry
> the ability to share data with a wide range of platforms, even without
> the need to employ their own suite of sensors. The data is then
> integrated, prioritized and presented to the operator with full
> 4-pi-r-cubed spherical coverage.

And thanks to MADL using this doesn't carry a high risk of giving
yourself away.

The problem is that the F-22 needs to have something else watching its
six, while the F-35 has this built in in additional to MADL.

Remember that LPI radars are still emitting energy and this can be
(theoretically) traced.

-HJC

[frank]

On Mar 10, 7:01*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" >
wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" >
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >> No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
> >> quickly break the RAF resistance. ...
> >What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
> >their airfield plan?
>
> Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no
> change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted
> much longer.
>
> The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to
> launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which
> were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight,
> or the defences would have a day when most things went right
> and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. *Also the tightly
> packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF
> bombers, losses were going up.
>
> The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on
> operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses
> for both sides. *So it is not like the fighting stopped on
> September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you
> would have expected it to show in the second half of September
> and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing
> London by day.
>
> Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the
> RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe.
>
> August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on
> operations.
>
> The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after
> that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive
> fighter sorties in 1941.
>
> The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses,
>
> July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1
> August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1
> September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1
> October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.

Realistically invasion would never have worked. Barges would have been
sitting ducks for RN. Manhandling tanks by dozens of cannon fodder
onto the beaches would have been insane. Towed barges for troop
transports in the Channel? Germans had no naval force to speak of,
best would have been air surperiority if they broke the RAF and
attempts to sue for peace. Then again, we're talking Der Fuehrer, he
might have toddled off to Russia or some such. Invaded Palestine as
Himmler was looking for the Holy Grail. Who knows.

[BlackBeard]

On Mar 10, 6:18*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> > > > I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
> > > > capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
> > > > to arm it"?
>
> > > Like the F-16?
>
> > Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
> > maintains its stealthy profile. <eyeroll>
>
> The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for
> any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's
> scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span.

Ahhh yes, Death by bureaucracy! "We'll bury you in so many laws and
regulations you'll surrender in the first week!"
;)

BB

[hcobb]

On Mar 10, 10:56*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?

Might as well mount the lasers on sharks.

The future is the virtual AWACS. Take a half dozen F-22s in and they
can cover most of the sky. (Would it really really kill the USAF to
mount those side radars?)

Then MADL links everybody together.

-HJC

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 10, 1:56*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> Ken-

Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.

jsw

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > ...
> > How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> > Ken-
>
> Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> jsw

Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
Ken

[Typhoon502]

On Mar 10, 8:27*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> > > Ken-
>
> > Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> > terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> > jsw
>
> Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,http://www.msnbc.msn..com/id/4926840
> where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.

Hard to say but easy to assume that AWACS platforms won't be getting
any bigger, so it's not like there will be all this spare space and
power capacity. AWACS will continue to be dependent on fighter cover;
any self-defense capability will probably come from heavy focused
beams of microwave frying Red Force avionics (or injecting code bugs
into them...I've heard about that more than once from informed
sources).

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
>>> Ken-
>> Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
>> terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
>> jsw
>
> Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
> where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
> Ken

Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.

On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> >> On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> ...
> >>> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> >>> Ken-
> >> Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> >> terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> >> jsw
>
> > Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
> > where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> > to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> > pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
> > Ken
>
> Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
> the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
> space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
2200's,
It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
Ken

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.
>
> On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
>>>>> Ken-
>>>> Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
>>>> terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
>>>> jsw
>>> Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
>>> where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
>>> to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
>>> pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
>>> Ken
>> Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
>> the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
>> space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
> others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
> a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
> 2200's,
> It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
> than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
> Ken
>
>
Noted as unresponsive.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David E. Powell]

On Mar 9, 11:21*am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
>
> . au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
> >> equals. the Spit is prettier
> >> British aerial *victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
>
> > During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
> > If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
> > 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
> > bomber claims, rate as? *The RAF fighter force over claims over
> > France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? *The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
> > over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
> > the description for the bomber gunners?
>
> > Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
> > deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
> > number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
> > claims. *Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
> > at the time than it was.
>
> > The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
> > 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
> > Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
> > to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.
>
> > Geoffrey Sinclair
> > Remove the nb for email.
>
> Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill..
> one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other.
> especially the waist gunners.

One of the UK posters a while back mentioned a Luftwaffe night fighter
pilot who saw two Lancasters shoot each other down one night.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 10, 8:53 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Danelda, you're still posting, nice to hear from you.
>
> > On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> >>>>> Ken-
> >>>> Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> >>>> terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> >>>> jsw
> >>> Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,
> >>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
> >>> where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> >>> to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> >>> pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
> >>> Ken
> >> Last I heard the lasers in question were chemical lasers which fill
> >> the cargo bay of a 747. I don't think you have a clue how little free
> >> space is AWACS. It's obvious you have never been in one, I have.
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Late 60's Star Trek had 'communicators', in the 70's I worked with
> > others on digitizing TX/Rx, now a 10 yr old brat has more ability in
> > a cell phone (like 20x eh) than Cpt Kirk had in the fiction of
> > 2200's,
> > It's applied physics, personally I'd perfer humans negotiate rather
> > than exploite that power to kill each other, what do you think?
> > Ken
>
> Noted as unresponsive.

Hi Danelda.
No offense, but wife's beens watching my posts since you started
flirting with me, so I need to watch my p's and q's, you know.
Post a pic, or a resume of your interests, if I'm not interested
there's
a few fella's who could smolder your hot flames with masculine favors.
Ken

[BlackBeard]

On Mar 10, 6:01*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:27*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> > > > Ken-
>
> > > Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> > > terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> > > jsw
>
> > Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926840
> > where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> > to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> > pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
>
> Hard to say but easy to assume that AWACS platforms won't be getting
> any bigger, so it's not like there will be all this spare space and
> power capacity. AWACS will continue to be dependent on fighter cover;
> any self-defense capability will probably come from heavy focused
> beams of microwave frying Red Force avionics (or injecting code bugs
> into them...I've heard about that more than once from informed
> sources).

AWACS stay out of the battle. Their purpose is to stay out on the
fringe and let the sensors work from afar. This distractive argument
has no real weight in the discussion. They don't plan or intend to
get into the battle.
If the bad guys leave the main battle to go after the sensor
platforms, they leave the primary targets undefended. "Oooh, we took
out your AWACS haha, sure you then went on to take out all of your
primary targets but we got your AWACS which now that we have lost all
our defenses you don't really need anymore..."

BB

[frank]

On Mar 10, 7:27*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > How would lasers mounted on the AWAC affect the dynamic?...
> > > Ken-
>
> > Ever been on an AWACS? They are quite full of people watching
> > terminals, not much room for megawatt laser power supplies.
> > jsw
>
> Here's a recent report about mobile LASER capability,http://www.msnbc.msn..com/id/4926840
> where we'll be in 5-10 years together with better electronics is hard
> to say. It's reminds of a B-17 type turreted gunship using LASER
> pulses in place of bullets, it's (reportedly) been demo'd.
> Ken

Biggest problem is powering the LASER. Only one that is anywhere close
to working is absolutely huge out at WSMR. I doubt the Airborne LASER
will ever get operational, it'll be just another USAF project for SDI
that dies for cost, not working out of the lab or some other reason.
Add in getting close enough to the target to do the job (assuming that
somebody that wants to launch a missile is going to let you do that is
iffy at best), in all weather 24/7 and being right the first time,
well, way too many ifs for the money.

Lots of good uses for LASERs, weapons are a long way off. No matter
what the PR puff pieces say. And they are a dime a dozen, have been
for going on decades.

[Stephen Harding[_2_]]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

> What success in Iraq,? the coming civil war?
> and I don't think Obama wants any of the Iraq stink on his resume.
> you strike me as the type who approves of the Iraq adventure because it
> makes you feel tough.
> and if Bsh hadn't blown the budget there we'd have the money to fix or
> infrastruture but everybody health insurance and buy a few F-22s

Hardly. I think CBO but perhaps someone else, just reported
on ballooning Federal deficits. They've essentially been
institutionalized and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't
the real contributors to it, although expenses for them have
certainly been costly.

It's entitlements. They're unsustainable as currently defined.
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid especially.

Furthermore, costs for wars eventually become 0. Social
entitlements just get bigger and bigger in costs with no political
leader willing to do something to reign them in. Giving more
for free is how you get elected and stay in office.

We're all to blame: the free givers and the takers.

Health care "reform" is going to be worth several wars of costs
in the long run!


SMH

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding > writes:

> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
>> What success in Iraq,? the coming civil war?
>> and I don't think Obama wants any of the Iraq stink on his resume.
>> you strike me as the type who approves of the Iraq adventure because
>> it makes you feel tough.
>> and if Bsh hadn't blown the budget there we'd have the money to fix
>> or infrastruture but everybody health insurance and buy a few F-22s
>
> Hardly. I think CBO but perhaps someone else, just reported
> on ballooning Federal deficits. They've essentially been
> institutionalized and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't
> the real contributors to it, although expenses for them have
> certainly been costly.
>
> It's entitlements. They're unsustainable as currently defined.
> Social security, Medicare and Medicaid especially.
>
> Furthermore, costs for wars eventually become 0. Social
> entitlements just get bigger and bigger in costs with no political
> leader willing to do something to reign them in. Giving more
> for free is how you get elected and stay in office.
>
> We're all to blame: the free givers and the takers.
>
> Health care "reform" is going to be worth several wars of costs
> in the long run!

Nice analysis. Ben O'Neill wrote a nice piece on Mises.org on this topic:

http://blog.mises.org/11739/a-society-of-criminals/

Cheers,
Gernot Hassenpflug

[[email protected][_2_]]

One thing that never gets mentioned when "the cost of war" is
discussed is that a lot of that money gets pumped into the economy -
soldiers pay, buying weapons, etc. Lots of jobs, too - imagine the
recent recession without all the defense spending!

I seem to recall that the real solution to the Great Depression was
WW2, not FDR's social engineering.

It does irritate me that as a country we are not willing to impose a
war tax on everbody in the US to pay for our adventures - thank you
gutless politicians.

Kirk

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 15, 1:09*pm, " >
wrote:
> One thing that never gets mentioned when "the cost of war" is
> discussed is that a lot of that money gets pumped into the economy -
> soldiers pay, buying weapons, etc. *Lots of jobs, too - imagine the
> recent recession without all the defense spending!
>
> I seem to recall that the real solution to the Great Depression was
> WW2, not FDR's social engineering.
>
> It does irritate me that as a country we are not willing to impose a
> war tax on everbody in the US to pay for our adventures - thank you
> gutless politicians.
>
> Kirk

Who did you vote for last election? Who will you vote for the next?

Those guys never make it without the votes.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 15, 10:09 am, " >
wrote:
> One thing that never gets mentioned when "the cost of war" is
> discussed is that a lot of that money gets pumped into the economy -
> soldiers pay, buying weapons, etc. Lots of jobs, too - imagine the
> recent recession without all the defense spending!
>
> I seem to recall that the real solution to the Great Depression was
> WW2, not FDR's social engineering.
>
> It does irritate me that as a country we are not willing to impose a
> war tax on everbody in the US to pay for our adventures - thank you
> gutless politicians.
> Kirk

IMO, (from what I've studied and experienced) the US was by far the
greatest nation in 1960, most other countries were then recovering
from WW2, and the US had lot's of dough from selling armaments,
to the belligrents, also the US was an oil exporter.
Made the best TV's, cars and everything else.
That was 50 years ago, 1/2 century.

Today, I feel the US GNP is measured by how many donuts and
burgers it stuffs in it's citizens, that gets entered into the GNP
figures, usually as a service industry.
If my wife sells you a cake, and your wife sells me a pie that gets
into the GNP bottom line, in Canuckistan the govmonks take 50%
of the pie and cake for munchies, overall taxation being about 1/2,
when it's all figured in.

LOL, if the US taxed fast food they'd be runnning a surplus in 20
minutes, and reduce the big fat obese pigs, that drive up medical
care bills. Downside is Oprah would be unemployed, oh darn.

To the point, what is the best way to employ ambitious men who
want to have a family that are age 20-30?
It might be appropriate to REDUCE the retirement age,
because our society production has become so efficient, maybe
employ more people in science and research, but there's not very
many people who can do that.

Pharoh's had the idea of employing people to build pyramids,
kind of like 'mission to the moon, mars and beyond'.

I think dumping money into ghetto's pays for dope, discipline
first.
Ken

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 16, 1:09*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> ...
> a DESRON steaming by at high speed would have been enough to swamp the river
> barges that didn't founder on their own

The ones I saw on the Neckar had substantial freeboard:
http://www.freefoto.com/images/2026/35/2026_35_13---Inland-Barges--River-Rhine--Basel--Switzerland_web.jpg

jsw

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 16, 3:46*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 1:09*pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
> > ...
> > a DESRON steaming by at high speed would have been enough to swamp the river
> > barges that didn't founder on their own
>
> The ones I saw on the Neckar had substantial freeboard:http://www.freefoto.com/images/2026/35/2026_35_13---Inland-Barges--Ri...
>
> jsw

50-50, seas would probably get them before any DDs arrived

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-MN-1369-10A,_Wilhelmshaven,_Prahme_f%C3%BCr_%22Unternehmen _Seel%C3%B6we%22.jpg

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 16, 1:09 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>> ...
>> a DESRON steaming by at high speed would have been enough to swamp the
>> river
>> barges that didn't founder on their own
>
> The ones I saw on the Neckar had substantial freeboard:
> http://www.freefoto.com/images/2026/35/2026_35_13---Inland-Barges--River-Rhine--Basel--Switzerland_web.jpg
>
> jsw
>

They are not typical of the barges used on European inland waterways in the
1940's

A better picture is

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/sia/29.1/images/desloges_fig07b.jpg

Keith

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 16, 3:05*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
>
> > The ones I saw on the Neckar had substantial freeboard:http://www.freefoto.com/images/2026/35/2026_35_13---Inland-Barges--Ri...
>

Yes, when empty. I've watched many a barge in the Seine and Rhine
rivers and when loaded the deck is almost awash! So depending on what
was put in them, freeboard may or may not have been a problem. One
assumes a moderately intelligent planner at the time would have taken
that into account.

Cheers,

Kirk

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 16, 5:01*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 16, 3:05*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The ones I saw on the Neckar had substantial freeboard:http://www.freefoto.com/images/2026/35/2026_35_13---Inland-Barges--Ri...
>
> Yes, when empty. *I've watched many a barge in the Seine and Rhine
> rivers and when loaded the deck is almost awash! *So depending on what
> was put in them, freeboard may or may not have been a problem. One
> assumes a moderately intelligent planner at the time would have taken
> that into account.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk

Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
trip

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 16, 5:05*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> ...
> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
> trip.

If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
have made glorious, bloody history.

jsw

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>> ...
>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>> trip.
>
> If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
> have made glorious, bloody history.
>
> jsw
>

Well there are two minor problems.

1) In 1940 the Kriegsmarine had only a small fraction of the number of
U-boats
it had in 1944 and they didn't have the French and Belgian bases available.

2) Twice zero is still zero, the U-Boats were totally ineffective on D-Day.

During June 1944 U-Boats in the channel did manage to sink two frigates
and damage a number of other ships but 12 of them were sunk in the process.
The hunter had become the hunted.

Keith

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > writes:

> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>>> trip.
>>
>> If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
>> have made glorious, bloody history.
>>
>> jsw
>>
>
> Well there are two minor problems.
>
> 1) In 1940 the Kriegsmarine had only a small fraction of the number of
> U-boats
> it had in 1944 and they didn't have the French and Belgian bases available.
>
> 2) Twice zero is still zero, the U-Boats were totally ineffective on D-Day.
>
> During June 1944 U-Boats in the channel did manage to sink two frigates
> and damage a number of other ships but 12 of them were sunk in the process.
> The hunter had become the hunted.

By late 1940 I think the Germans were still struggling with their
(magenetic) torpedo firing mechanisms also.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> wrote:

>On Mar 16, 5:05*pm, Jack Linthicum >
>wrote:
>> ...
>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>> trip.
>
>If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
>have made glorious, bloody history.
>
>jsw

People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. If the Kriegsmarine
had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
capability.

Any German sea borne operation was at best a chimera. Or more likely
a way to fox Statlin into thinking, "all is well."

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>>wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>>> trip.
>>
>>If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
>>have made glorious, bloody history.
>>
>>jsw
>
> People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. If the Kriegsmarine
> had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
> Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
> capability.
>

The Germans were outnumbered by better than 5 to 1 in naval terms.
There were 17 destroyers just tasked with securing the approaches
to the channel from U-boat attack.

The cruisers from Harwich would reach the invasion site in a few hours
followed by the battle fleet from Scapa. To oppose at least 5 Battleships
20 or so cruisers and 50 destroyers the Germans could muster only
1 capital ship 2 or 3 cruisers and a handful of destroyers.

The German invasion barges were mostly towed and had a speed of less
than 4 knots , it was estimated that they would take as long as 30 hours
to make the crossing. The Heer relied on horse drawn artillery so planned
on using 4000 horses in the first wave. These would be carried on towed
rafts.

In the one and only trial most of these rafts overturned. It was estimated
that 10-20% of the invasion barges would be lost at sea even if
the RN didn't intervene.

While the RN dealt with the Kriegsmarine there were hundreds of light
vessels ranging from armed trawlers to MTB's which could have massacred
the invasion fleet. An old fishing boat with a 12 pounder and a bofors
gun is no joke if its firing at you and you are sea sick soldier on a canal
barge.

> Any German sea borne operation was at best a chimera. Or more likely
> a way to fox Statlin into thinking, "all is well."
>

It was a bluff as well, with luck the British might give in.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 16, 11:40*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> O...
>
> People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. *If the Kriegsmarine
> had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
> Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
> capability.....
>
In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
they were friendly to attacking British destroyers? Many ships fired
at friendly aircraft that they could clearly see but not properly
identify.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 17, 7:42*am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> Safe zones.
>
> Your submarines operate only in areas where you tell people not to shoot at
> submarines.
> William Black

In other words, not where the U-Boote might be defending the invasion
convoy. OTOH the Germans who survived to write their books didn't
attack when the convoy escorts were nearby.

British submarines:
http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/britsubs.html

jsw

[Chris]

On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:

> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?

They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.

The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
for the RN submarines.

Chris Manteuffel

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 17, 10:27*am, Chris > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
> > they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>
> They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
> British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
> best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
> they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
> find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
> invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
> submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
> is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>
> The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
> knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
> for the RN submarines.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Also, as in the situation during the Battle of Britain, the idea is to
kill Germans and if the British submarines take losses it is for the
final result, repelling the German invasion. The submarines can sink
or disable the tow boats.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

> I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.

Without a doubt, but they couldn't get there...

Now if you can work out a way to get them there, with everything intact and
a reasonable fuel and ammunition supply, they'd win.

But, to paraphrase a long dead admiral, they cannot come by sea...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 10:45 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
>>Ken

> Without a doubt, but they couldn't get there...
> Now if you can work out a way to get them there, with everything intact and
> a reasonable fuel and ammunition supply, they'd win.
> But, to paraphrase a long dead admiral, they cannot come by sea...
> Mr. Black

I won't play what if, instead Hitlers little nazi history bible
directed him
to attack the commies, (for english sake), and follow frozen Nappy.
Ken

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 17, 10:45 am, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>> > I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
>>>Ken
>
>> Without a doubt, but they couldn't get there...
>> Now if you can work out a way to get them there, with everything intact
>> and
>> a reasonable fuel and ammunition supply, they'd win.
>> But, to paraphrase a long dead admiral, they cannot come by sea...
>> Mr. Black
>
> I won't play what if, instead Hitlers little nazi history bible
> directed him
> to attack the commies, (for english sake), and follow frozen Nappy.
> Ken
>

Erm - thats what he did , see Operation Barbarossa.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 17, 10:27 am, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 7:38 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>
>> > In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
>> > they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>>
>> They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
>> British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
>> best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
>> they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
>> find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
>> invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
>> submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
>> is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>>
>> The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
>> knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
>> for the RN submarines.
>>
>> Chris Manteuffel
>
> Also, as in the situation during the Battle of Britain, the idea is to
> kill Germans and if the British submarines take losses it is for the
> final result, repelling the German invasion. The submarines can sink
> or disable the tow boats.
>

Actually submarines would be a poor choice for that role. My betting is that
the RN submarines would be skulking around German ports looking
for targets of opportunity. There were plenty of light forces operating out
of channel ports that could kill tow boats and barges.

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 17, 3:08*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 10:27 am, Chris > wrote:
> >> On Mar 17, 7:38 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> >> > In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
> >> > they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>
> >> They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
> >> British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
> >> best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
> >> they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
> >> find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
> >> invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
> >> submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
> >> is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>
> >> The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
> >> knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
> >> for the RN submarines.
>
> >> Chris Manteuffel
>
> > Also, as in the situation during the Battle of Britain, the idea is to
> > kill Germans and if the British submarines take losses it is for the
> > final result, repelling the German invasion. The submarines can sink
> > or disable the tow boats.
>
> Actually submarines would be a poor choice for that role. My betting is that
> the RN submarines would be skulking around German ports looking
> for targets of opportunity. There were plenty of light forces operating out
> of channel ports that could kill tow boats and barges.
>
> Keith

Nothing like a torpedo launcher at the opening in the nets.

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> wrote:

>On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
>> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
>> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>
>They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
>British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
>best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
>they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
>find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
>invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
>submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
>is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>
>The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
>knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
>for the RN submarines.
>
They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
elsewhere.

Peter Skelton

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 11:56 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 10:45 am, "William Black" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
> >>>Ken
>
> >> Without a doubt, but they couldn't get there...
> >> Now if you can work out a way to get them there, with everything intact
> >> and
> >> a reasonable fuel and ammunition supply, they'd win.
> >> But, to paraphrase a long dead admiral, they cannot come by sea...
> >> Mr. Black
>
> > I won't play what if, instead Hitlers little nazi history bible
> > directed him
> > to attack the commies, (for english sake), and follow frozen Nappy.
> > Ken
>
> Erm - thats what he did , see Operation Barbarossa.>
> Keith

You know, to this day, I don't know whether Hitler sucker punched
Stalin or Stalin suckered him in and unloaded a bunch of army's he
didn't want.
Anyway, overall the Brits nailed Nazi's using airforce, and Stalin
nailed them using army's.
My remark about the Brit's is from Speers accounts, they were
able to burn cities as good as an A-bomb, and did create a 2nd
front, in the air.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 17, 7:38 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> >> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
> >> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>
> >They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
> >British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
> >best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
> >they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
> >find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
> >invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
> >submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
> >is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>
> >The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
> >knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
> >for the RN submarines.
>
> They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
> invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
> subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
> elsewhere.
>
> Peter Skelton

I still say a spread across the opening in the anti-submarine nets as
the first tow boat emerges would put a major bend in the German desire
to finish the game. Just make an explosive noise somewhere a head of
the bulk of the force.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:31:00 -0400, Peter Skelton >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>
>>> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
>>> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>>
>>They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
>>British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
>>best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
>>they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
>>find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
>>invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
>>submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
>>is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>>
>>The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
>>knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
>>for the RN submarines.
>>
>They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
>invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
>subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
>elsewhere.
>
>Peter Skelton

Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
an invasion barge escort?

Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
would have made fine targets for RN subs.

The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
south to "welcome" the invasion force.

Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
lift necessary to make any invasion possible.

Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
making.

[Chris]

On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:

> They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
> invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo.

The barges + tugs certainly weren't, but there would be a fair number
of coasters and the like that would certainly detonate a torpedo if
hit. And in a Sealion scenario, I can see putting everything the RN
has out there for the fight. No sense in giving the Germans even a 1%
chance of success...

Chris Manteuffel

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

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.




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

Paul J. Adam

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 17, 6:38*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.
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

Remember the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific ran 40 hour trains
from San Francisco and Los Angeles to Chicago, seven days a week. If
you could get past all the GIs riding those buggers even in 1941-2 you
had to have enough real U.S.A. green to pay for your meals.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Bill Kambic
> writes
>Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
>study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
>lift necessary to make any invasion possible.
>
>Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
>time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
>making.

There was a fair amount of realism on the German side: the Kriegsmarine
were trying to get out of the operation, or to make sure that if it
happened its failure wasn't their fault. The Army leapt at it, then
tried to leap back as they realised it was more than just an opposed
river crossing. The Luftwaffe is more complex and you wonder how much of
their planning and politicking depended on Goering's morphine intake on
any given day...

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

Paul J. Adam

[Andrew Swallow]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
{snip}

>
> I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
> What saved England is Hitler didn't write up an invasion in Mein
> Kampf, if he had a pencil and added footnotes, Brits would be
> goose-stepping and the Scots would be wearing underwear.
> Ken
>
A country can have a big army or a big navy but not both. (Britain
is still paying for the Napoleonic Wars when she tried having both.)
To invade Britain a country needs both. Germany had a big army but only
a medium sized navy. With war in France, Scandinavia and later USSR
Germany could not deploy a large number of troops against Britain for
long. Germany's air force was not significantly larger than Britain's
so it could not be used as an equaliser. The Empire gave Britain
a big advantage in man power and resources that could not be bombed.
Once the UK had chosen to fight a long war to even draw with Britain
Germany would have had to give up its plans to conquer eastern Europe.
There is no easy German victory there.

Andrew Swallow

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Mar 17, 7:38 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>
>> >> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
>> >> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>>
>> >They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
>> >British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
>> >best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
>> >they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
>> >find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
>> >invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
>> >submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
>> >is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>>
>> >The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
>> >knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
>> >for the RN submarines.
>>
>> They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
>> invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
>> subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>I still say a spread across the opening in the anti-submarine nets as
>the first tow boat emerges would put a major bend in the German desire
>to finish the game. Just make an explosive noise somewhere a head of
>the bulk of the force.

That or die in the mine field every base was protected with.


Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:43:32 -0400, Bill Kambic
> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:31:00 -0400, Peter Skelton >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
>>>> they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?
>>>
>>>They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
>>>British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
>>>best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
>>>they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
>>>find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
>>>invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
>>>submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
>>>is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.
>>>
>>>The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
>>>knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
>>>for the RN submarines.
>>>
>>They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
>>invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
>>subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
>>elsewhere.
>>
>>Peter Skelton
>
>Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
>an invasion barge escort?
>
rather

>Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
>of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
>service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
>would have made fine targets for RN subs.
>
And land the stuff how?

>The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
>Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
>south to "welcome" the invasion force.
>
The Home Fleet was not expected to do much against an invasion.
It would arrive after the destruction had been done.
ANti-invasion was small ship work.

>Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
>study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
>lift necessary to make any invasion possible.
>
>Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
>time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
>making.


Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> wrote:

>On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>> They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
>> invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo.
>
>The barges + tugs certainly weren't, but there would be a fair number
>of coasters and the like that would certainly detonate a torpedo if
>hit. And in a Sealion scenario, I can see putting everything the RN
>has out there for the fight. No sense in giving the Germans even a 1%
>chance of success...
>
We know what the RN did. It did not keep a force of subs within
anti-invasion range.

Peter Skelton

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:48:13 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Bill Kambic
> writes
>>Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
>>study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
>>lift necessary to make any invasion possible.
>>
>>Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
>>time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
>>making.
>
>There was a fair amount of realism on the German side: the Kriegsmarine
>were trying to get out of the operation, or to make sure that if it
>happened its failure wasn't their fault. The Army leapt at it, then
>tried to leap back as they realised it was more than just an opposed
>river crossing. The Luftwaffe is more complex and you wonder how much of
>their planning and politicking depended on Goering's morphine intake on
>any given day...

Indeed.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:12:54 -0400, Peter Skelton >
wrote:

>>Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
>>an invasion barge escort?
>>
>rather
>
>>Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
>>of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
>>service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
>>would have made fine targets for RN subs.
>>
>And land the stuff how?

Siezing appropriate channel ports undamged. Paratroopers, likely. Or
maybe some form of "commando" force.

That would be the plan. Execution of the plan might be problematical.

>>The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
>>Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
>>south to "welcome" the invasion force.
>>
>The Home Fleet was not expected to do much against an invasion.
>It would arrive after the destruction had been done.
>ANti-invasion was small ship work.

No, not really. Anti-invasion work is work for whatever you have. If
Taffy Three had not shown hyper-aggressivness there would have been a
very painful demonstration of just how effective large ships can be in
an anti-invasion role.

[Andrew Swallow]

Bill Kambic wrote:
{snip}

>
> No, not really. Anti-invasion work is work for whatever you have. If
> Taffy Three had not shown hyper-aggressivness there would have been a
> very painful demonstration of just how effective large ships can be in
> an anti-invasion role.
>

As in examples such as single British warships taking out entire army
regiments without losing a single man?

Trench warfare where no-mans land is 30 miles wide. Where German tanks
and artillery are not allowed to fire back.

Andrew Swallow

[Dan[_12_]]

Bill Kambic wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>>> trip.
>> If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
>> have made glorious, bloody history.
>>
>> jsw
>
> People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. If the Kriegsmarine
> had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
> Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
> capability.
>
> Any German sea borne operation was at best a chimera. Or more likely
> a way to fox Statlin into thinking, "all is well."
>

In the series "World At War" Galand said he was told Sea Lion was a
rd herring th throw Stalin off.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Alexander]

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"?)

Now that is funny. There is more military of that time in California
then anywhere else in the world.

>
> 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.

A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
war materials and massive military direct aid. Hitler actually admired
England and did make an effort to make them an ally. Churchill double
crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess. That was a double
cross much more heinous as Hitlers double cross of Stalin. England and
Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.
>
>
>
>

[Alexander]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
>> What saved England is Hitler didn't write up an invasion in Mein
>> Kampf, if he had a pencil and added footnotes, Brits would be
>> goose-stepping and the Scots would be wearing underwear.
>> Ken
>>
> A country can have a big army or a big navy but not both. (Britain
> is still paying for the Napoleonic Wars when she tried having both.)
> To invade Britain a country needs both. Germany had a big army but only
> a medium sized navy. With war in France, Scandinavia and later USSR
> Germany could not deploy a large number of troops against Britain for
> long. Germany's air force was not significantly larger than Britain's
> so it could not be used as an equaliser. The Empire gave Britain
> a big advantage in man power and resources that could not be bombed.
> Once the UK had chosen to fight a long war to even draw with Britain
> Germany would have had to give up its plans to conquer eastern Europe.
> There is no easy German victory there.
>
> Andrew Swallow

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.

[Dan[_12_]]

Alexander wrote:
<snip>
> A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
> war materials and massive military direct aid. Hitler actually admired
> England and did make an effort to make them an ally. Churchill double
> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess. That was a double
> cross much more heinous as Hitlers double cross of Stalin. England and
> Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.
>>
>>

Using that logic no country is trustworthy. Sticking to WW2 the
Nazi's violation of their nonaggression pact with the Soviets is a prime
example.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 6:54 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Bill Kambic wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> > > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
> >> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
> >>> trip.
> >> If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
> >> have made glorious, bloody history.
>
> >> jsw
>
> > People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. If the Kriegsmarine
> > had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
> > Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
> > capability.
>
> > Any German sea borne operation was at best a chimera. Or more likely
> > a way to fox Statlin into thinking, "all is well."
>
> In the series "World At War" Galand said he was told Sea Lion was a
> rd herring th throw Stalin off.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I'd buy that. I think the plan was for the Nazi's to knock out Russia
then
sign an armistice with England...then came Moscow -
Stalingrad....oops.
Ken

[William Black[_1_]]

"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...


Hitler actually admired
> England and did make an effort to make them an ally.

But the UK (Not England) reckoned he wasn't to be trusted.

Wise people...

Churchill double
> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess.

I don't suppose you've any proof at all for that remarkable statement.

England and
> Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.

But, but, but, aren't they the same country run by the same people?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Kambic wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 5:05 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Getting the stuff off on a beach just might be the hardest part of the
>>>> trip.
>>> If the U-boats were even twice as effective as on D-Day the RN would
>>> have made glorious, bloody history.
>>>
>>> jsw
>>
>> People forget that the RN had subs in 1940, too. If the Kriegsmarine
>> had tried an invasion they would have been as subject to attack as the
>> Allies were in '44 and without any significant anti-submarine
>> capability.
>>
>> Any German sea borne operation was at best a chimera. Or more likely
>> a way to fox Statlin into thinking, "all is well."
>>
>
> In the series "World At War" Galand said he was told Sea Lion was a rd
> herring th throw Stalin off.

Well he would say that wouldn't he.

His failure was the thing that stopped the whole project.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Ken S. Tucker]

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.

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.
But what ****un good is the that Island to Hitlers greater scheme,
nothing, but we know now he made a strategic military error, and
as Chruchill promised his bombers burned the black heart of Germany,
that was very unpleasant to all who were involved.
I request a polite response, as I gave.
Ken

[William Black[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

> 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.
> 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.

Have you considered reading a book?

> 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...

Oh yes, and assuming they do land. How on earth do they get over the
Military Canal in a night?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> 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"?)
>
> Now that is funny. There is more military of that time in California then
> anywhere else in the world.
>

I suspect the combined Red Army and Wehrmacht forces in Russia
were rather more numerous than the US forces in California.

>>
>> 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.
>
> A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
> war materials and massive military direct aid. Hitler actually admired
> England and did make an effort to make them an ally. Churchill double
> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess.

Well now given that Hitler denounced Hess on German radio BEFORE
Hess had chance to meet anyone this seems an odd conclusion.

> That was a double
> cross much more heinous as Hitlers double cross of Stalin. England and
> Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.

Churchill never wavered in his opposition to the Nazis, change your
medication
there's a good chap.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"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.


Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>

>> 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...
>
> Oh yes, and assuming they do land. How on earth do they get over the
> Military Canal in a night?
>

As prisoners under escort on their way to a POW camp ?

After the few survivors wade ashore from the burning and
sinking barges I'd imagine surrender would seem a good option.


Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 18, 3:36*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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Have you considered reading a book?
>
> > 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...
>
> Oh yes, *and assuming they do land. *How on earth do they get over the
> Military Canal in a night?
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, *like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

It's just a larger river crossing.

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:45:42 -0400, Bill Kambic
> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:12:54 -0400, Peter Skelton >
>wrote:
>
>>>Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
>>>an invasion barge escort?
>>>
>>rather
>>
>>>Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
>>>of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
>>>service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
>>>would have made fine targets for RN subs.
>>>
>>And land the stuff how?
>
>Siezing appropriate channel ports undamged. Paratroopers, likely. Or
>maybe some form of "commando" force.
>
>That would be the plan. Execution of the plan might be problematical.
>
>>>The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
>>>Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
>>>south to "welcome" the invasion force.
>>>
>>The Home Fleet was not expected to do much against an invasion.
>>It would arrive after the destruction had been done.
>>ANti-invasion was small ship work.
>
>No, not really. Anti-invasion work is work for whatever you have. If
>Taffy Three had not shown hyper-aggressivness there would have been a
>very painful demonstration of just how effective large ships can be in
>an anti-invasion role.

WHat I said was that the invasion ofrces would have been long
sunk before the Home Fleet could arrive. Your reponse is to a
straw man.


Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:16:58 -0500, Alexander
> wrote:

>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
>>> What saved England is Hitler didn't write up an invasion in Mein
>>> Kampf, if he had a pencil and added footnotes, Brits would be
>>> goose-stepping and the Scots would be wearing underwear.
>>> Ken
>>>
>> A country can have a big army or a big navy but not both. (Britain
>> is still paying for the Napoleonic Wars when she tried having both.)
>> To invade Britain a country needs both. Germany had a big army but only
>> a medium sized navy. With war in France, Scandinavia and later USSR
>> Germany could not deploy a large number of troops against Britain for
>> long. Germany's air force was not significantly larger than Britain's
>> so it could not be used as an equaliser. The Empire gave Britain
>> a big advantage in man power and resources that could not be bombed.
>> Once the UK had chosen to fight a long war to even draw with Britain
>> Germany would have had to give up its plans to conquer eastern Europe.
>> There is no easy German victory there.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
>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.

I would like a reference for that rather remarkable statement.


Peter Skelton

[Ken S. Tucker]

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, anyway he had a great job in
RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
them
chatty.
Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.

After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
cabinet, probably still classified.
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.
It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
found
interesting.

> > 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.
>
> Have you considered reading a book?

Which book did you read?

> > 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, 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.

> 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).

> William Black

Regards
Ken

[frank]

On Mar 18, 3:31*am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Keith

What is ever more astounding is looking at photographs of Heer
manhandling German tanks out of the barges with planks and wood. Talk
about a turkey shoot on a beach head. Even assuming the barges would
survive the Channel chop.

The German Navy at this point in time was useless except for the U
Boat arm, and that would have been useless in an invasion.

[frank]

On Mar 18, 1:47*pm, "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, anyway he had a great job in
> RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
> When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
> to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
> He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
> were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
> them
> chatty.
> Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
> had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
> Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.
>
> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> cabinet, probably still classified.
> 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.
> It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
> found
> interesting.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Have you considered reading a book?
>
> Which book did you read?
>
> > > 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, 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.
>
> > 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).
>
> > William Black
>
> Regards
> Ken

Ken, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Go read a
book. You know there are books written on this subject.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 18, 12:30 pm, frank > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:47 pm, "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, anyway he had a great job in
> > RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
> > When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
> > to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
> > He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
> > were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
> > them
> > chatty.
> > Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
> > had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
> > Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.
>
> > After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> > cabinet, probably still classified.
> > 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.
> > It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
> > found
> > interesting.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Have you considered reading a book?
>
> > Which book did you read?
>
> > > > 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, 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.
>
> > > 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).
>
> > > William Black
>
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> Ken, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Go read a
> book. You know there are books written on this subject.

Well Frank, don't crap in your Depends Diaper, but you should know
books are written to be sold, you'd be far better off discussing war
with people who were actually involved in it, as you clearly have not
been, you have no clue about the problems.
It seems to be a habit of the US to dump it's vets on a tarmack and
tell them to go home, with zilch debriefing, and deal with
psychotrauma
on their own, following combat.
At least the WW2 RCAF had the class to get fella's talking and opening
up about their experiences and also LEARN from them, while at the same
time assisting psychotrauma reduction.
LOL, while Frank was reading comic books glorifying WW2, I was having
discussions with combat veterans.
Ken

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On Mar 18, 12:30 pm, frank > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 18, 1:47 pm, "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, anyway he had a great job in
>>>RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
>>>When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
>>>to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
>>>He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
>>>were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
>>>them
>>>chatty.
>>>Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
>>>had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
>>>Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.
>>
>>>After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
>>>cabinet, probably still classified.
>>>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.
>>>It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
>>>found
>>>interesting.
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>>>Have you considered reading a book?
>>
>>>Which book did you read?
>>
>>>>>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, 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.
>>
>>>>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).
>>
>>>>William Black
>>
>>>Regards
>>>Ken
>>
>>Ken, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Go read a
>>book. You know there are books written on this subject.
>
>
> Well Frank, don't crap in your Depends Diaper, but you should know
> books are written to be sold, you'd be far better off discussing war
> with people who were actually involved in it, as you clearly have not
> been, you have no clue about the problems.
> It seems to be a habit of the US to dump it's vets on a tarmack and
> tell them to go home, with zilch debriefing, and deal with
> psychotrauma
> on their own, following combat.
> At least the WW2 RCAF had the class to get fella's talking and opening
> up about their experiences and also LEARN from them, while at the same
> time assisting psychotrauma reduction.
> LOL, while Frank was reading comic books glorifying WW2, I was having
> discussions with combat veterans.
> Ken

Hi Ken! Are you still dating Charlene?


--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.

definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>, Ken
S. Tucker > writes
>On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?

>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.

Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?

We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.

As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
*immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
armoured division in being.

Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>
>The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.

About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.

>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.

Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
half-way across the Channel.

You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
German.


I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?




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

Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

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. 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.

Curiously, the RN kept attacking the invasion ports, and the Luftwaffe
couldn't stop them.

>Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.

Yet the Germans didn't have enough, even before they started losing them
to bombing and shelling.
>
>> 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).

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...

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

Paul J. Adam

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 18, 4:32*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message
> >, Ken
> S. Tucker > writes
>
> >On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>
> >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.
>
> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>
> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>
> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
> armoured division in being.
>
> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>
>
>
> >The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>
> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>
> >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.
>
> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
> half-way across the Channel.
>
> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
> German.
>
> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

Try Operation Fortitude

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

the reading list,

2. ^ Operation Fortitude website

http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Anglais/2_histo2/histo2_p5_gb.htm

* Howard, Sir Michael, Strategic Deception (British Intelligence
in the Second World War, Volume 5) (Cambridge University Press, New
York, 1990)

* Holt, Thaddeus, The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the
Second World War (Scribner, New York, 2004)

* Harris, Tomas, "GARBO, The Spy Who Saved D-Day", Richmond,
Surrey, England: Public Record Office, 2000, ISBN 1-873162-81-2

* Hesketh, Roger, "Fortitude", Overlook Press, New York, 2000,
ISBN 1-58567-075-8

* Latimer, Jon, "Deception in War", Overlook Press, New York, 2001
ISBN 978-1585673810

[Chris]

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

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 18, 5:59*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

At the far edge of dreamland the Germans have an attache in Shanghai
in 1937 when the Japanese invade in their landing craft with bow
doors. By some miracle this attache's report gets to Hitler who sees
these wonder craft as the answer to an invasion of England. He has
10,000 built in Norway or Poland and when the time comes for See Lowe
they have all been burned during the respective invasions of Norway
and Poland.

[Andrew Swallow]

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

[Dan[_12_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message
> >, Ken
> S. Tucker > writes
>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>> > wrote:
>> 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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>
>> 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.
>
> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>
> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>
> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
> armoured division in being.
>
> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>>
>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>
> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>
>> 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.
>
> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
> half-way across the Channel.
>
> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
> German.
>
>
> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>
>
>
Lord Haw Haw comes to mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Andrew Swallow]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
{snip}

>
> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?

I suspect these believes are coming from stories of the Home Guard
training with pikes and the German planners ignoring the Royal
Navy. The German Army was not used to river crossings being
impeded by floating super tanks (several big guns).

Andrew Swallow

[Dan[_12_]]

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

That and the best Nazi plans never had very many men in England at
D+1 or the ability to immediately replenish ammunition expenditures. Men
with empty magazines tend to be unable to fire their weapons. On the
other hand the British had lots of ammunition and the advantage of
mobility. The RAF and Luftwaffe probably wouldn't have much effect in
the immediate area since they'd be a tad busy discussing things at altitude.

Had the Nazis been able to hold a piece of property for any length of
time they would have gone hungry, short of munitions and no way to retreat.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:32:56 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message
>, Ken
>S. Tucker > writes
>>On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?

Probably because he was a reletive of Joe Kennedy; or maybe just a
drinking buddy.

>>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.
>
>Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?

Croats make some pretty good pastries. My grandmother lived in a
neighborhood with a Croation church. Food at the pot lucks was pretty
good.

Don't know what that has to do with defending against Operation
Sealiion, though. :-)

>We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
>FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>
>As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
>had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
>*immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
>armoured division in being.
>
>Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
>troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
>was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>>
>>The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>
>About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>
>>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.
>
>Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
>half-way across the Channel.
>
>You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
>this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
>German.
>
>I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
>wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?

The Germans had no idea what they needed to do to successfully invade
England. It was certainly much more than an opposed "river crossing."
The landing beaches would have been clearly identified, ranged (by all
those guns they didn't have), and the roads blocked by all those
troops and tanks that they didn't have.

What we would have likely seen would have been the first invasion of
Wake, but on a grand scale. The IJN, with all the real experience
they had in PHIBOPS, screwed up pretty bad by grossly underestimating
their enemy. The German underestimation was at least that bad.

[Alexander]

Dan wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
> <snip>
>> A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
>> war materials and massive military direct aid. Hitler actually admired
>> England and did make an effort to make them an ally. Churchill double
>> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess. That was a
>> double cross much more heinous as Hitlers double cross of Stalin.
>> England and Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.
>>>
>>>
>
> Using that logic no country is trustworthy. Sticking to WW2 the
> Nazi's violation of their nonaggression pact with the Soviets is a prime
> example.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


As some one once stated:

America has no permanent Friends, only permanent enemies.
I think that pretty much fits any country.

I do however believe that America has to reconsider and reassess whom we
do business with in this day and age, based on our present day needs.
The past is nothing more then an example by which to learn and guide our
now and future decisions. We cannot redo the past, but we sure can be
more careful in our future actions. The economic mess we are in doesn't
seem to have sunk in to the pack of fools in Washington.

[[email protected]]

Jack Linthicum > writes:

> On Mar 18, 5:59*pm, Chris > wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2:47*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > The RN was pretty much useless, recall Pearl Harbor, suppose the
>
> At the far edge of dreamland the Germans have an attache in Shanghai
> in 1937 when the Japanese invade in their landing craft with bow
> doors. By some miracle this attache's report gets to Hitler who sees
> these wonder craft as the answer to an invasion of England. He has
> 10,000 built in Norway or Poland and when the time comes for See Lowe
> they have all been burned during the respective invasions of Norway
> and Poland.

Wait.... there's more! Owing to a short but heated argument between
Goering and his physician over the diameter of needles ("get the
expensive thin ones you Dummkopf!"), the doctor's company nepotistically
assigned by the fascist bureaucracy to make special hinges for the doors
of these fantastic landing craft is punished and forced to go into the
needle business for 6 months. Hence of 10000 landing craft only a few
hundred have doors attached, the rest have the doors welded or rivetted
shut and the Stormtroopers told to put more oompf into their Drang when
they try to get out.

[Alexander]

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.
>
>
> Hitler actually admired
>> England and did make an effort to make them an ally.
>
> But the UK (Not England) reckoned he wasn't to be trusted.

Nobody called it the UK in those days.
>
> Wise people...
>
> Churchill double
>> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess.

Hess was off the hook as far as America and Russia were concerned. The
English made damned sure that he could never be interviewed and remained
locked up in Spandau until the Arthritic ally crippled weak old man
jumped up 12 feet tied a belt to a rafter and hung himself while under
intense English Guard. The fact that he was never allowed pencil and
paper should tell even a Jew moron like you something. He was guilty of
no war crime. Dealing with Churchills England was a nasty joke. He even
lied to America.
>
> I don't suppose you've any proof at all for that remarkable statement.
>
> England and
>> Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.
>
> But, but, but, aren't they the same country run by the same people?

Are they now? Do you have something tangible to back your premise?
>

[Alexander]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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"?)
>>
>> Now that is funny. There is more military of that time in California
>> then anywhere else in the world.
>>
>
> I suspect the combined Red Army and Wehrmacht forces in Russia
> were rather more numerous than the US forces in California.

True, but with a very very long supply line. Do keep in mind Russia of
that day was in no mood to attack America. Russia had other fish to fry.
America was 120 million, Germany united 80 million, Russia 170 million.
France required an occupation force as did Poland Yugoslavia and a
number of other small countries. Finland was not exactly playing dead
either. Russia also had internal strife. That is what is called "Pinned
chess pieces" in another game.

>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> A determined Germany would have eaten England alive, but for massive
>> war materials and massive military direct aid. Hitler actually admired
>> England and did make an effort to make them an ally. Churchill double
>> crossed him when he usurped meeting with Rudolph Hess.
>
> 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. There is no way Hess would have traveled to Scotland without
an invitation by Churchill and the express wishes of the Nazi party.
According to your version.. Hitler was not even aware of Hess's trip,
until he was kidnapped. But then again, the limeys were not very good at
countering German intelligence. Admiral Canaris regularly made fools of
them.

>
> > That was a double
>> cross much more heinous as Hitlers double cross of Stalin. England and
>> Israel are 2 countries to never ever trust.
>
> 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.
>
> Keith
>
>
>

[Kerryn Offord[_2_]]

Dan 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
>
> That and the best Nazi plans never had very many men in England at D+1
> or the ability to immediately replenish ammunition expenditures. Men
> with empty magazines tend to be unable to fire their weapons. On the
> other hand the British had lots of ammunition and the advantage of
> mobility. The RAF and Luftwaffe probably wouldn't have much effect in
> the immediate area since they'd be a tad busy discussing things at
> altitude.
>
> Had the Nazis been able to hold a piece of property for any length of
> time they would have gone hungry, short of munitions and no way to retreat.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Sort of Anzio.. only worse...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Alexander]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
> But what ****un good is the that Island to Hitlers greater scheme,
> nothing, but we know now he made a strategic military error, and
> as Chruchill promised his bombers burned the black heart of Germany,
> that was very unpleasant to all who were involved.
> I request a polite response, as I gave.
> Ken

You mean all those B17's, B24's, B25's, B26's etc were all Churchill's?
Don't forget the B29's. I have a few magazine clips showing thousands of
Aircraft at a time flying over Germany. And with US Markings. Some how I
do believe it was a Joint operation. I do wonder where all that avgas
came from?

[Alexander]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>> 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...
>>
>> Oh yes, and assuming they do land. How on earth do they get over the
>> Military Canal in a night?
>>
>
> As prisoners under escort on their way to a POW camp ?
>
> After the few survivors wade ashore from the burning and
> sinking barges I'd imagine surrender would seem a good option.

The Germans that the limeys did capture usually escaped into the German
underground railroad and went home. Only those in maximum security were
not so lucky.
>
>
> Keith

[Alexander]

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, anyway he had a great job in
> RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
> When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
> to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
> He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
> were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
> them
> chatty.
> Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
> had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
> Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.
>
> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
> cabinet, probably still classified.
> 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.
> It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
> found
> interesting.
>
>>> 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.
>> Have you considered reading a book?
>
> Which book did you read?

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

>
>>> 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, 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.
>
>> 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).
>
>> William Black
>
> Regards
> Ken

It is pretty obvious that Israel could use Willies military strategies
to help finish the slaughter in Gaza.

[Alexander]

frank wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:47 pm, "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, anyway he had a great job in
>> RCAF, as a "de-briefer". What that entailed was a bit complicated.
>> When RCAF personel returned from overseas he was allowed 1 week
>> to de-brief and calm them down enough to return them to civilian life.
>> He had to 'pump' them for information which I imagine a lot of men
>> were reluctant to relate, using cigarettes, booze and girls to get
>> them
>> chatty.
>> Funny he was highly qualified, before the war he was a gangster,
>> had a speak-easy in Winnipeg, and hustled booze and fish to
>> Chicago's Moran gang mainly, you know how kids are.
>>
>> After 2-3 years he wrote a stack of reports that would fill a filing
>> cabinet, probably still classified.
>> 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.
>> It was the analysis ability that he sifted for circulation that I
>> found
>> interesting.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Have you considered reading a book?
>> Which book did you read?
>>
>>>> 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, 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.
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>>> William Black
>> Regards
>> Ken
>
> Ken, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Go read a
> book. You know there are books written on this subject.

I certainly could recommend the same to you, sir.

[Alexander]

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. You also seem to forget that Hitler
himself ordered a stand down at Dunkirk allowing you to get off that
beach. His troops could well have slaughtered the English and French
troops to a man. Hell, even Argentina made some good scores against the
mighty Royal Navy.
>
> Curiously, the RN kept attacking the invasion ports, and the Luftwaffe
> couldn't stop them.
>
>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>
> Yet the Germans didn't have enough, even before they started losing them
> to bombing and shelling.
>>
>>> 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).
>
> 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...
>

[Alexander]

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. 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.
>
> Curiously, the RN kept attacking the invasion ports, and the Luftwaffe
> couldn't stop them.
>
>> Barges are ultra cheap, especially when they're empty.
>
> Yet the Germans didn't have enough, even before they started losing them
> to bombing and shelling.
>>
>>> 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).
>
> 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. 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.
>

[Alexander]

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

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. What the Hell do
you think German Engineers could do with Hitler up their ass.? Did you
forget the massive beyond belief weapons of all kinds production of
Speer? If Germany had set its sights on England..without outside
help..England would have become toast. The limeys should thank their
lucky stars that Germany set its sights on Russia instead. England had
it very bad as being only a secondary target of Germany. England should
also be damned glad Japan brought America from a covert military
supplier to open warfare.

[Don Ocean[_2_]]

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. Checkmate. Do you really take the German general
staff as being amateurs at warfare? That has long been Englands
downfall. Underestimating others and overestimating themselves.
>
>
> Keith

[Alexander]

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.
>

[Alexander]

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. 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.

[Chris]

On Mar 18, 10:19*pm, Alexander > wrote:

> Did you
> forget the massive beyond belief weapons of all kinds production of
> Speer?

I know that Speer managed to produce 0 useful Type XXI submarines, and
when Germany needed to defend their own airspace, he managed the neat
trick of producing a ton of fighters that were obsolete (Me109's
certainly, and to a lesser extent FW190), and a small number of
fighters that were beyond the bleeding edge- the engines of the Me262
had such terrible reliability that the fighters weren't at all useful
for Germany. What makes you think that they could magically fix these
problems?

> If Germany had set its sights on England..without outside
> help..England would have become toast.

Not for at least a decade to build up a navy and air force capable of
defeating the RN and starving Britain into submission. Without US or
USSR support they would not have much hope of forcing Germany to
change their government and remove Hitler, but by the same token, he
would have no chance of winning either. It would be something similar
to two centuries ago, during the struggle with Napoleon, when Britain
needed continental allies to achieve victory, but could not be forced
out by their enemy.

Chris Manteuffel

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:23:18 -0500, 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. Checkmate. Do you really take the German general
> staff as being amateurs at warfare? That has long been Englands
> downfall. Underestimating others and overestimating themselves.

Actually, for all their posturing, press releases, and post-war finger pointing
that they were the Jedi Knights and that they only lost because of the Dead Guy
That Nobody Liked, the German General Staff was pretty poor.
(Let's see - 2 World Wars, 2 losses.)
The never, ever got a handle on the idea of logistics.
Coupling this with a grasp of Industrial Economy that was below that of
Lemurs, and the overweening arrogance that was taught to them from their
first Staff School on up - I don't think it was the Brits underestimating.
There's a reason why the Germans fought in short campaigns followed by extended
periods of quiescence. They did not ever have the industrial capacity, either in manufacturing,
or, more importantly, raw materials, to make up losses while the fighting was going on.
As soon as you take on opponents that won't kindly allow you a rest - The Soviet Union, the US, and, to a lesser
extent, the British Empire, you were guaranteed to lose.
(Some of their uniforms were kinda spiffy, though)

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

[Chris]

On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander > wrote:

> Japanese aircraft did a real job at
> Pearl harbor on both anchored ships and fast moving destroyers in the
> outer harbor at Pearl Harbor.

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.

But the real question here is what the hell are you talking about with
respect to "fast moving destroyers in the outer harbor at Pearl
Harbor"? First of all, what is the "outer harbor at Pearl Harbor"?
Second of all, please name the destroyers the IJN sank at Pearl
Harbor. Then please note how many of them were moving.

I anxiously await your no doubt well researched and footnoted
response.

Chris Manteuffel

[Dan[_12_]]

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. Noting your bias against the UK and Israel I'm
sure you will find a way to blame those 2 countries anyway.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Alexander wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> But what ****un good is the that Island to Hitlers greater scheme,
>> nothing, but we know now he made a strategic military error, and
>> as Chruchill promised his bombers burned the black heart of Germany,
>> that was very unpleasant to all who were involved.
>> I request a polite response, as I gave.
>> Ken
>
> You mean all those B17's, B24's, B25's, B26's etc were all Churchill's?
> Don't forget the B29's. I have a few magazine clips showing thousands of
> Aircraft at a time flying over Germany. And with US Markings. Some how I
> do believe it was a Joint operation. I do wonder where all that avgas
> came from?

Not very good at history, are you? Dunkirk evacuation was 24 May - 4
June 1940. The U.S. aircraft you mention didn't get to the UK until 1942
and B-29 never operated from there. The Brits had been striking the
Nazis for some time before the U.S. got there. As for your "magazine
clips" do try to think for a bit, the U.S. flew in daylight, the UK flew
at night. It was hard to photograph aircraft at night.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 18, 1:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message
> >, Ken
> S. Tucker > writes
>
> >On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>
> >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.
>
> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>
> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>
> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
> armoured division in being.
>
> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>
> >The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>
> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>
> >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.
>
> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
> half-way across the Channel.
>
> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
> German.
>
> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
> Paul

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

[Ken S. Tucker]

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.

An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
Low skill labor, I could organize that.
Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
Ken

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>> In message
>> >, Ken
>> S. Tucker > writes
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>>> > wrote:
>>> 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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>>
>>> 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.
>> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>>
>> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
>> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>>
>> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
>> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
>> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
>> armoured division in being.
>>
>> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
>> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
>> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>>
>>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>>
>>> 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.
>> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
>> half-way across the Channel.
>>
>> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
>> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
>> German.
>>
>> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
>> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>> Paul
>
> 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

When you locate a source for "hard, cold, logical analysis" feel free
to get back to us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

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.

Toy tanks and play houses are a far cry from combat vehicles.


>
> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
> Ken

Perhaps if there were production lines, no sealant or paint cure
times and the like there could have been "1000 barges a day made." Where
does the wood come from? Are you thinking they should have used fresh
cut wood? If they are motorized where do the engines come from? Combat
vehicles and aircraft had priority. If they aren't motorized how do they
get across the Channel? For that matter, how long would they take to get
across?

The Higgins boats were far superior to anything the Nazis toyed with
for beach landings. They couldn't safely cross the Channel fast enough
to avoid detection and destruction.

Let's assume in Tucker World® the Nazis could have amassed 30,000
barges and got them across the Channel. How many could beach at a time?
Other than offloading men and man portable supplies and weaponry what
can you get on the beach in rapid succession? The Nazis had no plans for
Mulberry equivalents so any vehicles would have to be off loaded onto
that beach. Let's see, you have men on the beach securing a beach head,
a beach clogged with barges, barges off shore waiting en masse, very
limited Nazi naval gun support (if any), no AAA on the beach etc. and,
assuming the landing is at dawn, a bunch of collisions between the
barges. I suppose an unopposed landing might succeed, but there's the
rub, the locals would be able to out man the Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't
be able to stop the RAF from banging them up a bit and the RN wasn't far
away.

I'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
workmanship of your playhouses.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 18, 10:26 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 1:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > wrote:
> >> In message
> >> >, Ken
> >> S. Tucker > writes
>
> >>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> 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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>
> >>> 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.
> >> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>
> >> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
> >> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>
> >> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
> >> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
> >> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
> >> armoured division in being.
>
> >> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
> >> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
> >> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>
> >>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
> >> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>
> >>> 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.
> >> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
> >> half-way across the Channel.
>
> >> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
> >> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
> >> German.
>
> >> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> >> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
> >> Paul
>
> > 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
>
> When you locate a source for "hard, cold, logical analysis" feel free
> to get back to us.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

IMO, pack up and go home, mission accomplished.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 18, 10:48 pm, Dan > wrote:
> 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.
>
> Toy tanks and play houses are a far cry from combat vehicles.
>
>
>
> > An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> > Low skill labor, I could organize that.
> > Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
> > No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
> > Ken
>
> Perhaps if there were production lines, no sealant or paint cure
> times and the like there could have been "1000 barges a day made." Where
> does the wood come from? Are you thinking they should have used fresh
> cut wood? If they are motorized where do the engines come from? Combat
> vehicles and aircraft had priority. If they aren't motorized how do they
> get across the Channel? For that matter, how long would they take to get
> across?
>
> The Higgins boats were far superior to anything the Nazis toyed with
> for beach landings. They couldn't safely cross the Channel fast enough
> to avoid detection and destruction.
>
> Let's assume in Tucker World® the Nazis could have amassed 30,000
> barges and got them across the Channel. How many could beach at a time?
> Other than offloading men and man portable supplies and weaponry what
> can you get on the beach in rapid succession? The Nazis had no plans for
> Mulberry equivalents so any vehicles would have to be off loaded onto
> that beach. Let's see, you have men on the beach securing a beach head,
> a beach clogged with barges, barges off shore waiting en masse, very
> limited Nazi naval gun support (if any), no AAA on the beach etc. and,
> assuming the landing is at dawn, a bunch of collisions between the
> barges. I suppose an unopposed landing might succeed, but there's the
> rub, the locals would be able to out man the Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't
> be able to stop the RAF from banging them up a bit and the RN wasn't far
> away.
>
> I'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
> workmanship of your playhouses.

How long does it take you to remove an engine?
It takes me about 10 minutes, 5 if I don't take a break.
I can do a 35 hp outboard myself, with no problem in about
3 minutes, including gas tank, done that as a kid.
Pulling up a 50hp off a boat is pretty much my limit.
So you assign a strong man to that task and send it back.

Danelda, the Nazi's could mass produce V2 rockets, do ya
really think mass producing 50 hp outboards motors would
be a problem?

So I mass produce barges, say 10'x40' from a forest (duh),
and put a few 50's on it and my stuff gets to england in 5 hrs,
using a compass on a foggy night, there's a lot of coast to
make 'numerous' beach heads.
Any RN is dead when He's, Dorniers, Me-110's equiped with Nazi
torpedoes with Me-109 cover, I'll toss in some Stuka's.
Nazi's torpedoes worked, and what's RN using, searchlights to
locate the barges at night, they is DOA. Even a ding-bat pilot
could toast a RN ship with a torpedo as soon as it lights up.

If I was in command of Sea Lion, england would be conquered
without doubt, fortunately your boyfriend Hitler wasn't interested,
and ****ed around with england and under that cover, planned
and assembled for attacking Russia.

Actually Dan I think you're right about that in a previous post.
That's new to me, so I appreciate that insight, Hitler doing
smoke and mirrors in Battle of Britain as Stalin wrings his ugly
hands in delight as Europeans fight, especially given the treaty
he had Hitler sign, no attacking for 10 years, hard to trust people,
as he moves to Barbarossa, almost worked.
Ken

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:48 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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.
>> Toy tanks and play houses are a far cry from combat vehicles.
>>
>>
>>
>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>>> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>>> Ken
>> Perhaps if there were production lines, no sealant or paint cure
>> times and the like there could have been "1000 barges a day made." Where
>> does the wood come from? Are you thinking they should have used fresh
>> cut wood? If they are motorized where do the engines come from? Combat
>> vehicles and aircraft had priority. If they aren't motorized how do they
>> get across the Channel? For that matter, how long would they take to get
>> across?
>>
>> The Higgins boats were far superior to anything the Nazis toyed with
>> for beach landings. They couldn't safely cross the Channel fast enough
>> to avoid detection and destruction.
>>
>> Let's assume in Tucker World® the Nazis could have amassed 30,000
>> barges and got them across the Channel. How many could beach at a time?
>> Other than offloading men and man portable supplies and weaponry what
>> can you get on the beach in rapid succession? The Nazis had no plans for
>> Mulberry equivalents so any vehicles would have to be off loaded onto
>> that beach. Let's see, you have men on the beach securing a beach head,
>> a beach clogged with barges, barges off shore waiting en masse, very
>> limited Nazi naval gun support (if any), no AAA on the beach etc. and,
>> assuming the landing is at dawn, a bunch of collisions between the
>> barges. I suppose an unopposed landing might succeed, but there's the
>> rub, the locals would be able to out man the Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't
>> be able to stop the RAF from banging them up a bit and the RN wasn't far
>> away.
>>
>> I'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
>> workmanship of your playhouses.
>
> How long does it take you to remove an engine?
> It takes me about 10 minutes, 5 if I don't take a break.
> I can do a 35 hp outboard myself, with no problem in about
> 3 minutes, including gas tank, done that as a kid.
> Pulling up a 50hp off a boat is pretty much my limit.
> So you assign a strong man to that task and send it back.
>
> Danelda, the Nazi's could mass produce V2 rockets, do ya
> really think mass producing 50 hp outboards motors would
> be a problem?
>
> So I mass produce barges, say 10'x40' from a forest (duh),

There's a reason woodworkers use wood with a low moisture content.

> and put a few 50's on it and my stuff gets to england in 5 hrs,
> using a compass on a foggy night, there's a lot of coast to
> make 'numerous' beach heads.

And lots of ways to miss the landing areas entirely. Ever heard of
currents or wind? What you would wind up with is several landings none
with sufficient strength to hold what they take. Add to that the
problems with supply trying to locate the barges that landed in the
wrong place. Take a look at England's Channel coast sometime and see if
you can figure out how many bad places there are to beach.


> Any RN is dead when He's, Dorniers, Me-110's equiped with Nazi
> torpedoes with Me-109 cover, I'll toss in some Stuka's.
> Nazi's torpedoes worked, and what's RN using, searchlights to
> locate the barges at night, they is DOA. Even a ding-bat pilot
> could toast a RN ship with a torpedo as soon as it lights up.

Right, I'm sure you believe the Nazis sank a lot of RN at night from
the air. They had a hard enough time hitting slow moving cargo ships in
daylight. "World at War" had a rather amusing clip of them trying.

>
> If I was in command of Sea Lion, england would be conquered
> without doubt, fortunately your boyfriend Hitler wasn't interested,
> and ****ed around with england and under that cover, planned
> and assembled for attacking Russia.

Not if you can't come up with a plausible plan.
>
> Actually Dan I think you're right about that in a previous post.
> That's new to me, so I appreciate that insight, Hitler doing
> smoke and mirrors in Battle of Britain as Stalin wrings his ugly
> hands in delight as Europeans fight, especially given the treaty
> he had Hitler sign, no attacking for 10 years, hard to trust people,
> as he moves to Barbarossa, almost worked.
> Ken

"Almost worked?" Not even close. Take a look at what really happened.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > writes:

> On Mar 18, 10:48 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Toy tanks and play houses are a far cry from combat vehicles.
>>
>>
>>
>> > An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>> > Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>> > Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>> > No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Perhaps if there were production lines, no sealant or paint cure
>> times and the like there could have been "1000 barges a day made." Where
>> does the wood come from? Are you thinking they should have used fresh
>> cut wood? If they are motorized where do the engines come from? Combat
>> vehicles and aircraft had priority. If they aren't motorized how do they
>> get across the Channel? For that matter, how long would they take to get
>> across?
>>
>> The Higgins boats were far superior to anything the Nazis toyed with
>> for beach landings. They couldn't safely cross the Channel fast enough
>> to avoid detection and destruction.
>>
>> Let's assume in Tucker World® the Nazis could have amassed 30,000
>> barges and got them across the Channel. How many could beach at a time?
>> Other than offloading men and man portable supplies and weaponry what
>> can you get on the beach in rapid succession? The Nazis had no plans for
>> Mulberry equivalents so any vehicles would have to be off loaded onto
>> that beach. Let's see, you have men on the beach securing a beach head,
>> a beach clogged with barges, barges off shore waiting en masse, very
>> limited Nazi naval gun support (if any), no AAA on the beach etc. and,
>> assuming the landing is at dawn, a bunch of collisions between the
>> barges. I suppose an unopposed landing might succeed, but there's the
>> rub, the locals would be able to out man the Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't
>> be able to stop the RAF from banging them up a bit and the RN wasn't far
>> away.
>>
>> I'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
>> workmanship of your playhouses.
>
> How long does it take you to remove an engine?
> It takes me about 10 minutes, 5 if I don't take a break.
> I can do a 35 hp outboard myself, with no problem in about
> 3 minutes, including gas tank, done that as a kid.
> Pulling up a 50hp off a boat is pretty much my limit.
> So you assign a strong man to that task and send it back.
>
> Danelda, the Nazi's could mass produce V2 rockets, do ya
> really think mass producing 50 hp outboards motors would
> be a problem?
>
> So I mass produce barges, say 10'x40' from a forest (duh),
> and put a few 50's on it and my stuff gets to england in 5 hrs,
> using a compass on a foggy night, there's a lot of coast to
> make 'numerous' beach heads.
> Any RN is dead when He's, Dorniers, Me-110's equiped with Nazi
> torpedoes with Me-109 cover, I'll toss in some Stuka's.
> Nazi's torpedoes worked, and what's RN using, searchlights to
> locate the barges at night, they is DOA. Even a ding-bat pilot
> could toast a RN ship with a torpedo as soon as it lights up.
>
> If I was in command of Sea Lion, england would be conquered
> without doubt, fortunately your boyfriend Hitler wasn't interested,
> and ****ed around with england and under that cover, planned
> and assembled for attacking Russia.
>
> Actually Dan I think you're right about that in a previous post.
> That's new to me, so I appreciate that insight, Hitler doing
> smoke and mirrors in Battle of Britain as Stalin wrings his ugly
> hands in delight as Europeans fight, especially given the treaty
> he had Hitler sign, no attacking for 10 years, hard to trust people,
> as he moves to Barbarossa, almost worked.
> Ken

I'm sure Hitler would have loved you to death Ken, for your prompt
advice. Hint: the emphasis among the nazi elite was hardly efficiency.

[Alexander]

Chris wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, Alexander > wrote:
>
>> Japanese aircraft did a real job at
>> Pearl harbor on both anchored ships and fast moving destroyers in the
>> outer harbor at Pearl Harbor.
>
> 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.
>
> But the real question here is what the hell are you talking about with
> respect to "fast moving destroyers in the outer harbor at Pearl
> Harbor"? First of all, what is the "outer harbor at Pearl Harbor"?
> Second of all, please name the destroyers the IJN sank at Pearl
> Harbor. Then please note how many of them were moving.
>
> I anxiously await your no doubt well researched and footnoted
> response.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

I think you are well enough endowed with time to read up on Pearl Harbor
yourself. The outer Harbor is obviously past the antisub gates. There
were 3 or 4 hot Iron cans that made it past the gates. Still took hits.
You are close enough to Great Lakes Naval station to go pull up the
archived films of much of the attack. Do so and learn. There is a lot
more to Pearl Harbor then Ford Island and Baker Docks.

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"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

[Alexander]

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. No one in America wanted any part of that war.
The Idiot Wilson decided he needed some imperialism to beat Teddy
Roosevelt in the upcoming 1917 election. 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!

[Alexander]

Chris wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:19 pm, Alexander > wrote:
>
>> Did you
>> forget the massive beyond belief weapons of all kinds production of
>> Speer?
>
> I know that Speer managed to produce 0 useful Type XXI submarines, and
> when Germany needed to defend their own airspace, he managed the neat
> trick of producing a ton of fighters that were obsolete (Me109's
> certainly, and to a lesser extent FW190), and a small number of
> fighters that were beyond the bleeding edge- the engines of the Me262
> had such terrible reliability that the fighters weren't at all useful
> for Germany. What makes you think that they could magically fix these
> problems?

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.

>
>> If Germany had set its sights on England..without outside
>> help..England would have become toast.
>
> Not for at least a decade to build up a navy and air force capable of
> defeating the RN and starving Britain into submission.

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.

Without US or
> USSR support they would not have much hope of forcing Germany to
> change their government and remove Hitler, but by the same token, he
> would have no chance of winning either.

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.

It would be something similar
> to two centuries ago, during the struggle with Napoleon, when Britain
> needed continental allies to achieve victory, but could not be forced
> out by their enemy.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

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.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?

A name of which we do not see enough on Newsnet. In the past on
rec.heraldry he has been a source of endless mirth.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"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

[Alexander]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:48 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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.
>> Toy tanks and play houses are a far cry from combat vehicles.
>>
>>
>>
>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>>> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>>> Ken
>> Perhaps if there were production lines, no sealant or paint cure
>> times and the like there could have been "1000 barges a day made." Where
>> does the wood come from? Are you thinking they should have used fresh
>> cut wood? If they are motorized where do the engines come from? Combat
>> vehicles and aircraft had priority. If they aren't motorized how do they
>> get across the Channel? For that matter, how long would they take to get
>> across?
>>
>> The Higgins boats were far superior to anything the Nazis toyed with
>> for beach landings. They couldn't safely cross the Channel fast enough
>> to avoid detection and destruction.
>>
>> Let's assume in Tucker World® the Nazis could have amassed 30,000
>> barges and got them across the Channel. How many could beach at a time?
>> Other than offloading men and man portable supplies and weaponry what
>> can you get on the beach in rapid succession? The Nazis had no plans for
>> Mulberry equivalents so any vehicles would have to be off loaded onto
>> that beach. Let's see, you have men on the beach securing a beach head,
>> a beach clogged with barges, barges off shore waiting en masse, very
>> limited Nazi naval gun support (if any), no AAA on the beach etc. and,
>> assuming the landing is at dawn, a bunch of collisions between the
>> barges. I suppose an unopposed landing might succeed, but there's the
>> rub, the locals would be able to out man the Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't
>> be able to stop the RAF from banging them up a bit and the RN wasn't far
>> away.
>>
>> I'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
>> workmanship of your playhouses.
>
> How long does it take you to remove an engine?


Actually Kaiser of America built thousands of liberty ships out of
Fero-concrete. Diesel Engine dropped in minutes and they sailed convoy
across the Atlantic to England, Russia and later France. Cheap and very
fast to build. Could build them faster then they could be sunk. Although
reading their history..They were a bitch to sink.

> It takes me about 10 minutes, 5 if I don't take a break.
> I can do a 35 hp outboard myself, with no problem in about
> 3 minutes, including gas tank, done that as a kid.
> Pulling up a 50hp off a boat is pretty much my limit.
> So you assign a strong man to that task and send it back.
>
> Danelda, the Nazi's could mass produce V2 rockets, do ya
> really think mass producing 50 hp outboards motors would
> be a problem?
>
> So I mass produce barges, say 10'x40' from a forest (duh),
> and put a few 50's on it and my stuff gets to england in 5 hrs,
> using a compass on a foggy night, there's a lot of coast to
> make 'numerous' beach heads.
> Any RN is dead when He's, Dorniers, Me-110's equiped with Nazi
> torpedoes with Me-109 cover, I'll toss in some Stuka's.
> Nazi's torpedoes worked, and what's RN using, searchlights to
> locate the barges at night, they is DOA. Even a ding-bat pilot
> could toast a RN ship with a torpedo as soon as it lights up.
>
> If I was in command of Sea Lion, england would be conquered
> without doubt, fortunately your boyfriend Hitler wasn't interested,
> and ****ed around with england and under that cover, planned
> and assembled for attacking Russia.
>
> Actually Dan I think you're right about that in a previous post.
> That's new to me, so I appreciate that insight, Hitler doing
> smoke and mirrors in Battle of Britain as Stalin wrings his ugly
> hands in delight as Europeans fight, especially given the treaty
> he had Hitler sign, no attacking for 10 years, hard to trust people,
> as he moves to Barbarossa, almost worked.
> Ken

[Don Ocean[_2_]]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:23:18 -0500, 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. Checkmate. Do you really take the German general
>> staff as being amateurs at warfare? That has long been Englands
>> downfall. Underestimating others and overestimating themselves.
>
> Actually, for all their posturing, press releases, and post-war finger pointing
> that they were the Jedi Knights and that they only lost because of the Dead Guy
> That Nobody Liked, the German General Staff was pretty poor.
> (Let's see - 2 World Wars, 2 losses.)
> The never, ever got a handle on the idea of logistics.
> Coupling this with a grasp of Industrial Economy that was below that of
> Lemurs, and the overweening arrogance that was taught to them from their
> first Staff School on up - I don't think it was the Brits underestimating.
> There's a reason why the Germans fought in short campaigns followed by extended
> periods of quiescence. They did not ever have the industrial capacity, either in manufacturing,
> or, more importantly, raw materials, to make up losses while the fighting was going on.
> As soon as you take on opponents that won't kindly allow you a rest - The Soviet Union, the US, and, to a lesser
> extent, the British Empire, you were guaranteed to lose.
> (Some of their uniforms were kinda spiffy, though)
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> Failure is not an option
> It comes bundled with the system

There you go again. Overestimating your capabilities and underestimating
the competition. You are a fool. IUt was fools that ridded Merry auld
England of her Empire.

[Patriot]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>> In message
>> >, Ken
>> S. Tucker > writes
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>>> > wrote:
>>> 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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>>
>>> 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.
>> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>>
>> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
>> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>>
>> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
>> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
>> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
>> armoured division in being.
>>
>> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
>> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
>> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>>
>>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>>
>>> 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.
>> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
>> half-way across the Channel.
>>
>> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
>> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
>> German.
>>
>> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
>> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>> Paul
>
> 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

Iraq was a massive fools mistake. Afghanistan should have stayed a
standoff war.

[Alexander]

Dan wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 1:32 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>> > wrote:
>>> In message
>>> >, Ken
>>> S. Tucker > writes
>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> 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's one of maybe a dozen people, then. Why not just tell us his name?
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Croats? Whiskey tango foxtrot, interrogative?
>>>
>>> We certainly had a big deception plan going in Kent... in 1944 to create
>>> FUSAG and keep the Germans waiting in the Pas de Calais.
>>>
>>> As far as artillery went, *immediately* after Dunkirk - on 8 June - we
>>> had about 400 tanks, 420 field guns and 163 medium and heavy guns
>>> *immediately* available for use. We had fifteen infantry and one
>>> armoured division in being.
>>>
>>> Through June, the Navy brought back to the UK about another 200,000
>>> troops, and some of their artillery and vehicles. (Common myth - Dunkirk
>>> was by no means the end of the fighting in France)
>>>
>>>> The Brits, had a few rifles left after Dunkirk, 2 or 3.
>>> About 70,000 after the Army's needs had been met.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Move out at 10pm in your three-knot barges, and by 5am you're not even
>>> half-way across the Channel.
>>>
>>> You have, however, met and felt the fire of the Auxiliary Patrol, and by
>>> this point you're seeing destroyers by the dozen... and none of them
>>> German.
>>>
>>> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
>>> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>>> Paul
>>
>> 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
>
> When you locate a source for "hard, cold, logical analysis" feel free
> to get back to us.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Doubtful that you would understand such.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 18, 9:43*pm, Alexander > wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> 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...
>
> >> Oh yes, *and assuming they do land. *How on earth do they get over the
> >> Military Canal in a night?
>
> > As prisoners under escort on their way to a POW camp ?
>
> > After the few survivors wade ashore from the burning and
> > sinking barges I'd imagine surrender would seem a good option.
>
> The Germans that the limeys did capture usually escaped into the German
> underground railroad and went home. Only those in maximum security were
> not so lucky.
>
>
>
> > Keith
>
>

Or ended up in Canada. One made it "home" from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_That_Got_Away_%28film%29

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Don Ocean" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>

>>
>> 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.

Hand waving wont achieve that.

> Checkmate. Do you really take the German general staff as being amateurs
> at warfare?

The Kriegsmarine staff had no illusions about the chances of
success of any invasion. Admiral Raeder argued strongly that
any such invasion would be a costly failure.

This opinion was reinforced by the landing exercise carried
out off Boulogne by 50 barges in broad daylight. After travelling
less than a mile they were to run into the beach.

In ideal weather one barge capsized and sank, another lost its tow
and drifted out to sea, several managed to beach broadside on
to the waves making landing very hazardous. The barges were
very widely dispersed with many landing hundreds of metres
from their intended point

Only 50% of the troops managed to get out of the barges
and on to the beach in the hour allocated and 10% never got to
shore at all.

Now factoring in a 30 hour crossing instead of 1 hour , night time and
the tidal race in mid channel I think they'd have taken 20% casualties
without the British firing and the remainder would have been
scattered along the coast of Kent and East Sussex

> That has long been Englands downfall. Underestimating others and
> overestimating themselves.

The Luftwaffe confidently assured the Fuhrer that they could achieve
air superiority, they failed badly. Who underestimated whom I wonder.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

>
> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> Low skill labor, I could organize that.

Who would make the oars ?

> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
> Ken

I think its very nice that the asylum allows you access to the internet
but they really should take more care about your medication.

Keith

[Alexander]

Dan wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> But what ****un good is the that Island to Hitlers greater scheme,
>>> nothing, but we know now he made a strategic military error, and
>>> as Chruchill promised his bombers burned the black heart of Germany,
>>> that was very unpleasant to all who were involved.
>>> I request a polite response, as I gave.
>>> Ken
>>
>> You mean all those B17's, B24's, B25's, B26's etc were all Churchill's?
>> Don't forget the B29's. I have a few magazine clips showing thousands
>> of Aircraft at a time flying over Germany. And with US Markings. Some
>> how I do believe it was a Joint operation. I do wonder where all that
>> avgas came from?
>
> Not very good at history, are you? Dunkirk evacuation was 24 May - 4
> June 1940. The U.S. aircraft you mention didn't get to the UK until 1942
> and B-29 never operated from there. The Brits had been striking the
> Nazis for some time before the U.S. got there. As for your "magazine
> clips" do try to think for a bit, the U.S. flew in daylight, the UK flew
> at night. It was hard to photograph aircraft at night.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The US Army Airforce flew all flights both day and night for quite some
time. My comments regarding air flights were not too wrong as we
furnished both pilots and planes prior to Dunkirk. Congress passed a
special law allowing combat pilots to leave American soil and join the
RAF without losing American citizenship. Many Pilots went to Canada and
transferred to England from there. Pappy Boyington(US Marine) flew for
General Chenault under Chiang kchek(sic) as one example. As for the
Daylight vs Night flights..that setup was some time later. Check the
archives of the 5th Army Airforce.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 18, 10:23*pm, 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. Checkmate. Do you really take the German general
> staff as being amateurs at warfare? That has long been Englands
> downfall. Underestimating others and overestimating themselves.
>
>
>
> > Keith
>
>

Actually they were when it came to a cross-Channel invasion. Try the
various "Sea Lion" books and Warlimont's comments on the "planning"
that didn't go into that op. You get the impression it was beyond
their capabilities and certainly beyond Germany's. See OKW Directive
17.

da.mod.uk/defac/colleges/jscsc/.../CONF38_OKWdirectives_sealion.pdf

[Alexander]

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.
The point is really that the UK should learn from its past massive
mistakes and never get in this fix again.

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:

> The US Army Airforce flew all flights both day and night for quite some
> time.

That'll come as news to the RAF

> My comments regarding air flights were not too wrong as we furnished both
> pilots and planes prior to Dunkirk.

The British were required to pay for any aircraft they received
at this time in gold. The aircraft were shipped to Canada
and sent over the border from there. With the exception of the
F4 Wildcat the American fighters were regarded as second rate
and relegated to the ground attack role.


> Congress passed a special law allowing combat pilots to leave American
> soil and join the RAF without losing American citizenship.

Feel free to provide proof for this assertion.

> Many Pilots went to Canada and
> transferred to England from there. Pappy Boyington(US Marine) flew for
> General Chenault under Chiang kchek(sic) as one example.

A little confused as to geography as well as history I see.

Chiang Kai Shek was the leader of CHINA and Boyington
flew in CHINA not Britain.


> As for the Daylight vs Night flights..that setup was some time later.
> Check the archives of the 5th Army Airforce.
>

The 5th Airforce operated in the Phillipines, Australia and the south
pacific.
You really are confused aren't you.

Keith

[Alexander]

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

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.

[Don Ocean[_2_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan wrote:
>
>> The US Army Airforce flew all flights both day and night for quite
>> some time.
>
> That'll come as news to the RAF
>
>> My comments regarding air flights were not too wrong as we furnished
>> both pilots and planes prior to Dunkirk.
>
> The British were required to pay for any aircraft they received
> at this time in gold. The aircraft were shipped to Canada
> and sent over the border from there. With the exception of the
> F4 Wildcat the American fighters were regarded as second rate
> and relegated to the ground attack role.
>
>
>> Congress passed a special law allowing combat pilots to leave
>> American soil and join the RAF without losing American citizenship.
>
> Feel free to provide proof for this assertion.
>
>> Many Pilots went to Canada and
>> transferred to England from there. Pappy Boyington(US Marine) flew for
>> General Chenault under Chiang kchek(sic) as one example.
>
> A little confused as to geography as well as history I see.

Not a bit. I won't be telling you any jokes.. it would take days to
explain them to you.
>
> Chiang Kai Shek was the leader of CHINA and Boyington
> flew in CHINA not Britain.

Wow... you caught on.
>
>
>> As for the Daylight vs Night flights..that setup was some time later.
>> Check the archives of the 5th Army Airforce.
>>
>
> The 5th Airforce operated in the Phillipines, Australia and the south
> pacific.

You really really need to recheck your data.

> You really are confused aren't you.

Keith, your senility is overwhelming. I bow to your superior stupidity. ;-p
>
> Keith

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:36:26 -0500, Andrew Chaplin
> wrote:

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>
>> I think you need to re-examine the credentials of your Old Boy. He
>> wasn't related to Baron Castleshortt VC, was he?
>
>A name of which we do not see enough on Newsnet. In the past on
>rec.heraldry he has been a source of endless mirth.

He rates his own Wikki article, it's a little amusing. (under
James Shortt)


Peter Skelton

[Jim Wilkins]

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.

jsw

[Jack Linthicum]

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.
>
> jsw

Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
were at bombing ships in the open sea.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:49:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>Ken

If all it took was barges you might be right.

If the barge production was unhindered you might be right.

If the barges got where they were going you might be right.

But all those "if's" (and a whole lot more) mean that the project was
never really feasible.

Ever wonder how the Allies supplied themselves after D-Day? They
didn't have any functioning ports (and it's unlikely the Germans would
have had any). So how did they do it? Research that a bit and you'll
see that landing the invasion force is the "tip of the spear" but if
there's no "haft" behind it you just generate casualties.

Another interesting case study might be the invasion of Guadalcanal.
Look at our problems; look at the Japanese problems

Once again, amatueurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 8:47*am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:49:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
> >Low skill labor, I could organize that.
> >Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
> >No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
> >Ken
>
> If all it took was barges you might be right.
>
> If the barge production was unhindered you might be right.
>
> If the barges got where they were going you might be right.
>
> But all those "if's" (and a whole lot more) mean that the project was
> never really feasible.
>
> Ever wonder how the Allies supplied themselves after D-Day? *They
> didn't have any functioning ports (and it's unlikely the Germans would
> have had any). *So how did they do it? *Research that a bit and you'll
> see that landing the invasion force is the "tip of the spear" but if
> there's no "haft" behind it you just generate casualties.
>
> Another interesting case study might be the invasion of Guadalcanal.
> Look at our problems; look at the Japanese problems
>
> Once again, amatueurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.

Look up "Mulberry"

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

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?

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"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

<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

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Don Ocean" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alexander" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> The US Army Airforce flew all flights both day and night for quite some
>>> time.
>>
>> That'll come as news to the RAF
>>
>>> My comments regarding air flights were not too wrong as we furnished
>>> both pilots and planes prior to Dunkirk.
>>
>> The British were required to pay for any aircraft they received
>> at this time in gold. The aircraft were shipped to Canada
>> and sent over the border from there. With the exception of the
>> F4 Wildcat the American fighters were regarded as second rate
>> and relegated to the ground attack role.
>>
>>
>>> Congress passed a special law allowing combat pilots to leave American
>>> soil and join the RAF without losing American citizenship.
>>
>> Feel free to provide proof for this assertion.
>>
>>> Many Pilots went to Canada and
>>> transferred to England from there. Pappy Boyington(US Marine) flew for
>>> General Chenault under Chiang kchek(sic) as one example.
>>
>> A little confused as to geography as well as history I see.
>
> Not a bit. I won't be telling you any jokes.. it would take days to
> explain them to you.
>>
>> Chiang Kai Shek was the leader of CHINA and Boyington
>> flew in CHINA not Britain.
>
> Wow... you caught on.
>>
>>
>>> As for the Daylight vs Night flights..that setup was some time later.
>>> Check the archives of the 5th Army Airforce.
>>>
>>
>> The 5th Airforce operated in the Phillipines, Australia and the south
>> pacific.
>
> You really really need to recheck your data.
>

http://www.yokota.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6824

Pot Kettle Black


>> You really are confused aren't you.
>
> Keith, your senility is overwhelming. I bow to your superior stupidity.
> ;-p

Coming from the man who cant tell the difference between the 5th and
8th air forces or England and China this is funny

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 8:55*am, 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?

As I said in another response to this question "look up 'Mulberry'"

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), 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.
>>
>> jsw
>
>Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
>were at bombing ships in the open sea.

Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a
comment about defending aircraft.

You really must start reading the stuff you respond to.


Peter Skelton

[Dan[_12_]]

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.

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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>
> Who would make the oars ?
>
>> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>> Ken
>
> I think its very nice that the asylum allows you access to the internet
> but they really should take more care about your medication.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
Can you imagine 30,000 underpowered barges drifting around the
Channel at night with the RN running laps through the herd swamping
them for sport? No need to shoot, just raise a wake.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 9:35*am, Peter Skelton > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), 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.
>
> >> jsw
>
> >Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and *HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
> >were at bombing ships in the open sea.
>
> Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a
> comment about defending aircraft.
>
> You really must start reading the stuff you respond to.
>
> Peter Skelton

And the aircraft defending the Prinzu Walsu and Repulsu?

I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>
>> Who would make the oars ?
>>
>>> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>>> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>>> Ken
>>
>> I think its very nice that the asylum allows you access to the internet
>> but they really should take more care about your medication.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
> Can you imagine 30,000 underpowered barges drifting around the Channel
> at night with the RN running laps through the herd swamping them for
> sport? No need to shoot, just raise a wake.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

When I lived in Kent we used to watch with amusement the
launching of boats built by people like Ken. The idea that
building a sea going boat can be done just as easily as
building a garden shed leads to rapid disillusionment.

We used to take bets on how far they would get before sinking.
the record was 10 miles, most started to disintegrate as soon
as they left the beach. Fortunately for them the local coastguard
volunteers would usually call the RNLI and a lifeboat would
pick them up.

Keith

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An army of 100,000 could easily turn out 1000 barges a day!
>>>> Low skill labor, I could organize that.
>>>
>>> Who would make the oars ?
>>>
>>>> Use math, 30,000/month, disposable on the beach of choice.
>>>> No hoax, brits would "likely" be overwhelmed.
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>> I think its very nice that the asylum allows you access to the internet
>>> but they really should take more care about your medication.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Can you imagine 30,000 underpowered barges drifting around the
>> Channel at night with the RN running laps through the herd swamping
>> them for sport? No need to shoot, just raise a wake.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
> When I lived in Kent we used to watch with amusement the
> launching of boats built by people like Ken. The idea that
> building a sea going boat can be done just as easily as
> building a garden shed leads to rapid disillusionment.
>
> We used to take bets on how far they would get before sinking.
> the record was 10 miles, most started to disintegrate as soon
> as they left the beach. Fortunately for them the local coastguard
> volunteers would usually call the RNLI and a lifeboat would
> pick them up.
>
> Keith

If you rescue them they will reproduce and vote.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chris]

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

[Chris]

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

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:17 am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--
> so-tickle-me wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > writes:
>>> On Mar 18, 10:48 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>>>> 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'm sure you can organize the low skilled labour. I base that on the
>>>> workmanship of your playhouses.
>
> Military is all about organizing draftees (low skilled labor),
> that's how people like me create employment opportunity
> for people like you Dan

Not to put too fine a point on things neither your country nor mine
has had a draft for decades. Then again, you have no military experience
so you wouldn't understand.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

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.
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.
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.
Ken

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>, Ken
S. Tucker > writes
>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

Not in 1940. Fuzing problems and depth-keeping difficulties nearly as
bad as those of US weapons, though fixed much more urgently.

>any brit stuff in
>the
>channel would be luftwaffe fodder, japs proved that.

Unfortunately the Luftwaffe of 1940 lacked either AP bombs for attacking
ships, or air-dropped torpedo capability. I think there was one squadron
of German torpedo-bombers in 1940, and they were He115 seaplanes... not
exactly fast, lethal death-dealers.

It was a Navy role, not a Luftwaffe task (the Luftwaffe didn't demand an
airborne torpedo until 1942) and the torpedoes, frankly, sucked: in
October 1939 52 were dropped in an exercise with 26 failures. Production
of the F5 torpedo ran at an awe-inspiring five per month in 1939, and
was cancelled altogether in the spring of 1940; then restarted, slowly,
later that year.

>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.

Which is why that wasn't the plan.

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

Paul J. Adam

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 19, 8:32*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> ...
>
> Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and *HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
> were at bombing ships in the open sea.

No air cover. The Type 97 and 99 land-based bombers weren't nearly as
effective on shipping in the Southwest Pacific if they were
intercepted.

Without air cover even Musashi and Yamato with their upgraded AA and
escorts were sunk at sea by small carrier-based bombers without heavy
losses.

jsw

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Alexander
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> The Luftwaffe was pretty poor at sinking ships in 1940.
>
>Stukas did a very credible job.

Not really, no: the Stukas needed a lot of sorties. Eventually, when
ships were running out of ammunition, they became more vulnerable; but
Stukas couldn't quickly or reliably sink many ships.
>
> 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.

Which would still be in place: the Luftwaffe can't reach past London.

>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.

The Japanese had trained ruthlessly to sink ships underway at sea. The
Germans hadn't. So, what the Japanese could do in 1941 tells us very
little about the Luftwaffe's capability.

The Germans couldn't keep the RN from evacuating Norway or Dunkirk or
Crete. More to the point, the Germans sent an amphibious force to
Crete... and they were stopped by the RN, despite total Luftwaffe air
superiority. Why will the troops get through to Britain when they
couldn't get to Crete?

>You also seem to forget that Hitler himself ordered a stand down at
>Dunkirk allowing you to get off that beach. His troops could well have
>slaughtered the English and French troops to a man.

Of course he did. This masterpiece of Teutonic inspiration won him the
war...

....oh, it didn't?

Curious. Maybe there's more than

>Hell, even Argentina made some good scores against the mighty Royal
>Navy.

Which Navy was out and fighting, and which spent the war hiding in port?

Which Navy won, and which lost?


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

Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Alexander
> writes
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> 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.
>
>If the ports are over run who refuels, rearms the ships that are now
>toothless.

So you have to capture Portsmouth, Dover, Harwich, Hull and Scapa all in
the first day of the war?

Going to be an... interesting task.

>Germany do a helluva a job resupplying their troops megamiles away in
>Russia.

That "helluva job" had the front lines running out of fuel, ammunition
and spare parts even in 1941, and the winter clothing never did make it
through. The Germans never did get a grip on logistics.

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

Paul J. Adam

[Alan Dicey]

Bill Kambic wrote:

>
> 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?
>

Mulberry harbours
http://www.combinedops.com/Mulberry%20Harbours.htm

and PLUTO
http://www.combinedops.com/pluto.htm

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> ...
> I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
> warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers.

They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.

From "Guadalcanal Diary"
"I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
they passed by."

One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
lost.

So you were a CIA analyst???

jsw

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

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?

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 12:58*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message >, Alexander
> > writes
>
> >Andrew Swallow wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> >If the ports are over run who refuels, rearms the ships that are now
> >toothless.
>
> So you have to capture Portsmouth, Dover, Harwich, Hull and Scapa all in
> the first day of the war?
>
> Going to be an... interesting task.
>
> >Germany do a helluva a job resupplying their troops megamiles away in
> >Russia.
>
> That "helluva job" had the front lines running out of fuel, ammunition
> and spare parts even in 1941, and the winter clothing never did make it
> through. The Germans never did get a grip on logistics.
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

Out of Warlimont's "memoirs", a bit of revelation. "Since the war the
results of a number of high-level studies conducted by the Luftwaffe
towards the end of the thirties have been published; all led to the
conclusion that in all probability the Luftwaffe, even with the
support of the Navy, would not be able to bring about the capitulation
of the British Isles--add all this up and it is clear that the
officers at the highest levels of the OKW were misled and deceived.
Hitler at least must have been fully briefed by Goring on the
limitations to the capabilities of the Luftwaffe."

He likes to duck the responsibility for not knowing about these
studies.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Mar 19, 8:55*am, 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?
>
>As I said in another response to this question "look up 'Mulberry'"

And, again, I invite you to look at the rest of the picture.

[Ken S. Tucker]

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.
Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).

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,
A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

I hear Hitler didn't trust Stalin, and figured Stalin would attack
Germany if Germany attacked England, who can you trust?
(in the good old days).
Hitler was more emotionally involved with strengthening the
Eastern front than attacking a ****y little island, as detailed
in Mein Kampf.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
> > warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers..
>
> They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
> neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
> the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.
>
> From "Guadalcanal Diary"
> "I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
> attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
> remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
> streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
> warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
> they passed by."
>
> One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
> lost.
>
> So you were a CIA analyst???
>
> jsw

What does being a CIA analyst have to do with the ships that were
sunk? I saw a movie at OCS on the superiority of the Japanese at night
fighting that didn't bother to mention that a burning ship provided
light for their attack and precluded the Allies seeing that attack as
it developed.

By the way, which of these battles featured Japanese aircraft sinking
"shipping"?

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

>
> 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.
> 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.

Air superiority did not exist. During July 1940 the Luftwaffe made a
series of attacks on channel convoys, the results were disappointing.
Not only did they fail to achieve any serious impact on the convoys
but they suffered serious losses.

CASUALTIES FOR JULY

R.A.F. Fighter Command

Hurricane: 33 destroyed, 17 damaged
Pilots: 23 killed, 0 missing, 11 wounded

Spitfire: 34 destroyed, 24 damaged
Pilots: 25 killed, 0 missing, 9 wounded

Blenheim: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
Crew: 9 killed, 0 missing, 1 wounded

Defiant: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged
Crew: 10 killed, 0 missing, 2 wounded

TOTAL AIRCRAFT: 77 destroyed, 43 damaged
TOTAL PERSONNEL: 67 killed, 0 missing, 23 wounded

The Luftwaffe
Dornier Do 17: 39 destroyed, 13 damaged
Personnel: 30 killed, 74 missing, 19 wounded

Heinkel He 111: 32 destroyed, 3 damaged
Personnel: 52 killed, 85 missing, 6 wounded

Junkers Ju 88: 39 destroyed, 11 damaged
Personnel: 52 killed, 67 missing, 11 wounded

Junkers Ju 87: 13 destroyed, 11 damaged
Personnel: 10 killed, 12 missing, 3 wounded

Messerschmitt Bf 109: 48 destroyed, 14 damaged
Personnel: 17 killed, 14 missing, 13 wounded

Messerschmitt Bf 110: 18 destroyed, 4 damaged
Personnel: 13 killed, 17 missing, 2 wounded

Other: 27 destroyed, 1 damaged
Personnel: 19 killed, 33 missing, 15 wounded

TOTAL AIRCRAFT: 216 destroyed, 57 damaged
TOTAL PERSONNEL: 193 killed, 302 missing, 69 wounded
Peter G. Cooksley The Battle of Britain Ian Allan 1990

As for the barges the RAF simply attacked them in port.
Many were sunk at anchor which caused significant damage
to the German war economy.

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
> > warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers..
>
> They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
> neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
> the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.
>
> From "Guadalcanal Diary"
> "I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
> attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
> remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
> streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
> warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
> they passed by."
>
> One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
> lost.
>
> So you were a CIA analyst???
>
> jsw

Atlanta, Chicago, Canberra, Quincy, Vincennes and Juneau were
torpedoed. What is your expertise?

The torpedoes were the Type 93, a six thousand pound bulk launched
from a surface ship.

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

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.

Do the math.


> 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

> 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 ?


Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

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?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_6_35/ai_110459247/

[Bill Shatzer[_2_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> The 3 destroyers 'sunk' at Pearl Harbor were all in dry dock at the
> time and were repaired and returned to service.

To be strictly accurate, the Cassin and Downes weren't exactly repaired.

Their machinery was salvaged and installed in completely new hulls and
upper works.

The Navy retained the former names and the ship numbers but they were
effectively new ships.

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message
>, Ken
>S. Tucker > writes
>>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
>
>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?

I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct.



Peter Skelton

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 3:09*pm, Peter Skelton > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>
> > wrote:
> >In message
> >, Ken
> >S. Tucker > writes
> >>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
>
> >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?
>
> I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct.
>
> Peter Skelton

http://www.uboat.net/technical/torpedoes.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_WWII.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

[Dean]

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.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 19, 3:32*pm, 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.

Something that lasted until July 1.

"The Germans had so thoroughly wrecked and mined the port of Cherbourg
that Hitler awarded the Knight's Cross to Rear Admiral Walter Hennecke
the day after he surrendered for "a feat unprecedented in the annals
of coastal defense." The port was not brought into limited use until
the middle of August; the first ships were able to use the harbor in
late July. Nevertheless, the Germans had sustained a major defeat, as
a result of a rapid Allied buildup on their western flank and Hitler's
rigid orders. General Friedrich Dollman, commanding the German Seventh
Army, died of a heart attack on June 28, having just been informed of
a court martial pending as a result of the capture of Cherbourg."

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

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>, Ken
S. Tucker > writes
>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).

And they brought how many motor vehicles with them?

Strangely, life has changed just a little since then...
>
>Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
>impair a Brit counter-attack,

At seven tons each, you're not going to get many 88s across. Nor are you
going to move them very far. And the shells are heavy, too: how do you
plan to keep the guns fed?

>and once the Nazi's get a farmers
>field to do Me-109's,

A farmer's field that grows 7.92mm and 20mm ammunition, and has aviation
fuel bubbling from a convenient spring? That's colonised by a tribe of
nomadic fitters and mechanics, who have spares and parts available?

If you don't have all of that, you don't have a base and you can't turn
aircraft around.

>A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

Stukas. Okay, so you're also bringing bombs for them across and... what?
Hand-carrying them out of the barges, across the beaches, to the fields
where they get hung on the Stukas?

>Hitler was more emotionally involved with strengthening the
>Eastern front than attacking a ****y little island, as detailed
>in Mein Kampf.

And see how much good it did him.

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

Paul J. Adam

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"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.

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

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