The Superior King Tiger

[robert arndt]

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.
Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.
You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
>http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
>Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
>Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
>better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
>engagements with the King Tiger.
>Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
>problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
>Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
>outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
>produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
>enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
>numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
>equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
>You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
>how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
>machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
>the war was lost.
>You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
>actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
>AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
>IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
>series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
>Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
>And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
>shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
>degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
>and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
>No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
>puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
>sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
>You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
>temporarily shut you up.
>
>Rob

Please note this is a military aviation NG, not a place for you to crow about
the "accomplisments" of a failed system. I can't believe you are bragging about
the Nazis "laying waste" to their neighbours.You are neither an expert on
military aviation or armour, nor have you ever served in any military.

Please throw your tantrums elsewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denyav]

>No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
>puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
>sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!

Do you mean "historical" US victories in
Grenada,Panama,Iraq,Somalia,Serbia,Afghanistan and Nowhereistan?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
>Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
>Firefly British conversion).

Hence the way it won the war...?

If it's too heavy, too unreliable, too thirsty and too hard to produce,
it's a loser even if the handful that make it into combat are
individually dangerous.

>Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
>problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
>Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
>outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

A *good* design would have taken more account of those problems, rather
than merely wishing them away. Indeed, the Tiger II comes under the
heading of "losing" or "failed" designs precisely because it failed to
cope with the reality of its situation.

>There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
>numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
>equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

And if a bull had an udder it would be a cow. But precisely because the
Tiger II was a heavy, complex, expensive and thirsty beast, it couldn't
be built in numbers, moved to the fight, or kept in fuel and ammo while
fighting.

>You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
>how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
>machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
>the war was lost.

And despite those incredible machines, they still lost the war. Funny,
that.

>IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
>series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
>Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

Oh, please. Your next paragraph suggests that these German tanks are
barely superior to Soviet-era armour.

>And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
>shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
>degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
>and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

I'll take that fight if I have to. I'll certainly take proven equipment
in experienced hands over a force that can't afford to buy new kit,
can't afford to pay its troops and can't maintain what it has.

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test. If you rely on
"well, the Russian tanks might be okay when they're on home ground
fighting outside their capital city with total air supremacy" then they
aren't really that good, are they?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Krztalizer]

Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> Firefly British conversion).

....as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[DavidG35]

hahahaha That was a good one!

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
next?
> Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?
>
>

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>>
>> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
>> Firefly British conversion).
>
>...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
>not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
>consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
>high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
>fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
>their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
>they ran out of gas.
>
>Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
>really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what a wonder
weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it really was?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

First of all, are you insane?

What is with you? Do you sit up at night and wish Hitler had won or
something?

Anyway....

> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
> better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
> engagements with the King Tiger.

And yet, at the end of the day, all those mass-produced-pieces-of-****
managed to beat the crap out of just about anything that was thrown at them.
What does that say about Germany?

> Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
> problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
> Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
> outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

Isn't that an indication of the overwhelming stupidity of the German war
planners? Here they were, using limited time and resources building an
enormously thirsty, complex and maintenence-intensive piece of equipment
while in the midst of a fuel shortage and lack of crewmen to operate and fix
these beasts properly; thus ensuring that whatever few made it out of the
factory would not be used to their full operational potential, then promptly
break down with no hope of repair.

Yep, it sure was a recipe for success.

Perhaps the Germans would have been far better advised at that point to
build smaller, cheaper and easier to operate tanks in greater quantities, so
that maybe they would actually be around for more than one fight. I'm sure
that with their obvious technical prowess, they would have been able to
construct a simple, light tank that would have been slightly better than the
Sherman (which is really all it had to be), and could be produced in good
enough numbers to close the tank gap to maybe 5-to-1, and be user friendly
enough that inexperienced tank crews could effectively operate it. Now that
could have made a real difference.

Then again, that is just not the German style. Simplicity and
user-friendly-ness are not exactly on the top of their list; why build
something semi-practical when you can build a crazy, over-engineered
behemouth for the world to marvel at? As the owner of three Mercedes-Benz
auto's I can personally attest to this philosophy. Only a german would
design a car that has the power doorlocks somehow routed through the
transmission. Or make it so that if you want to replace a gearshift knob,
you have to take the entire transmission out.


> Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
> produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
> enemy armor engaged.

And exactly how much Allied armor, percentage-wise, did 1,800 tanks engage?
My guess is that it's in the single digits.

> There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
> numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
> equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

But that's the point; they were a hopeless endevor. They were certainly fine
machines for the time; nobody really denies that. And given a few more years
of development to work out all of the bugs, and a larger industrial base to
produce more of them, and a better infrastructure and resupply system to
keep them fueled, and more trained specialist mechanics to keep them
repaired, and more trained crews to operate them, and a better rail system
to get them around, and an overall better tactical doctorine, then yes, they
would have kicked some serious ass.

But they didn't.

> You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
> how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
> machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
> the war was lost.

Yep, they kept fighting...for Hitler...even when they knew it was over. How
admirable.

> You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
> actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
> AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.

Absolutely. But it was a fools errand. The Germans wasted time and resources
just so they could have bragging rights on the baddest tank around.

> IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
> series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
> Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard one
person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if somewhat
overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's are
totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any
weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1 series
has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank than
the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it fires
a better round. Period. You need to get over it.

As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is probably
better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will fly
before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from the
USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their
list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last' attitude
to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use the
stuff at some point.

> And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
> shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
> degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
> and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the hell....

But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario you
just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for. And
you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority before
sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US tactical
doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And the
only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well maybe
it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.

> No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
> puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
> sand-dwelling conscripts.

LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the modern
Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
globe. Period. It's not even close.

Whom do you suggest we attack next? Germany? LOL......

> Most impressive- NOT!
> You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
> temporarily shut you up.

Hahaaa.... so what's it like feeling so inadequate and bitter that you need
make crazy and inflammatory posts on usenet just so that people pay
attention to you?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: Chad Irby
> >Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> >>
> >> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> >> Firefly British conversion).
> >
> >...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
> >not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
> >consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
> >high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
> >fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
> >their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
> >they ran out of gas.
> >
> >Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
> >really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.
>
> Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
> a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
> really was?

Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

<http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
(snip)

> LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard one
> person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if
somewhat
> overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's are
> totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any
> weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1 series
> has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
> measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank
than
> the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it
fires
> a better round. Period. You need to get over it.
>
> As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is probably
> better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will
fly
> before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from
the
> USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
> adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
> priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their
> list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last' attitude
> to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use
the
> stuff at some point.

Challenger II?

> > And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
> > shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
> > degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
> > and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
>
> One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the hell....
>
> But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario you
> just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for.
And
> you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority
before
> sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US
tactical
> doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And the
> only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well
maybe
> it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.
>
> > No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
> > puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
> > sand-dwelling conscripts.
>
> LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the modern
> Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
> forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
> globe. Period. It's not even close.

Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now.

:(

Tanks and all.

John

[David E. Powell]

"DavidG35" > wrote in message
news:f7Wmc.85177$Jy3.21686@fed1read03...
> hahahaha That was a good one!

That would shake stuff up - Knit one, pearl two, FIRE IN THE HOLE! FOOM!

> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
> next?
> > Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about
nebelwerfers?

[David E. Powell]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

SNIP

> Rob

Um, what does this have to do with military aviation? Other than the
military aviation of the Allies hurting German tank production?

[David E. Powell]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
> > >From: Chad Irby
> > >Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >In article >,
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> > >>
> > >> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> > >> Firefly British conversion).
> > >
> > >...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
> > >not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
> > >consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
> > >high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
> > >fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs,
destroying
> > >their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them
after
> > >they ran out of gas.
> > >
> > >Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
> > >really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and
support.
> >
> > Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
> > a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
> > really was?
>
> Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
> time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
> might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
> often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
> time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
> and resources that they needed in other places.
>
> A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
> with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
> (the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
> tons of weight in the damned thing.
>
> Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
> Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
> couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
> were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
> war).
>
> <http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm>

I wonder what the rough field performance was? Max speed for mobile warfare?

> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>> Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
>> forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
>> globe. Period. It's not even close.
>

In the eve of the most important paradigm shift in the warfare since the
invention of gun powder its more a liability than an asset.
You might want to use your current military assets agressively before paradigm
shift (while they are still useful) to streghten your positions,but if your
peer competitor is very good on setting up a "Global Trap" for you and might
force you to waste your very limited resources for nothing.
(Any similarities with Brzezinskis' "Afghanistan Trap" are of course purely
coincidental)
As far as I can see, as paradigm shift nears,US administrations are getting
more nervous and aggressive and making even more mistakes
Thats so simple..

[L'acrobat]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
next?
> Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY SUPERIOR
TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
t...
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> (snip)
>
> > LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard
one
> > person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if
> somewhat
> > overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's
are
> > totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any
> > weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1
series
> > has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
> > measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank
> than
> > the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it
> fires
> > a better round. Period. You need to get over it.
> >
> > As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is
probably
> > better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will
> fly
> > before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from
> the
> > USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
> > adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
> > priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their
> > list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last'
attitude
> > to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use
> the
> > stuff at some point.
>
> Challenger II?

To most of the EU, buying big-ticket items from the Brits is pretty much the
same as buying from the USA. Great Britian is not a full EU participant, and
(smartly) doesn't plan to be anytime soon.

But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.

>
> > > And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
> > > shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
> > > degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
> > > and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
> >
> > One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the
hell....
> >
> > But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario
you
> > just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for.
> And
> > you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority
> before
> > sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US
> tactical
> > doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And
the
> > only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well
> maybe
> > it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.
> >
> > > No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
> > > puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
> > > sand-dwelling conscripts.
> >
> > LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the
modern
> > Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our
armed
> > forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on
the
> > globe. Period. It's not even close.
>
> Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now.
>

Yeah, we're losing tank battles left and right over there.

I said 'armed forces' vs. other 'armed forces', which is what the Ghost of
Hitler (aka Robert Arndt) posted as a hypothetical in the first place. USA
vs. Russia. Or anyone else for that matter; there isn't a country in the
world that can match the US military.

The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
anyway.

But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a
wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.

[Moramarth]

In article >, David
E. Powell > writes
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
>> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
>SNIP
>
>> Rob
>
>Um, what does this have to do with military aviation? Other than the
>military aviation of the Allies hurting German tank production?
Or Allied military aviation hurting German tanks. The answer to the
King Tiger was the rocket-firing Typhoon...
>
Regards,
>
>
>

--
Moramarth

[B2431]

>From: "L'acrobat"

>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
>next?
>> Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?
>
>Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY SUPERIOR
>TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off.

Invented, no doubt, by the Waffen SS special scientists?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>

> You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
> actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
> AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.

Sure but the Wehrmacht had less than 500 of them. The Western allies
alone had more than 40,000 tanks. Most Allied soldiers
never saw a King Tiger.

Keith

[Yama]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
> better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
> engagements with the King Tiger.

Ah, so King Tiger is a TANK. I thought it was a fruit. Largest lemon in the
world, to be precise.

[Moramarth]

In article >, B2431
> writes
>>From: "L'acrobat"
>
>>
>>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>>> Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
>>next?
>>> Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?
>>
>>Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY SUPERIOR
>>TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off.
>
>Invented, no doubt, by the Waffen SS special scientists?
No, it was a Waffen SS field skill. They developed DPM camouflage
clothing by embroidering their own uniforms... :)
>
Cheers,
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

--
Moramarth

[Scott Ferrin]

>And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
>Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.


I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
the Middle East. . .

[John Mullen]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> t...
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > (snip)
> >
> > > LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard
> one
> > > person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if
> > somewhat
> > > overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's
> are
> > > totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding
any
> > > weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1
> series
> > > has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
> > > measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better
tank
> > than
> > > the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it
> > fires
> > > a better round. Period. You need to get over it.
> > >
> > > As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is
> probably
> > > better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs
will
> > fly
> > > before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items
from
> > the
> > > USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
> > > adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
> > > priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of
their
> > > list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last'
> attitude
> > > to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to
use
> > the
> > > stuff at some point.
> >
> > Challenger II?
>
> To most of the EU, buying big-ticket items from the Brits is pretty much
the
> same as buying from the USA. Great Britian is not a full EU participant,
and
> (smartly) doesn't plan to be anytime soon.
>
> But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
>
> >
> > > > And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
> > > > shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
> > > > degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
> > > > and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
> > >
> > > One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the
> hell....
> > >
> > > But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario
> you
> > > just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed
for.
> > And
> > > you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority
> > before
> > > sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US
> > tactical
> > > doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And
> the
> > > only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well
> > maybe
> > > it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.
> > >
> > > > No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to
attacking
> > > > puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
> > > > sand-dwelling conscripts.
> > >
> > > LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the
> modern
> > > Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our
> armed
> > > forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on
> the
> > > globe. Period. It's not even close.
> >
> > Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now.
> >
>
> Yeah, we're losing tank battles left and right over there.
>
> I said 'armed forces' vs. other 'armed forces', which is what the Ghost of
> Hitler (aka Robert Arndt) posted as a hypothetical in the first place. USA
> vs. Russia. Or anyone else for that matter; there isn't a country in the
> world that can match the US military.
>
> The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
> weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could
> have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
you
> are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
> anyway.

I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.
2.. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
There is no established authority in Iraq, nor is there any political
leadership, therefore I would not say 'insurgent' is the right word at all.

'A very short time'? Bwah ha ha ha!

So what would qualify as a long time in your world? Over a year seems likea
long time to me, and I am sure to the people in Iraq. 12 hours? My ass.

> But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a
> wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
> change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.

It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want to
provoke laughter that is.

Bogged down in Iraq. Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs. Losing what?
2 soldiers a day, against an enemy which was declared defeated a year ago?

I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.

John

[Brett]

"John Mullen" > wrote:
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message

[..]

> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
could
> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
> you
> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
> > anyway.
>
> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
>
> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> government.

Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com

1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not recognize
it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:


>Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
>Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
>couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
>were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
>war).
>

Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
pleasure of plugging it.

8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really going to
mess up someones day.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 02:35:18 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

>First of all, are you insane?
>
>What is with you? Do you sit up at night and wish Hitler had won or
>something?
>

The idiot clearly does, which is why he and his aussie kameraden is
consigned to my sin bin.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 13:55:58 +0300, "Yama" > wrote:

>

>
>Ah, so King Tiger is a TANK. I thought it was a fruit. Largest lemon in the
>world, to be precise.

For a true 'new underwear required' heavy tank of that period .

The JS-7 prototype would be rather hard to be disregard. Thank <Insert your
deity here> that the russian railway system wasnt upto transporting them.



greg


--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> In the eve of the most important paradigm shift in the warfare since the
> invention of gun powder its more a liability than an asset.
> You might want to use your current military assets agressively before
> paradigm
> shift (while they are still useful) to streghten your positions,but if your
> peer competitor is very good on setting up a "Global Trap" for you and might
> force you to waste your very limited resources for nothing.

....except that the one nation in the world with the capability of taking
advantage of that paradigm shift is... well, the US, which is currently
redesigning the entire US military to take that jump.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"L'acrobat" > wrote:

> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today.
> > What's next? Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint
> > about nebelwerfers?
>
> Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY
> SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off.

Well, ever since the invention of the entire *art* of needlepoint in
1938 Berlin, the US has done nothing except use the skills imported in
the postwar "Project Latchhook," where many German sewing scientists
were imported to create the unit patches for what became NASA.

Of course, everyone knows about the WWII "Project Silverneedle," an
early attempt at high-speed crosstitching that would have given the
German armed forces a large number of high-durability wall hangings for
their occupation of England and New York.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> >And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
> >Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.
>
> I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
> assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
> the Middle East. . .

The fun part would be when the commanders realize that a few hundred
*thousand* US civilians would qualify as "snipers" in the Soviet armed
forces.

We have people who buy mile-range rifles for *fun*.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > wrote:

> On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
> >Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
> >couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
> >were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
> >war).
>
> Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
> pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
> pleasure of plugging it.
>
> 8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really
> going to mess up someones day.

The problem was that the thing had enough armor on it to shrug off most
light/medium rockets, and would certainly have been tailed closely by a
flock of AAA in the "Whirlwind" category. Of course, it was big enough
to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs. Wouldn't you like
to have some film of *that* little scenario?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>.except that the one nation in the world with the capability of taking
>advantage of that paradigm shift is... well, the US, which is currently
>redesigning the entire US military to take that jump.

Unfortunately not,the new paradigm shift favors scientificaly and
technologically savvy nations, not the nations with the existing defense
infrastructure.
In other words "advanced nations" will benefit from the paradigm shift,not
"advanced countries".
US has to do much more than preparing population for paradigm change by using
PSYOPs.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't
heard
> > one
> > > > person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if
> > > somewhat
> > > > overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the
Leo's
> > are
> > > > totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding
> any
> > > > weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1
> > series
> > > > has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
> > > > measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better
> tank
> > > than
> > > > the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and
it
> > > fires
> > > > a better round. Period. You need to get over it.
> > > >
> > > > As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is
> > probably
> > > > better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs
> will
> > > fly
> > > > before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items
> from
> > > the
> > > > USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
> > > > adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
> > > > priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of
> their
> > > > list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last'
> > attitude
> > > > to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to
> use
> > > the
> > > > stuff at some point.
> > >
> > > Challenger II?
> >
> > To most of the EU, buying big-ticket items from the Brits is pretty much
> the
> > same as buying from the USA. Great Britian is not a full EU participant,
> and
> > (smartly) doesn't plan to be anytime soon.
> >
> > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
> >
> > >
> > > > > And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
> > > > > shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
> > > > > degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying
about
> > > > > and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
> > > >
> > > > One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the
> > hell....
> > > >
> > > > But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The
scenario
> > you
> > > > just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed
> for.
> > > And
> > > > you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air
superiority
> > > before
> > > > sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US
> > > tactical
> > > > doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured.
And
> > the
> > > > only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force
(well
> > > maybe
> > > > it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.
> > > >
> > > > > No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to
> attacking
> > > > > puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
> > > > > sand-dwelling conscripts.
> > > >
> > > > LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the
> > modern
> > > > Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our
> > armed
> > > > forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force
on
> > the
> > > > globe. Period. It's not even close.
> > >
> > > Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, we're losing tank battles left and right over there.
> >
> > I said 'armed forces' vs. other 'armed forces', which is what the Ghost
of
> > Hitler (aka Robert Arndt) posted as a hypothetical in the first place.
USA
> > vs. Russia. Or anyone else for that matter; there isn't a country in the
> > world that can match the US military.
> >
> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
could
> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
> you
> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
> > anyway.
>
> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
>
> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> government.
> 2.. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
> There is no established authority in Iraq, nor is there any political
> leadership, therefore I would not say 'insurgent' is the right word at
all.
>
> 'A very short time'? Bwah ha ha ha!
>
> So what would qualify as a long time in your world? Over a year seems
likea
> long time to me, and I am sure to the people in Iraq. 12 hours? My ass.
>
> > But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by
a
> > wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
> > change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.
>
> It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want to
> provoke laughter that is.
>
> Bogged down in Iraq. Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs. Losing
what?
> 2 soldiers a day, against an enemy which was declared defeated a year ago?
>
> I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.

I like the way you creatively snip my statements and completely change the
subject. You obviously couldn't win the original argument.

The entire original thread was about old vs. new armor and the US military
in a force on force confrontation with another modern military. I stated
that in such a confrontation, no other nation in the world could match the
overall US capabilities. You must obviouly agree (or not have any response),
because you promptly snipped out all such comments I made, then went on a
rant about a guerilla war in a town in Iraq, where armor and air power are
barely even being used. Then mentioned prisoner torture (I have no idea what
that has to do with tank capabilities).

So either speak directly to the original point, or go burn a flag or
something.

[Alistair Gunn]

robert arndt twisted the electrons to say:
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> Firefly British conversion).

Well, if the Sherman Firefly is adequate then surely the M10 Achilles and
the Comet are also adequate? (Though I wouldn't want to be in the
Achilles with the manual traverse only turret.)

Besides which, if the war lasts any longer then the Centurion and the M26
Pershing with their 20-pounder and 90mm guns (respectively) get in the
game ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[John Mullen]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...

(snip)

> > > But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none
by
> a
> > > wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
> > > change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.
> >
> > It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want
to
> > provoke laughter that is.
> >
> > Bogged down in Iraq. Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs. Losing
> what?
> > 2 soldiers a day, against an enemy which was declared defeated a year
ago?
> >
> > I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.
>
> I like the way you creatively snip my statements and completely change the
> subject.

Glad you liked it.

>You obviously couldn't win the original argument.

Obviously not.

> The entire original thread was about old vs. new armor and the US military
> in a force on force confrontation with another modern military. I stated
> that in such a confrontation, no other nation in the world could match the
> overall US capabilities. You must obviouly agree (or not have any
response),
> because you promptly snipped out all such comments I made, then went on a
> rant about a guerilla war in a town in Iraq, where armor and air power are
> barely even being used. Then mentioned prisoner torture (I have no idea
what
> that has to do with tank capabilities).

How awful that those horrid Iraqis aren't fighting like you want them to
fight.

My point was, that rather than having a tank force that could win a
hypothetical war, or one from the past, maybe we should think about having
armed forces that could effectively fight the wars we are actually in in the
real world.

Of course, that would presuppose a modicum of joined-up thinking amongst the
political leadership, and I know how far away that is from being reality.

Prisoner torture guarantees more resistance. Tanks may not be much help in
Iraq now.

On the Vietnam comparison it is about 1972. Helicopters on roofs soon I
predict.

Sorry you didn't grasp that the first time around. Don't worry about it if
you still don't get it.

J

>
> So either speak directly to the original point, or go burn a flag or
> something.

Tut tut! Not my style at all. What a terrible thing to suggest.

[Alan Minyard]

On 7 May 2004 14:39:47 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>

>
>Rob


The Nazis lost, get over it.


Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 17:29:26 +1000, "L'acrobat" > wrote:

>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
>next?
>> Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?
>
>Arndt mode on - THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST NEEDLEPOINT WAS CULTURALLY SUPERIOR
>TO ALL OTHER FORMS!!!!!! Arndt mode off.
>
And was done with the Mach 4 version of the nuclear nebelwerfer!!!!!

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:19:31 +0100, Moramarth > wrote:

>In article >, David
>E. Powell > writes
>>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
>>> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>> Rob
>>
>>Um, what does this have to do with military aviation? Other than the
>>military aviation of the Allies hurting German tank production?
>Or Allied military aviation hurting German tanks. The answer to the
>King Tiger was the rocket-firing Typhoon...
>>
>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
Along with the rocket firing P-47s, P-51s, and P-38s

Al Minyard

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:49:49 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:


>The problem was that the thing had enough armor on it to shrug off most
>light/medium rockets,

Dunno about the HVAR, but AIR the 60lb RP used by the UK came in two forms,
one with a HE warhead and the other was solid originally intended for tank
killing, but ended up doing sterling work for anti shipping.

>and would certainly have been tailed closely by a
>flock of AAA in the "Whirlwind" category.

True, however it couldnt be any worse than sending P47s against LW bases.

> Of course, it was big enough
>to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs.

Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs intended
for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.

> Wouldn't you like
>to have some film of *that* little scenario?

One assumes that that 12 inch 'tiny tim' RP as used on Okinawa would have
been available for dealing with such eventualities. Of course aiming it
accurately enough would be another matter.




greg



--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >.except that the one nation in the world with the capability of taking
> >advantage of that paradigm shift is... well, the US, which is currently
> >redesigning the entire US military to take that jump.
>
> Unfortunately not,the new paradigm shift favors scientificaly and
> technologically savvy nations,

....and you think the US doesn't qualify, for some reason?

> not the nations with the existing defense infrastructure. In other
> words "advanced nations" will benefit from the paradigm shift,not
> "advanced countries".

....none of which excludes the US in any form or fashion.

> US has to do much more than preparing population for paradigm change
> by using PSYOPs.

Loosen up that old foil cap, dude, it's cutting off the circulation to
your brain.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:

>"John Mullen" > wrote:
>> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
>
>[..]
>
>> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
>> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
>could
>> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
>> you
>> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
>> > anyway.
>>
>> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
>>
>> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
>> adj.
>> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
>> government.
>
>Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com
>
>1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
>government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
>
>"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not recognize
>it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.
>
>
>
Try a real dictionary, not some web page. My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who opposes
the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the constituted
authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary)

Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq clearly do not
meet this definition.


Al Minyard

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>> >And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
>> >Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.
>>
>> I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
>> assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
>> the Middle East. . .
>
>The fun part would be when the commanders realize that a few hundred
>*thousand* US civilians would qualify as "snipers" in the Soviet armed
>forces.
>
>We have people who buy mile-range rifles for *fun*.

I know a somewhat "touched" individual who got himself a few old 30mm
barrels off of a GAU-8 Avenger cannon. :-) We keep talking about
making one of them into a potato gun (rifled and all). And he's got
himself an AR-15 and wants one of those Barret Arms .50 Calber rifles.
And he doesn't even hunt. I know *many* people who hunt deer and elk
around here and none of them have just *one* gun. I've often
wondered, how many guns are in a city like LA or NY. Could you
imagine the turnout if they put out a bounty of $10k for each head of
an enemy soldier? Of course there would be friendly fire like the
world has never seen but hey, it's a thought :-)

[Brett]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote:
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
>
> >"John Mullen" > wrote:
> >> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if
we
> >> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
> >could
> >> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that,
then
> >> you
> >> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short
time
> >> > anyway.
> >>
> >> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
> >>
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
> >>
> >> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> >> adj.
> >> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> >> government.
> >
> >Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com
> >
> >1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
> >government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
> >
> >"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
recognize
> >it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.
> >
> >
> >
> Try a real dictionary, not some web page.

It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most libraries
in the United States.

> My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
> defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who
opposes
> the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the
constituted
> authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).

Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
government".

Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.

> Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
clearly do not
> meet this definition.

Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority
since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian
governors.

[Vaughn]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman

Any special reason why this piece-of-**** post about an extinct tank ended
up in rec.aviation.military?

Vaughn

[Evan Brennan]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.


We don't see any reports to prove it.

Before the war, the Challenger II was criticized for not being combat
ready. One reason the British were given an objective close to the
start line is because your tank was unproven -- along with your SA-80
rifle which is a piece of dung by anyone's standards.

The BBC reported on a host of other equipment that was giving problems
before the Limeys deployed to Iraq.



> > But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a
> > wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
> > change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.
>
> It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want to
> provoke laughter that is.


If we wanted to provoke laughter, we can talk about the British Army.



> Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs.


Well at least Americans are more humanitarian than the UK.

Your scumbag Queen pinned medals on British paratroopers after they
shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
film' as well.

Thus Mullen shows a common affliction of so many Brits: his head
appears to filled with nuclear waste.


> I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.


The US usually learns valuable lessons from their mistakes, which is
more than we can say for the British. Their dead empire is the proof.


" I do feel that once the Falklands war
was over, the hierarchy were not interested
in what had happened or in what lessons
that might be learned from it all "
~ Brigadier Julian Thompson,
3rd Commando Brigade

[WalterM140]

Rob wrote.

>And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
>shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
>degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
>and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

Rob, stop masturbating to your very odd fantasies.

Walt

[John Mullen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of
hardware.
>
>
> We don't see any reports to prove it.
>
> Before the war, the Challenger II was criticized for not being combat
> ready. One reason the British were given an objective close to the
> start line is because your tank was unproven -- along with your SA-80
> rifle which is a piece of dung by anyone's standards.
>
> The BBC reported on a host of other equipment that was giving problems
> before the Limeys deployed to Iraq.
>
>
>
> > > But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none
by a
> > > wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
> > > change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.
> >
> > It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want
to
> > provoke laughter that is.
>
>
> If we wanted to provoke laughter, we can talk about the British Army.
>
>
>
> > Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs.
>
>
> Well at least Americans are more humanitarian than the UK.

Yeah. So what? My dad is bigger than your dad.

> Your scumbag Queen pinned medals on British paratroopers after they
> shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
> Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
> film' as well.

As you may be aware, there is an enquiry currently going on about that. I
totally agree with you that this was an awful event, all the worse for
having been covered up at the time.

'Don't use troops for crowd control' would appear to be the motto here.

> Thus Mullen shows a common affliction of so many Brits: his head
> appears to filled with nuclear waste.

It only appears that way to you because your head is filled with doggy poo
poo.

> > I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.
>
>
> The US usually learns valuable lessons from their mistakes, which is
> more than we can say for the British. Their dead empire is the proof.

And your empire is doing well just now, would you say? All that learning
from mistakes should let you roll up the trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan
fairly quickly. After all, you guys learned *so much* from getting your
asses kicked in Nam.

Particularly, after My Lai, I am sure no US forces would ever mistreat
civilians again for example.

Should be easy, eh?

(In case you don't get it, I am laughing my ass off here at your last
paragraph. Thank you so much for the entertainment!)

J

[Greg Hennessy]

On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

>"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
>> > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
>
>
>We don't see any reports to prove it.
>


ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?



greg

[Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Stephen Harding]

John Mullen wrote:

> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
>>
>>The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
>>weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could
>>have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you
>>are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
>>anyway.
>
> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
>
> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> government.
> 2.. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
> There is no established authority in Iraq, nor is there any political
> leadership, therefore I would not say 'insurgent' is the right word at all.
>
> 'A very short time'? Bwah ha ha ha!
>
> So what would qualify as a long time in your world? Over a year seems likea
> long time to me, and I am sure to the people in Iraq. 12 hours? My ass.

I don't know, Saddam didn't seem to have much difficulty putting
down the southern Shiite revolt (insurgency?) back in 1991.

Where were these fearless, instrument of Allah cleric "insurgents"
back then, or even afterwards?

Hiding out in Iran, terrified they were about to be assassinated
by one of Saddam's men at any moment.

The insurgency could be put down in a relatively short time, but
it would be brutal; not much different than Saddam.

So instead, we plod along, "bogged down" in Iraq, with the anti-Bush
or anti-American crowd crowing about how inept the Americans are
in its occupation of Iraq.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Chad Irby wrote:

> Well, ever since the invention of the entire *art* of needlepoint in
> 1938 Berlin, the US has done nothing except use the skills imported in
> the postwar "Project Latchhook," where many German sewing scientists
> were imported to create the unit patches for what became NASA.

Did you ever notice that sewing needles, cross-stitch needles,
crocheting needles and such in the US *look exactly* like the
ones used by the Germans during WWII?

There's an untold story of post-WWII subterfuge and intellectual
piracy to be told here I think!


SMH

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:07:11 -0400, Stephen Harding >
wrote:


>
>Did you ever notice that sewing needles, cross-stitch needles,
>crocheting needles and such in the US *look exactly* like the
>ones used by the Germans during WWII?


Obviously reverse engineered from blueprints spirited by the Waffen
Stickerei division to their secret Antarctic base.



greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[L'acrobat]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...


>
> > Of course, it was big enough
> >to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs.
>
> Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs
intended
> for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.

When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made, it
would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet bomb
the damn things.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:55:28 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> wrote:


>> Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs
>intended
>> for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.
>
>When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made,

The only good thing is the amount of T&E the germans wasted on these Wunder
weapons.


>it
>would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet bomb
>the damn things.

Assuming they could get them to the front in the 1st place.


greg



--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Denyav]

>The Nazis lost, get over it.

King Leonidas and Confederates lost too!.

[Denyav]

>..and you think the US doesn't qualify, for some reason?

Because US cannot produce its own top scientific and technological talent.
US excels in mass producing scientific "standardized minds" scientific
equivalents of Henry Fords auto workers,but not the "thinkers like produced by
countries on other side of Atlantic.
Heck we cannot even produce top notch Presidents,Senators and Generals.
I think we must expand O and H1-b visa programs to include Presidents and
Generals.
(I am sure Mahan is spinning now in his grave)


>..none of which excludes the US in any form or fashion.

Advanced Nations can consistently produce their own scientific and
technological "thinkers" ,Advanced countries cannot.
(Any similarity with US is purely coincidental as always)

>Loosen up that old foil cap, dude, it's cutting off the circulation to
>your brain.

Honestly my hat off to the latest PSYOP effort,namely the release,oops I meant
leakage,of photos from Iraq.

[Denyav]

>Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority
>since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian
>governors.

As much as a Roman Proconsul or a British Viceroy.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >..and you think the US doesn't qualify, for some reason?
>
> Because US cannot produce its own top scientific and technological talent.

You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
time.

It's still not true.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
>saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
>time.

Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology and top
notch scientists were German.
If you cannot produce you must steal.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
> >saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
> >time.
>
> Surely US stole some from Russia too,

Such as...?

We got a lot of defectors, but they mostly just gave us copies of the
stuff the Soviets had been stealing from us in the first place.

> but the bulk of stolen technology and top
> notch scientists were German.

Only in some fields, and since you haven't noticed, that was about 60
years ago. But I guess you're like Arndt, and are still living in the
past.

Of course, the Soviets got a pretty large amount of technology from the
German programs, and that resulted in pretty much *every* technical
triumph by the Soviet Union for the next 40 years.

The US, on the other hand, has gone on to lead the world in a lot of
other fields, from electronics to biology to computer software to...
well, pretty much everything, when you get right down to it.

> If you cannot produce you must steal.

So we're back to Russia again. Stolen nuclear tech (from the US),
stolen computer and electronic tech (from the US), et cetera. Did the
Soviet Union ever actually invent *anything* worthwhile? They were good
at making propaganda, though ("Russian equipment is going to beat the US
Real Soon Now!").

Meanwhile, on the science side, you guys had Lysenko.

And Chernobyl.

And Chelyabinsk-50.

Tell us again about that incredible Russian scientific and engineering
skill...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
>>
>> >"John Mullen" > wrote:
>> >> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if
>we
>> >> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
>> >could
>> >> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that,
>then
>> >> you
>> >> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short
>time
>> >> > anyway.
>> >>
>> >> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
>> >>
>> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
>> >>
>> >> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
>> >> adj.
>> >> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
>> >> government.
>> >
>> >Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com
>> >
>> >1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
>> >government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
>> >
>> >"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
>recognize
>> >it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Try a real dictionary, not some web page.
>
>It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most libraries
>in the United States.
>
>> My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
>> defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who
>opposes
>> the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the
>constituted
>> authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).
>
>Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
>political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
>government".
>
>Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.
>
>> Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
>clearly do not
>> meet this definition.
>
>Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority
>since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian
>governors.
>
>
That is an utterly ridiculous argument. How in the world can Mr Brenner be
both the civil authority *and* an insurgent?? You are destroying your own
argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up
your mind.

Al Minyard

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 09 May 2004 15:49:39 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> >You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
> >saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
> >time.
>
> Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology and top
> notch scientists were German.
> If you cannot produce you must steal.
>

B-29

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Mullen]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on 09 May 2004 15:49:39 GMT,
> Denyav attempted to say .....
>
> > >You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
> > >saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one
more
> > >time.
> >
> > Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology
and top
> > notch scientists were German.
> > If you cannot produce you must steal.
> >
>
> B-29

Concorde / Tu 144

John

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>
>In article >,
> (Denyav) wrote:
>
>> >You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
>> >saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
>> >time.
>>
>> Surely US stole some from Russia too,
>
>Such as...?
>
>We got a lot of defectors, but they mostly just gave us copies of the
>stuff the Soviets had been stealing from us in the first place.
>
>> but the bulk of stolen technology and top
>> notch scientists were German.
>
>Only in some fields, and since you haven't noticed, that was about 60
>years ago. But I guess you're like Arndt, and are still living in the
>past.
>

Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs, had
a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough fissionable material
was we had captured it from the Nazis.

It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated area and no
one noticed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Tank Fixer
>

> Denyav attempted to say .....
>
>> >You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really
>> >saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more
>> >time.
>>
>> Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology and
>top
>> notch scientists were German.
>> If you cannot produce you must steal.
>>
>
>B-29
>
Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
captured from the Nazis)



Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic
> bombs, had a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough
> fissionable material was we had captured it from the Nazis.
>
> It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated
> area and no one noticed.

It's fun pointing these things out to these guys, though.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Brett]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote:
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John Mullen" > wrote:
> >> >> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >[..]
> >> >
> >> >> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly,
if
> >we
> >> >> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage'
we
> >> >could
> >> >> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive
that,
> >then
> >> >> you
> >> >> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short
> >time
> >> >> > anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
> >> >>
> >> >> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> >> >> adj.
> >> >> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> >> >> government.
> >> >
> >> >Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com
> >> >
> >> >1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
> >> >government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
> >> >
> >> >"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
> >recognize
> >> >it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Try a real dictionary, not some web page.
> >
> >It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most
libraries
> >in the United States.
> >
> >> My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
> >> defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one
who
> >opposes
> >> the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against
the
> >constituted
> >> authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).
> >
> >Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
> >political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
> >government".
> >
> >Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.
> >
> >> Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
> >clearly do not
> >> meet this definition.
> >
> >Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil
authority
> >since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional
civilian
> >governors.
> >
> >
> That is an utterly ridiculous argument.

If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut head
called MULLEN.

> How in the world can Mr Brenner be
> both the civil authority *and* an insurgent??

If you had bothered reading the thread I've never made the argument that
Bremer is an insurgent. Mullen made an argument that US Forces were not
engaged in actions against insurgents.

> You are destroying your own
> argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up
> your mind.

I never made the claim that US Forces were insurgents. The original claim
was that US Forces could put down an insurgency in 12 hours if they were not
concerned about 'collateral damage' which while short could probably be
achieved. All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an
insurgent.

I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post.

[L'acrobat]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:55:28 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs
> >intended
> >> for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.
> >
> >When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made,
>
> The only good thing is the amount of T&E the germans wasted on these
Wunder
> weapons.

Absolutely, you have to wonder what good they thought even a 1000 of these
things would do, given their situation..

>
>
> >it
> >would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet
bomb
> >the damn things.
>
> Assuming they could get them to the front in the 1st place.

If not no doubt the front would come to them.

But they don't need to be killed at the front, I doubt it would be too
difficult to spot them in transit and bomb them.

[Eunometic]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message >...
> First of all, are you insane?
>
> What is with you? Do you sit up at night and wish Hitler had won or
> something?
>
> Anyway....
>
> > http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> >
> > Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> > Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
> > better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
> > engagements with the King Tiger.
>
> And yet, at the end of the day, all those mass-produced-pieces-of-****
> managed to beat the crap out of just about anything that was thrown at them.
> What does that say about Germany?
>

The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
allies in the air.

[Eunometic]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> >
> > Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> > Firefly British conversion).
>
> ...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
> not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.


> and very high fuel
> consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
> high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
> fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620
hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of
fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines:
diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as
the German and Allied tanks.


> The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
> their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
> they ran out of gas.
>
> Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
> really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Eunometic) wrote:

> The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
> Germans favour. It was lucky

Not quite "lock," as the term is normally used.

Unless "planning and production" are synonyms for "lock."

> that the Germans were outnumbered in everything and that they didn't
> have fuel or were able to match the allies in the air.

What it really breaks down to is that the Germans were quite stupid
about long-range planning, and were deeply overoptimistic about how
powerful their forces were.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Eunometic) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> > >
> > > Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> > > Firefly British conversion).
> >
> > ...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
> > not go very far, due to high ground pressure
>
> The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
> tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
> handle.

....a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.

Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

> However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
> produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
> pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
> mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help. Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

> > and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
> > landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
> > a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.
>
> The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

> The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
> addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
> engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
> easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>Only in some fields, and since you haven't noticed, that was about 60
>years ago. But I guess you're like Arndt, and are still living in the
>past.

Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,so so
the word UFO needed to be invented to hide their origins.Germans never used
word UFO,they were their SonderFlugObjecten (SFO)
So German achievements needed to be classified for 75 years by US Gov't.

Today if you want to see beyond cutting edge science and research you must go
to Cologne,Vienna, Zurich or Oxford,or at least you must check out works of
German scientists in US.
Truth is ,contrary to general belief ,US is not a scientific and technological
powerhouse (never been) in spite of being worlds third most populated country.
US education policy is based on production of the "standardized minds" in big
numbers in other words scientific equivalents of Henry Fords workers.
But even 1000000000 standardized minds wont make even one
Einstein,Dirac,Heisenberg,Schroedinger,Planck etc.

Of course, the Soviets got a pretty large amount of technology from the
>German programs, and that resulted in pretty much *every* technical
>triumph by the Soviet Union for the next 40 years.

Above statement is even more applicaple for US.

>So we're back to Russia again. Stolen nuclear tech (from the US),

Yeah right US did not steal nuclear technology from Germans,US only stole semi
complete bombs.(and did not even bother to erase German markings on Little Boy)


>Tell us again about that incredible Russian scientific and engineering
>skill...

I am not an expert on Soviet or Russian achievements,but russian speakers of
this forum could give a better answer.
But an answer from my own observation:after break up of soviet union many
soviet scientists came to US and were literally "grabbed" by US universities
and research instutions.
were they the cream of soviet scientists?Hardly (except 7or 6 maybe)

[Denyav]

>Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
>captured from the Nazis)
>

Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)

[Denyav]

>Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs,
>had
>a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough fissionable
>material
>was we had captured it from the Nazis.

Thats correct They were developed by Deibner and von Ardenne/Houtermans teams.
Till 1992 nobody in west were (at least openly) aware of SS nuclear program.

>It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated area and
>no
>one noticed.
>

Do you call a top secret location under control of Hans Kammler a populated
area?
Even Wehrmacht folks were told to leave area in late 1944.
Unlike your assertions the event were noticed by hunderds if not
thousands,including an USAAF crew.
But those who observed event on ground were either Germans or forced laborers
(many of them died later on radiation effects).
As far as USAAF crew concerned,they reported what they saw,but according to
officals they were simply hallucinating,whole crew!.

If you planned to hide something for 75 long years,you would not allow a lowly
aircrew screw up your plans.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
> tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
> handle.
>

Given that the Panther and Tiger were both designed to fight
Russian tanks in Russia this seems to hint at poor design

> However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
> produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
> pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
> mobility.
>

The records of their deployment suggest otherwise

>
> > and very high fuel
> > consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
> > high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
> > fortress.
>
> The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620
> hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of
> fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines:
> diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as
> the German and Allied tanks.
>

Indeed but the British and Americans were able to keep
their armoured formations adequately supplied for the
most part. The Germans were not.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
>
> The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
> Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
> everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
> allies in the air.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

The Germans manufactured approx 7,000 Panthers and Tigers.
The Allies produced 40,000 T-34's , 48,000 Shermans
and 28,000 Churchill's , Cromwells, Valentines etc

Fact is you could build 4 T-34's or Shermans for every
Tiger that could be produced and they were more reliable
and simpler to maintain too. The allies gave production
factors a high priority in weapons design, the Germans did not.

Keith

[Aerophotos]

what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
you moron Keith???

beside proving your high as kite......

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> >
> > The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
> > Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
> > everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
> > allies in the air.
>
> Luck had nothing to do with it.
>
> The Germans manufactured approx 7,000 Panthers and Tigers.
> The Allies produced 40,000 T-34's , 48,000 Shermans
> and 28,000 Churchill's , Cromwells, Valentines etc
>
> Fact is you could build 4 T-34's or Shermans for every
> Tiger that could be produced and they were more reliable
> and simpler to maintain too. The allies gave production
> factors a high priority in weapons design, the Germans did not.
>
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
> you moron Keith???
>

They main counter to the Tiger and King Tiger was
allied air power

> beside proving your high as kite......

You cant even get that right, its 'high AS a kite'

Keith

[Eunometic]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Eunometic) wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > In article >,
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
> > > >
> > > > Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> > > > Firefly British conversion).
> > >
> > > ...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
> > > not go very far, due to high ground pressure
> >
> > The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
> > tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
> > handle.
>
> ...a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
> lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.
>
> Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
succesion of the mildest.


>
> > However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
> > produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
> > pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
> > mobility.
>
> When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
> isn't going to help.

I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
not cleaned out)


> Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
> *twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.

>
> > > and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
> > > landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
> > > a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.
> >
> > The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.
>
> For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
> High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
> trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
> consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
in evidence then.

The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
turret traverse as well.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.

>
> > The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
> > addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
> > engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
> > easily as the German and Allied tanks.
>
> Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
> much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
> Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
> that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
due to the Germans rubber shortages.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph. The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with. Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
rating of fuel they had available to them.

The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
in it rather than more pointy things.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

> >
> > Oh, wait. They did. Oops.
>
> They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
> succesion of the mildest.
>

Which is irrelevant when considering the ability
of the vehicles concerned to deal with mud.

>
> >
> > > However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
> > > produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
> > > pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
> > > mobility.
> >
> > When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
> > isn't going to help.
>
> I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
> characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
> at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
> not cleaned out)
>

That doesnt sound like a good thing

>
> > Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
> > *twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.
>
> As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
> T34 was champion of all tanks.
>

30% was more than enough.

> >
> > > > and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
> > > > landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
> > > > a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.
> > >
> > > The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.
> >
> > For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
> > High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
> > trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
> > consumption was the *last* thing they needed.
>
> The Germans were massively outnumbered.

Which was at least partly a result of their design decisions

> In that situation quality is
> usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
> 1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
> the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
> in evidence then.
>

Trouble is the Soviets could turn out a T-34 in 30% of
the man hours required for a Tiger

> The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
> turret traverse as well.
>

Indeed, these factors made production more complex of course

> A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
> its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
> shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
> horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
> development.
>

In fact the Sherman was 1942 design that was more than a
match for PzKfw III and IV it was designed to counter
and its engine was reliable and efficient.

> AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
> having to deal with the German armour.
>

That and the tank destroyers with 90mm and 17 pounder
anti-tank guns

> >
> > > The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
> > > addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
> > > engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
> > > easily as the German and Allied tanks.
> >
> > Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
> > much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
> > Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
> > that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.
>
> Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
> problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
> often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
> of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
> due to the Germans rubber shortages.
>
> I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
> in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
> Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph.

Consider the Soviet Army appraisal of the Sherman (with high pressure
76mm gun) in comparison to the T-34/76

<Quote>
To the head of the 2nd Department of the main Intelligence
Department of the Red Army
Major-General Khlopov

Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds

General Comments
From the American point of view our tanks are slow

<snip>

Armament, the F-34 gun is very good, it is a simple very reliable and
easy to service.Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity is significantly
INFERIOR to the American 76mm gun

<snip>

9) Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of
our tanks, thick armour and relaible armaments, the succesful design
of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American
tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvarability, firepower, speed
and reliability.
</Quote>

> The T34 with good
> speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
> deal with.

Its power to weight ratio wasnt that superior , the T-34 had
a power to weight ratio of around 16 hp/ton from a 420 hp engine
The Sherman had a 400hp engine and a power to weight ratio
of 13 hp/ton

> Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
> will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
> calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
> tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
> rating of fuel they had available to them.
>

Horsefeathers, the T-34 used diesel engines which will run
on very poor quality fuel

> The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
> syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
> supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
> in it rather than more pointy things.

This is just silly, Speer didnt become Minister of War production
until after the death of Fritz Todt in Febuary 1942. He was
responsible for finally putting the economy of the Reich on a
war footing, more than 2 years later than was necessary.

Keith

[L'acrobat]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
> problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
> often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.

You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".

You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting from
an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it and it
dies.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,

Now, *that's* funny...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:54 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:


>
>Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
>at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
>

I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.





greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Keith Willshaw]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:54 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
> >at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
> >
>
> I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.
>
>

They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
tank museum at Bovington IRC

Keith

[John Mullen]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
> >
> > >"Alan Minyard" > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"John Mullen" > wrote:
> > >> >> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > >> >
> > >> >[..]
> > >> >
> > >> >> > The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly,
> if
> > >we
> > >> >> > weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage'
> we
> > >> >could
> > >> >> > have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive
> that,
> > >then
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> > are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very
short
> > >time
> > >> >> > anyway.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
> > >> >>
> > >> >> in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
> > >> >> adj.
> > >> >> 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
> > >> >> government.
> > >> >
> > >> >Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com
> > >> >
> > >> >1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
> > >> >government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
> > >> >
> > >> >"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
> > >recognize
> > >> >it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the
requirements.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Try a real dictionary, not some web page.
> > >
> > >It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most
> libraries
> > >in the United States.
> > >
> > >> My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
> > >> defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one
> who
> > >opposes
> > >> the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against
> the
> > >constituted
> > >> authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).
> > >
> > >Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
> > >political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
> > >government".
> > >
> > >Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.
> > >
> > >> Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
> > >clearly do not
> > >> meet this definition.
> > >
> > >Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil
> authority
> > >since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional
> civilian
> > >governors.
> > >
> > >
> > That is an utterly ridiculous argument.
>
> If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut
head
> called MULLEN.

I am though.

> > How in the world can Mr Brenner be
> > both the civil authority *and* an insurgent??
>
> If you had bothered reading the thread I've never made the argument that
> Bremer is an insurgent. Mullen made an argument that US Forces were not
> engaged in actions against insurgents.

Er... I pointed out the dictionary definition of the word 'insurgent'. Is
that the same thing?

> > You are destroying your own
> > argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up
> > your mind.
>
> I never made the claim that US Forces were insurgents. The original claim
> was that US Forces could put down an insurgency in 12 hours if they were
not
> concerned about 'collateral damage' which while short could probably be
> achieved.

Really? How? (Waiting with non-bated breath)

>All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an
> insurgent.
>
> I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post.

And I would suggest you *think* before you post, mutt-head.

I know, I know, that just isn't posssible.

:(

J

[Kevin Brooks]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
> you moron Keith???
>
> beside proving your high as kite......

It has more to do with it than your periodic anti-Bush ranting, such as the
utterly pointless little snippet you appended to another thread just a few
hours ago? JGG, you remain an idiot.

Brooks

>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
> > > Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
> > > everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
> > > allies in the air.
> >
> > Luck had nothing to do with it.
> >
> > The Germans manufactured approx 7,000 Panthers and Tigers.
> > The Allies produced 40,000 T-34's , 48,000 Shermans
> > and 28,000 Churchill's , Cromwells, Valentines etc
> >
> > Fact is you could build 4 T-34's or Shermans for every
> > Tiger that could be produced and they were more reliable
> > and simpler to maintain too. The allies gave production
> > factors a high priority in weapons design, the Germans did not.
> >
> > Keith

[Denyav]

>Now, *that's* funny...

Maybe,but funny things usually are not kept under the lock for 75 years!.

[Krztalizer]

>
>> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,
>
>Now, *that's* funny...

I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the ones that
started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262 and
try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Krztalizer]

>
>what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
>you moron Keith???
>
>beside proving your high as kite......

Why toss mud at Keith - Den is the one making grotesquely inaccurate claims and
Keith is simply one of several people correcting him. Keith didn't start the
thread, Arnt did - and by answering as you have, you are basically tossing mud,
while complaining about other people doing the same.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:51:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:


>> I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.
>>
>>
>
>They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
>tank museum at Bovington IRC

Crikey, every day a school day LOL.

Any War Office or Pentagon references to what the host nations thought of
the russian armour ?


greg


>
>Keith
>

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Now, *that's* funny...
>
> Maybe,but funny things usually are not kept under the lock for 75
> years!.

....in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
motion machines, and the bodies of the little grey men from Roswell...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

> >> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,
> >
> >Now, *that's* funny...
>
> I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the
> ones that started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80
> to the Me 262 and try to fit that whole "century" in between them.
> Hysterical! :)

You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
development team.

The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
trip for the Trinity "test").

The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
their records.

Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
fleet designs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Yeff]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:50:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

> ...in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
> motion machines,

"In this house, young lady, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!"

-Homer Simpson

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 5/10/2004 1:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (Krztalizer) wrote:
>
>> >> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,
>> >
>> >Now, *that's* funny...
>>
>> I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the
>> ones that started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80
>> to the Me 262 and try to fit that whole "century" in between them.
>> Hysterical! :)
>
>You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
>time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
>prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
>development team.
>
>The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
>different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
>trip for the Trinity "test").
>
>The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
>steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
>enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
>and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
>their records.
>
>Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
>German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
>stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
>fleet designs.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
Careful there, Chad, you might break the shovel.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:51:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for
testing.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
> >tank museum at Bovington IRC
>
> Crikey, every day a school day LOL.
>
> Any War Office or Pentagon references to what the host nations thought of
> the russian armour ?
>

Indeed , the US information is in the national archives and the British
report is at the thank miseum in Bovington, some excerpts are available
on line at

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/t34/t34a.html

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: Chad Irby
> >
> >You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
> >time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
> >prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
> >development team.
> >
> >The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
> >different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
> >trip for the Trinity "test").
> >
> >The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
> >steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
> >enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
> >and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
> >their records.
> >
> >Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
> >German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
> >stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
> >fleet designs.
>
> Careful there, Chad, you might break the shovel.

Don't be silly.

Due to the German metallurgical research we stole in 1945, we now have
Adamantium Assault Shovels.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 02:35:18 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. > wrote:
>
>Perhaps the Germans would have been far better advised at that point to
>build smaller, cheaper and easier to operate tanks in greater quantities, so
>that maybe they would actually be around for more than one fight. I'm sure
>that with their obvious technical prowess, they would have been able to
>construct a simple, light tank that would have been slightly better than the
>Sherman

They produced several: the Pz IV, the Hetzer.

> (which is really all it had to be), and could be produced in good
>enough numbers to close the tank gap to maybe 5-to-1, and be user friendly
>enough that inexperienced tank crews could effectively operate it. Now that
>could have made a real difference.

I suspect that last requirement's impossible: you need experienced
crews and commanders to handle formations of tanks properly, so that
you can site them in good defensive positions, use good tactics,
don't silhouete them against the sky, etc.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On 08 May 2004 05:52:33 GMT, Denyav > wrote:
>>> Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
>>> forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
>>> globe. Period. It's not even close.
>>
>
>In the eve of the most important paradigm shift in the warfare since the
>invention of gun powder its more a liability than an asset.
>You might want to use your current military assets agressively before paradigm
>shift (while they are still useful) to streghten your positions,but if your
>peer competitor is very good on setting up a "Global Trap" for you and might
>force you to waste your very limited resources for nothing.
>(Any similarities with Brzezinskis' "Afghanistan Trap" are of course purely
>coincidental)
>As far as I can see, as paradigm shift nears,US administrations are getting
>more nervous and aggressive and making even more mistakes
>Thats so simple..

What paradigm shift is this, then?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Brett]

"mut head" Mullen > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message

<.>

> > If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut
> head
> > called MULLEN.
>
> I am though.
>
> > > How in the world can Mr Brenner be
> > > both the civil authority *and* an insurgent??
> >
> > If you had bothered reading the thread I've never made the argument that
> > Bremer is an insurgent. Mullen made an argument that US Forces were not
> > engaged in actions against insurgents.
>
> Er... I pointed out the dictionary definition of the word 'insurgent'. Is
> that the same thing?

Based on your post it was.

> > > You are destroying your own
> > > argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make
up
> > > your mind.
> >
> > I never made the claim that US Forces were insurgents. The original
claim
> > was that US Forces could put down an insurgency in 12 hours if they were
> not
> > concerned about 'collateral damage' which while short could probably be
> > achieved.
>
> Really? How? (Waiting with non-bated breath)

In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who ignored
any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days to put
down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't that
much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents contained
within it.
btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of those
polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf


> >All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an
> > insurgent.
> >
> > I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post.
>
> And I would suggest you *think* before you post, mutt-head.

I've already labeled you the mut head.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
>Chad Irby > wrote in message news:<5XCnc.137
>...
>> Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
>> *twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.
>
>As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
>T34 was champion of all tanks.

Nonsense: the Panther was designed tracks-up as a T-34 killer and
one-for-one was much superior. Trouble was, the Soviets could produce,
field, maintain and supply many more T-34s than the Germans could
Panthers.

And in terms of armour and firepower the T-34 was utterly outmatched by
the Tigers... it was an excellent if austere medium tank, but even the
Soviets felt the need to augment it with the KVs and then the Josef
Stalins.

>> For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
>> High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
>> trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
>> consumption was the *last* thing they needed.
>
>The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
>usually your only hope.

They were outnumbered from choice - they dug the hole and kept on
digging.

>A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
>its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV.

Which explains why the Soviets rejected the large numbers of Shermans
they were supplied...?

For that matter, they accepted and used significant supplies of
Valentines, which were no great shakes in the armour or armament shakes
but were at least agile and reliable.

>In fact the
>shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
>horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
>development.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

>AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
>having to deal with the German armour.

Air superiority was hugely overrated as a tank-killer (though effective
at denying them supply and scaring crews into flight).

German armour died when it met Allied armour, or when it met Allied
anti-tank guns. Sometimes it gave good account of itself, occasionally
it managed spectacular results, but mostly the recollection of an
Achilles commander held for stopping counterattacks: you got into
position covering the approaches and camouflaged properly, you let the
Germans get within a thousand yards so the 17pdr was firing battlesight,
and then you could be sure that the first or second shot would be
enough: and you displaced quickly not for fear of return fire, but
because they'd be calling artillery on you.

Defence is always easier than attack and the Germans spent most of the
war being pushed out of defensive position after defensive position.
Their few counterattacks were generally disasters.

>> Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
>> much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
>> Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
>> that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.
>
>Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
>problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
>often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.

In other words, yet again failure to cope with the reality of their
situation. If you're short of key strategic materials, do *not* design
vehicles dependent on them. If you're short of POL, don't design
gas-guzzling tanks. If you're outnumbered, remember that quantity is as
important as quality and make sure you have *enough* tanks as well as
*better* tanks.

>I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
>in rougth tersin.

Better than the Tiger, slightly outmatched by the Panther.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Krztalizer]

>>In fact the
>>shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
>>horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
>>development.
>
>You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
argument???

G

[Zamboni]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
>
> Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
> Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
> better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
> engagements with the King Tiger.

But the SU-152 "Animal Killer" did quite well against them.
--
Zamboni

[John Mullen]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "mut head" Mullen > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message

> In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
ignored
> any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days to
put
> down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't that
> much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents contained
> within it.

I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of democracy
or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?

> btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
those
> polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf
>

Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.

> > >All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an
> > > insurgent.
> > >
> > > I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post.
> >
> > And I would suggest you *think* before you post, mutt-head.
>
> I've already labeled you the mut head.
>

I know. How childish of you.

J

[Brett]

"John Mullen" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "mut head" Mullen > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
>
> > In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
> ignored
> > any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days to
> put
> > down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't
that
> > much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents
contained
> > within it.
>
> I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of
democracy
> or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?

Which is a constraint that is removed if the forces operate without concern
for "collateral damage" and that lack of concern was the primary part of the
original post by Paladino.

> > btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
> those
> > polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf
> >
>
> Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
> example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. A response from 98.5% of those
polled found that less than 10% of them had even heard that US and UK troops
were in the country and the answers to that question weeds out the responses
to other questions they asked. Looking at the quoted numbers for recognition
of local political figures the results probably match the level of
recognition you would expect to find close to an election in the US and UK
(damn low).

btw. sorry about the original comment.

[Eunometic]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
> > problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
> > often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.
>
> You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".
>
> You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting from
> an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it and it
> dies.


There was no problem with the engines reliablity. Reliabillity
problems related mainly to gearboxes and steering mechanisms on these
Tanks and possibly the use of inferior raw materials. In anycase
these are issues that are usually solved over 12 months.

Nor were they underpowered. A Panther at about 45 tons with over
600hp engine compared well with a Sherman in terms of power to weight
ratio. Using that engine in a heavier tank starts to slow them down
but they were never as slow as a churchill for instance.

The use of fuel injection is unlikely to overstress the engine.

[Eunometic]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >>In fact the
> >>shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
> >>horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
> >>development.
> >
> >You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?
>
> Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
> argument???
>
> G

It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
shermans or 1 panther?


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/pantherc.html
"The Panther became one of the finest medium tanks of WW2, with a
growing increase in the number of operational Panthers and a drop in
the number of Panthers lost. Overheating was overcome by fitting a
second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later
Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in
the Kursk debacle. Many of Germany's top panzer aces achieved their
finest victories with this vehicle. Soldiers like SS-Oberscharfuhrer
Ernst Barkmann, who in an exposed spot with his sole Panther knocked
out nine American M4 Shermans before withdrawing, were quick to prove
the outstanding qualities of this tank. According to statistics of the
American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
T-34's. It was undoubtedly Germany's best tank design, giving the
almost ideal balance between armor, speed, weight and firepower."

"During the Ardennes offensive several Shermans were knocked out in
the middle of the night by Panthers using IR night-scopes. After
locating US tanks with the IR scope, the Germans fired flares at the
Shermans to light the target completely, and knocked them out."

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 10 May 2004 18:50:30 GMT,
Chad Irby attempted to say .....

> In article >,
> (Denyav) wrote:
>
> > >Now, *that's* funny...
> >
> > Maybe,but funny things usually are not kept under the lock for 75
> > years!.
>
> ...in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
> motion machines, and the bodies of the little grey men from Roswell...

Actually we don't keep the bodies of the Grey's in the same room.
We have found the give off a rather horrible stench at room temperature.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 10 May 2004 18:25:37 GMT,
Krztalizer attempted to say .....

> >
> >> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,
> >
> >Now, *that's* funny...
>
> I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the ones that
> started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262 and
> try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)
>


We also didn't END the war still using horse draw wagons for most logistical
transport in the field.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
> >captured from the Nazis)
> >
>
> Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
>

some proof please.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on 10 May 2004 18:25:37 GMT,
> Krztalizer attempted to say .....
>
> > >
> > >> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US
technology,
> > >
> > >Now, *that's* funny...
> >
> > I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the ones
that
> > started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262
and
> > try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)
> >
>
>
> We also didn't END the war still using horse draw wagons for most
logistical
> transport in the field.

Ah, but you have to remember, those were *German* horses, vastly superior to
anything the rest of the world could field, and were the subject of post-war
theft... I am sure Arndt will claim that were it not for German WWII
horsebreeding research, the Budweiser Clydesdales would surely look like
something along the lines of poorly fed Chincoteague ponies...

Brooks

>
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Denyav]

>"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
>costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
>

Does not matter,Allies could counter Germans with 14 to 1 numerical
superiority.
One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will
kill the Panther antway.
Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in US.

[Denyav]

>arted the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262 and
>try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)

As far as I know Me262 as well as V weapons were never classifed for 75 years.
(They were already known by too many in May 1945)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity
> in US.

So how's that Chechnya thing working out for you guys?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Krztalizer]

> Hell, we aren't the ones that
>> started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262
>and
>> try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)
>>
>We also didn't END the war still using horse draw wagons for most logistical
>transport in the field.

That was my unwritten point - yet Den and Arnt and all of the other Big Lie
dispensers still depict the Third Reich as being capable of ridiculously
improbable feats of engineering derring-do, irregardless of the plain fact that
the war accellerated technological progress across the globe. Wartime
shortages in critical raw and rare elements affected everyone, but the Germans
most of all. Yet in the Denarnt parallel universe, only German scientists and
engineers advanced human progress during the middle 40 years of the past
century. If that is so, it speaks volumes about what happened - imagine, a
globe filled with average-thinking mundane creatures, handily defeating a
mentally superior bunch of mass-murdering drug addicted racist pigs. Who'd
have thunk it?

If they were _that_ far ahead of us, even a few years ahead (think: an all-jet
swept wing airforce, equipped with nuclear weapons), we'd be having this
conversation in German. For such a bunch of illuminated supermen, they didn't
appear to know much about basic logistics, the main reason they lost the war.
Projects that would have handily beaten the tired old mid-thirties Bf 109 were
shelved because such advances were deemed unnecessary, because that's how
deluded these cheeseheads were - but they secretly created superweapons that we
can't know about for several more decades?

I've read reams about U-234's suspicious cargo and other "nazi" urban legends -
it always surprises me when I see someone that actually believes this crap.
Next, we get to hear how Kammler's Fourth Reich is the new owner of Clear
Channel Communications, broadcasting from an ice floe near you.

Geeez

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 10 May 2004 23:28:45 -0400,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on 10 May 2004 18:25:37 GMT,
> > Krztalizer attempted to say .....
> >
> > > >
> > > >> Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US
> technology,
> > > >
> > > >Now, *that's* funny...
> > >
> > > I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the ones
> that
> > > started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262
> and
> > > try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical! :)
> > >
> >
> >
> > We also didn't END the war still using horse draw wagons for most
> logistical
> > transport in the field.
>
> Ah, but you have to remember, those were *German* horses, vastly superior to
> anything the rest of the world could field, and were the subject of post-war
> theft... I am sure Arndt will claim that were it not for German WWII
> horsebreeding research, the Budweiser Clydesdales would surely look like
> something along the lines of poorly fed Chincoteague ponies...
>


I wonder if Herr Arndt knows that the mighty German horses were no match for
General Winter.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 11 May 2004 03:48:59 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
> >
>
> Does not matter,Allies could counter Germans with 14 to 1 numerical
> superiority.
> One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will
> kill the Panther antway.
> Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in US.

Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out Shermans were in
another tank a few days later

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)

<snip>

Next, we get to hear how Kammler's Fourth Reich is the new owner of Clear
Channel Communications, broadcasting from an ice floe near you.

Geeez

Actually the hidden base is underground in Antarctica. One of the Nazis, I
forget whether it was den or teuton, claimed such a base exists and that it was
used as a U-boat base during WW2.

Either way it was never proven.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

To what description of "ideal tank proportions"? Where are these proportions
laid out?

>"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
>costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

If you think its news that the Panther was a better tank, its not. The salient
point is not which is better, it is this: at the end of the war, JS, KV,
Shermans, M-26s, and Cromwells parked on top of the wreckage of the last
smoking King Tiger and Panther hulls. We won. .

>Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
>vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
>shermans or 1 panther?

Well, that's a little incomplete, isn't it? Add a few modifiers to that
question, such as, how many expert tank builders are required to build each,
and how many of these can effectively be fielded and supported in combat? An
individual tank's relative usefulness to its country has to take into account
its reliability, and I would take a force of Shermans over a force of Panthers
and 70% of the time, I'd win. What that translates to is that eventually, I
get to plant my flag in the middle of your garden. In a war of attritrition,
give me my 1.5 tanks over your 1.0 tanks, but remember, I get unlimited
logistics and you get a noose of steadily decreasing diameter. See, we didn't
just have that extra .5 of a tank - we had tens of thousands more, plus total
command of the air over most of our battlefields on the continent.

>http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/pantherc.html
>"The Panther became one of the finest medium tanks of WW2, with a
>growing increase in the number of operational Panthers and a drop in
>the number of Panthers lost. Overheating was overcome by fitting a
>second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later
>Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in
>the Kursk debacle. Many of Germany's top panzer aces achieved their
>finest victories with this vehicle.

The ones that survived Kursk in their early defective Panthers...

>Soldiers like SS-Oberscharfuhrer
>Ernst Barkmann, who in an exposed spot with his sole Panther knocked
>out nine American M4 Shermans before withdrawing, were quick to prove
>the outstanding qualities of this tank.
He is not exactly a "typical" Panther commander, is he? In the right hands,
any weapon is lethal: consider the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service.
Barkmann could have managed that particular crossroads defence in a Pzkw IV;
nothing about the encounter was dependent upon a unique Mk. V trait.
Barkmann's excellent tactical positioning and years of tank warfare experience
doomed those Shermans before they ever rounded that bend in the road. He was
the tanker equivalent of a surgeon and his accomplishments were due to his own
tactics and abilities - his Panther certainly helped. Too bad for Germany that
we had air power, eh?

>According to statistics of the
>American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
>T-34's.

But on 6 May 1945, how many operational Panthers did they have, versus how many
operational Shermans and T-34s for us..?

>It was undoubtedly Germany's best tank design, giving the
>almost ideal balance between armor, speed, weight and firepower."

Yep. A fine tank. Then, we overwhelmed and defeated them. End of story.

>"During the Ardennes offensive several Shermans were knocked out in
>the middle of the night by Panthers using IR night-scopes. After
>locating US tanks with the IR scope, the Germans fired flares at the
>Shermans to light the target completely, and knocked them out."

"Within two months, every German soldier that participated in this engagement
was either dead, wounded, captured, or in full retreat, having abandoned their
fancy tanks long before."

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Krztalizer]

>
>One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will
>kill the Panther antway.
>Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in US.

The war ending B-29 was an engineering masterpiece and represented the only
true "overwhelming power" of WWII. The level of quality in a B-29 is far
beyond any other WWII warplane I have seen. And we have the production
capacity to churn out thousands. No, Den, we produced quantity AND quality -
F6F is a perfect example. The Luftwaffe loathed the Mustangs and never seemed
to denigrate its quality or its quantity. Several high ranking Nazis reported
they knew the war was lost the first time they saw Mustangs overhead.

"Look! Its hordes of poorly designed, mass produced crappy American Mustangs
shooting down our exquisitely hand-crafted Focke Wulfs! Damn them for their
logistical prowess!"

I don't think so Den.

A guy I interviewed years ago was quite animated in his descriptions of air
combat - he had kept quiet about his wartime career for decades but felt secure
in sharing his stories with me. During our meetings, I asked if he would sit
in a chair in the position he rode in the aircraft, hold his hand as if he was
holding a yoke, point at places on the instrument panel as he scanned his
gauges, etc., to see if he could recall details. He did this, his voice rising
as we went along. He talked for an hour, eyes wide and face sweating, telling
what it was like to hurl his overweight old piece of junk at Boeings and the
imminent danger from Mustangs and Jabos (that is how he referred to
Thunderbolts). During our conversation, he twitched and squirmed on his seat
and often glanced around the room or over his shoulder as he spoke, sometimes a
terse mutter or a loud outburst. By the time his wife interrupted and stopped
us, he was physically hunched into his seat as he talked with his lips cinched
down tight. He stood and showed off his scars from his burning flightsuit and
tried to express what it was like to live in terror, knowing that he was living
on borrowed time whenever the "coffin lid" closed on his fighter.

Ask a German soldier or airmen if it matters one bit whether they died due to
overwhelming quantity or overwhelming quality. In facing Americans, they got
to die doing both.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Evan Brennan]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
on British paratroopers after they
> > shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
> > Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
> > film' as well.
>
> As you may be aware, there is an enquiry currently going on about that. I
> totally agree with you that this was an awful event, all the worse for
> having been covered up at the time.

>
> 'Don't use troops for crowd control' would appear to be the motto here.


LOL. If only it were true. : )

I recently watched some fascinating film footage of UK troops in
Basrah. The British soldiers rushed a crowd of (unarmed) Iraqi
civilians, swinging their police batons, displaying the very same
brutality they used in Ireland. The best part is that the crowd fought
back -- and got in some good licks with fists flying. Not
surprisingly, some of the British punks quickly ran away when
challenged by the Iraqis.

Thus we have proof the UK still believes that winning their hearts and
minds is best done by cracking their skulls open first. You can be
certain that footage was shown to the Arab world on Al Jazeera TV.



>
> > Thus Mullen shows a common affliction of so many Brits: his head
> > appears to filled with nuclear waste.
>
> It only appears that way to you because your head is filled with doggy poo
> poo.
>
> > > I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.
> >
> >
> > The US usually learns valuable lessons from their mistakes, which is
> > more than we can say for the British. Their dead empire is the proof.
>
> And your empire is doing well just now, would you say? All that learning
> from mistakes should let you roll up the trouble in Iraq


All made possible by the unresolved blunders of the UK. Someone has to
clean up the mess created in Iraq left by the British government. As I
recall, their strongarm tactics also worked badly the last time the
Brits were in Iraq.

It wasn't enough that the British were embarrassed by the Turks at
Kut, where the UK suffered one of its worst military defeats. The
Brits then decided to drag out the pain over several decades, cobbling
together an ill-conceived artificial country -- and then finally
bugged out like cowards.


> you guys learned *so much* from getting your asses kicked in Nam.


When?

You British ladies will never forgive us because US forces did not
lose one battle in South Vietnam. That always gets your panties in a
bunch, I know.

By the way, a British officer managed to start that war as well. And
then of course the UK followed their usual fire drill and bugged out
like cowards. Please thank General Douglas Gracey for his Vietnam
follies.


> Particularly, after My Lai, I am sure no US forces would ever mistreat
> civilians again for example.


Should we brutally club the Iraqi civilians -- in public, in broad
daylight and in front of international news cameras -- as British
troops have done?


> (In case you don't get it, I am laughing my ass off here at your last
> paragraph. Thank you so much for the entertainment!)


Looks like Mullen got excited and wet himself for no reason.

[Evan Brennan]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
> wrote:
>
> >"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> >> > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
> >
> >
> >We don't see any reports to prove it.
> >
>
>
> ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?


Yes, 'we' don't see any such reports, but we can find the reports that
said the Challenger II was plagued with problems.



> greg
>
> [Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]



Only if you replace truth with childlike denial. Grow up little lady.


"In wartime, truth is so precious
that she should always be attended
by a bodyguard of lies"
~ Winston Churchill

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
> >
>
> Does not matter,Allies could counter Germans with 14 to 1 numerical
> superiority.
> One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one
will
> kill the Panther antway.
> Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in
US.

?????????

Please explain that to me, because at this point in time (indeed for the
last two decades or so), the USA's "overwhelming power" has been precicely
based on quality rather than quantity.

We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use expensive
presicion bombs, so we only need to use one or two to do the job of several
hundred cheaper, dumb ones. We use expensive, high-technology armor, so
while the USSR was building twenty thousand crappy T-72s, we built 4,600
quality M1s. We eliminated the draft, and cut our overall number of
soldiers, however our soldiers are now the best trained and equipped in the
world, bar none. Our future combat systems are based on having the most
advanced, highest quality equipment and machenery in the world, therefore
allowing an overall lighter force.

Every single aspect of the modern American armed forces screams quality over
quantity.

Maybe you have us confused with Russia? The last thing Russia was ever
concerned with is quality...in anything (especially the armed forces). They
wanted it cheap, fast and numerous...make it just good enough to work, but
make lots and lots of 'em. Probably why you'll find russian weapons in the
hands of every half-assed despot and bankrupt thug from Kazakstan to South
Africa.

[L'acrobat]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
> > > problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
> > > often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.
> >
> > You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".
> >
> > You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting
from
> > an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it and it
> > dies.
>
>
> There was no problem with the engines reliablity. Reliabillity
> problems related mainly to gearboxes and steering mechanisms on these
> Tanks and possibly the use of inferior raw materials. In anycase
> these are issues that are usually solved over 12 months.
>

"The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief
Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and
Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There
were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the
loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86
kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings
failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts
sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees
Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led
the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the
gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear
had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank,
but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive
shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary
to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking)
due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning.
The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely
perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km
of travel. "

Overheated engine block? - still it broke down often enough from other
causes, the engine had time to cool back down. yep, no engine problems
there.

[L'acrobat]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
> >
>
> Does not matter,Allies could counter Germans with 14 to 1 numerical
> superiority.
> One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one
will
> kill the Panther antway.
> Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in
US.
>

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

- Joseph Stalin

[Greg Hennessy]

On 10 May 2004 23:54:23 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

>Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>> On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
>> >> > But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
>> >
>> >
>> >We don't see any reports to prove it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?
>
>
>Yes, 'we' don't see any such reports,

Why does one 'need' to see reports that the Challenger II is a 'battle
proven piece of hardware'.

RU claiming that the UK used some other MBT ?

>but we can find the reports that
>said the Challenger II was plagued with problems.

Mr Brennan trots out the usual attempts at misdirection when challenged.
What a surprise.

>> greg
>>
>> [Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]
>
>
>
>Only if you replace truth with childlike denial.

Yes, the audience is fully aware that you cannot help being a self
documenting onanist.

Only an uninformed idiot would trot out old old anti british cliche of a
form which would get you laughed out of any pub in Dublin for being OTT.




Greg


--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Stephen Harding]

B2431 wrote:

> Actually the hidden base is underground in Antarctica. One of the Nazis, I
> forget whether it was den or teuton, claimed such a base exists and that it was
> used as a U-boat base during WW2.
>
> Either way it was never proven.

Which of course is quite substantial proof of the
validity of the claims for some minds.

You're being far too rational. You can never hope
to "see the light" if you keep this up.


SMH

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) writes:
>>
>>One Panther could kill five Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will
>>kill the Panther antway.
>>Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not quality but quantity in US.
>
> The war ending B-29 was an engineering masterpiece and represented the only
> true "overwhelming power" of WWII. The level of quality in a B-29 is far
> beyond any other WWII warplane I have seen. And we have the production
> capacity to churn out thousands. No, Den, we produced quantity AND quality -
> F6F is a perfect example.

Let's not forget teh other things that we were building at the same
time. The U.S. built over 100 Aircraft Carriers, the escort ships to
accompany them, and the airplanes and Aviators to fly from them.
(Admittedly, most of them were Escort Carriers, but given Germany's
track record wrt their Surface Navy, even an Escort Carrier was more
powerful than anything the Kreigsmarine came up with.

The effort put into training Pilots and Crews for all those airplanes
was unsurpassed, as well. U.S. Pilots came out of Flight Training
able to fly their airplanes in Instrument Conditions, Navigate them
themselves, and be effective 800 miles from their home bases.
German Day Fighter Pilots from the beginning of the War got no
instrument training, and cursory Navigation training. (Of course, with
a 109, you don't need to navigate, you're rarely out of sight of your
own airfield).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Eunometic" == Eunometic > writes:

Eunometic> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
Eunometic> >...
>> >>In fact the >>shermans absurd shape was a result of it having
>> been designed for a >>horizontal radial engine: itself a signe
>> of neglecting engine >>development.
>> >
>> >You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the
>> Panther?
>>
>> Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts
>> into this argument???

Hehe.

Eunometic> It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

Eunometic> "According to statistics of the American army,
Eunometic> destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
Eunometic> T-34's."

T-34/76 I suppose. T-34/85 much less - any Russian stats on their
respective losses vs. Panther? I didn't know the Americans used
the T-34, maybe they didn't know how to drive it properly :-)

Eunometic> Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary
Eunometic> chromite, vanadium and manganese to make it into armour
Eunometic> do you build 1.5 shermans or 1 panther?

Oops, trick question. If you want to build a 45t tank, it will
become a Panther. If you want to build a 30t tank, it definitely
won't. Um, did you mention relative price?

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Tank" == Tank Fixer > writes:

Tank> In article >,
Tank> on 11 May 2004 03:48:59 GMT, Denyav attempted
Tank> to say .....

>> numerical superiority. One Panther could kill five
>> Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will kill the
>> Panther antway. Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not
>> quality but quantity in US.

Tank> Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out
Tank> Shermans were in another tank a few days later

Really? I was under the impression the Sherman was known as a
Ronson for good reasons. And fire being the worst enemy of tank
crews, is the high survival rate you imply due to the
self-preservation training of the crews? (let's say, for example,
all hatches open, skilled at getting out in a hurry, etc?) Or did
the German shells not cause catastrophic fires and ammunition
explosions?

And was there a difference between the survival rate of the
Sherman crews and say, the Panther and Tiger crews?

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "Tank" == Tank Fixer > writes:
>
> Tank> In article >,
> Tank> on 11 May 2004 03:48:59 GMT, Denyav attempted
> Tank> to say .....
>
> >> numerical superiority. One Panther could kill five
> >> Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will kill the
> >> Panther antway. Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not
> >> quality but quantity in US.
>
> Tank> Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out
> Tank> Shermans were in another tank a few days later
>
> Really? I was under the impression the Sherman was known as a
> Ronson for good reasons. And fire being the worst enemy of tank
> crews, is the high survival rate you imply due to the
> self-preservation training of the crews? (let's say, for example,
> all hatches open, skilled at getting out in a hurry, etc?) Or did
> the German shells not cause catastrophic fires and ammunition
> explosions?
>

The introduction of wet storage for ammunition from
1944 onwards greatly reduced the fires risk to crews

Keith

[Denyav]

>That was my unwritten point - yet Den and Arnt and all of the other Big Lie
>dispensers still depict the Third Reich as being capable of ridiculously
>improbable feats of engineering derring-do, irregardless of the plain fact
>that>the war accellerated technological progress across the globe. Wartime
>shortages in critical raw and rare elements affected everyone, but the
>Germans
>most of all. Yet in the Denarnt

Typical standardized mind thinking forgetting famous scientific and
technological savvyness of Germans.

For decades world public listened stories made up by the victors:
Germans were short on raw materials:Surely true,otherwise they would win,but
S-Projects run by SS have absolutely priority,they got what needed always.

Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every gram
of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and shipped to
the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must be
very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).If you are interested Japan
A-Bomb was also ready and waiting for uran shipment,(Another small piece of
info that our "Great Leaders" never told us).

Where these Uran came from? Germans have nothing like Oak Ridge,Hancock or TVA.
Who needs them?Germans perfected gas centrifuge technology in late 30s/early
40s.
Late 1943 cenrifuge cascades were up and running and producing weapon grade
Uran.

Germans were so advanced in gas centrifuge technology so US had invited
Dr.Zippe,one of three top German gas centrifuge designers during WWII,in 50s to
train US designers.
Only after arrival of Zippe,US realized how advanced was German and Soviet
(Zippe and others designed gas centrifuges for soviet nuclear program after
WWII) gas centrifuge technology and pressurized Adenuaer government to classify
all german gas centrifuge work.Upon US request German Gov't classified german
gas centrifuge documents in 1960

Urban legends are the stories that our "Great Leaders" told us in last 60
years

[John Mullen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...

(snip)

> > (In case you don't get it, I am laughing my ass off here at your last
> > paragraph. Thank you so much for the entertainment!)
>
>
> Looks like Mullen got excited and wet himself for no reason.

I'm terribly sorry to have bothered you, Brenny-boy. I had no idea you were
so very ill. I really hope things improve for you soon, boy.

J

[Denyav]

>Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out Shermans were in
>another tank a few days later

I thought the name of M1 was Abrams not Sherman

[John Mullen]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "mut head" Mullen > wrote:
> > > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >
> > > In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
> > ignored
> > > any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days
to
> > put
> > > down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't
> that
> > > much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents
> contained
> > > within it.
> >
> > I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of
> democracy
> > or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?
>
> Which is a constraint that is removed if the forces operate without
concern
> for "collateral damage" and that lack of concern was the primary part of
the
> original post by Paladino.

Sure. As long as we recognise that we are in fantasy land, in alternate
universes, in what-if territory, I have no problem with that. I'm sure if we
were able to act as brutally as Saddam did, we could probably crush the
population as effectively as he did.

Trouble no 1 is that that, if successful, would simply give us back the
status quo. We were supposed to have intervened to improve things in Iraq.
(I think WMD were mentioned too, but let's not bring that up again now!)

Trouble no 2 is that Saddam's thugs were at least Iraqis. Our stormtroopers
in this 'what-if' would be furrners. Resistance would be even easier to
organise than it is now.

Trouble no 3 is that for all their many imperfections, the US and the UK are
liberal democracies with a free press. People would not accept seeing on TV
and in the press, the kind of viciousness that Saddam perpetrated, being
done by our troops. They just wouldn't. If anyone was in doubt over this,
this past week's events must surely prove it. So you would need martial law
in both countries and total news censorship. For starters. And censorship is
much harder now than it used to be.


> > > btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
> > those
> > > polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf
> > >
> >
> > Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
> > example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.
>
> I guess that depends on how you look at it. A response from 98.5% of those
> polled found that less than 10% of them had even heard that US and UK
troops
> were in the country and the answers to that question weeds out the
responses
> to other questions they asked. Looking at the quoted numbers for
recognition
> of local political figures the results probably match the level of
> recognition you would expect to find close to an election in the US and UK
> (damn low).

OK. I read it as meaning that only 10% answered the question, of whom 98%
expressed that view. Your reading actually makes more sense, when I think
about it. A rather surprising statistic, isn't it?

> btw. sorry about the original comment.

No problem. I appreciate the apology.

John

[Denyav]

>We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
>stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use expensive
>presicion bombs, so we only need

If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.
Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not enjoy
a vast numerical superiority? Vietnam?,Grenada?Panama?Iraq?Serbia?Afghanistan?
Some of them had not even one flyable aircraft.

A nationons and or its leaders way of thinking is shaped by traumatic events in
nations history.
And traumatic effect influenced the thinking of US leaders is not Pearl
Harbor,Vietnam or 9/11,it is Civil War.


Even during so called union victory at Gettyburg Union lost more soldiers than
Lee,but union losses were only less than a quarter of union army while Lees
losses amounted to more than half of his army,and more importantly union losses
could be replaced within days with fresh supply of immigrants but Cobfederates
losses were the losses for good.

Thats the starting point of "overwhelming force" thinking.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
> >stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use expensive
> >presicion bombs, so we only need
>
> If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
> would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.
> Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not
> enjoy a vast numerical superiority?

The reason we won in WWII was that we had *huge* advantages in materiel,
because we had massive productivity compared to the Germans and the
Japanese. The tanks we had, while not as good as what the Germans could
field on a one to one basis, were good enough to make that up by coming
in at ten to one, and had the support to keep them running. We had some
very nice heavy tanks that could manage toe-to-toe fights with the big
German heavies, but they were much more expensive to make and operate.

On the other hand, in some cases during WWII, the US and out allies had
very definite advantages in technology. The Norden bombsight (covered
in another thread), the B-29 (along with pretty much all of our heavy
bombers, which the Germans couldn't seem to match), code-breaking, and
*trucks*. Lots and lots of extremely reliable trucks, which could be
built in the tens of thousands without crippling the production of
fighting vehicles like tanks.

Wars are won with logistics, and even in WWII, we had that down better
than anyone.

Nowadays, while the US has gone into the high tech side of the equation,
we still keep the production side advantage. Sure, there are other
planes that are "pretty good," but nobody has the capability to make
them in the numbers it would take to beat the US.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[robert arndt]

Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
> Denyav attempted to say .....
>
> > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
> > >captured from the Nazis)
> > >
> >
> > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
> >
>
> some proof please.

Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
Japan. I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
pointing to.
AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
(aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
Wilcox.

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
> > Denyav attempted to say .....
> >
> > > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy
was
> > > >captured from the Nazis)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
> > >
> >
> > some proof please.
>
> Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
> Japan.

<Giggle-snort!>

I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
> supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
> tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
> pointing to.

Yo, Genius! Guess what? Fat Man was a *plutonium* weapon. And you were
saying...?

Brooks

> AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
> were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
> (aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
> wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
> hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
> carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
> to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
> I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
> is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
> project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
> U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
> handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
> Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
> A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
> shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
> Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
> For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
> Wilcox.
>
> Rob

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
> >stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use
expensive
> >presicion bombs, so we only need
>
> If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
> would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.

No, it would be a *good* bike. One that may allow you to win the race easier
than your competition.

> Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not
enjoy
> a vast numerical superiority?
Vietnam?,Grenada?Panama?Iraq?Serbia?Afghanistan?
> Some of them had not even one flyable aircraft.

But in your original post, you said that we stress quantity OVER quality.

That is simply not the case at all. We can afford both. We can build the
highest quality hardware, and procure it in significant quantities. However,
if we were not concerned with quality, as you asserted, we would probably
have 20,000 tanks in our inventory instead of 4,600.


>
> A nationons and or its leaders way of thinking is shaped by traumatic
events in
> nations history.
> And traumatic effect influenced the thinking of US leaders is not Pearl
> Harbor,Vietnam or 9/11,it is Civil War.
>
>
> Even during so called union victory at Gettyburg Union lost more soldiers
than
> Lee,but union losses were only less than a quarter of union army while
Lees
> losses amounted to more than half of his army,and more importantly union
losses
> could be replaced within days with fresh supply of immigrants but
Cobfederates
> losses were the losses for good.
>
> Thats the starting point of "overwhelming force" thinking.

Perhaps, but today the US armed forces are at a point where they no longer
need to think in terms of losing half or a quarter of their soldiers in
battle. Our technology makes it possible to field limited numbers of assets
if necessary (as a percent of the whole) and guarantee victory.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
>> Denyav attempted to say .....
>>
>> > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
>> > >captured from the Nazis)
>> > >
>> >
>> > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
>> >
>>
>> some proof please.
>
>Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
>Japan.

Prove it.

>I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
>supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
>tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
>pointing to.

And I have seen photographs of UFOs and space aliens. Now just WHY would the
U.S. release a picture with such a thing when they spent so much time saying
they had no Nazi influence or components.

Please note that both Fatman's and Little Boy's shells were both made before
you surrendered.

Even if all the weapons grade uranium the Nazis made was in Little Boy it was
still a very small fraction of that required. You guys simply didn't have the
capacity to mass produce it.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)

>A-Bomb was also ready and waiting for uran shipment,(Another small piece of
>info that our "Great Leaders" never told us).

Prove it. Where did they get the berylium?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...

> Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every
gram
> of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and
shipped to
> the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must
be
> very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
> transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).

Bull****, if they had stacked that much highly enriched uranium
in the manner described they'd have had a prompt criticallity
event.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
(Krztalizer) wrote in message news:<20040
>...
>> >You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?
>>
>> Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
>> argument???
>>
>> G
>
>It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.

>"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
>costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
>
>Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
>vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
>shermans or 1 panther?

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every
> gram
>> of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and
> shipped to
>> the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must
> be
>> very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
>> transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).
>
> Bull****, if they had stacked that much highly enriched uranium
> in the manner described they'd have had a prompt criticallity
> event.

It most certainly wasn't wnriched U. According to teh people I have
known who helped unload that boat, it was most likely Yellowcake.

How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle UF6.
If you can't spare the metals to build proper jet engines, you can't
build an industrial plant that can handle Uranium Hexaflouride.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Eunometic]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >
> >It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.
>
> To what description of "ideal tank proportions"? Where are these proportions
> laid out?
>
> >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
>
> If you think its news that the Panther was a better tank, its not.
> The salient point is not which is better, it is this: at the end of the
> war, JS, KV, Shermans, M-26s, and Cromwells parked on top of the wreckage
> of the last smoking King Tiger and Panther hulls. We won.

The numerical superiority of the allies was not primarily due to
better production technology. It was that the Germans, infact the
whole axis, were simply outnumbered. The USA was a large nation
loaded with manpower and raw materials that was out of attack range.

>
> >Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
> >vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
> >shermans or 1 panther?
>
> Well, that's a little incomplete, isn't it? Add a few modifiers to that
> question, such as, how many expert tank builders are required to build each,
> and how many of these can effectively be fielded and supported in combat?

In theory less than 1.5. The ratio of mass of a Panther versus
Sherman.
In reality debugging the design and the production means that it will
take somewhat more resources intitially.

> An
> individual tank's relative usefulness to its country has to take into account
> its reliability, and I would take a force of Shermans over a force of Panthers
> and 70% of the time, I'd win.

The reliablity of the Panther improved to a level that it could not be
considered unreliable. Was the Sherman ever unreliable in its life
cycle.

> What that translates to is that eventually, I
> get to plant my flag in the middle of your garden. In a war of attritrition,
> give me my 1.5 tanks over your 1.0 tanks, but remember, I get unlimited
> logistics and you get a noose of steadily decreasing diameter. See, we didn't
> just have that extra .5 of a tank - we had tens of thousands more, plus total
> command of the air over most of our battlefields on the continent.

The general argument in these threads was that quantity and
reliabillity beets superior quality.

The realities of the situation are that Germany's resources and
manpower were significantly less. A superior tank like the Panther
gave the Germans the Chance to develop a 4:1 kill ratio with only 4-5
crew in a single 45 ton tank as opposed to 1.5 30 ton tanks requiring
7.5 crew. Despite its largers size logistics of fuel and munition
favours the panther as well I think.

>
> >http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/pantherc.html
> >"The Panther became one of the finest medium tanks of WW2, with a
> >growing increase in the number of operational Panthers and a drop in
> >the number of Panthers lost. Overheating was overcome by fitting a
> >second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later
> >Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in
> >the Kursk debacle. Many of Germany's top panzer aces achieved their
> >finest victories with this vehicle.
>
> The ones that survived Kursk in their early defective Panthers...

Everyone new they had been rushed into service way ahead of schedule.

>
> >Soldiers like SS-Oberscharfuhrer
> >Ernst Barkmann, who in an exposed spot with his sole Panther knocked
> >out nine American M4 Shermans before withdrawing, were quick to prove
> >the outstanding qualities of this tank.

> He is not exactly a "typical" Panther commander, is he? In the right hands,
> any weapon is lethal: consider the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service.
> Barkmann could have managed that particular crossroads defence in a Pzkw IV;
> nothing about the encounter was dependent upon a unique Mk. V trait.
> Barkmann's excellent tactical positioning and years of tank warfare experience
> doomed those Shermans before they ever rounded that bend in the road. He was
> the tanker equivalent of a surgeon and his accomplishments were due to his own
> tactics and abilities - his Panther certainly helped.

The Pzkw IV was equavalent to the Sherman and T34 and with its longer
barrelled version had much more hitting power than sherman or T34/76
(accept for the firefly sherman). This of course was a reliable,
mobile and easy to manufacture tank with adaquete hitting power.
Would Barkmann have been able to do the above without the Panther?
That surely depends on the range of the engagement, did the Panther
take hits.

> Too bad for Germany that we had air power, eh?

That's political and I try, a bit on this newgroup, to stay away from
it.

Nevertheless this was a fratracidal war. Looking at the state of the
world now I don't think the west or the world would have been worse of
for either having avoided a fight with the Germans or even lost it in
parts.

>
> >According to statistics of the
> >American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
> >T-34's.
>
> But on 6 May 1945, how many operational Panthers did they have, versus
> how many operational Shermans and T-34s for us..?

The tanks the east, some 1200 heavies, defending Germany from the
final Red drive had less than 2-3 loads of fuel (about 400 kilometer
range). It probaly cost germany the loss of most of the annexed
eastern parts.

Without the use of fluidised bed reactors (under development) took
over 15 tons of steel to provide the synthetic fuel plant the abillity
to make just 1 barrel per day.

This is another reason to focus on using less steel in a smaller
number of heavier and superior tanks.


>
> >It was undoubtedly Germany's best tank design, giving the
> >almost ideal balance between armor, speed, weight and firepower."
>
> Yep. A fine tank. Then, we overwhelmed and defeated them. End of story.

Mostly on the basis of numericaly superior manufacturing facilities
and access to raw materials. Although there is apparently much truth
to the superiroty of allied manufacturing managment this relates to
the immaturity of the resurgent German arms industry: strenuous and
effective mass production techniques were introduced. The modularised
method of ship building used in destroyers and the type XXI u-boat
seems to have been followed by the German industry post WW2.

The Me 109 was a case of the Germans following the very stratagy you
support: quantity over quality. It was easy to produce: the airframe
with its all 2 dimensional curves took about 1/4th the manhowers of
that of the spitfire by one account as far as Me 109E and MkIII
spitfire is concerned. Would you argue that the British gave up the
Spit in favour of Huricane production?

How many Pzkw Mk IV were sacrificed in order to build one Pzkw Mk V
(Panthers). If steel is the determining factor it is only 1.5 and the
Panther makes tremendous sense.

Other factors of course may have come into play such as the lower
efficiency of production due to the introduction of a new type. This
is however only an initial factor.

Given the Soviet possesion of a number of super heavy tanks something
better than the Pzkw Mk IV was needed anyway.

Furthermore the Panther was capable of growth. The already potent
75mm caliber L70 gun could be replaced by the 75mm L100 or 88 L65 or
L71. The last version under test was to receive the bigger guns, a
stereoscopic range finder, standard night vision equipment and
gyrostablisation and would have been needed to deal with Centurions
and Pershings.


>
> >"During the Ardennes offensive several Shermans were knocked out in
> >the middle of the night by Panthers using IR night-scopes. After
> >locating US tanks with the IR scope, the Germans fired flares at the
> >Shermans to light the target completely, and knocked them out."
>
> "Within two months, every German soldier that participated in this engagement
> was either dead, wounded, captured, or in full retreat, having abandoned their
> fancy tanks long before."

This doesn't mean that buiding the Panther was an irrational decision.
It may have been optimal given the Gemran predicament in resources.


>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
> An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 11 May 2004 16:45:21 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> >Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out Shermans were in
> >another tank a few days later
>
> I thought the name of M1 was Abrams not Sherman
>

And here I thought we were talking about world war 2 tanks.

But, matters not, the statement still stands. The majority of crews from
NMC Abrahms were able to crew a tank the next day.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 11 May 2004 11:05:25 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> > In article >,
> > on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
> > Denyav attempted to say .....
> >
> > > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
> > > >captured from the Nazis)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
> > >
> >
> > some proof please.
>
> Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
> Japan. I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
> supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
> tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
> pointing to.

You can't be serious if you call this proof.

> AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
> were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
> (aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
> wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
> hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
> carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
> to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
> I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
> is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
> project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
> U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
> handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
> Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
> A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
> shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
> Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
> For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
> Wilcox.
>

The German's sent Yellowcake, not refined U-235

Just where was germany geting refine u235 ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
m...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...

<snip>

>
> > Too bad for Germany that we had air power, eh?
>
> That's political and I try, a bit on this newgroup, to stay away from
> it.

Yeah, gosh forbid we get back somewhere close to being on-topic.

>
> Nevertheless this was a fratracidal war. Looking at the state of the
> world now I don't think the west or the world would have been worse of
> for either having avoided a fight with the Germans or even lost it in
> parts.

Unbelievable. You don't think either the West *or* the world would have been
worse off if Hitler had remained in power, if we had "lost it in parts"? You
and Arndt need to go off by yourselves and create a, "Hitler was OK by me"
group where you can commiserate with each other. How many more millions fed
through the gas chambers and ovens would have satisfied you, and how well do
you think that serves the state of today's world?

I don't agree with much of what you argue in this thread, but at least it
has been a cogent argument that you have made...right up until you blathered
the above, that is.

Brooks

<snip>

[Eunometic]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Eunometic
> > writes
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message news:<20040
> >...
> >> >You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?
> >>
> >> Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
> >> argument???
> >>
> >> G
> >
> >It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.
>
> It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
> if overcomplicated German vehicle.

Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well. The
Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
designed for installation of an aircooled radial. That drove the
designe and I suggest it compromised protection.


>
> >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
> >
> >Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
> >vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
> >shermans or 1 panther?
>
> Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.

Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk and PzKw
IV/Sherman class and Tiger/JS2 class vehicles for specialist duties.
(Infact the US had a 60 ton tank heavier than even the Pershing in
service at the end of WW2)

The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.
On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
at point blank range and with it it couldn't obtain a hit much beyond
it. Latter work (much latter) clearly debugged the issues with APDS
and the sherman received 90mm and even 105mm (lower velocity and
caliber but ideal for APDS)

The 3000fps L70 75mm of the Panther would easily obtain hits and kills
at 1500-2000m. The L100 (I suspect) would have achieved 3500 fps and
surely opened up range even further.

For whatever reason range was opening up. The Germans also had very
limited supplies of tungsten and had to rely on these hypervelocity
guns. Tungsten was reserved for machine tool production though some
was available to long barrelled Mk103 30mm canon wielding Fw190s which
could penetrate 140mm with its muzzle velicity increased by the 150m/s
of the aircraft.

Since the Germans used Uranium (they had their own mines) as a
substitute for Tungsten in hardening some of their metal cutting tools
one wonders whether they would have hit on the idea of using it as
shot or mayber even hardened some armour piercing shells with it?

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In article >,
> > > on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
> > > Denyav attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy
> was
> > > > >captured from the Nazis)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
> > > >
> > >
> > > some proof please.
> >
> > Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
> > Japan.
>
> <Giggle-snort!>
>
> I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
> > supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
> > tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
> > pointing to.
>
> Yo, Genius! Guess what? Fat Man was a *plutonium* weapon. And you were
> saying...?
>
> Brooks

Uranium ore produces U-235 and U-238. U-238 can be made into Plutonium
by putting it in a reactor, fool. Thus, the captured German uranium
supplied to the Manhatten project could have been used with any of the
three A-bombs detonated: Trinity, Little Boy, or Fat Man.
The fact that captured German uranium was supplied to the Manhatten
Project:
http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html
BEFORE any of the bombs were detonated. This does not count the 560kg
of uranium seized from German U-boat of which 4 kg of U-235 could have
been extratced. A small amount, but a contributor to Little Boy which
recent information suggests was one-fifth German (or 12kg).
As for Fat Man, I have no idea. All the photos of the German language
warning labels near the tail fins are too small to read.

Rob
>
> > AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
> > were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
> > (aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
> > wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
> > hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
> > carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
> > to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
> > I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
> > is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
> > project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
> > U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
> > handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
> > Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
> > A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
> > shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
> > Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
> > For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
> > Wilcox.
> >
> > Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
> > > > Denyav attempted to say .....
> > > >
> > > > > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little
Boy
> > was
> > > > > >captured from the Nazis)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > some proof please.
> > >
> > > Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
> > > Japan.
> >
> > <Giggle-snort!>
> >
> > I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
> > > supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
> > > tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
> > > pointing to.
> >
> > Yo, Genius! Guess what? Fat Man was a *plutonium* weapon. And you were
> > saying...?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Uranium ore produces U-235 and U-238. U-238 can be made into Plutonium
> by putting it in a reactor, fool. Thus, the captured German uranium
> supplied to the Manhatten project could have been used with any of the
> three A-bombs detonated: Trinity, Little Boy, or Fat Man.
> The fact that captured German uranium was supplied to the Manhatten
> Project:
> http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html
> BEFORE any of the bombs were detonated. This does not count the 560kg
> of uranium seized from German U-boat of which 4 kg of U-235 could have
> been extratced. A small amount, but a contributor to Little Boy which
> recent information suggests was one-fifth German (or 12kg).
> As for Fat Man, I have no idea. All the photos of the German language
> warning labels near the tail fins are too small to read.

Read your source document again, genius. The Pu 239 was in transit to Los
Alamos in February, before any of these great finds of German materiel. The
first major finds of German uranium (ore) were not until mid-April and
later. And you think this materiel was somehow vital to our getting the
bombs ready for the Trinity test and Little Boy/Fat Man? That would appear
to rank up there with your "secret base in Antarctica" nonsense. That
uranium ore was captured too late to contribute to our wartime bombs.

Brooks

>
> Rob
> >
> > > AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
> > > were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
> > > (aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
> > > wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
> > > hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
> > > carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
> > > to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
> > > I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
> > > is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
> > > project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
> > > U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
> > > handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
> > > Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
> > > A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
> > > shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
> > > Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
> > > For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
> > > Wilcox.
> > >
> > > Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Uranium ore produces U-235 and U-238. U-238 can be made into
> Plutonium by putting it in a reactor, fool. Thus, the captured German
> uranium supplied to the Manhatten project could have been used with
> any of the three A-bombs detonated: Trinity, Little Boy, or Fat Man.

Nope. Not enough time. Especially for the plutonium, which had to go
through a fairly lengthy time in a reactor first, then get separated,
then machined.

> The fact that captured German uranium was supplied to the Manhatten
> Project:
> http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html
> BEFORE any of the bombs were detonated.

Two or three months before.

Which means that every bit of fissionable material used in the two bombs
had been in process for a month or so (at least) before the German
material was even captured. Note that almost all of the German uranium
was uranium oxide, not refined metal. The Russians captured most of
Germany's refined uranium in Berlin.

> This does not count the 560kg of uranium seized from German U-boat of
> which 4 kg of U-235 could have been extratced.

....which wasn't needed, since the US had plenty of access to raw uranium
ore and processed ore (the uranium oxide in the sub wasn't that useful,
in other words). They had access to thousands of *tons* of the stuff by
that point (the Canadian mines alone could supply hundreds of tons of
uranium, not to mention the African and western US supplies), and the
uranium enrichment plants were in full swing. There literally wasn't
enough time for the German uranium to get captured, get shipped back
across the Atlantic, go through all of the enrichment processes
involved, and make it into the one uranium-based bomb used in 1945.

You have to remember that we had fairly large stocks (hundreds of tons)
of uranium oxide sitting around in waste piles before the war, as a side
effect of extracting vanadium from some ores.

Total stocks of uranium oxide for the Manhattan Project was _18.9
million pounds_. A few hundred more pounds fro the tiny German program
wouldn't even be worth shipping, except to keep it out of the hands of
the Germans.

> A small amount, but a contributor to Little Boy which recent
> information suggests was one-fifth German (or 12kg).

No "recent information" that holds up under scrutiny.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>


>As for Fat Man, I have no idea. All the photos of the German language
>warning labels near the tail fins are too small to read.


Then how do you know they are in German?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > In article >,
>> > > on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
>> > > Denyav attempted to say .....
>> > >
>> > > > >Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy
>> was
>> > > > >captured from the Nazis)
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > some proof please.
>> >
>> > Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
>> > Japan.
>>
>> <Giggle-snort!>
>>
>> I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
>> > supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
>> > tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
>> > pointing to.
>>
>> Yo, Genius! Guess what? Fat Man was a *plutonium* weapon. And you were
>> saying...?
>>
>> Brooks
>
>Uranium ore produces U-235 and U-238. U-238 can be made into Plutonium
>by putting it in a reactor, fool. Thus, the captured German uranium
>supplied to the Manhatten project could have been used with any of the
>three A-bombs detonated: Trinity, Little Boy, or Fat Man.
>The fact that captured German uranium was supplied to the Manhatten
>Project:
>http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html
>BEFORE any of the bombs were detonated. This does not count the 560kg
>of uranium seized from German U-boat of which 4 kg of U-235 could have
>been extratced. A small amount, but a contributor to Little Boy which
>recent information suggests was one-fifth German (or 12kg).
>As for Fat Man, I have no idea.

Amazing how the Nazi uranium purified itself at a much higher rate than the
U.S. uranium according to your theory.

I need you to explain to me how a few crude gas centrifuges can produce so much
weapons grade uranium in 2 months. I suggest you have no idea how a gas
centrifuge works.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[L'acrobat]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
m...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > >It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.
> >
> > To what description of "ideal tank proportions"? Where are these
proportions
> > laid out?
> >
> > >"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
> > >costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."
> >
> > If you think its news that the Panther was a better tank, its not.
> > The salient point is not which is better, it is this: at the end of the
> > war, JS, KV, Shermans, M-26s, and Cromwells parked on top of the
wreckage
> > of the last smoking King Tiger and Panther hulls. We won.
>
> The numerical superiority of the allies was not primarily due to
> better production technology. It was that the Germans, infact the
> whole axis, were simply outnumbered. The USA was a large nation
> loaded with manpower and raw materials that was out of attack range.


That Germany chose to declare war on, whilst under no treaty obligation to
do so.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
> Uranium ore produces U-235 and U-238. U-238 can be made into Plutonium
> by putting it in a reactor, fool. Thus, the captured German uranium
> supplied to the Manhatten project could have been used with any of the
> three A-bombs detonated: Trinity, Little Boy, or Fat Man.


The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium weapon, no
plutonium was involved and the materials used in the
enrichment were already in the pipeline when U-234
surrendered.

The USA had hundreds of tons of Uranium oxide in the
enrichment and reactor streams from many sources including
hundreds of tons from the Congo mines and stocks captured
in Belgium in 1944. The 0.5 ton German shipment was
a small portion that simply didnt have time to make it through
the system


> The fact that captured German uranium was supplied to the Manhatten
> Project:
> http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html
> BEFORE any of the bombs were detonated. This does not count the 560kg
> of uranium seized from German U-boat of which 4 kg of U-235 could have
> been extratced.

Only if the mechanisms existed for 100% extraction, which it didnt.

> A small amount, but a contributor to Little Boy which
> recent information suggests was one-fifth German (or 12kg).

Highly unlikely given the timelines involved, they started enrichment
at Oak Ridge 2 years before the bomb was constructed, at best
the German shipment could only have arrived weeks ahead of the
bomb construction. Its more likely to have been part of the
weapons assembled in 1948 than 1945

> As for Fat Man, I have no idea. All the photos of the German language
> warning labels near the tail fins are too small to read.
>

Given that a large portion of the scientists working at
Los Alamos were German jews the presence of german
language labels is rather unsurprising.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (robert arndt)

>
> Amazing how the Nazi uranium purified itself at a much higher rate than
the
> U.S. uranium according to your theory.
>

As I recall the entire enrichment yield in Germany was
18 grams of Uranium enriched to 3%

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
m...

>
> The numerical superiority of the allies was not primarily due to
> better production technology. It was that the Germans, infact the
> whole axis, were simply outnumbered. The USA was a large nation
> loaded with manpower and raw materials that was out of attack range.
>

Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms of aircraft, artillery
and tanks by 1943

Germany managed to produce around 14,000 Mk II & IV
5,000 Mk V and 2000 Mk VI

Britain produced 28,000 tanks of all types

Keith

[Alistair Gunn]

Eunometic twisted the electrons to say:
> Latter work (much latter) clearly debugged the issues with APDS
> and the sherman received 90mm and even 105mm (lower velocity and
> caliber but ideal for APDS)

The 105mm they shoved into the Sherman during WW2 was a howitzer for
infantry support duties - hardly the sort of thing you want to take on a
Panther / Tiger with[1]. Unless, of course, you where referring to the
Israeli Super Shermans ...

[1] Though I'm having thoughts of the scene from _Kelly's Heroes_ when we
first meet Oddball! <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Denyav]

>How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
>had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
>hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle UF6.

Gas centrifuge seperation technology does not require a TVA.

Urban Legends,before 1992 nobody knew or did not want to speak about SS nuclear
program.
Between 1945 and 1992 everbody talked about Heisenberg and his
work,interestingly the word used for his work in 3rd Reich documents is
"tarnforshung"

>f you can't spare the metals to build proper jet engines, you can't
>build an industrial plant that can handle Uranium Hexaflouride.
>
S-projects had absolute priority over V-programs and jet fighters.
Heck,we heard about S-programs only after the demise of Soviet Union.

[Denyav]

>Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms of aircraft, artillery
>and tanks by 1943
>
>Germany managed to produce around 14,000 Mk II & IV
>5,000 Mk V and 2000 Mk VI
>
>Britain produced 28,000 tanks of all types
>
>Keith

Thats true,but its equally true that the Britain of 1943 was very different
from Britain of 2004.
Britian of 1943 was an empire streching from North America to New Zealand and
from British Isles to Indian Ocean and controlling the most of worlds raw
material and human resources.
Raw material and human resources controlled by British Crown in 1943 were even
greater than resources controlled by US and USSR combined.
You cannot even compare resources controlled by Germans with British controlled
resources.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
> >had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
> >hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle
> >UF6.
>
> Gas centrifuge seperation technology does not require a TVA.

Gas centrifuge technology to produce anything more than trivial amounts
of enriched uranium in less than several years *does*.

The Germans had about enough machinery on hand to produce enriched
uranium for lab purposes, not for anything even vaguely like critical
masses.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[T3]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >o, it would be a *good* bike. One that may allow you to win the race
easier
> >than your competition.
>
> Only if my competitors decide to enter race with another bike.
>
> >But in your original post, you said that we stress quantity OVER quality.
>
> Opponents like Iraq,Serbia,Afghanistan,Panama,Vietnam,Or Grenada provide
an
> excellent yardstick to measure the quality of US armed sevices.
> Even aganist such powerful, sophisticated and scientifically savvy
opponents
> the performance of US is below expectations.(specially in Balkans).
> Iraq conflict proves something beyond any doubt,the quality of the
personel is
> even lower than the weapons they use.
> Trailer parks are a reality of US and its armed forces.
> Without elevating the quality of population you cannot elevate the quality
of
> armed forces.
>
>
> >Our technology makes it possible to field limited numbers of assets
> >if necessary (as a percent of the whole) and guarantee victory.
>
> First of there is no "our" technology.The Most of US technology is
> imported,either stolen or developed here by "imported" talent.
> US is famous for not being able to produce its own top notch scientific
> talent.
>
> Regarding technologies that are the reason of next paradigm shift in
warfare,
> US is not even among top countries.
> Scientists in tiny Austria or Danemark are well ahead of well funded US
> scientists in understanding of the physics of these technologies.
> So if they wanted to become next "military" superpower of the world (very
> unlikely),they have good chances.
> Dont forget nations that produce excellent classical music composers,also
> produce excellent top notch scientists.
>
> US unfortunately produces only excellent rappers.
>
>

People, this guy is baiting you all, no one could actually believe his
crap. I doubt he does.
Killfile this idiot and move on.

T3

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
>> if overcomplicated German vehicle.
>
>Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well.

Certainly, but not enough to lose.

>The
>Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
>designed for installation of an aircooled radial.

With hindsight I'd have designed the Sherman lower, with a much better
gun (the 17pdr is the best that comes to mind in the timeframe so we'll
stick with that, but with a nice big turret ring so we can upgun later)
and - crucially - wet ammunition stowage from the start.

But, hindsight is easy.

>> Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.
>
>Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk

No, not Panthers. Too heavy, too unreliable, too complicated.

>The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
>the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
>accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
>it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.

Curiously, interviews with the gunners who fired it reckoned that the
17pdr shot flat to a thousand yards and that one or two rounds were all
that would be needed (the Archer crewman whose account I read, commented
that they could usually kill what they fired at with the first shot out
to a thousand yards, and that they displaced rapidly not to avoid
returning direct fire but to evade artillery called on their position)

Doesn't sound like inaccuracy was a gross problem. Of course, he was
merely *using* the weapon in combat, so his opinions are naturally
dubious.

>On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
>at point blank range

We *are* talking about the same 17pdr gun here, aren't we?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Chad Irby > writes:
> In article >,
> (Denyav) wrote:
>
>> >How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
>> >had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
>> >hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle
>> >UF6.
>>
>> Gas centrifuge seperation technology does not require a TVA.
>
> Gas centrifuge technology to produce anything more than trivial amounts
> of enriched uranium in less than several years *does*.
>
> The Germans had about enough machinery on hand to produce enriched
> uranium for lab purposes, not for anything even vaguely like critical
> masses.

It seems that he also missed teh point about the Germans not having
the materiels at hand to be able to handle UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride),
which is a necessary step in the gaseus diffusion process, in
industrial amounts. If you can't build high-temp turbine blades, you
can't make a gaseus diffusion plant. The amount of U235 that they
produced would just about fill a thimble.

But then again, Den's always been talking through his tinfoil beanie.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Eunometic
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
> >> if overcomplicated German vehicle.
> >
> >Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well.
>
> Certainly, but not enough to lose.
>
> >The
> >Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
> >designed for installation of an aircooled radial.
>
> With hindsight I'd have designed the Sherman lower, with a much better
> gun (the 17pdr is the best that comes to mind in the timeframe so we'll
> stick with that, but with a nice big turret ring so we can upgun later)
> and - crucially - wet ammunition stowage from the start.

I don't think that larger turret ring would have been required, based upon
the Israeli Super Sherman effort that put a 105mm in its turret.

Brooks

>
> But, hindsight is easy.
>
> >> Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.
> >
> >Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk
>
> No, not Panthers. Too heavy, too unreliable, too complicated.
>
> >The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
> >the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
> >accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
> >it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.
>
> Curiously, interviews with the gunners who fired it reckoned that the
> 17pdr shot flat to a thousand yards and that one or two rounds were all
> that would be needed (the Archer crewman whose account I read, commented
> that they could usually kill what they fired at with the first shot out
> to a thousand yards, and that they displaced rapidly not to avoid
> returning direct fire but to evade artillery called on their position)
>
> Doesn't sound like inaccuracy was a gross problem. Of course, he was
> merely *using* the weapon in combat, so his opinions are naturally
> dubious.
>
> >On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
> >at point blank range
>
> We *are* talking about the same 17pdr gun here, aren't we?
>
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Denyav]

>t seems that he also missed teh point about the Germans not having
>the materiels at hand to be able to handle UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride),
>which is a necessary step in the gaseus diffusion process, in
>industrial amounts. If you can't

Urban legends prepared by our "great leaders" for the consum of our
standardized minds.
In reality Zippe designed gas zentrifuges,manufactured in special SS controlled
parts of Degussa and Anschutz factories were achieving 30 % qffficiency .
GUZ or Gaz-Ultra-Zentrifuge technology was the key of german nuclear advances
and by the 1943 two GUZ cascades were in operation in SS controlled Berlin
north and Skoda producing weapon grade Uran.
S projects of 3rd Reich had absolute priority over everything else including V
projects.
But before 90s we did not even know that something called S projects existed
in Nazi Germany much less its details,even though Eisenhower implied that in
his book
Crusade in Europa almost half century ago.

[Eunometic]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
> > > > problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
> > > > often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.
> > >
> > > You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".
> > >
> > > You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting
> > > from an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it > > > > and it dies.
> >
> >
> > There was no problem with the engines reliablity. Reliabillity
> > problems related mainly to gearboxes and steering mechanisms on these
> > Tanks and possibly the use of inferior raw materials. In anycase
> > these are issues that are usually solved over 12 months.
> >
>
> "The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief
> Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and
> Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There
> were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the
> loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86
> kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings
> failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts
> sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees
> Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led
> the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the
> gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear
> had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank,
> but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive
> shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary
> to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking)
> due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning.
> The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely
> perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km
> of travel. "
>
> Overheated engine block? - still it broke down often enough from other
> causes, the engine had time to cool back down. yep, no engine problems
> there.

<http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm>

Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy,
too big, too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression
that it was lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as
incontrovertible facts, are never substantiated by actual
specifications, test reports or after-action accounts from the units
that used the Tiger II. In spite of these frequently repeated remarks,
the capability of the Tiger II to negotiate obstacles and cross
terrain was equivalent to or better than most German and allied tanks.

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which
required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These
problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets
and an over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton
vehicle. The problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was
compounded by a shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have
never experienced driving any vehicle prior to entering the service.
In addition they were provided only limited driver's training, and
then usually on a different type of panzer, and received their own
Tiger II usually within a few days before being shipped to the front.
But, with mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and
modification of key automotive components, the Tiger II could be
maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status reports
from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage
of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV
and as good as or better than the Panther.