America's Army Sucks, Fact [Archive]

Guy Alcala

May 30th 04, 11:21 PM

As a general rule I don't respond to threads started by trolls, but some of what
you wrote below in response is both on topic and factually incorrect, so I'll
correct it.

WalterM140 wrote:

<snip>

> I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's not
> generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships actually
> detonated.

I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly well
known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known among the
readers of s.m.n.

> They were US munitions left over from WWII.

No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series 1,000
lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs, either 250
or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax Bay
looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are post-WW2
vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

> Reduce that dud rate to
>zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the FAA
doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The reason so
few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the job
of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped from
altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the bombs
dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to clear the
target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by structure
inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding. The
whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about survival
than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG 317.0
(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine pilots
were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just that
reason.

On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a slick Mk.
82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off accordingly.

Guy

Keith Willshaw

May 31st 04, 01:10 AM

"cain_uk" > wrote in message
om...
> America's army sucks.
>
> They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
> B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western.

So when exactly do you think they used B-52's in the
old west ?

> Their a bunch of
> cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
> torturing Iraqi prisoners.
>
> For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

Thanks for proving we produce morons too.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

May 31st 04, 01:22 AM

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >America's army sucks.
> >
> >They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
> >B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
> >cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
> >torturing Iraqi prisoners.
> >
> >For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.
>
> As a former Marine, I don't make a lot of excuses for the US Army.
>
> The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.
>
> The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
borderline
> incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
> he planned the raid of Dieppe.

In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.

Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the operation
and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.

But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
before so why stop now.

Keith

Lynn Coffelt

May 31st 04, 01:57 AM

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
> (cain_uk) wrote in
> om:
>
> > For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.
> >
>
> See, and you Amricans think YOU have to put up with some morons! Where is
> Britian anyway? Is it anywhere near Britain?

Don't know, but reportedly on other side of "Alantic". <grin>

Lynn

Darrell Earnshaw

May 31st 04, 02:48 AM

Drewe Manton wrote:

> (cain_uk) wrote in
> om:
>
>
>>For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.
>>
>
>
> See, and you Amricans think YOU have to put up with some morons! Where is
> Britian anyway? Is it anywhere near Britain?
>
Well know fact that Trolls can't spell.

-- Darrell

Ugly Bob

May 31st 04, 03:40 AM

"cain_uk" > wrote in message
om...
> America's army sucks.
>
> They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
> B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western.

Um, that would be the Air Force. The Army is the one that has
rifles an' boots an' stuff but I don't think they use horses anymore.

> Their a bunch of cowboys.
^
They're. It's a contraction of 'they are.'

> And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
^
hear

> torturing Iraqi prisoners.
>
> For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

Who's Britian? I guess he must be new to this group. As for you,
Sir, back to 'English as a second language' class for you.

Denyav

May 31st 04, 04:11 AM

>Montgomery-- was borderline
>incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
>Crap,
>he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.
>

I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

redc1c4

May 31st 04, 08:17 AM

Denyav wrote:
>
> >Montgomery-- was borderline
> >incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
> >Crap,
> >he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.
> >
>
> I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
> casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

because the US drew the toughest sectors?

redc1c4,
"Market Garden"... 'nuff said.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

WalterM140

May 31st 04, 01:13 PM

>>Montgomery-- was borderline
>>incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
>>Crap,
>>he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.
>>
>
>I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
>casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?
>

At least partly because the Americans faced a first line infantry formation
that was on manuevers in the area right behind Omaha Beach.

At Utah, the US casualties were similar to those on Brit/Canadian beaches.

Walt

WalterM140

May 31st 04, 01:19 PM

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's
>not
>> generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships
>actually
>> detonated.
>
>I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly
>well
>known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known
>among the
>readers of s.m.n.

Sure, but 'most people' don't read this newsgroup.

>> They were US munitions left over from WWII.
>
>No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series
>1,000
>lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
>version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs,
>either 250
>or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax
>Bay
>looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are
>post-WW2
>vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
>Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
>Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
>entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
>French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

Thanks for the correction. I heard something else.

>
>> Reduce that dud rate to
>>zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.
>
>You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the
>FAA
>doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The
>reason so
>few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
>self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the
>job
>of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped
>from
>altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the
>bombs
>dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to
>clear the
>target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by
>structure
>inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding.
>The
>whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about
>survival
>than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG
>317.0
>(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine
>pilots
>were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just
>that
>reason.
>

Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits were gambling
they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly. Not very prudent.

You seem to agree that if -all- the bombs had detonated the Brit supporting
force would have been reduced below a level where the invasion could have been
supported.

>On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
>willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a
>slick Mk.
>82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off
>accordingly.
>
>Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

WalterM140

May 31st 04, 01:22 PM

>> The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.
>>
>> The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
>borderline
>> incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
>Crap,
>> he planned the raid of Dieppe.
>
>In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
>was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
>urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
>hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.
>
>Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
>took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the operation
>and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.
>
>But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
>before so why stop now.
>
>Keith
>

What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd what was
executed?

Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales when
compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives, failing
to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.

Walt

Alistair Gunn

May 31st 04, 05:01 PM

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
> Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
> were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
> Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Keith Willshaw

May 31st 04, 11:34 PM

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.
> >>
> >> The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
> >borderline
> >> incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as
advertised.
> >Crap,
> >> he planned the raid of Dieppe.
> >
> >In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
> >was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
> >urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
> >hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.
> >
> >Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
> >took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the
operation
> >and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.
> >
> >But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
> >before so why stop now.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd
what was
> executed?
>

Just about everything and most especially
timing.

> Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales when
> compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives,
failing
> to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.
>

Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith

Lyle

May 31st 04, 11:49 PM

On 31 May 2004 03:11:43 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Montgomery-- was borderline
>>incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
>>Crap,
>>he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.
>>
>
>I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
>casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?
you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All those people that died serveing
MCCLELLAN died for nogthing, and that is the true waste in war.

JMO

John Mullen

June 1st 04, 12:14 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.
> > >>
> > >> The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was
> > >borderline
> > >> incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as
> advertised.
> > >Crap,
> > >> he planned the raid of Dieppe.
> > >
> > >In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
> > >was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
> > >urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
> > >hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.
> > >
> > >Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
> > >took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the
> operation
> > >and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.
> > >
> > >But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
> > >before so why stop now.
> > >
> > >Keith
> > >
> >
> > What was the difference between what Montgomery planned originally amd
> what was
> > executed?
> >
>
> Just about everything and most especially
> timing.
>
> > Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales
when
> > compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives,
> failing
> > to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.
> >
>
> Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> got things more right than wrong.

The relationship betwen the two men is beautifully described in Chester
Wilmotts book... what ws it called? The Road to Europe maybe?

John

Denyav

June 1st 04, 12:45 AM

>you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
>see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
>then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
>gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translation:plenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.

Guy Alcala

June 1st 04, 04:24 AM

WalterM140 wrote:

> >> Reduce that dud rate to
> >>zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.
> >
> >You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the
> >FAA
> >doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The
> >reason so
> >few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
> >self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the
> >job
> >of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped
> >from
> >altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the
> >bombs
> >dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to
> >clear the
> >target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by
> >structure
> >inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding.
> >The
> >whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about
> >survival
> >than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG
> >317.0
> >(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine
> >pilots
> >were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just
> >that
> >reason.
> >
>
> Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits were gambling
> they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly. Not very prudent.

It wasn't a gamble at all, it was planned that way. Clapp had been a Buccaneer
observer and squadron commander, and he chose San Carlos Water for the landings and
set up the ships and land defenses to provide the Argentine pilots with just that
dilemma. The layout of the defenses was optimised to hit pilots making pop-up dive
attacks; British missiles would have been more effective as well, not being
bothered as much by ground clutter, and there would have been less worry about
having to check fire to avoid shooting up friendly troops/ships on the other side
of the water. As it was, the Argentine pilots chose to come in very low and fast,
limiting their acquisition time and the effectiveness of their attacks, but
improving their survival rate. Looked at objectively, they should have accepted
the higher losses of dive attacks for the potentially higher gains, but then that's
easy to say from the comfort of my chair.

> You seem to agree that if -all- the bombs had detonated the Brit supporting
> force would have been reduced below a level where the invasion could have been
> supported.

Doubtful. Most of the bombs hit the escorts outside of San Carlos Water; some were
effectively knocked out of the war in any case, even though they weren't sunk.
Only two LSLs were hit by bombs in SCW, Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad, and the
amount of damage caused if they'd gone off would have depended on where they hit
and what they were carrying at the time. If all the bombs had gone off then it's
possible that the British government might have decided that the cost was too high,
and it would almost certainly have delayed the ground forces. But they had lots of
reinforcing ships on the way, most of which arrived when the war was over or nearly
so, so their stores/equipment weren't needed. Argentina had no such second wave
capability. And Fuerza Aerea target priorities on D-Day sucked, which was
ultimately a far bigger problem than the dud bombs. Hitting the escorts didn't
delay the land campaign; hitting more of the supply ships before they could unload
would have.

Assuming that they'd ever been hit, the loss of Fearless would have caused a major
delay as she was the amphibious command ship, but her sister Intrepid could have
taken over, albeit at lower efficiency. Other than that, the Brits would have had
to lose a carrier; everything else (other than lives) was replaceable. As an
example, losing Atlantic Conveyor and the Chinook/Wessex helos she was bringing
down was the single most important blow to the campaign that the British suffered,
but her sister Atlantic Causeway arrived less than a week later, bringing another
28 or so helos with her (Wessex/Sea King). Another two ships were coming south
bringing more Chinooks and other helos, and arrived right about the time of the
surrender.

Guy

Regnirps

June 1st 04, 06:48 AM

redc1c4 wrote:

>Denyav wrote:

>> I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
>> casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

>because the US drew the toughest sectors?

No, because the Brits stopped for tea! Yes. Really. Folks who were there have
told me about it.

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps

June 1st 04, 06:59 AM

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote:

> For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

By Jove! I think you are right. Is that a bunch of WOGs from Nepal I see?

Guy Alcala

June 1st 04, 09:14 AM

Alistair Gunn wrote:

> WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
> > Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
> > were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
> > Not very prudent.
>
> The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
> knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
> 42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
> sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
> the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
> pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?
>
> [1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
> against a target at 50 feet?

Yes, in open water. Exeter claimed to have shot down at least one and
possibly two A-4Cs of Grupo 4, during the combined SuE/A-4 attack on 30? May
in which the Argentines believe (or claim to) that they hit HMS Invincible,
while the Brits say they never got close and actually overflew HMS Avenger,
missing her.

> [2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
> into San Carlos Water.

Correct, although Antrim's Sea Slug also limited them somewhat. As a
practical matter, neither Sea Slug or Sea Dart was a factor in/around San
Carlos Water, as the Argentine a/c were coming in 50-100 nm on the deck; any
pop up would have been to clear the hills around the water, leaving far too
little time for the radar-guided area SAM systems to acquire. Exeter shot
down a Learjet while in SCW, but that a/c was cruising at 40,000 feet.
Coming in as low as the fighter-bombers did essentially limited the
engagements to visual detection/acquisition/tracking; even the Sea Wolf ships
usually had insufficient time to fire using radar control when inshore.
Rapier, OTOH, might well have done considerably better if the FAA had gone in
for pop-up dive attacks.

Guy

WalterM140

June 1st 04, 10:07 AM

>> Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits were
>gambling
>> they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly. Not very prudent.
>
>It wasn't a gamble at all, it was planned that way. Clapp had been a
>Buccaneer
>observer and squadron commander, and he chose San Carlos Water for the
>landings and
>set up the ships and land defenses to provide the Argentine pilots with just
>that
>dilemma. The layout of the defenses was optimised to hit pilots making
>pop-up dive
>attacks; British missiles would have been more effective as well, not being
>bothered as much by ground clutter, and there would have been less worry
>about
>having to check fire to avoid shooting up friendly troops/ships on the other
>side
>of the water. As it was, the Argentine pilots chose to come in very low and
>fast,
>limiting their acquisition time and the effectiveness of their attacks, but
>improving their survival rate. Looked at objectively, they should have
>accepted
>the higher losses of dive attacks for the potentially higher gains, but then
>that's
>easy to say from the comfort of my chair.
>
>> You seem to agree that if -all- the bombs had detonated the Brit supporting
>> force would have been reduced below a level where the invasion could have
>been
>> supported.
>
>Doubtful. Most of the bombs hit the escorts outside of San Carlos Water;
>some were
>effectively knocked out of the war in any case, even though they weren't
>sunk.
>Only two LSLs were hit by bombs in SCW, Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad, and the
>amount of damage caused if they'd gone off would have depended on where they
>hit
>and what they were carrying at the time. If all the bombs had gone off then
>it's
>possible that the British government might have decided that the cost was too
>high,
>and it would almost certainly have delayed the ground forces. But they had
>lots of
>reinforcing ships on the way, most of which arrived when the war was over or
>nearly
>so, so their stores/equipment weren't needed. Argentina had no such second
>wave
>capability. And Fuerza Aerea target priorities on D-Day sucked, which was
>ultimately a far bigger problem than the dud bombs. Hitting the escorts
>didn't
>delay the land campaign; hitting more of the supply ships before they could
>unload
>would have.
>
>Assuming that they'd ever been hit, the loss of Fearless would have caused a
>major
>delay as she was the amphibious command ship, but her sister Intrepid could
>have
>taken over, albeit at lower efficiency. Other than that, the Brits would have
>had
>to lose a carrier; everything else (other than lives) was replaceable. As an
>example, losing Atlantic Conveyor and the Chinook/Wessex helos she was
>bringing
>down was the single most important blow to the campaign that the British
>suffered,
>but her sister Atlantic Causeway arrived less than a week later, bringing
>another
>28 or so helos with her (Wessex/Sea King). Another two ships were coming
>south
>bringing more Chinooks and other helos, and arrived right about the time of
>the
>surrender.
>
>Guy
>

Sounds like good info. Thanks,

Walt

Paul J. Adam

June 1st 04, 11:00 AM

In message >, John Mullen
> writes
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>> Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
>> was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
>> field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
>> got things more right than wrong.
>
>The relationship betwen the two men is beautifully described in Chester
>Wilmotts book... what ws it called? The Road to Europe maybe?

The Struggle for Europe.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

WalterM140

June 1st 04, 11:12 AM

>>you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
>>see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
>>then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
>>gain any ground, Grant did. All
>
>Overwhelming force (translation:plenty of gun fodders) makes
>Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
>continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.
>

More in one day? Didn't McClellan command at Antietam?

Bad civilian leadership will negate any military prowess. Look at the Germans.

The rebel government was extremely incompetent. State governments often just
ignored edicts from Richmond. The rebel government also had to resort to
conscription early on. When things started going badly, the rebel armies
largely faded away. There was little that the government in Richmond could do
to stop it.

Neither Grant nor Sherman were butchers. They were both masters of Maneuver.

In his campaign around Vicksburg, Grant used maneuver well and extensively to
defeat the rebels when they had generally more forces available than he did.
In the overland campaign, Grant constantly maneuvered around Lee's left. This
was ultimately successful. Grant did order the Cold Harbor assault. He
learned from that. Lee it was for 'hey-diddle-diddle-right up the middle'
tactics. He lost more men on every day of the Seven Days Battle than little
Mac did, and don't forget the third day at Gettysburg. No wonder Lee's army
was riven with desertion.

Sherman constantly turned the rebel forces out of ther positions during the
Atlanta campaign. After he left Atlanta, no sizeable rebel force opposed him
at all.

And don't forget Hood, who had seen that third days' attack at Gettyburg, yet
practically immolated his army at Franklin.

Walt

WalterM140

June 1st 04, 12:00 PM

>> Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales when
>> compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives,
>failing
>> to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.
>>
>
>Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
>was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
>field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
>got things more right than wrong.
>
>Keith
>

Montgomery has no -real- achievements.

His "victory" over the Afrika Korps at El Alamein came only after he had
overwhelming superiorty and the Germans ran out of gas.

Montogmery's ideas advanced not one whit from 1918 until the day he died.

"I think it true that Montgomery was completely formed as a soldier at the end
of the First World War. He did not grow after that. He became
increasingly
efficient, but he did not absorb a new idea. At fifty he was the same man he
had been at thirty."

--"Churchill and the Montgomery Myth" p. 92 by R.W. Thompson

Thompson continues:

"He read everything he could lay his hands upon that was relevant to his
profession, but some things appear to have been against his nature.
Outstanding among these things was his failure to grasp the theory of the
'expanding torrent' expounded by Liddell Hart. His whole essentially tidy mind
liked the 'set-piece' attack, and all went well until the breakthrough demanded
exploitation. Again and again his senior military friends hammered home the
vital necessity of swift exploitation of the breakthrough. He accepts it but
he cannot --think-- it, and he cannot do it...

[Montgomery wrote in 1924]

"I have not mentioned exploitation anywhere. Perhaps I should have done so,
and if I ever get out a revised edition I will do so. I was anxious not to
try and teach too much. The first thing to my mind is to get them to understand
the elementary principles of attack and defense. But I think you are probably
right, and exploitation should have been brought out."

Thompson continues:

"Seven years later Montgomery was still fighting shy of exploitation and the
expanding torrrent. His draft for the new Training Manual was sent to Liddell
Hart for criticism by Brigadier Fisher, Chief of Staff to General Sir David
Campbell, G.O.C- in C. Again the problems of exploiting success were not dealt
with. Liddell Hart sent his detailed comments and Fisher wrote:

'September 7, 1930

I had a long talk to Montgomery and we went carefully through your criticisms
with the new Infantry Training--with the result that the great
majority of them
are being incorporated in the final proof. The importance of the expanding
torrent are being specially emphasized...'

Yet when the new Training Manual appeared the problems of exploitation were
neither neither emphasized nor understood. Indeed by omissions of passages from
the old manual and the substitutions of new, the tactics of the First World War
were preserved."

--"Churchill and the Montgomery Myth" pp 90-91 by R.W. Thompson.

"Montgomery's failure to destroy the enemy at Alam Halfa must be a measure of
his capacity as a general. Alan Morehead, writing soon after these events, is
as emphatic as Horrocks about Montgomery's intentions:

'On one matter the C-in-C was especially emphatic. This was to be a static
battle. Except in the fluid gap in the south no-one was to budge an inch in
any direction. It did not matter if the enemy were routed; there was to be no
pursuit. Everyone must stand fast. The enemy must be beaten off and then left
alone.
The reason for this was that the real conflict with Rommel was going to
follow later on when everything was ready.'

-"Churchill and the Montgomery Myth" p.103 by R.W. Thompson

So Montgomery later generated 13,000 casualties when he didn't have to. Had he
hit the Afrika Korps in September, before it had a chance to prepare
defensively, he might have spared many of his men's lives. His combat power
relative to the Axis in this time frame was not likely to grow enough warrant a
delay. But if your mindset is stuck in World War One, and you feel you
personally must control as much as possible of everything that happens, then a
delay might be indicated.

Also consider:

"The British had such superiority in weapons, both in quality and quantity,
that they were able to force through any and every kind of operation... For
the rest, the British based their planning on the principal of exact
calculation, a principal which can only be followed where there is complete
material superiority. They actually undertook no -operations- but relied simply
and solely on the effect of their artillery and air force."

--Erwin Rommel

Montgomery is the most overrated general of all time.

Walt

John Mullen

June 1st 04, 04:14 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, John Mullen
> > writes
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> >> was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> >> field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> >> got things more right than wrong.
> >
> >The relationship betwen the two men is beautifully described in Chester
> >Wilmotts book... what ws it called? The Road to Europe maybe?
>
> The Struggle for Europe.

That's the one!

Thanks.

John

Keith Willshaw

June 1st 04, 08:36 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
> >see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
> >then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
> >gain any ground, Grant did. All
>
> Overwhelming force (translation:plenty of gun fodders) makes
> Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
> continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.
>

In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps
and laying waster to Georgia and the Carolina's was
a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

Overall 11% of union soldiers became casualties
compared with 15% of confederates.

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

June 1st 04, 08:41 PM

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> Of course Montgomery's incidental connection to the Dieppe raid pales
when
> >> compared to his other failures like not getting his D-Day onbjectives,
> >failing
> >> to clear the approaches to Antwerp and Market-Garden.
> >>
> >
> >Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> >was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> >field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> >got things more right than wrong.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> Montgomery has no -real- achievements.
>
> His "victory" over the Afrika Korps at El Alamein came only after he had
> overwhelming superiorty and the Germans ran out of gas.
>

Compare and contrast the battles of Alem Halfa and the
Kasserine Pass

<snip>

>
> Also consider:
>
> "The British had such superiority in weapons, both in quality and
quantity,
> that they were able to force through any and every kind of operation...
For
> the rest, the British based their planning on the principal of exact
> calculation, a principal which can only be followed where there is
complete
> material superiority. They actually undertook no -operations- but relied
simply
> and solely on the effect of their artillery and air force."
>
> --Erwin Rommel
>

Of course Rommel LOST - Twice.

Keith

Denyav

June 1st 04, 10:51 PM

>In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
>Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
>considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25% of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.

>considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
>across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
>cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )

>a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
>and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
>Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other Confederate
commanders.
His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

>It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
>and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
>frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
>them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.

>Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
>of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
>that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
>Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.
BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of fighters
who try to carry out orders.

Keith Willshaw

June 1st 04, 11:54 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
> >Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
> >considering the boldness of his
>
> Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men
percentagewise
> insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
> significant.
>

Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.

> Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more
soldiers
> than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25%
of
> their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.
>

Incorrect. While exact figures for the Confederate casualties arent
available
the most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were
around 75,000 strong while the total strength of the army
of the Potomac was aroun 97,000. However on the first
day only a fraction of the Union force was present

> >considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
> >across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
> >cutting their own roads through forests and swamps
>
> Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
> (He could not even dream of having 60000 men )
>

He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

> >a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
> >and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
> >Generals ffighting a total war.
>
> He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other
Confederate
> commanders.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

> His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win
anywhere
> without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".
>
> >It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
> >and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
> >frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
> >them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.
>
> They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses
within
> days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
> equal terms.
>

Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

> >Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
> >of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
> >that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
> >Nashville.
>
> True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American
Aristocrats
> and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

> BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean
War.Mistakes
> happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of
fighters
> who try to carry out orders.

Enough of them lose the war.

Keith

Denyav

June 2nd 04, 01:57 AM

>Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
>your scarce manpower.
>

Well,Total population of Union States was 22,000,000 ,Confederate States only
5,000,000.
Union military forces outnumbered Confederates by more than 2,5 to 1.

So if you follow your way of thinking they should do whatever Union wants them
to do,not they want to do,to conserve their scarce manpower resources.

Heck,I wonder why some states are still issuing license plates "Live free or
Die".logo.

>he most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
>while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were

Most accepted figure is 20000 for Confederates.

>He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

Maybe Lee should have listened Longstreet,but even if Lee won at Gettysburg it
would not change much,confederates were hopelessly outnumbered.

>Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
>in their own territory

You seem to repeat revisionist Civil War historian Rhea and trying to
rehabilitate Grant and Sherman.
But its impossible to rehabilate persons whose achievements during Civil War
are limited to terrorizing civilians.

>Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.
>
They only wanted to peacefully secede from the Union,but they were outnumbered
so they had to accept "union by force" option to save lives.

I think EU could be created 65 years ago if Brits and other Europeans accepted
a corporals' "Union by force" proposals and many lives could saved.
So they must be stupid too.

>No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
>In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

Grant was a slaver too.
Grant and Sherman would be the first ones who get convicted in 20th war crimes
tribunal.Besides being a barbarian,Grant was an anti-semite too.

Civil War only ended when Confederates run out of soldiers ,supplies and
everything.
Heck, the "Master of Maneuver" even lost more than 6000 soldier within one Hour
,but he did not have worry about.

Keith Willshaw

June 2nd 04, 09:36 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
> >your scarce manpower.
> >
>
> Well,Total population of Union States was 22,000,000 ,Confederate States
only
> 5,000,000.
> Union military forces outnumbered Confederates by more than 2,5 to 1.
>
> So if you follow your way of thinking they should do whatever Union wants
them
> to do,not they want to do,to conserve their scarce manpower resources.
>

Since in the end they lost and had to do exactly that you
could indeed draw that inference. However I was pointing out that
they could ill afford to squander their soldier's lives.

> Heck,I wonder why some states are still issuing license plates "Live free
or
> Die".logo.
>

That would be New Hampshire - not a confederate state you may recall.

> >he most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
> >while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were
>
> Most accepted figure is 20000 for Confederates.
>

Rather high even so

> >He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg
>
> Maybe Lee should have listened Longstreet,but even if Lee won at
Gettysburg it
> would not change much,confederates were hopelessly outnumbered.
>
> >Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
> >in their own territory
>
> You seem to repeat revisionist Civil War historian Rhea and trying to
> rehabilitate Grant and Sherman.

You dont need to rehabilitate winners.

> But its impossible to rehabilate persons whose achievements during Civil
War
> are limited to terrorizing civilians.
>

And winning the war

> >Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.
> >
> They only wanted to peacefully secede from the Union,but they were
outnumbered
> so they had to accept "union by force" option to save lives.
>

They wanted to maintain slavery which was why they seceded.

> I think EU could be created 65 years ago if Brits and other Europeans
accepted
> a corporals' "Union by force" proposals and many lives could saved.
> So they must be stupid too.
>

No we didnt want to be German slaves.

> >No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
> >In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.
>
> Grant was a slaver too.

No he married a woman from Missouri who owned
slaves.

> Grant and Sherman would be the first ones who get convicted in 20th war
crimes
> tribunal.Besides being a barbarian,Grant was an anti-semite too.
>

Scarcely unsual for the time, note I have not proposed Grant
for beatification. He certainly had his faults but he was an
effective general.

> Civil War only ended when Confederates run out of soldiers ,supplies and
> everything.

Yep Sherman's march to the sea and the razing of the Shenandoah
valley cut combined with the Union naval blockade cut Virginia
off from its sources of supply. A succesful strategy in fact.

> Heck, the "Master of Maneuver" even lost more than 6000 soldier within one
Hour
> ,but he did not have worry about.
>

Quite so, he won after all.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

WalterM140

June 2nd 04, 12:17 PM

>Compare and contrast the battles of Alem Halfa and the
>Kasserine Pass

You mean Alam el Halfa?

For one thing, the Brits had been at war for three years when Alam el Halfa
happened. Kasserine Pass was the first time the US faced the Germans

Walt

Legal Tender

June 2nd 04, 04:29 PM

Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

"cain_uk" > wrote in message
om...
> America's army sucks.
>
> They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
> B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
> cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
> torturing Iraqi prisoners.
>
> For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

Peter Twydell

June 2nd 04, 06:33 PM

In article >, Legal Tender
> writes
>Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget that.
>Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
>England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
>I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
>the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.
>
>Frank
>
Which was what, exactly?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Alan Minyard

June 2nd 04, 06:43 PM

On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:

>WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
>> Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
>> were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
>> Not very prudent.
>
>The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
>knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
>42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
>sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
>the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
>pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?
>
>[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
> against a target at 50 feet?
>[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
> into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they unavailable?

Al Minyard

walt moffett

June 2nd 04, 07:06 PM

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:43:09 -0500,
Alan Minyard > wrote:
> On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>>
>>The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
>>knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
>>42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
>>sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
>>the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
>>pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?
>>
>>[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
>> against a target at 50 feet?
>>[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
>> into San Carlos Water.
>
> I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
>unavailable?
>

they had blowpipe as their manpad. it was not very useful against fast
movers and IIRC press reports were not very flattering about its
performance.

www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm has a list of argentine
aircraft losses.

Paul J. Adam

June 2nd 04, 07:26 PM

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>>[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
>> against a target at 50 feet?
>>[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
>> into San Carlos Water.
>
>I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they unavailable?

Blowpipe was used in respectable numbers, though it was more effective
against Pucaras than fast-movers. The SAS had some Stingers, which were
also used.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

John Mullen

June 2nd 04, 08:15 PM

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Legal Tender
> > writes
> >Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
> >Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
> >England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
> >I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
> >the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.
> >
> >Frank
> >
> Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John

Keith Willshaw

June 2nd 04, 08:55 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>

>
> I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
unavailable?
>

They did, the Short Blowpipe to be precise, there were not as good as the
current generation of manpad's but still managed to shoot down a
number of the Argentine aircraft, mainly the Pucara's operating in
the CAS role IRC.

Keith.

Peter Kemp

June 2nd 04, 09:14 PM

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:06:01 GMT, walt moffett >
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:43:09 -0500,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>> On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
>>>
>>>The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
>>>knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
>>>42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
>>>sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
>>>the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
>>>pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?
>>>
>>>[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
>>> against a target at 50 feet?
>>>[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
>>> into San Carlos Water.
>>
>> I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
>>unavailable?
>>
>
>they had blowpipe as their manpad. it was not very useful against fast
>movers and IIRC press reports were not very flattering about its
>performance.

SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.

Peter Kemp

Peter Twydell

June 2nd 04, 09:41 PM

In article >, John Mullen
> writes
>"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Legal Tender
>> > writes
>> >Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
>that.
>> >Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
>> >England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
>> >I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
>> >the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.
>> >
>> >Frank
>> >
>> Which was what, exactly?
>
>Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst recent
>example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it actually
>ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
>fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of any
>purely military solution.
>
>However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
>defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not to
>film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
>resulting images.
>
>That was kind of silly IMO.
>
>John
>
>
So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.
The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.
IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Howard Berkowitz

June 3rd 04, 12:11 AM

In article >, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>
> SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
> Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
> (have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.
>

Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

Paul J. Adam

June 3rd 04, 12:25 AM

In message >, Howard
Berkowitz > writes
>In article >, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>> SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
>> Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
>> (have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.

>Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
>understood?

It's a sacred military ritual, violation of which requires vengeance.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

Jack

June 3rd 04, 02:46 AM

Denyav wrote:

> ...US military was and is unable to win anywhere
> without "overwhelming power"

Spoken like a real library warrior.

Nobody "wins" without overwhelming power. Perhaps you would prefer the massive
battle of attrition (something with which the soviets have had a great deal of
experience) over tactics which minimize your own casualties.

> But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
> and Knights, a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

You clearly know less about the present-day US, than you do about the USA of
1865. Perhaps what you really require is a slave- or peasant-class in the
background before you can imagine a modern equivalent of your so-called
"aristocracy".

Aristocracys tend to spend their energies in pursuit of the past, and we are
well rid of them, and their apologists.

Jack

Peter Kemp

June 3rd 04, 02:53 AM

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:25:19 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Howard
>Berkowitz > writes
>>In article >, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>>> SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
>>> Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
>>> (have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.
>
>>Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
>>understood?
>
>It's a sacred military ritual, violation of which requires vengeance.

Exactly - some damn Argentine disturbed them while they were warming
the teapot (aka slapping a mess tin of water on a hexy burner), and
vengence had to be had immediately - the war being on was merely a
coincidence - we're just lucky they weren't on an exercise outside
Heathrow!

Peter Kemp

Denyav

June 3rd 04, 05:32 AM

>Nobody "wins" without overwhelming power. Perhaps you would prefer the
>massive
>battle of attrition (something with which the soviets have had a great deal
>of
>experience) over tactics which minimize your own casualties.

Depends on definition of "overwhelming power" if you understand overwhelming
power as overwhelming numbers you can find many examples in history,for example
during Civil War and during WWII.

>You clearly know less about the present-day US, than you do about the USA of
>1865. Perhaps what you really require is a slave- or peasant-class in the
>background before you can imagine a modern equivalent of your so-called
>"aristocracy".

Unlike your assertions,I know present day US very well.
If you want draw comparisons between present day US and other advanced
nations,just watch and compare live TV apperances of our president,a graduate
of an Ivy League elite university,with the live apperances of the leaders of
other nations,for example Mr.Blair.
Or just watch late night Shows.

>Aristocracys tend to spend their energies in pursuit of the past, and we are
>well rid of them, and their apologists.

Surely we got rid of them in 1865 and thats the main reason why US is not a
sophisticated country today.
Lets look at Europa,they toppled aristocrats after French Revolution,but with a
difference they toppled Aristocrats not Aristocracy.On contrary European elite
who toppled Aristocracy embrace many malues of Aristocracy and more opened more
elite schools like French Lycees and German Gymnasiums so that their childred
could be edecated like Aristocrats.
In other words Europeans made Aristocracy more accessible for general
population,whereas US terminated aristocracy without any replacement.

Thats the reason why even Graduates of Yale are only good to become
laughingstock every night in Kimmel or Leno shows.

Keith Willshaw

June 3rd 04, 09:18 AM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Peter Kemp
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
> > Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
> > (have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.
> >
>
> Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
> understood?

Its required for all procedures in the British Army
and as such needs no special orders :)

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

June 3rd 04, 09:18 AM

Drewe Manton

June 3rd 04, 12:21 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

> Its required for all procedures in the British Army
> and as such needs no special orders :)
>
> Keith
>
>

Could Keith please leave the cavern, his posts are echoing. . .

Echoin. . .

Echoi. .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

John Mullen

June 3rd 04, 04:22 PM

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John Mullen
> > writes
> >"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Legal Tender
> >> > writes
> >> >Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
> >that.
> >> >Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
> >> >England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
> >> >I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
> >> >the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.
> >> >
> >> >Frank
> >> >
> >> Which was what, exactly?
> >
> >Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
> >example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
> >ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
> >fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
> >purely military solution.
> >
> >However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
> >defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
> >film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
> >resulting images.
> >
> >That was kind of silly IMO.
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
> a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
> inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

> The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
> POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

> IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
> woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
> deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

John Mullen

June 3rd 04, 07:22 PM

robert arndt

June 4th 04, 06:25 PM

> Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> got things more right than wrong.
>
> Keith

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

Rob

Kevin Brooks

June 4th 04, 06:57 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> > got things more right than wrong.
> >
> > Keith
>
> And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
> resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
> least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
> the Italians!
> One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
> to Guderian as well???

The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost. As much as I respect
Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy, having
taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion began
because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that kind
of weather...?

Brooks

>
> Rob

John Mullen

June 4th 04, 07:03 PM

Ron

June 4th 04, 07:51 PM

>> And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
>> resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
>> least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
>> the Italians!
>> One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
>> to Guderian as well???

Yeah I bet you almost wet yourself thinking of the possibilities.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

Alan Minyard

June 4th 04, 08:25 PM

On 4 Jun 2004 10:25:30 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
>> was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
>> field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
>> got things more right than wrong.
>>
>> Keith
>
>And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
>resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
>least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
>the Italians!
>One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
>to Guderian as well???
>
>Rob

Germany would have lost. Rommel got his but kicked in Normandy.

Al Minyard

Keith Willshaw

June 4th 04, 09:52 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> > got things more right than wrong.
> >
> > Keith
>
> And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
> resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
> least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
> the Italians!

Rommel was a capable general tactically but his strategic
judgement was poor. In North Africa he opposed
Kesselring's plan to invade Malta in order that he
could launch an offensive in North Africa

It was submarines and aircraft from Malta that sent
most of the material intended for north Africa to the
bottom of the Med

> One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
> to Guderian as well???

If Hitler had listened to sensible advise there would have
been no war.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

June 4th 04, 09:54 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> > > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> > > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> > > got things more right than wrong.
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
> > resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
> > least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
> > the Italians!
> > One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
> > to Guderian as well???
>
> The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
> fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost. As much as I respect
> Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy,
having
> taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion began
> because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that kind
> of weather...?
>

Not for the first time either. On the eve of the battle of El-Alamein
Rommel was ... absent on leave.

Keith

robert arndt

June 5th 04, 01:57 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> > > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> > > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> > > got things more right than wrong.
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
> > resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
> > least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
> > the Italians!
> > One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
> > to Guderian as well???
>
> The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
> fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.

Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
winning half the time. Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
and space technology... just to name two!

As much as I respect
> Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy, having
> taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion began
> because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that kind
> of weather...?

Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
them closer to the coast.
And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
the Nazi Party) is
repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
the Allies. WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.

Rob

p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
and Al Minyard.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Rob

Pete

June 5th 04, 02:51 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote
>
> Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> winning half the time.

Maybe that wasn't the smartest thing to do.

Pete

BlakeleyTB

June 5th 04, 04:08 AM

Was Rommel gay like Hitler???

Yeff

June 5th 04, 04:11 AM

On 05 Jun 2004 03:08:41 GMT, BlakeleyTB wrote:

> Was Rommel gay like Hitler???

I understand he was a rather dour fellow...

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Denyav

June 5th 04, 04:49 AM

>Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
>Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
>winning half the time. Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
>armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
>ensuring postwar victories with

Oh Boy,I wonder if you'd ever seen Hollywood productions.
If you watched them you would have learned by now that imbecile
looking,incompetent German hordes were defeated by a few American Heroes,each
10 ft tall and has IQ over 180.
Needless to say the quality and capabilities of their equipment were even
beyond the imagination of stupid Germans.

>Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
>Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
>a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
>the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the

I have serious doubts here.
At least one German cabinet member,Ribbentrop,had detailed plans of Operation
Overlord.
Thats a fact.

The Rommel is the one who personally convinced Hitler that the assauly could
come only from Calais and made Hitler believe that the document showing the
details of Operating Overlord was a deliberate British diversion attempt.

We may never know why Rommel misled Hitler,did he honestly believe that Calais
was the target ?,or something else,but I believe his execution or suicide has
more to do with the events just before Normandy Landings than events in July.

Chad Irby

June 5th 04, 04:51 AM

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> winning half the time.

....after building up its military and industrial base for a number of
years, then attacking everyone around them in a cowardly move (which
made up all of the "wins"). Then, when they could have just assimilated
the rest of western Europe, they attacked Russia (dumb) and lost the
war, despite having a hellaciously good defensive position in the
Channel.

....and they got beat, basically, by a bunch of jeeps, trucks, and
cheaply-made tanks, mostly from a country that had a fraction of the
German industrial capacity at the start of the war, and no effective
military. Which they built in a couple of years, learned how to use,
and proceeded to kick the crap out the Germans with.

When it comes to actual fights, instead of sneak attacks, the Germans
are, well, really bad at war.

Yeah, those Germans... inventive, but so stupid when it comes to
practical stuff. They'd do so much better if they'd learn how to wage
wars before starting them.

> Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology

....that didn't do much good for over a decade. Too bad those dumbass
Germans spent all of their time working on cool but prohibitively
expensive "vengeance weapons" and spent a *lot* of effort killing off a
few million of their own citizens, instead of learning how to actually
fight wars or organizing the defense of their continental redoubt.

What is it about Germany that keeps them from raising decent leaders?

It's like giving the school bully an RPG.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Peter Twydell

June 5th 04, 08:47 AM

In article >, robert
arndt > writes
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
>> > > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
>> > > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
>> > > got things more right than wrong.
>> > >
>> > > Keith
>> >
>> > And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
>> > resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
>> > least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
>> > the Italians!
>> > One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
>> > to Guderian as well???
>>
>> The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
>> fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.
>
>Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
>Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
>winning half the time. Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
>armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
>ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
>develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
>and space technology... just to name two!
>
>
Oh, of course, we forgot about the evil Yankees and the vicious
Engländer stripping the resources of the innocent German people, whose
glorious achievements in conquering the lesser nations of the world were
such an example to us all. <Fe>

What's size got to do with it? US states didn't pursue an aggressive
foreign policy of conquest or a domestic policy of terror.

Face facts, you blinkered apologist. Hitler's military and scientific
"achievements" were mostly short-term and impractical, and were paid for
in terms of blood and suffering. Few areas of research were not being
pursued in Allied countries as well.
>
>
> As much as I respect
>> Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy, having
>> taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion began
>> because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that kind
>> of weather...?
>
>Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
>Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
>a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
>the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
>invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
>them closer to the coast.
>And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
>save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
>the Nazi Party) is
>repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
>and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
>the Allies. WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
>mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
>You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.
>

If he was such an honourable man, what was he doing serving Hitler in
the first place?

The Allies were only a threat to Germany, as you put it, because Germany
was such a threat to the rest of the world. France and the UK declared
war on Germany, but only because Germany invaded Poland.

>Rob
>
>p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
>and Al Minyard.
>>

Is it any wonder that many people regard the Germans as arrogant?

>> Brooks
>>
>> >
>> > Rob

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Keith Willshaw

June 5th 04, 10:48 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> winning half the time.

And losing the other half. Overunning Belgium was no
great trick and Norway was no super power. They managed
to beat France to be sure but the first time the vaunted Luftwaffe
met a technically equal but smaller force it was stopped dead.

By late 1940 Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms
of most major military systems despite a much smaller population
and economy, Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID

> Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
> and space technology... just to name two!
>

The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000

Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
technology in 1945

Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
the foundations laid by Goddard.

The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
than those in the Me-163

Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.

The myth of German technical superiority is just that.

Keith

Paul J. Adam

June 5th 04, 04:01 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>> Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
>> Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
>> winning half the time.
>
>...after building up its military and industrial base for a number of
>years, then attacking everyone around them in a cowardly move (which
>made up all of the "wins"). Then, when they could have just assimilated
>the rest of western Europe, they attacked Russia (dumb) and lost the
>war, despite having a hellaciously good defensive position in the
>Channel.

Mr Irby,

We may differ on some issues, but I find us in complete agreement here.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

Paul J. Adam

June 5th 04, 04:08 PM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>> The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
>> fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.

>Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
>Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
>winning half the time.

On the other hand, it took on Britain (smaller, less populated, less
resourced) than Germany - and couldn't even knock her out of the war. Of
course the Nazis had all sorts of war-winning devices to beat Britain,
but for some reason chose not to use them.

>Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
>armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
>ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
>develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
>and space technology... just to name two!

Some of the German technology was useful. Some was useless. And some
developments were thoroughly independent of German ideas: for instance,
the Sidewinder missile was a US project that predated the fall of
Germany and the assimilation of technology.

>Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
>Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
>a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
>the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
>invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
>them closer to the coast.

Well, the superior Nazi intelligence services had calculated that
Normandy was just a diversion and the main landing would be led into the
Pas de Calais by Patton.

Whoops.

>And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
>save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
>the Nazi Party) is
>repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
>and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
>the Allies.

Fighting the *******'s war for five years is a really strange way of
showing it. Or did he just change sides when Hitler started losing?

>WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
>mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
>You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.

Mr Kevin Brooks is often irascible and sometimes downright rude, but he
at least believes in what he says.

Rommel was a good commander, but if he despised his regime as much as
you say... why was he trying to hard to spread it?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

Kevin Brooks

June 5th 04, 05:34 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
> > > > was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
> > > > field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
> > > > got things more right than wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Keith
> > >
> > > And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
> > > resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
> > > least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
> > > the Italians!
> > > One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
> > > to Guderian as well???
> >
> > The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept
the
> > fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost.
>
> Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> winning half the time.

You have trotted this nonsense out before, and were soundly trounced when
the populations of the US and Germany in 1940 were noted; ISTR Keith was
just the first to take you to task that time. Trying again?

Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
> and space technology... just to name two!

Blah-blah-blah. More fanciful nonsense from the resident Nazi Lover.
>
> As much as I respect
> > Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy,
having
> > taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion
began
> > because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that
kind
> > of weather...?
>
> Read a f**king history book Brooks. It was Rommel who inspected the
> Atlantic Wall and criticized its lack of any strategic depth. He made
> a short but futile attempt to rectify parts of the wall realizing that
> the armored reserves would be needed in the first 48 hrs to throw the
> invaders back from Normandy. Hitler refused to allow Rommel to move
> them closer to the coast.
> And criticizing a man of such dignity that he chose to take poison to
> save his family and not dishonor his nation (Germany, not Hitler nor
> the Nazi Party) is
> repugnant even for a ******* like you. Rommel wanted the war to end
> and Hitler dead as Hitler was to him a greater threat to Germany than
> the Allies. WTF more do you want from the guy? He is a true hero for
> mankind, a man of honor respected by friend and foe alike.
> You Brooks, OTOH, are a jackass.

Uhmmm...you did not answer the questions--was it not Rommel who lost at
Normandy, and didn't he choose to absent himself from the A/O right before
the attack commenced?

Thanks for the other kind words...I know it is hard for you to accept, but
yes, The Reich was soundly defeated during the last World War, and it truly
was full of bumbling idiots who helped assure that outcome.

Brooks

>
> Rob
>
> p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
> and Al Minyard.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Rob

Kevin Brooks

June 5th 04, 05:39 PM

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, robert
> arndt > writes

<snip>

> >Rob
> >
> >p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
> >and Al Minyard.
> >>
>
> Is it any wonder that many people regard the Germans as arrogant?

Actually, Arndt is (sadly) a USian--I doubt modern Germans would accept the
likes of him over there, being apparently quite a bit smarter in their usual
interpretation of WWII events and developments than he exhibits.

Brooks

>
> >> Brooks
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rob
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!

Denyav

June 5th 04, 05:42 PM

>The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
>The late model Meteor was faster

US had no better aircraft till arrival of F86,even "original" F86 was not
better than Me262,originally F86 supposed to have straight wings

>The Germans never did get their
>engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
>Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
It was not a design problem,it was a material (resource) problem.
Because they could not get neccesary raw materials .If you cannot import
them,you cannot use them,is it not obvious?

>Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
>the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

You are trying to compare backward US technology with German tecnology.
Four engine propeller driven bombers never receive much attention in 3rd
Reich,in fact only notable advocate of them was Molders,after his death four
engine bomber development was put totally on back burner.
Germans,unlike US,were not interested dropping bombs from bombers,both America
Bomber and America rocket were not driven by propellers.

>The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
>technology in 1945

Yeah right,even von Karman considered that a fantasy till he saw working
examples made in Germany.

>Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
>the foundations laid by Goddard.
>
And Jules Verne,typical example of German "understatement"

>The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
>Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
>than those in the Me-163

Yeah right.

>Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
>
>

If they had only a couple of month more time Ike's dire prediction would be a
reality,and we now probably be discussing the morality of nuking New York and
London (instead of Hiroshima and Nagazaki) using ,not four piston engined
bombers but Ballistic missiles

>The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
>
I wonder why US keeps this "myth" under lock for 75 years.
1300 Billion dollars might be the reason.

There are advanced nations and advanced countries.
You must pay advanced nations a kind of "protection money" (like Marshall
Plan) to prevent the repetition of the events between between WWI and WWII

Chad Irby

June 5th 04, 05:49 PM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Mr Irby,
>
> We may differ on some issues, but I find us in complete agreement here.

....and you *know* someone's out on a limb when that happens...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Denyav

June 5th 04, 06:01 PM

>You have trotted this nonsense out before, and were soundly trounced when
>the populations of the US and Germany in 1940 were noted; ISTR Keith was
>just the first to take you to task that time. Trying again?

Just curious,but did you add up the populations of
US,UK,USSR,India,Canada,Australia,NZ,
Poland,France and lots of other countries in 3 continents?

>The Reich was soundly defeated during the last World War, and it truly
>was full of bumbling idiots who helped assure that outcome.

So?
King Leonidas was soundly defeated at Thermoplyae,Confederates during Civil War
and Germans during WWII.
All of them were soundly defeated because of very same reason.

Keith Willshaw

June 5th 04, 07:26 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...

>
> So?
> King Leonidas was soundly defeated at Thermoplyae,Confederates during
Civil War
> and Germans during WWII.
> All of them were soundly defeated because of very same reason.
>
>

Sure -**** poor judgement.

Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
DOH !

The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
dozen different types of personal weapon and no
commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates
being all too often shot at by fellow rebs from anuther state.

The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
in the Mediterranean and Balkans as well as Western Europe
and Russia

Keith

Keith Willshaw

June 5th 04, 07:45 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
> >The late model Meteor was faster
>
> US had no better aircraft till arrival of F86,even "original" F86 was not
> better than Me262,originally F86 supposed to have straight wings
>

Reality Check

Me-262
Limiting Mach - 0.82
Max Speed at sea level - 540 mph
Range - 600 miles

P-80
Limiting Mach - 0.86
Max Speed at Sea level - 558 mph
Range 800 miles (1400 with external fuel)

> >The Germans never did get their
> >engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
> >Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
> It was not a design problem,it was a material (resource) problem.
> Because they could not get neccesary raw materials .If you cannot import
> them,you cannot use them,is it not obvious?
>
> >Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> >the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>
> You are trying to compare backward US technology with German tecnology.
> Four engine propeller driven bombers never receive much attention in 3rd
> Reich,in fact only notable advocate of them was Molders,after his death
four
> engine bomber development was put totally on back burner.

The He-177 musta sneaked through then, of course coupling
4 engines to 2 props didnt work too well.

> Germans,unlike US,were not interested dropping bombs from bombers,both
America
> Bomber and America rocket were not driven by propellers.
>

So if the Germans werent interested in dropping bombs from
aircraft why did they build all those Do-17's, He-111's
and JU-88's ?

Where did those planes with Swastikas come from during
the Blitz ?

> >The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
> >technology in 1945
>
> Yeah right,even von Karman considered that a fantasy till he saw working
> examples made in Germany.
>
> >Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
> >the foundations laid by Goddard.
> >
> And Jules Verne,typical example of German "understatement"
>

No accurate

> >The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
> >Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
> >than those in the Me-163
>
> Yeah right.
>

Absolutely correct in fact

> >Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
> >
> >
>
> If they had only a couple of month more time Ike's dire prediction would
be a
> reality,and we now probably be discussing the morality of nuking New York
and
> London (instead of Hiroshima and Nagazaki) using ,not four piston engined
> bombers but Ballistic missiles
>

Sure we would , and Bugs Bunny would be the next Fuhrer

> >The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
> >
> I wonder why US keeps this "myth" under lock for 75 years.
> 1300 Billion dollars might be the reason.
>

Thats your fantasy, I dont share it.

> There are advanced nations and advanced countries.
> You must pay advanced nations a kind of "protection money" (like Marshall
> Plan) to prevent the repetition of the events between between WWI and WWII
>

Well since Britain received more under Marshall Aid than
Germany that must make us more advanced.

Keith

robert arndt

June 5th 04, 08:00 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> > Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> > winning half the time.
>
> And losing the other half. Overunning Belgium was no
> great trick and Norway was no super power. They managed
> to beat France to be sure but the first time the vaunted Luftwaffe
> met a technically equal but smaller force it was stopped dead.
>
> By late 1940 Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms
> of most major military systems despite a much smaller population
> and economy,

In 1940, you ditched all your equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and
had little more than the Home Guard to protect you from invasion. Your
armor was garbage just like your ships and the Kreigsmarine only
needed around 300 U-boats to choke your little nation to death WITHOUT
a need to invade. You brag about production while accepting massive
handouts from the US that saved your sorry ass... pardon me for
laughing my ass off!

Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID

ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
Balkans bailing out the Italians.
>
>
> > Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> > armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> > ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> > develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
> > and space technology... just to name two!
> >
>
> The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
> The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
> and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
> engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
> Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000

Huh, really? That's why the US engineers asked the GERMANS for advice
on the future of jet engine development. The Germans told them
axial-flow was the future even though the US/UK chose to toy around
with centrifugal dead-end jet engines for years afterwards and even
still continued producing PROP AIRCRAFT!
The Germans in 1945 had the world's greatest engine the DB 109-016 @
28,652 lb st and the world's first afterburning engine the Jumo 004E.
Of course Germany lack the strategic materials necessary for higher
quality coonstruction of jet engines but they also had synthetics
developed under a time of round-the-clock bombing; nevertheless, THEY
introduced two jet fighters, a jet bomber, a rocket figheter, and had
two supersonic designs under construction- the Lp DM-1 demonstrator
for the Lp P.13 and the DFS 346 (which flew Mach 1 in the USSR
postwar).
>
> Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

That's Hitler's fault for cancelling any four-engined type. Germany
could have built the Me-264, Ju 390, and a wide range of jet bomber
projects that HEAVILY influenced postwar designs. If you think not
then buy "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Strategic Bombers 1939-1945".
>
> The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
> technology in 1945\

And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
all.
>
> Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
> the foundations laid by Goddard.

.... and Oberth, who proposed rocket artillery as far back as WW1!
>
> The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
> Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
> than those in the Me-163

Yet the US stole the X-15 configuration/concept from the Peenemunde
EMW A6 and the US NEVER fielded a rocket fighter, making the Me-163
Komet unique in air combat history.
>
> Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.

Which is the entire basis for the US rush to develop it's own bomb.
Germans got a bad deal with bad graphite- thank God for that. Yet the
Germans also were smart enough to realize that nuclear power could be
used for other purposes too:
radiological weapons, a nuclear power reactor, and for use in
submarines long before Nautilus was built. They also realized than an
atom bomb coulb be mounted on a missile and launched from sea
(Prufstand XII container).
>
> The myth of German technical superiority is just that.

No, hundreds of thousands of captured technical documents stored at
Wright Field in 1946 prove you wrong. The US Govt even was "low"
enough to sell non-classified technical documents to other nations for
cash- including the USSR!
And if German technology is just a myth then why is 85% of America's
arsenal derived from German weapons from WW1 and WW2? Why do we even
use their tactics and wear their helmets?

Rob

>
> Keith

Keith Willshaw

June 6th 04, 12:18 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
> > > Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
> > > winning half the time.
> >
> > And losing the other half. Overunning Belgium was no
> > great trick and Norway was no super power. They managed
> > to beat France to be sure but the first time the vaunted Luftwaffe
> > met a technically equal but smaller force it was stopped dead.
> >
> > By late 1940 Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms
> > of most major military systems despite a much smaller population
> > and economy,
>
> In 1940, you ditched all your equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and
> had little more than the Home Guard to protect you from invasion. Your
> armor was garbage just like your ships and the Kreigsmarine only
> needed around 300 U-boats to choke your little nation to death WITHOUT
> a need to invade.

Reality check

The armour was repaced within a few months

The Kriegsmarine was mostly sunk or battered into
submission and failed to choke us into submission

On the other hand all sea communications into
Germany were effectively blocked

> You brag about production while accepting massive
> handouts from the US that saved your sorry ass... pardon me for
> laughing my ass off!
>

We still outproduced Germany and the fliers of the Luftwaffe
werent laughing about the RAF shooting their asses out of
the sky

>
>
> Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID
>
> ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
> world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
> Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
> Balkans bailing out the Italians.

Bull****, the start date for Barabarossa was impacted by
the winter flooding of the Polish river valleys. This is just
another bad excuse.

> >
> >
> > > Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> > > armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> > > ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> > > develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
> > > and space technology... just to name two!
> > >
> >
> > The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
> > The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
> > and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
> > engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
> > Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
>
> Huh, really? That's why the US engineers asked the GERMANS for advice
> on the future of jet engine development. The Germans told them
> axial-flow was the future even though the US/UK chose to toy around
> with centrifugal dead-end jet engines for years afterwards and even
> still continued producing PROP AIRCRAFT!

The UK had 3 countem 3 Axial flow engines in development
and centrifugal engines of British design powered the Mig-15
and are still in use today.

This is typical Luftwaffe 46 bull****. The British and Americans built
machines that were cheap , reliable and WORKED.
The Nazis built exploding phallic sysmbols

Guess who wins when that happens

> The Germans in 1945 had the world's greatest engine the DB 109-016 @
> 28,652 lb st and the world's first afterburning engine the Jumo 004E.

None of which were actually producible

> Of course Germany lack the strategic materials necessary for higher
> quality coonstruction of jet engines but they also had synthetics
> developed under a time of round-the-clock bombing; nevertheless, THEY
> introduced two jet fighters, a jet bomber, a rocket figheter, and had
> two supersonic designs under construction- the Lp DM-1 demonstrator
> for the Lp P.13 and the DFS 346 (which flew Mach 1 in the USSR
> postwar).

Sketches on the back of an envelope dont count, note however the
Canberra was an design of the same era that DID go into
production and which is still in service

> >
> > Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> > the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>
> That's Hitler's fault for cancelling any four-engined type. Germany
> could have built the Me-264, Ju 390, and a wide range of jet bomber
> projects that HEAVILY influenced postwar designs. If you think not
> then buy "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Strategic Bombers 1939-1945".
> >
> > The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
> > technology in 1945\
>
> And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
> configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
> under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
> all.

In otherwords you didnt know about it.

> >
> > Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
> > the foundations laid by Goddard.
>
> ... and Oberth, who proposed rocket artillery as far back as WW1!
> >
> > The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
> > Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
> > than those in the Me-163
>
> Yet the US stole the X-15 configuration/concept from the Peenemunde
> EMW A6 and the US NEVER fielded a rocket fighter, making the Me-163
> Komet unique in air combat history.

Well nobody else was stupid enough to build an aircraft that
was more dangerous to its pilot than the enemy to be sure

> >
> > Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
>
> Which is the entire basis for the US rush to develop it's own bomb.
> Germans got a bad deal with bad graphite- thank God for that. Yet the
> Germans also were smart enough to realize that nuclear power could be
> used for other purposes too:

So was everyone else

> radiological weapons, a nuclear power reactor, and for use in
> submarines long before Nautilus was built. They also realized than an
> atom bomb coulb be mounted on a missile and launched from sea
> (Prufstand XII container).

Trouble is they couldnt actually build either

> >
> > The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
>
> No, hundreds of thousands of captured technical documents stored at
> Wright Field in 1946 prove you wrong. The US Govt even was "low"
> enough to sell non-classified technical documents to other nations for
> cash- including the USSR!

Well gee if they aint classified whats the beef ?

> And if German technology is just a myth then why is 85% of America's
> arsenal derived from German weapons from WW1 and WW2?

It isnt, Germany buys US aircraft.

> Why do we even
> use their tactics and wear their helmets?
>

Well you may wear a Nazi uniform and pretend to be
a stormtrooper but I dont.

Keith

Denyav

June 6th 04, 04:29 AM

>Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
>to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
>DOH !

He would be defeated anyway,but a little bit later maybe .

>The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
>they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
>they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
>dozen different types of personal weapon and no
>commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates

Excellent description plus they faced a 4,5 times bigger opponent.
So why mighty union needed four years to defeat a such incompetent ragtop
opponents and lost more soldiers than incompetent and poor Confederates ?.
BTW,Among confederate foot soldiers there were many sons of southern dynasties
and they together with the sons of less priveledged families fought wars even
without shoes till the bitter end.
Confederates were truly Aristocrats and Knights of North America.

>The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
>superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
>that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
>fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
>in the Mediterranean and Balkans

But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a "Global
Alliance" of countless nations and countries.
As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which tells
something about the caliber of Germans.

Denyav

June 6th 04, 04:42 AM

>Sure we would , and Bugs Bunny would be the next Fuhrer
>

Well,it would be very hard to call a nuclear explosion a "gas exlosion" to say
at least.

>Thats your fantasy, I dont share it.
>
Fine

Well since Britain received more under Marshall Aid than
>Germany that must make us more advanced.

Did I ever say "Britain is less advanced" or "Britain is only an advanced
country not an advanced nation" ?

Denyav

June 6th 04, 04:57 AM

>And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
>configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
>under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at

Well,not only swept wing but also swing wing concept too.
Truth is, post WWII US designers blindly copied almost everything with a German
label.
This blind copying fury yielded good results many times,but not always.
The best known examle of copying not gone very well is F-111.

Denyav

June 6th 04, 05:11 AM

>Trouble is they couldnt actually build either

If occupation of Germany delayed by 6 months Newyorkers and Londoners could see
the proof ,fully assembled.
The whole purpose of Normany Landing is to occupy Germany before completion of
S weapons .

>It isnt, Germany buys US aircraft.
>
And US calls some stolen technology UFOs.

Grantland

June 6th 04, 07:28 AM

(Denyav) wrote:

>But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a "Global
>Alliance" of countless nations and countries.
>As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which tells
>something about the caliber of Germans.
>
Rubbish. Soldiers from all over the empire were needed to subdue a
handful of Boers. The only difference between Germans and Boers is
numbers. Boers are top-quality fighters. Tough as nails.

Grantland

Paul J. Adam

June 6th 04, 11:10 AM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>> By late 1940 Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms
>> of most major military systems despite a much smaller population
>> and economy,
>
>In 1940, you ditched all your equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and
>had little more than the Home Guard to protect you from invasion.

And yet within a few months we had thirty divisions tooled up and ready.
(Where *was* that German invasion? Oh, right, too scared of the Royal
Navy to come across. Imagine Eisenhower trying to plan D-Day, with the
major British ports unusable because of enemy bombing and shelling,
Kriegsmarine units operating freely in the Channel, and over a tenth of
the invasion shipping sunk as it was mustering...)

>Your
>armor was garbage just like your ships

Ah, yes, those inferior ships. The ones that either sank the
Kriegsmarine or sent it cowering to port.

>and the Kreigsmarine only
>needed around 300 U-boats to choke your little nation to death WITHOUT
>a need to invade.

So why didn't they do it? Oh, yeah, they couldn't.

>You brag about production while accepting massive
>handouts from the US that saved your sorry ass... pardon me for
>laughing my ass off!

Meanwhile, the Germans nobly ignored the tank factories of
Czechoslovakia, the arms works of Liege, the mines and forges of
France...?

>ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
>world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
>Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
>Balkans bailing out the Italians.

Napoleon did better - he actually *took* Moscow.

Still didn't win him the war, though.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

Drewe Manton

June 6th 04, 02:19 PM

(robert arndt) wrote in
om:

> Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> develop them yourself...

Well. . to the victor the spoils and all that. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

Drewe Manton

June 6th 04, 02:24 PM

(robert arndt) wrote in
om:

> In 1940, you ditched all your equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and
> had little more than the Home Guard to protect you from invasion.

Which begs the obvious question. . where were they then? Surely not so
dumbly incompetent as to look a gift horselike thatin the mouth?

>Your
> armor was garbage just like your ships and the Kreigsmarine only
> needed around 300 U-boats to choke your little nation to death WITHOUT
> a need to invade.

Which begs the obvious question. . . Why didn't they then? And bear in
mind we are talking about a time when the UK was paying for everything it
received from the US, no lend lease at this time. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

Keith Willshaw

June 6th 04, 02:28 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Leonidas knew about the goat path that would allow bad guys
> >to get behind him but didnt send reliable sentries to watch it.
> >DOH !
>
> He would be defeated anyway,but a little bit later maybe .
>
>
> >The Confederates were disorganised and inept, hell
> >they couldnt agree on ANYTHING, so every army
> >they fielded was a quartermasters nightmare with a
> >dozen different types of personal weapon and no
> >commonality in uniforms. This latter led to Confederates
>
> Excellent description plus they faced a 4,5 times bigger opponent.

In terms of the field army perhaps double

> So why mighty union needed four years to defeat a such incompetent ragtop
> opponents and lost more soldiers than incompetent and poor Confederates ?.

Because attacking an entrenched enemy with late 19th century
weapons was as difficult as it was to prove in WW1

> BTW,Among confederate foot soldiers there were many sons of southern
dynasties
> and they together with the sons of less priveledged families fought wars
even
> without shoes till the bitter end.
> Confederates were truly Aristocrats and Knights of North America.
>

Not to mention slavemasters

> >The Germans in WW2 were so convined of their natural
> >superiority over the untermencshen that were their enemies
> >that they didnt merely content themselves with fighting on 2
> >fronts like their Fathers in WW1 but opened hostilities
> >in the Mediterranean and Balkans
>
> But every time to contain and defeat Germans you needed to create a
"Global
> Alliance" of countless nations and countries.

Note that in neither WW1 nor WW2 did Germany fight on its
own. In WW1 it allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
and Turkey. In WW2 its allies included Italy, Rumania, Hungary
and Bulgaria

> As far as I know GB did not need a global alliance to subdue Boers which
tells
> something about the caliber of Germans.
>

The Boers were rather fewer in number than Germans

Keith

Keith Willshaw

June 6th 04, 02:31 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
> >configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
> >under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
>
> Well,not only swept wing but also swing wing concept too.

The swing wing concept was first advanced by Barnes Wallis.
He proposed a swing wing aircraft in the immediate post war
period long before the German design work was available.

Keith

Alan Minyard

June 6th 04, 02:47 PM

On 5 Jun 2004 12:00:09 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> >
>> > Or better those morons like you that cannot accept the fact that
>> > Germany is the size of just 1 US state and took on the world and was
>> > winning half the time.
>>
>> And losing the other half. Overunning Belgium was no
>> great trick and Norway was no super power. They managed
>> to beat France to be sure but the first time the vaunted Luftwaffe
>> met a technically equal but smaller force it was stopped dead.
>>
>> By late 1940 Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms
>> of most major military systems despite a much smaller population
>> and economy,
>
>In 1940, you ditched all your equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and
>had little more than the Home Guard to protect you from invasion. Your
>armor was garbage just like your ships and the Kreigsmarine only
>needed around 300 U-boats to choke your little nation to death WITHOUT
>a need to invade. You brag about production while accepting massive
>handouts from the US that saved your sorry ass... pardon me for
>laughing my ass off!
>

Remember the "Bismark"? or the "Tirpitz"? or any other German
ship of WWII? That little Navy with "garbage" for ships sank virtually
all of them. And, despite your parroting of Nazi propaganda, the UK
was never in danger of "choking". Also note that the UK produced
virtually all of its own aircraft and ships.
>
>
>Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID
>
>ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
>world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
>Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
>Balkans bailing out the Italians.
>>
So you think wars are won by huge defeats??
>>
>> > Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
>> > armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
>> > ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
>> > develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
>> > and space technology... just to name two!
>> >
>>
>> The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
>> The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
>> and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
>> engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
>> Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
>
>Huh, really? That's why the US engineers asked the GERMANS for advice
>on the future of jet engine development. The Germans told them
>axial-flow was the future even though the US/UK chose to toy around
>with centrifugal dead-end jet engines for years afterwards and even
>still continued producing PROP AIRCRAFT!
>The Germans in 1945 had the world's greatest engine the DB 109-016 @
>28,652 lb st and the world's first afterburning engine the Jumo 004E.
>Of course Germany lack the strategic materials necessary for higher
>quality coonstruction of jet engines but they also had synthetics
>developed under a time of round-the-clock bombing; nevertheless, THEY
>introduced two jet fighters, a jet bomber, a rocket figheter, and had
>two supersonic designs under construction- the Lp DM-1 demonstrator
>for the Lp P.13 and the DFS 346 (which flew Mach 1 in the USSR
>postwar).
>>
Whatever you are smoking must be *really* good stuff.

>> Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
>> the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>
>That's Hitler's fault for cancelling any four-engined type. Germany
>could have built the Me-264, Ju 390, and a wide range of jet bomber
>projects that HEAVILY influenced postwar designs. If you think not
>then buy "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Strategic Bombers 1939-1945".
>>
>> The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
>> technology in 1945\
>
>And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
>configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
>under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
>all.
>>
>> Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
>> the foundations laid by Goddard.
>
>... and Oberth, who proposed rocket artillery as far back as WW1!
>>
>> The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
>> Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
>> than those in the Me-163
>
>Yet the US stole the X-15 configuration/concept from the Peenemunde
>EMW A6 and the US NEVER fielded a rocket fighter, making the Me-163
>Komet unique in air combat history.

And utterly useless. It was an idiotic design.
>>
>> Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
>
>Which is the entire basis for the US rush to develop it's own bomb.
>Germans got a bad deal with bad graphite- thank God for that. Yet the
>Germans also were smart enough to realize that nuclear power could be
>used for other purposes too:

The Germans never achieved criticality in a reactor.

>radiological weapons, a nuclear power reactor, and for use in
>submarines long before Nautilus was built. They also realized than an
>atom bomb coulb be mounted on a missile and launched from sea
>(Prufstand XII container).
>>
>> The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
>
>No, hundreds of thousands of captured technical documents stored at
>Wright Field in 1946 prove you wrong. The US Govt even was "low"
>enough to sell non-classified technical documents to other nations for
>cash- including the USSR!
>And if German technology is just a myth then why is 85% of America's
>arsenal derived from German weapons from WW1 and WW2? Why do we even
>use their tactics and wear their helmets?
>
>Rob
>
>>
You are a loon.

Al Minyard

David Nicholls

June 6th 04, 03:21 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Your armor was garbage just like your ships .....

The Maltida II was the main British tank of mid-1940 and (for 1940) was
immune to all German tank guns at that time. It's frontal armor could only
be penetrated by the 88mm A gun. The German Panzer I, II and early III
(with 37mm gun) could not scratch it neither could the standard AT guns in
German service, hence its nickname of "Queen of the Battlefield" in 1940 and
1941. Its limited turrent ring stopped it being upgunned. Its use in the
Battle of Arras (1940) caused Guderian to consider stopping the attack on
France and it wsa only when Rommel used 88mm AA guns against the Matilda
II's were destroyed (there were only 16 in the battle).

David

Keith Willshaw

June 6th 04, 05:22 PM

"David Nicholls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Your armor was garbage just like your ships .....
>
> The Maltida II was the main British tank of mid-1940 and (for 1940) was
> immune to all German tank guns at that time. It's frontal armor could
only
> be penetrated by the 88mm A gun. The German Panzer I, II and early III
> (with 37mm gun) could not scratch it neither could the standard AT guns in
> German service, hence its nickname of "Queen of the Battlefield" in 1940
and
> 1941. Its limited turrent ring stopped it being upgunned. Its use in the
> Battle of Arras (1940) caused Guderian to consider stopping the attack on
> France and it wsa only when Rommel used 88mm AA guns against the Matilda
> II's were destroyed (there were only 16 in the battle).
>
> David
>

The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Keith

Greg Hennessy

June 6th 04, 07:24 PM

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
>in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
>anti-tank formations and also served with some
>distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
>of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
>being relocated beyond the Urals.

Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
gun which had no HE round.

One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.

greg

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

robert arndt

June 6th 04, 08:56 PM

> Remember the "Bismark"? or the "Tirpitz"? or any other German
> ship of WWII? That little Navy with "garbage" for ships sank virtually
> all of them. And, despite your parroting of Nazi propaganda, the UK
> was never in danger of "choking". Also note that the UK produced
> virtually all of its own aircraft and ships.

Please tell of your great success with your vital shipping. Exactly
how many MILLIONS of tons did you lose to German surface ships,
raiders, S-boats, and U-boats?
Hitler was the one who gave the orders that relegated the surface
fleet to the dustbin; however, ISTR that the Kreigsmarine evacuation
of East Prussia in 1945 was the greatest evacuation in history. It was
accomplished with what was left of the surface fleet and roughly over
2 million German citizens and soldiers were
evacuated- which makes the paltry 300,000+ evacuated at Dunkirk a joke
by comparison.

> >
> >
> >Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID
> >
> >ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
> >world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
> >Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
> >Balkans bailing out the Italians.
> >>
> So you think wars are won by huge defeats??

In the winter of 1941 it wasn't a huge defeat. The defeat came at
Kursk years later. As stated earlier the Germans would have won in
Russia had they started their offensive in the Spring instead of the
summer. They wouldn't have bogged down in the mud and they wouldn't
have been scarce of winter clothing. Russia wouldn't have had the time
to fully mobilize for the counter attack.
> >>
> >> > Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
> >> > armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
> >> > ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
> >> > develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
> >> > and space technology... just to name two!
> >> >
> >>
> >> The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
> >> The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
> >> and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
> >> engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
> >> Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
> >
> >Huh, really? That's why the US engineers asked the GERMANS for advice
> >on the future of jet engine development. The Germans told them
> >axial-flow was the future even though the US/UK chose to toy around
> >with centrifugal dead-end jet engines for years afterwards and even
> >still continued producing PROP AIRCRAFT!
> >The Germans in 1945 had the world's greatest engine the DB 109-016 @
> >28,652 lb st and the world's first afterburning engine the Jumo 004E.
> >Of course Germany lack the strategic materials necessary for higher
> >quality coonstruction of jet engines but they also had synthetics
> >developed under a time of round-the-clock bombing; nevertheless, THEY
> >introduced two jet fighters, a jet bomber, a rocket figheter, and had
> >two supersonic designs under construction- the Lp DM-1 demonstrator
> >for the Lp P.13 and the DFS 346 (which flew Mach 1 in the USSR
> >postwar).
> >>
> Whatever you are smoking must be *really* good stuff.

Facts bother you? Not surprising...
>
> >> Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> >> the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
> >
> >That's Hitler's fault for cancelling any four-engined type. Germany
> >could have built the Me-264, Ju 390, and a wide range of jet bomber
> >projects that HEAVILY influenced postwar designs. If you think not
> >then buy "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Strategic Bombers 1939-1945".
> >>
> >> The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
> >> technology in 1945\
> >
> >And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
> >configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
> >under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
> >all.
> >>
> >> Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
> >> the foundations laid by Goddard.
> >
> >... and Oberth, who proposed rocket artillery as far back as WW1!
> >>
> >> The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
> >> Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
> >> than those in the Me-163
> >
> >Yet the US stole the X-15 configuration/concept from the Peenemunde
> >EMW A6 and the US NEVER fielded a rocket fighter, making the Me-163
> >Komet unique in air combat history.
>
> And utterly useless. It was an idiotic design.

Which as an interceptor could climb at 16,000 fpm and was armed with
two 30mm cannon. It wasn't a solution to win the air war only intended
as a point-defence interceptor. It made some kills and a place in
history.
What exactly did the British Meteor do besides swat some V-1s?
> >>
> >> Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
> >
> >Which is the entire basis for the US rush to develop it's own bomb.
> >Germans got a bad deal with bad graphite- thank God for that. Yet the
> >Germans also were smart enough to realize that nuclear power could be
> >used for other purposes too:
>
> The Germans never achieved criticality in a reactor.

Due to bad graphite which was rejected as a moderator. If they would
have gotten good graphite AND official backing by Hitler AND some
investment AND an order to produce the weapon... then, well history
might be different. Germany never had a true atomic bomb program- just
war research.
>
> >radiological weapons, a nuclear power reactor, and for use in
> >submarines long before Nautilus was built. They also realized than an
> >atom bomb coulb be mounted on a missile and launched from sea
> >(Prufstand XII container).
> >>
> >> The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
> >
> >No, hundreds of thousands of captured technical documents stored at
> >Wright Field in 1946 prove you wrong. The US Govt even was "low"
> >enough to sell non-classified technical documents to other nations for
> >cash- including the USSR!
> >And if German technology is just a myth then why is 85% of America's
> >arsenal derived from German weapons from WW1 and WW2? Why do we even
> >use their tactics and wear their helmets?
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >>
> You are a loon.

No, history doesn't bother me like it does you. You are the loon that
keeps trying to assert that the US ruled forever and invented
everything. You can't admit that most of our modern a/c, designs, and
space program came from the Reich. It's a fact pal and the German
scientists were made US citizens. Why don't you talk to them about
"whose" technology was stolen.
>
> Al Minyard

Rob

Pete

June 6th 04, 09:18 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote
>
> No, history doesn't bother me like it does you. You are the loon that
> keeps trying to assert that the US ruled forever and invented
> everything. You can't admit that most of our modern a/c, designs, and
> space program came from the Reich. It's a fact pal and the German
> scientists were made US citizens. Why don't you talk to them about
> "whose" technology was stolen.
> >

If the Germans had such superior:
planes
tanks
armor
guns
helmets
Generals
leadership
etc, etc...

Why did they lose?

Pete
I'm sure you can pull out some 'facts' that show their bayonets were better
"Fine German cold rolled steel!"

Alan Minyard

June 6th 04, 09:43 PM

On 6 Jun 2004 12:56:12 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> Remember the "Bismark"? or the "Tirpitz"? or any other German
>> ship of WWII? That little Navy with "garbage" for ships sank virtually
>> all of them. And, despite your parroting of Nazi propaganda, the UK
>> was never in danger of "choking". Also note that the UK produced
>> virtually all of its own aircraft and ships.
>
>Please tell of your great success with your vital shipping. Exactly
>how many MILLIONS of tons did you lose to German surface ships,
>raiders, S-boats, and U-boats?

OK, the war totals for ship losses to U-Boats was 272 ships. That was sell than
1% of ships transiting during the war. During that time the US alone
built 4,716 ships. more than 17 *times* the losses to U-Boats.

This Allied losses to U-Boats amounted to 5,358,874 GRT. The losses to
German surface raiders was negligible.

During that same time period the Germans lost 713 U-Boats.

>Hitler was the one who gave the orders that relegated the surface
>fleet to the dustbin; however, ISTR that the Kreigsmarine evacuation
>of East Prussia in 1945 was the greatest evacuation in history. It was
>accomplished with what was left of the surface fleet and roughly over
>2 million German citizens and soldiers were
>evacuated- which makes the paltry 300,000+ evacuated at Dunkirk a joke
>by comparison.

Of course it also resulted in a massive loss of life, Not to mention the fact that
Dunkirk was under attack.
>> >
>> >Then the Fuhrer attacked Russia - STOOPID
>> >
>> >ALL Germans would agree with you there... still they did launch the
>> >world's greatest land invasion in history and would have made it to
>> >Moscow had they not been bogged down in the earlier offensive in the
>> >Balkans bailing out the Italians.

You mean that your dear Fuhrer actually made a mistake, amazing!
>> >>
>> So you think wars are won by huge defeats??
>
>In the winter of 1941 it wasn't a huge defeat. The defeat came at
>Kursk years later. As stated earlier the Germans would have won in
>Russia had they started their offensive in the Spring instead of the
>summer. They wouldn't have bogged down in the mud and they wouldn't
>have been scarce of winter clothing. Russia wouldn't have had the time
>to fully mobilize for the counter attack.

After the winter of 1941 German forces in the USSR were beaten. Ever heard
of a place called "Stalingrad"??
>> >>
>> >> > Then after defeat, your VICTORIOUS and SUPERIOR
>> >> > armies raped the entire German nation for all of its technology
>> >> > ensuring postwar victories without any real effort on your part to
>> >> > develop them yourself... in areas so unimportant as say... aviation
>> >> > and space technology... just to name two!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The USA had better jet aircraft in 1945 than Germany did
>> >> The late model Meteor was faster than the Me-262
>> >> and far more reliable. The Germans never did get their
>> >> engines to work for more than 25 hours while the
>> >> Rolls Royce engines in the Meteor were good for 2000
>> >
>> >Huh, really? That's why the US engineers asked the GERMANS for advice
>> >on the future of jet engine development. The Germans told them
>> >axial-flow was the future even though the US/UK chose to toy around
>> >with centrifugal dead-end jet engines for years afterwards and even
>> >still continued producing PROP AIRCRAFT!

The Germans, meanwhile, produced NOTHING. They have not built a
successful aircraft since the FW-190.

>> >The Germans in 1945 had the world's greatest engine the DB 109-016 @
>> >28,652 lb st and the world's first afterburning engine the Jumo 004E.
>> >Of course Germany lack the strategic materials necessary for higher
>> >quality coonstruction of jet engines but they also had synthetics
>> >developed under a time of round-the-clock bombing; nevertheless, THEY
>> >introduced two jet fighters, a jet bomber, a rocket figheter, and had
>> >two supersonic designs under construction- the Lp DM-1 demonstrator
>> >for the Lp P.13 and the DFS 346 (which flew Mach 1 in the USSR
>> >postwar).
>> >>
>> Whatever you are smoking must be *really* good stuff.
>
>Facts bother you? Not surprising...
>>
>> >> Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
>> >> the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>> >
>> >That's Hitler's fault for cancelling any four-engined type. Germany
>> >could have built the Me-264, Ju 390, and a wide range of jet bomber
>> >projects that HEAVILY influenced postwar designs. If you think not
>> >then buy "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Strategic Bombers 1939-1945".
>> >>
>> >> The NACA in the USA was alreay working on swept wing
>> >> technology in 1945\
>> >
>> >And everyone knows Germany's windtunnel data on the swept-wing (in all
>> >configurations) was far more valuable than anything the Allies had
>> >under development. I'm surprised how stupid you are to mention that at
>> >all.

WHAT wind tunnel data?
>> >>
>> >> Von Braun acknowledged that all his work was built on
>> >> the foundations laid by Goddard.
>> >
>> >... and Oberth, who proposed rocket artillery as far back as WW1!

Solid fuel. That was a dead end at the time.

>> >> The rocket engines used in the X planes post war were designed by
>> >> Goddard's team and were far BETTER and more reliable
>> >> than those in the Me-163
>> >
>> >Yet the US stole the X-15 configuration/concept from the Peenemunde
>> >EMW A6 and the US NEVER fielded a rocket fighter, making the Me-163
>> >Komet unique in air combat history.
>>
>> And utterly useless. It was an idiotic design.
>
>Which as an interceptor could climb at 16,000 fpm and was armed with
>two 30mm cannon. It wasn't a solution to win the air war only intended
>as a point-defence interceptor. It made some kills and a place in
>history.
>What exactly did the British Meteor do besides swat some V-1s?

The Meteor (and the P-80) were not needed.
>> >>
>> >> Then there is the fiasco that was the German nuclear project.
>> >
>> >Which is the entire basis for the US rush to develop it's own bomb.
>> >Germans got a bad deal with bad graphite- thank God for that. Yet the
>> >Germans also were smart enough to realize that nuclear power could be
>> >used for other purposes too:
>>
>> The Germans never achieved criticality in a reactor.
>
>Due to bad graphite which was rejected as a moderator. If they would
>have gotten good graphite AND official backing by Hitler AND some
>investment AND an order to produce the weapon... then, well history
>might be different. Germany never had a true atomic bomb program- just
>war research.

Due to stupid mistakes by their scientists.
>>
>> >radiological weapons, a nuclear power reactor, and for use in
>> >submarines long before Nautilus was built. They also realized than an
>> >atom bomb coulb be mounted on a missile and launched from sea
>> >(Prufstand XII container).
>> >>
>> >> The myth of German technical superiority is just that.
>> >
>> >No, hundreds of thousands of captured technical documents stored at
>> >Wright Field in 1946 prove you wrong. The US Govt even was "low"
>> >enough to sell non-classified technical documents to other nations for
>> >cash- including the USSR!
>> >And if German technology is just a myth then why is 85% of America's
>> >arsenal derived from German weapons from WW1 and WW2? Why do we even
>> >use their tactics and wear their helmets?

So you are saying that the Germans had Kevlar helmets in WWII? Do you have
any idea what the Bundswere wears today?

>No, history doesn't bother me like it does you. You are the loon that
>keeps trying to assert that the US ruled forever and invented
>everything. You can't admit that most of our modern a/c, designs, and
>space program came from the Reich. It's a fact pal and the German
>scientists were made US citizens. Why don't you talk to them about
>"whose" technology was stolen.

You quote a neo-nazi web site that deny's the holocaust as a source
for your "facts". You are a Nazi loving loon.
>>
Al Minyard

Grantland

June 7th 04, 04:41 AM

Greg Hennessy > wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
>>in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
>>anti-tank formations and also served with some
>>distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
>>of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
>>being relocated beyond the Urals.
>
>Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
>gun which had no HE round.
>
>
>One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.
>
Almost as absurd as a Typhoon with no gun. What is it with these
whacked-out Brits? Too much Norman inbreeding?

Grantland

Denyav

June 7th 04, 04:53 AM

>Rubbish. Soldiers from all over the empire were needed to subdue a
>handful of Boers. The only difference between Germans and Boers is
>numbers. Boers are top-quality fighters. Tough as nails.

True,Boer war a foretaste what was coming as Boers,unlike populations british
colonies,were continrntal Europeans.
But still British managed to subdue Boers without help from US,USSR etc.

Soldiers all over empire were obviously present during both world wars.

Denyav

June 7th 04, 05:10 AM

>Note that in neither WW1 nor WW2 did Germany fight on its
>own. In WW1 it allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
>and Turkey. In WW2 its allies included Italy, Rumania, Hungary
>and Bulgaria

Care to name British allies including British colonies?

>The Boers were rather fewer in number than Germans

Surely,but Brits proved to be hardly capable of dealing with a such opponent,in
spite of long and glorious colonial experience.
BTW wo were those Boers,an African.Indian or Arab tribe maybe?

>Not to mention slavemasters
>

Weren't Greeks and Romans too slavemasters?

Denyav

June 7th 04, 05:28 AM

>The Germans never achieved criticality in a reactor.

Yeah right,I am sure you have never heard location names like
Klein-Machnow,Lichterfelde,Pilsen,Kummersdorfthe places that even Hitler's
personal bodyguard Engel was not allowed to enter and escort Hitler inside.
If you think Germans never achived criticality then you must ask US government
"where Hiroshima and Nagazaki bombs came from?"

Denyav

June 7th 04, 05:48 AM

Denyav

June 7th 04, 06:06 AM

>No, history doesn't bother me like it does you. You are the loon that
>keeps trying to assert that the US ruled forever and invented
>everything. You can't admit that most of our modern a/c, designs, and
>space program came from the Reich. It's a fact pal and the German

You are forgetting something,in US image is eveything,on other hand in central
European cultures substance and thinking are highly valued commodities.
The most powerful image maker of US is also most powerful weapon of US,namely
Hollywood.
But in an era when the knowledge and information are available to almost
everyone at real time and almost at no cost ,everybody can see that the "King
is naked" in spite of rhe efforts of image makers.
Of course,the similarities with Guetenberg's printing press are purely
coincidental.

Denyav

June 7th 04, 06:11 AM

>Why did they lose?

If you pick a fight with 14 ordinary guys,you get beaten up at the end,even if
you were Mike Tyson.

Denyav

June 7th 04, 06:15 AM

>WHAT wind tunnel data?

Do you know why ALL F111s were produced WITH a major design flaw ?

Peter Twydell

June 7th 04, 07:52 AM

In article >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>
>"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, robert
>> arndt > writes
>
><snip>
>
>> >Rob
>> >
>> >p.s. Can't wait for the two pinheads to chime in too- Keith Willshaw
>> >and Al Minyard.
>> >>
>>
>> Is it any wonder that many people regard the Germans as arrogant?
>
>Actually, Arndt is (sadly) a USian--I doubt modern Germans would accept the
>likes of him over there, being apparently quite a bit smarter in their usual
>interpretation of WWII events and developments than he exhibits.
>
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,...

>Brooks
>
>>
>> >> Brooks
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rob
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Ying tong iddle-i po!
>
>

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 09:15 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Note that in neither WW1 nor WW2 did Germany fight on its
> >own. In WW1 it allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
> >and Turkey. In WW2 its allies included Italy, Rumania, Hungary
> >and Bulgaria
>
> Care to name British allies including British colonies?
>

Not offhand but the fact that we were rather better
at recruiting allies than Germany reflects rather
well on the diplomatic aspects of the war.

> >The Boers were rather fewer in number than Germans
>
> Surely,but Brits proved to be hardly capable of dealing with a such
opponent,in
> spite of long and glorious colonial experience.
> BTW wo were those Boers,an African.Indian or Arab tribe maybe?
>
> >Not to mention slavemasters
> >
>
> Weren't Greeks and Romans too slavemasters?

Indeed but that was 200 years previously.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 09:16 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Why did they lose?
>
> If you pick a fight with 14 ordinary guys,you get beaten up at the
end,even if
> you were Mike Tyson.

And would be judged to be a moron.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Paul J. Adam

June 8th 04, 03:12 AM

In message >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
>>in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
>>anti-tank formations and also served with some
>>distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
>>of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
>>being relocated beyond the Urals.
>
>Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
>gun which had no HE round.

No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940. And at this point,
tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or put howitzers in hull
mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills) or else armed a
proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns (early
Panzer IVs, late Panzer IIIs).

>One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.

It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
time.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

Greg Hennessy

June 8th 04, 02:10 PM

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:12:31 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>
>No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
>could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940.

Of course.

Still doesn't excuse the lack of a HE round.

IIRC the kiwis worked around this by putting a US 37mm shell into a 2
pounder case.

> And at this point,
>tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or

Not much use against anti tank guns or their crews.

>put howitzers in hull
>mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills)

Which of course meant one to be there at that moment in time to deal with a
threat which required HE rather than solid shot.

> or else armed a
>proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns

Which AIR carried 30 odd smoke shells and 2 HE.

>It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
>time.

It was a silly decision, one which didn't take hindsight to see it for what
it was.

greg

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

Paul J. Adam

June 8th 04, 09:47 PM

In message >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:12:31 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
>>could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940.
>
>Of course.
>
>Still doesn't excuse the lack of a HE round.

How much use was the 37mm HE, by the way?

>IIRC the kiwis worked around this by putting a US 37mm shell into a 2
>pounder case.

40mm Bofors. Wasn't much use as an area-effect round, though.

>> And at this point,
>>tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or
>
>Not much use against anti tank guns or their crews.

Depends on the range. Worked fine against 37mm and 50mm PAKs - but not
against 88mm FlaK, which weren't particularly expected..

>>put howitzers in hull
>>mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills)
>
>Which of course meant one to be there at that moment in time to deal with a
>threat which required HE rather than solid shot.

Interesting that if it was such a poor solution, it was so widespread.
>
>> or else armed a
>>proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns
>
>Which AIR carried 30 odd smoke shells and 2 HE.

Think of the Panzer III / Panzer IV mix as originally planned. 37mm guns
firing solid shot for tank killing, 75mm L/24s for low-velocity HE.

>>It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
>>time.
>
>It was a silly decision, one which didn't take hindsight to see it for what
>it was.

So why was it so widespread, if it was so obviously erroneous?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

The CO

June 9th 04, 03:01 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >WHAT wind tunnel data?
>
> Do you know why ALL F111s were produced WITH a major design flaw ?

And what flaw would that be pray tell?

The CO

Denyav

June 9th 04, 03:21 AM

>And what flaw would that be pray tell?

If you check out and compare the locations of wing pivot points on F111 and
F14,you can see easily figure out the that.

malcolm hirst

June 9th 04, 09:14 PM

As a Brit who has just "dropped in" while surfing I find this
discussion US v UK very interesting.
Forgive me for mentioning this - but aren't we supposed to be on the
same side?
All this argument is giving succour to our joint enemies,present and
potential.
All parties in war make mistakes,mistakes cost lives. Rather than
castigate individuals we should try not to make the same mistakes
again.
We should also remember that politicians make war and soldiers have to
fight them - and a high proportion of casualties are caused by
politicians asking the generals to strive for unachievable targets.
Politicians not the military also hold the purse strings - and
failures of military equipment are almost always rooted in finance and
not design. A classic example is the plight of British troops in Iraq
who are notoriously ill equipped. Troops putting their lives on the
line of any nationality are entitled to the best quality and quantity
equipment that money can buy.
As far as torture in Iraq is concerned it is a matter of leadership
and morale,and not necessarily of policy,and while regrettable is
inevitable. War brutalises people and anyone who thinks otherwise is
living in cloud cuckoo land

John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, John Mullen
> > > writes
> > >"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >, Legal Tender
> > >> > writes
> > >> >Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
> that.
> > >> >Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
> how
> > >> >England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
> > >> >I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
> what
> > >> >the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.
> > >> >
> > >> >Frank
> > >> >
> > >> Which was what, exactly?
> > >
> > >Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
> recent
> > >example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
> actually
> > >ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
> > >fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
> any
> > >purely military solution.
> > >
> > >However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
> > >defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
> to
> > >film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
> > >resulting images.
> > >
> > >That was kind of silly IMO.
> > >
> > >John
> > >
> > >
> > So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
> > a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
> > inference from your post.
>
> 'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
> 'asymmetric warfare' at all?
>
> > The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
> > POWs.
>
> I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
> torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
> didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
> Iraq either.
>
> Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
> overlap.
>
> > IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
> > woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
> > deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.
>
> No indeed.
>
> John

The CO

June 10th 04, 01:17 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >And what flaw would that be pray tell?
>
> If you check out and compare the locations of wing pivot points on
F111 and
> F14,you can see easily figure out the that.

I'm aware of an issue (fatigue susceptibility?) with the wing carry
through box that was present at the beginning of production.
IIRC, it required the box to be replaced at some point in the first few
years of the aircrafts life. Don't recall
the exact time span now, heck I was in primary school when we bought
them.
AFAIK, all the wing carry through boxes were replaced or refurbished
long ago.

Any supposed 'design problems' with the F111 have failed to be an
*operational* problem. We've been operating the type
very successfully for around 30 years with no losses or even incidents
attributable to the wing carry through box.
IIRC virtually all F111 losses have been due to the hazards of operating
at low altitude, pilot error or other non mechanical
causes. I vaguely remember that one F111 was lost after catching fire
during a fuel 'dump and burn' but I'm not aware of
the wings coming off any. There has been the odd engine failure, but
apart from FOD (bird strikes) no doubles. Naturally neither
is attributable to an airframe design issue.

So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate in
aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
pivot points?

Regards

The CO

Denyav

June 10th 04, 04:12 AM

>So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate in
>aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
>out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
>pivot points?

F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic) trim drag
problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow? transmuted
from german original design.
What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research was
limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing designs were
inherently subsonic designs.
This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111 drag
problems.
Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an aircraft
designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design problem.

The CO

June 10th 04, 07:43 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate
in
> >aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
> >out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
> >pivot points?
>
> F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic)
trim drag
> problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow?
transmuted
> from german original design.

Ok, I vaguely remember hearing some mention of this.

> What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research
was
> limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing
designs were
> inherently subsonic designs.

Ok.

> This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111
drag
> problems.
> Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an
aircraft
> designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design
problem.

Doesn't seem to have had much impact in our useage of it. Long range
strike is the
aircrafts forte and it's still tasked for that now. There was talk at
the time that we
should have bought the F4's (which we leased whilst waiting for the
F111's to get
into full production) but considering the value we have gotten from the
F111 it's
pretty obvious that would have been the wrong choice. The govt of the
day copped
a lot of flak over the F111, but 30 years in service seems to have
justified their decision
to buy it. I hope we are half as lucky with the F35 if/when we
eventually get it.
It's possible they changed the F111 mission profile slightly to
accomodate the drag issue,
but I'm not in a position to give an authoritative answer.
As a matter of interest I will ask someone that would know and see if I
can find out.
In short, with our without the drag issue you mention, it doesn't seem
to have bothered
us much if at all.

Regards

The CO

>

Guy Alcala

June 11th 04, 07:04 AM

The CO wrote:

> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >So I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't have a doctorate
> in
> > >aerodynamics so perhaps you could spell
> > >out exactly what the supposed issue is with the location of the wing
> > >pivot points?
> >
> > F111 only modern fighter in history with significant (supersonic)
> trim drag
> > problems and the cause of problem is the pivot point,which somehow?
> transmuted
> > from german original design.
>
> Ok, I vaguely remember hearing some mention of this.

IIRC the prime cause of extra drag on the F-111 was base drag of the rear
fuselage. I've never read any reputable source that blames the wing or the
location of its pivots. In addition, there was probably some extra trim
drag owing to the close-coupled talieron having a small moment-arm.

> > What GD designers did not know was that the German swing wing research
> was
> > limited to subsonic regime and consequently all german swing wing
> designs were
> > inherently subsonic designs.
>
> Ok.
>
> > This flaw was corrected in f14 design and f14 has none of the f111
> drag
> > problems.
> > Of course the apperance of significant supersonic drag problems in an
> aircraft
> > designed as long range supersonic interdictor was a major design
> problem.
>
> Doesn't seem to have had much impact in our useage of it. Long range
> strike is the
> aircrafts forte and it's still tasked for that now. There was talk at
> the time that we
> should have bought the F4's (which we leased whilst waiting for the
> F111's to get
> into full production) but considering the value we have gotten from the
> F111 it's
> pretty obvious that would have been the wrong choice. The govt of the
> day copped
> a lot of flak over the F111, but 30 years in service seems to have
> justified their decision
> to buy it. I hope we are half as lucky with the F35 if/when we
> eventually get it.
> It's possible they changed the F111 mission profile slightly to
> accomodate the drag issue,
> but I'm not in a position to give an authoritative answer.

This is from a post of a couple of years back (and not surprisingly, also
involved one of Denyav's claims re the F-111). I'm the first poster, and
Pete Stickney is replying with the SAC chart data:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Don't know for sure what he's referring too, but IIRR the F-111 design
spec
> mission called for an 800 nm radius (internal nuke) with the last 200nm
inbound
> to the target at M1.2 on the deck, and owing to massive amounts of excess
base
> drag it fell well short of that. Possibly it was as little as 30nm as
Denyav
> claims, but I forget the figure, if I've ever even seen it. Tony
Thornborough's
> F-111 books may give it.

From the F-111A Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart, dated
Feb. 71, based on Flight testing:
Lo-Lo-Hi mission, internal fuel + 2 600 gal tanks, 2000# Special
Weapon and 2 AIM-9B

Radius 800 NM,
Cruise out at 455 kts 706 miles at SL. Tanks dropped when empty.
Dash 70 NM at 800 kts @ SL (The difference is space/time used to accelerate)

Cruise in 703 NM at 432 kts at 36,000'.

So, with 2 tanks, we've got 140 NM sustaining Mach 1.2 on the deck,
reaching out a total of 800 NM. The tanks, btw, account for 20% total
fuel, so without tanks, let's say we've got a 570+ NM cruise out, a 55
NM dash, and a bit better acceleration for being 8,000# lighter
througout the flight, so you're looking at roughly a 650 NM radius.

Not quite as optimistic as the initial specs, but damned good none the
less.

There are some people who, if they told me the sky was blue, I'd
demand independant verification.
------------------------------------------------

I think Pete may have overstated the M1.2 (800kn) cruise distance on the
deck, as the a/c would need to climb on the way back, and the profile is
given as Lo-Lo-Hi rather than the Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi implied by his 140nm @ M1.2 @
SL. Hopefully Pete will clarify.

Guy

Tank Fixer

June 19th 04, 11:52 PM

In article >,
on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....

>
> Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

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

Marc Reeve

June 20th 04, 05:31 PM

Tank Fixer > wrote:

> In article >,
> on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
> Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> > the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>
> 4 types in service
> B17
> B24
> B29
> B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

David E. Powell

June 21st 04, 02:34 AM

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
> > Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....
> >
> > >
> > > Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> > > the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
> >
> > 4 types in service
> > B17
> > B24
> > B29
> > B32 (one wing in the Pacific)
>
> Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
involved shooting back vs. fighters. Wonder if any are left?

PS - Did Germany's Heinkel Grief count as a heavy bomber? I guess by the
time it came out the need was past....

> --
> Marc Reeve
> actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
> c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Marc Reeve

June 21st 04, 07:00 PM

David E. Powell > wrote:
> "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Tank Fixer > wrote:
> > > Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
> > > > the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
> > >
> > > 4 types in service
> > > B17
> > > B24
> > > B29
> > > B32 (one wing in the Pacific)
> >
> > Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.
>
> I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
> involved shooting back vs. fighters. Wonder if any are left?
>
I believe not. Article I read said that those in the field were scrapped
in place, while the flyable ones at the Consolidated plant were flown
straight to the boneyard, and the ones under construction were scrapped.

> > --
> > Marc Reeve
> > actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
> > c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Laurence Doering

June 22nd 04, 06:48 PM

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:00:12 -0700, Marc Reeve > wrote:
> David E. Powell > wrote:
>> "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > Tank Fixer > wrote:
>> > > Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
>> > > > the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development
>> > >
>> > > 4 types in service
>> > > B17
>> > > B24
>> > > B29
>> > > B32 (one wing in the Pacific)
>> >
>> > Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.
>>
>> I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
>> involved shooting back vs. fighters.

According to Joe Baugher's web page at

<http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html>

this is true, on August 18, 1945:

"Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945, the unit [the 386th
Bombardment Squadron, the only AAF unit that flew the B-32] was ordered to move to
Okinawa.... Six more B-32s joined the squadron on Okinawa a few days later. Combat
operations continued in spite of the de-facto cease-fire that had been called
following the bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly
photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were unopposed. However, on
August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed
flak and were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with
only minor damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables. During
a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18, 42-108532 and 42-108578 were
attacked by Japanese fighters. The American gunners claimed two kills and one
probable, but -108578 was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two
being injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World War 2."

>> Wonder if any are left?
>>
> I believe not. Article I read said that those in the field were scrapped
> in place, while the flyable ones at the Consolidated plant were flown
> straight to the boneyard, and the ones under construction were scrapped.

The same web page says one B-32 (42-108474) was set aside for display at the
Air Force museum, but was declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in
1949.

"Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from
a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the
Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is
on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was
erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill
near San Diego."

ljd