The Superior King Tiger

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


We don't see any reports to prove it.

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

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



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

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


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



Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs.


Well at least Americans are more humanitarian than the UK.

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

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


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


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


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

John Mullen wrote:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SMH

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

First of all, are you insane?

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


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


greg

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

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message ...
First of all, are you insane?

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

Anyway....

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

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

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


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

In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Eunometic" wrote in message

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

Luck had nothing to do with it.

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

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

Keith

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

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

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Eunometic" wrote in message

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

Luck had nothing to do with it.

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

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

Keith

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


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

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

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

Keith

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

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

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

Brooks


Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Eunometic" wrote in message

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

Luck had nothing to do with it.

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

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

Keith

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

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

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