The Superior King Tiger

"John Mullen" wrote in message .net...
on British paratroopers after they
shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
film' as well.

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


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


LOL. If only it were true. : )

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

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




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

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

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


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

And your empire is doing well just now, would you say? All that learning
from mistakes should let you roll up the trouble in Iraq


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

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


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


When?

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

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


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


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


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


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

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

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


We don't see any reports to prove it.



ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?


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



greg

[Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]



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


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

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


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

?????????

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

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

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

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

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


"Quantity has a quality all its own."

- Joseph Stalin

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

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

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


We don't see any reports to prove it.



ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?


Yes, 'we' don't see any such reports,

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

RU claiming that the UK used some other MBT ?

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

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

greg

[Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]



Only if you replace truth with childlike denial.

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

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




Greg


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

B2431 wrote:

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

Either way it was never proven.

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

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


SMH

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) writes:

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

The war ending B-29 was an engineering masterpiece and represented the only
true "overwhelming power" of WWII. The level of quality in a B-29 is far
beyond any other WWII warplane I have seen. And we have the production
capacity to churn out thousands. No, Den, we produced quantity AND quality -
F6F is a perfect example.

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

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

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

"Eunometic" == Eunometic writes:

Eunometic nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message
Eunometic ...
In fact the shermans absurd shape was a result of it having
been designed for a horizontal radial engine: itself a signe
of neglecting engine development.

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

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

Hehe.

Eunometic It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

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

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

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

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

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

"Tank" == Tank Fixer writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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