"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
concerning logistics.

On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

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

Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
in a single day.
Chris Manteuffel

The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,
(I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),
I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.

This is a ludicrous claim that only an idiot would make.

Andrew Higgins had a superbly efficient organisation for
building landing craft. He employed 30,000 people directly
and built some 24,000 barges during the course of the
war. This did not include the workforce building and
assembling engines and other mechanical parts. At the
peak of production his yards turned out 700 boats a month.

Do the math.


Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).


Julius Caesar launched his raids in 55 BC and 54 BC , as invasions
they were less than successful. He died in 44 BC


Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
impair a Brit counter-attack, and once the Nazi's get a farmers
field to do Me-109's, with air support from France, well things
would get hairy,

Lots of luck manhandling an 88 mm AA gun on and off a
canal barge - they weigh around 7 tons

A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.


Where does their fuel and ammunition come from are are
they just intended as targets ?


Keith

On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
Look up "Mulberry"

I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a
solution. *What was the rest of it?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_110459247/

Keith Willshaw wrote:

The 3 destroyers 'sunk' at Pearl Harbor were all in dry dock at the
time and were repaired and returned to service.

To be strictly accurate, the Cassin and Downes weren't exactly repaired.

Their machinery was salvaged and installed in completely new hulls and
upper works.

The Navy retained the former names and the ship numbers but they were
effectively new ships.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message
, Ken
S. Tucker writes
I read that Brit's used biplanes carrying torpedoes to get Bismarck,
Brits practically invented torpedoing ships from air.
Nazi torps were likely better than the Brits torps

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

I'd thought the time periods were similar?

I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct.



Peter Skelton

On Mar 19, 3:09*pm, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"

wrote:
In message
, Ken
S. Tucker writes
I read that Brit's used biplanes carrying torpedoes to get Bismarck,
Brits practically invented torpedoing ships from air.
Nazi torps were likely better than the Brits torps

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

I'd thought the time periods were similar?

I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct.

Peter Skelton

http://www.uboat.net/technical/torpedoes.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_WWII.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
Look up "Mulberry"

I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a
solution. *What was the rest of it?

Capturing Cherbourg.

On Mar 19, 3:32*pm, Dean wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
Look up "Mulberry"

I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a
solution. *What was the rest of it?

Capturing Cherbourg.

Something that lasted until July 1.

"The Germans had so thoroughly wrecked and mined the port of Cherbourg
that Hitler awarded the Knight's Cross to Rear Admiral Walter Hennecke
the day after he surrendered for "a feat unprecedented in the annals
of coastal defense." The port was not brought into limited use until
the middle of August; the first ships were able to use the harbor in
late July. Nevertheless, the Germans had sustained a major defeat, as
a result of a rapid Allied buildup on their western flank and Hitler's
rigid orders. General Friedrich Dollman, commanding the German Seventh
Army, died of a heart attack on June 28, having just been informed of
a court martial pending as a result of the capture of Cherbourg."

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

In message
, Ken
S. Tucker writes
A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.
Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).

And they brought how many motor vehicles with them?

Strangely, life has changed just a little since then...

Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
impair a Brit counter-attack,

At seven tons each, you're not going to get many 88s across. Nor are you
going to move them very far. And the shells are heavy, too: how do you
plan to keep the guns fed?

and once the Nazi's get a farmers
field to do Me-109's,

A farmer's field that grows 7.92mm and 20mm ammunition, and has aviation
fuel bubbling from a convenient spring? That's colonised by a tribe of
nomadic fitters and mechanics, who have spares and parts available?

If you don't have all of that, you don't have a base and you can't turn
aircraft around.

A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

Stukas. Okay, so you're also bringing bombs for them across and... what?
Hand-carrying them out of the barges, across the beaches, to the fields
where they get hung on the Stukas?

Hitler was more emotionally involved with strengthening the
Eastern front than attacking a ****y little island, as detailed
in Mein Kampf.

And see how much good it did him.

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

Paul J. Adam

"Dean" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
Look up "Mulberry"

I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a
solution. What was the rest of it?

Capturing Cherbourg.

That was part of it but until a port was captured and repaired the
allies relied on a combination of Mulberry harbours and landing supplies
on the beach. The allies used large numbers of specialist landing craft and
landing ships along with the DUKW amphibious trucks.

The Germans had none of these methods available in 1940.

Keith

On Mar 19, 11:04 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



My response is also directed to Mr. Kambic's reply,
concerning logistics.

On Mar 19, 8:59 am, Chris wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

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

Man, Ken, you are really unlucky. If you had been born in the 1760's
you would have been a *superstar.* You see, in the 1790's and 1800's
there were a lot of people trying to build lots blue water hulls for
some big wars they had going on at the time. They thought, because of
their hundreds of years of accumulated experience and lifetimes spent
actually building ships, that it required a great deal of time,
specialized materials and highly skilled labor demanding large wages.
If only you had been there with your experience gained doing something
completely different as a hobby, you could have shown them the errors
of their ways. Any navy would have been thrilled with your ability to
produce a sloop or frigate type hull with a hundred unskilled workers
in a single day.
Chris Manteuffel

The Vikings were building sea worthy boats in 900AD,
(I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),
I think Germans could build a landing craft to cross the
ditch, I assigned 1000 man hours to build one, if ya can't
get that done, you deserve to lose the war, (oh yeah).
A 1000 barges a day (on average) covers logistics.

This is a ludicrous claim that only an idiot would make.

You'll need to LEARN how Ford assembled model T's,
(engloshers never understood mass productivity).

Andrew Higgins had a superbly efficient organisation for
building landing craft. He employed 30,000 people directly
and built some 24,000 barges during the course of the
war. This did not include the workforce building and
assembling engines and other mechanical parts. At the
peak of production his yards turned out 700 boats a month.

Well some Engishman is an idiot, SOP, are we to use a 'Higgins"
as some sort of benchmarck?
Limey's spend most of their time drinking tea and feeling each
other up their kilts, it's no wonder they always lose wars.

Ford proved he could employ low skilled workers (such as
yourself), and crank out 1000's of engines a day.

Frankly I find English are queer, and spend an inordinate
amount of time decorating the interior of their crap.
Here in canuckistan, we'd laff at anyone who bought an
english car, if the temp went below 50F it needed to be
boosted, and cuz the electrics were always cross wired,
spit on the car and it wouldn't start.

Do the math.

Well do you know what a 1000 man hours is, I do,
I actually do work, even did time study for a gigantic co.

Ceasar and Normy had no problem in 0AD, then 1066AD,
if ya wanna toss dates, (cutie pie).

Julius Caesar launched his raids in 55 BC and 54 BC , as invasions
they were less than successful. He died in 44 BC

Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously
impair a Brit counter-attack, and once the Nazi's get a farmers
field to do Me-109's, with air support from France, well things
would get hairy,

Lots of luck manhandling an 88 mm AA gun on and off a
canal barge - they weigh around 7 tons

I spec'd the barge at 10'x40' so use a tractor, tow it,
(I gotta think of everying).

A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

Where does their fuel and ammunition come from are are
they just intended as targets ?

LOL, What are 30,000 barges/month used for, carry around the
retarded royal family to watch the invasion? SOP for Engloshers.

Keith

Yeah, try to keep a sense of humor, not that Engloshers have
any.
Ken