"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 19, 4:17*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
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

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

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
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?

Higgins was from Louisiana and his yards were around New Orleans

Why don't you try and get something right for a change ?

Keith

On Mar 19, 2:04*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
...
None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.
I suspect that like an irresistible force striking an immovable object
there would have been an inconceivable concussion resulting in
irreparable damage.

jsw

On Mar 19, 4:46*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



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?

Higgins was from Louisiana and his yards were around New Orleans

Why don't you try and get something right for a change ?

Keith

Which is why the U.S. WWII/D-Day Museum is in New Orleans.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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,

Using a labour intesive design not lending itself to outboard motors.

(I've designed and built boats and helped others do that),

Sure you have.

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

Different type of war, different circumstances etc. There wasn't a
unified UK, no fire arms, electronic communications, air capability...etc.


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

How big is an 88? How do you get it across the Channel, in one of
your barges? Do you fire it while still in the barge? How do you get it
off the barge and onto solid land? Do you ask the Brits to take a tea
break while you do it?

and once the Nazi's get a farmers
field to do Me-109's, with air support from France, well things
would get hairy,
A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

The story of the Mark 14 torpedo centers on this man:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/h/Christie_Ralph_W.htm

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 2:04 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
...
None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.

The RAF did NOT have to attack one set of ships, its task was to prevent
the Luftwaffe attacking the RN

There was an completely unequal balance of force between the
RN and the Kriegsmarine in favour of the RN

I suspect that like an irresistible force striking an immovable object

The Luftwaffe was not irresistible - see Battle of Britain

there would have been an inconceivable concussion resulting in
irreparable damage.


To the Wehrmacht as most post war war games have shown and
the smarter German commanders knew.

Keith

In message
, Jim
Wilkins writes
None of the other invasion or ship attack examples are really
relevant, in others one side was far from their main bases or had been
weakened unequally by previous fighting, examples are Sicily and
Leyte. Sealion is the only instance between similar air forces close
to home which have to attack one set of ships while defending another.

I'd go with Crete as an amphibious attack far from the enemy's bases and
with total air supremacy, as a good example (and after a year of further
combat experience for the Luftwaffe)

If the Germans can't protect their force with those advantages, indeed
can't even get *any* past the RN, how can they land troops in the UK and
support and reinforce them enough to win?

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

Paul J. Adam

In message , Dan
writes
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's.

No fuel or munitions, furrowed fields....etc.

He's going to harvest the fabled ammunition trees of Kent.

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

Paul J. Adam

On Mar 19, 6:34*am, Alexander wrote:

Germany was concentrating on an Armored war in the East. If the decision
had been to retain Russia as an ally, Germany would have found the where
with all to toast England. As for starving England out..Why not...That
is what England did to Germany after the Armistice in WWI. America had
no place in either war. England handed us the dirty end of the stick and
we had morons in Corporate America what war profiteered by jumping at
the chance.

England was a paper tiger as proven by the taking of Poland. Even in WWI
The English had lost the war when Germany first offered a stand down and
to return to its original borders. But oh no..Wilson had to furnish more
war materials to England and when a ship load of that got sunk...Pull
isolationist America into a European conflict for which America got
nothing but egg on its face.

Actually he never planned to invade England. That is just Paranoia.
If his original plans were to invade, Germany would have been tooling up
in 1934, just like American corporate Government did. America stashed
all the steel and materials and redesigned it planes and battle fleets
in 1934. When Roosevelt finally goaded Japan into attacking us, It only
took short weeks before Fletcher class destroyers came off the assy line
by the gross. Planes also.. All designs with 1934 copyrights.

The English Empire started its own destruction in WWI. Its primary goal
was to pirate Germanys rich colonies. They got ****ed when the
Bolsheviks took Russia out of the equation as an ally. One bloody war
led to the next one. Bolsheviks were and are Jews by the way. The same
batch of assholes that fled Russia for Israel and are now the
assassinating settlers on Palestinian soil.

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

Chris Manteuffel