OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

Don't downplay their accomplishments by chest-beating
nationalistic pride. That's how wars start in the first place, and an
attitude that most people hopefully outgrow in high school.

Good heavens. A thoughtful post on Usenet. Begone with ye -- this is the
province of the argumentative, not the realm of facts! :-)

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:30:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
] wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: David Dyer-Bennet

Anecdotally, I hear the army found it easier to teach people to shoot
who *didn't* have previous experience; they didn't have anything to
unlearn.

And I've heard that when the WW II GI got into combat, he had to unlearn what the
Army had taught him. That comes from my father, a kid from Bennington, Vermont that,
as a 2nd LT, had to do some of the unteaching to his "green" troops before they
landed at Iwo Jima and Okinowa.

I can't comment on retraining, it's just that actual combat is nothing
like training and never is. It doesn't matter how well you trained
back in the states or wherever, real combat isn't training and
training isn't real combat. Suffice to say that those who survived
the first day or so, learned VERY quickly.

Also during WW II, the military noticed that 10% of the fighter pilots were scoring
90% of the kills. What did they find when they studied it? That 10% were almost invariably
rural kids who carried a gun since they were old enough to walk. They knew how to
properly lead a target 'cause they'd been doing it since childhood with birds, rabbits, etc.
and just carried it over in their flying.

Carrying a gun and knowing how to lead weren't necessarily what made a
good fighter pilot. Those guys who got 80% of the shootdowns got them
because they aggressively sought the enemy. Not every fighter pilot
did that.

In addition, most fighter pilots didn't do very much "leading" when
shooting at an enemy aircraft, they just pulled in directly astern and
blasted away. No need to lead when you are directly astern. This is
what Erich Hartmann claimed he did most often as he self
depreciatingly called himself a lousy shot. Surprising the enemy from
directly behind is what got him the majority of his 352 shoot downs,
that and a "target rich" environment.

The Navy actively taught deflection shooting and promoted the
procurement of fighter aircraft from which deflection shooting was
possible. Both the F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat had steeply sloping
noses allowing the pilot to see over the nose at the target. When you
are pulling lead, this is an important consideration: you have to be
able to see the target over the nose. Being able to use the fighter
for deflection shooting wasn't the main reason for the good over the
nose visibility though, the Navy felt then needed that in order to
properly land aboard a carrier.

Several in-line engine fighters were nearly impossible to use for
deflection shooting because of the long nose in front of the cockpit.
The Bf 109 was one such airplane and the Spitfire another. This
didn't stop Hans-Joachim Marseille from using deflection shooting
anyway but he was pretty unusual. He used to practice his attack
approaches on his squadron as they were patroling, pulling off and
then coming in from all angles, sometimes inverted just to practice
getting the proper lead.

In actual combat, he wrote that he sometimes had to pull so much lead
that his target literally was out of sight below his nose. But for
him this was a matter of timing and situational awareness.

Getting back to the US Navy, the fighter pilots practiced full
deflection attacks constantly, pulling up parallel and above the
target, then banking in to the target and instantly having to bank the
opposite way to be able to pull lead. As you approached the target,
the lead was constantly changing so your angle of bank had to change
constantly. It was extremely difficult to achieve properly and not
every fighter pilot got real good at it. Butch O'Hare was one who WAS
very good at it as he proved in 1942 when he defended his carrier
against approaching twin engined bombers single handedly. His attacks
were all the highside method, which greatly complicated return fire
from the bomber's gunners. His shooting was so accurate that he
actually shot an engine off on of the bombers. This bomber fell out
of the formation and nosed down toward the carrier. It was
photographed close aboard the fantail in it's attempt to crash the
carrier in what was likely the first attempt of it's kind. It missed.

You can see this photo and read of O'Hare and his mentor James (Jimmy)
Thach in the book "The First Team" by John Lundstrom. An excellent
read.

Corky Scott

Given that american constitutional law has it's roots in British common law
there are far more similarities than differences... A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms... That the federal government, and
many state governments, have almost from the moment of the signing of the
Constitution denied that such a guarantee exists, and given that our
Supreme Court chooses to persue it's own social agenda and make gun rulings
that are nothing less than a slap in the face of the framers of the
constitution, this is an issue that is not going to go away...

denny


"Tony Cox" wrote in message

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights
existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.


Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

This is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that
it imposes rather more discipline on the legislature than is
present in the US -- less grandstanding over laws that are
clearly unconstitutional (although popular) and likely to be
tossed out later (Homeland security comes to mind). The
curse is obvious, although the monarch occasionally steps
in to provide the 'brakes' that the SC does in the US.

Whether the right to bear arms exists in 50 years time I
rather doubt. The SC could interpret the clause any way
it cares to. If that happens, remember that the UK only
needs an act of parliament to reverse it. In the US, it needs
a new act + 80% of the states too.

As I say. A blessing and a curse, that bill of rights thing.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...


A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.


Sorry George, that's just not true. While some of the Bill of Rights were specifically
to make sure that some issues that the ex-colonials had with the British were not repeated
in the new government, some of it was just codification of principles long established
in British law. Even the notion and term "Bill of Rights" is right out of British Law.

The British 1689 Bill of Rights included freedom to bear arms for self-defense (US 2nd Amd.),
freedom to petition the government (US 1st Amd.), freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
(US 8th Amd.), freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial (US 5th and 7th amds.)
Much of the fifth and sixth amendment are specifically a US declaration of principles of British
common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

-Ron

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 at 20:11:09 in message
, Wdtabor
wrote:

Agreed, that is why I prefer simply letting passengers with Concealed Carry
Permits carry anywhere, including airplanes. Thatg way there is no way for a
terrorist to know how many are on board, who they are, and if all have revealed
themsleves in response to a provocation.

How is that going to help with aircraft flying to the USA? Marshals
might be one thing but private citizens are very unlikely to be able to
carry their weapons out of many (if any) countries.
--
David CL Francis

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Agreed, that is why I prefer simply letting passengers with Concealed Carry
Permits carry anywhere, including airplanes. Thatg way there is no way for a
terrorist to know how many are on board, who they are, and if all have
revealed
themsleves in response to a provocation.

How is that going to help with aircraft flying to the USA? Marshals
might be one thing but private citizens are very unlikely to be able to
carry their weapons out of many (if any) countries.
--

True, but by empowering the passengers to defend the cabin, professional
resources can then be redirected to international flights.

If the French and Brits can't find anyone who remembers which end of a handgun
the fire comes out of, to train as air amrshalls, we can loan them some on
flights coming into the US.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 at 18:44:35 in message
. net, Tony Cox
wrote:

Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

Only in more and more restricted areas. The signing up to several
European treaties since the 1970s has affected many aspects of British
life, and unless something dramatic happens these areas will continue to
shrink. Signing up to Laws on Human rights has led to all sorts of
changes.

There are still a few parts of the law not too badly affected by
European laws but they are slowly being whittled away.


--
David CL Francis

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 at 18:44:35 in message
. net, Tony Cox
wrote:

Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

Only in more and more restricted areas. The signing up to several
European treaties since the 1970s has affected many aspects of British
life, and unless something dramatic happens these areas will continue to
shrink. Signing up to Laws on Human rights has led to all sorts of
changes.

So what is to stop a future Parliament un-signing?