A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

America's Army Sucks, Fact



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 30th 04, 06:32 PM
cain_uk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default America's Army Sucks, Fact

America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.
  #3  
Old May 30th 04, 07:06 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


As a former Marine, I don't make a lot of excuses for the US Army.

The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised. Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships actually
detonated. They were US munitions left over from WWII. Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

Brit military prowess? They have great NCO's. That's what I hear.

Walt

  #4  
Old May 30th 04, 07:10 PM
W. D. Allen Sr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"...Their (sic) a bunch of cowboys...."

At least they know English language spelling rules better than do certain
Brits!!!

WDA

end

"cain_uk" wrote in message
om...
America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.



  #5  
Old May 30th 04, 08:07 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , cain_uk
writes
America's army sucks.


Are these the US Americans, the Canadian Americans, the Mexican
Americans, the Venezuelan Americans, the Costa Rican Americans... (the
Americas are two large continents, if you hadn't noticed)

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western.


No, it's frequently called "efficient economy of force" these days.

Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


I can't find an "Alantic" (is it a river? an ocean? a road?) or a
"Britian" in my world atlas, thanks.

And while I'll differ in detail about some aspects of US TTPs, the big
picture is a capable and deadly force: and if you want to criticise
their operational skills, learning to read, write and spell would be a
good start.


1.5/10 on the trollometer: Must Try Harder, See Me After Class.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #6  
Old May 30th 04, 11:21 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As a general rule I don't respond to threads started by trolls, but some of what
you wrote below in response is both on topic and factually incorrect, so I'll
correct it.

WalterM140 wrote:

snip

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships actually
detonated.


I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly well
known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known among the
readers of s.m.n.

They were US munitions left over from WWII.


No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series 1,000
lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs, either 250
or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax Bay
looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are post-WW2
vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.


You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the FAA
doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The reason so
few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the job
of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped from
altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the bombs
dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to clear the
target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by structure
inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding. The
whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about survival
than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG 317.0
(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine pilots
were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just that
reason.

On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a slick Mk.
82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off accordingly.

Guy



  #7  
Old May 31st 04, 01:10 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"cain_uk" wrote in message
om...
America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western.


So when exactly do you think they used B-52's in the
old west ?

Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


Thanks for proving we produce morons too.

Keith


  #8  
Old May 31st 04, 01:22 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


As a former Marine, I don't make a lot of excuses for the US Army.

The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was

borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.

Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe.


In fact he was part of the ORIGINAL planning group but that raid
was abandoned and when the project was revived , Montogomery
urged that it be cancelled as standing no hope of success as all
hope of surprise, which was essential to the operation had been lost.

Indeed Lieut.-General H. G. D. Crerar, G.O.C. 1st Canadian Corps,
took the place of Montgomery who thereafter took no part in the operation
and was in fact in North Africa when the raid took place.

But hey the facts never got in the way of your rants
before so why stop now.

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Army ends 20-year helicopter program Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 12 February 27th 04 08:48 PM
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 December 7th 03 09:20 PM
French block airlift of British troops to Basra Michael Petukhov Military Aviation 202 October 24th 03 06:48 PM
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French The Black Monk Military Aviation 62 October 16th 03 08:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.