"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, 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

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, 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.

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

"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

On Mar 19, 5:43*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
The RAF did NOT have to attack one set of ships, its task was to prevent
the Luftwaffe attacking the RN....
Keith

Coastal Command was part of the RAF. Are you saying the Beauforts and
Sunderlands etc would have sat idle?

jsw

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