America's Army Sucks, Fact

"David Nicholls" wrote in message
...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Your armor was garbage just like your ships .....

The Maltida II was the main British tank of mid-1940 and (for 1940) was
immune to all German tank guns at that time. It's frontal armor could
only
be penetrated by the 88mm A gun. The German Panzer I, II and early III
(with 37mm gun) could not scratch it neither could the standard AT guns in
German service, hence its nickname of "Queen of the Battlefield" in 1940
and
1941. Its limited turrent ring stopped it being upgunned. Its use in the
Battle of Arras (1940) caused Guderian to consider stopping the attack on
France and it wsa only when Rommel used 88mm AA guns against the Matilda
II's were destroyed (there were only 16 in the battle).

David


The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Keith

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
gun which had no HE round.


One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.



greg


--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
gun which had no HE round.


One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.

Almost as absurd as a Typhoon with no gun. What is it with these
whacked-out Brits? Too much Norman inbreeding?

Grantland

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:22:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
The Matilda II went on to create havoc with the Italians
in North Africa were it tore through Italian tank and
anti-tank formations and also served with some
distinction in Russia which received over a 1000
of them at a critical period when their own tank production was
being relocated beyond the Urals.

Shame about the idiots who insisted that such a fine tank be armed with a
gun which had no HE round.

No insisting - the two-pound AT was a very good gun for its time and
could handily kill any Panzer that met it in 1940. And at this point,
tanks either used MGs for anti-infantry work or put howitzers in hull
mounts (M3 Grant/Lee, Char B, early Churchills) or else armed a
proportion of the fleet with low-velocity large bore HE guns (early
Panzer IVs, late Panzer IIIs).

One wonders how many needless deaths were caused by that oversight.

It wasn't a contingency foreseen by that many, as shown by policy of the
time.


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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Hello

I do not know if you realize it, but both of you are spouting out
"facts" supporting your opposing sides without one shred of evidence,
which really disturbs me. Do not get me wrong: I do not discredit
either side (although I have my own opinions), just the lack of
evidence. I would usually not be so picky, but when you give
extremely strong "facts" such as the ones here, you much be sure to
give at the very least a link or book title, if you want to gather any
credability at all.

In article ,
on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

"Marc Reeve" wrote in message
. ..
Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:48:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
involved shooting back vs. fighters. Wonder if any are left?

PS - Did Germany's Heinkel Grief count as a heavy bomber? I guess by the
time it came out the need was past....

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

David E. Powell wrote:
"Marc Reeve" wrote in message
. ..
Tank Fixer wrote:
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
involved shooting back vs. fighters. Wonder if any are left?

I believe not. Article I read said that those in the field were scrapped
in place, while the flyable ones at the Consolidated plant were flown
straight to the boneyard, and the ones under construction were scrapped.

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m


--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:00:12 -0700, Marc Reeve wrote:
David E. Powell wrote:
"Marc Reeve" wrote in message
. ..
Tank Fixer wrote:
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....


Germany never managed to build a succesful heavy bomber,
the USA had 3 types in service and the B-36 under development

4 types in service
B17
B24
B29
B32 (one wing in the Pacific)

Wow. Had not known the B-32 ever made it into service. Interesting.

I heard somewhere that the last aircraft engagement of WW2 had B-32s
involved shooting back vs. fighters.

According to Joe Baugher's web page at

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html

this is true, on August 18, 1945:

"Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945, the unit [the 386th
Bombardment Squadron, the only AAF unit that flew the B-32] was ordered to move to
Okinawa.... Six more B-32s joined the squadron on Okinawa a few days later. Combat
operations continued in spite of the de-facto cease-fire that had been called
following the bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly
photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were unopposed. However, on
August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed
flak and were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with
only minor damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables. During
a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18, 42-108532 and 42-108578 were
attacked by Japanese fighters. The American gunners claimed two kills and one
probable, but -108578 was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two
being injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World War 2."

Wonder if any are left?

I believe not. Article I read said that those in the field were scrapped
in place, while the flyable ones at the Consolidated plant were flown
straight to the boneyard, and the ones under construction were scrapped.

The same web page says one B-32 (42-108474) was set aside for display at the
Air Force museum, but was declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in
1949.

"Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from
a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the
Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is
on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was
erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill
near San Diego."


ljd