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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: Look up "Mulberry" I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a solution. *What was the rest of it? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_110459247/ |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
Keith Willshaw wrote:
The 3 destroyers 'sunk' at Pearl Harbor were all in dry dock at the time and were repaired and returned to service. To be strictly accurate, the Cassin and Downes weren't exactly repaired. Their machinery was salvaged and installed in completely new hulls and upper works. The Navy retained the former names and the ship numbers but they were effectively new ships. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , Ken S. Tucker writes I read that Brit's used biplanes carrying torpedoes to get Bismarck, Brits practically invented torpedoing ships from air. Nazi torps were likely better than the Brits torps 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? I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct. Peter Skelton |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 19, 3:09*pm, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:38:07 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Ken S. Tucker writes I read that Brit's used biplanes carrying torpedoes to get Bismarck, Brits practically invented torpedoing ships from air. Nazi torps were likely better than the Brits torps 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? I snipped the rest of your post as obviously correct. Peter Skelton http://www.uboat.net/technical/torpedoes.htm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_WWII.htm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: Look up "Mulberry" I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a solution. *What was the rest of it? Capturing Cherbourg. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 19, 3:32*pm, Dean wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:28*pm, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: Look up "Mulberry" I know what a "Mulberry" was. *I also know that they were part of a solution. *What was the rest of it? Capturing Cherbourg. Something that lasted until July 1. "The Germans had so thoroughly wrecked and mined the port of Cherbourg that Hitler awarded the Knight's Cross to Rear Admiral Walter Hennecke the day after he surrendered for "a feat unprecedented in the annals of coastal defense." The port was not brought into limited use until the middle of August; the first ships were able to use the harbor in late July. Nevertheless, the Germans had sustained a major defeat, as a result of a rapid Allied buildup on their western flank and Hitler's rigid orders. General Friedrich Dollman, commanding the German Seventh Army, died of a heart attack on June 28, having just been informed of a court martial pending as a result of the capture of Cherbourg." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cherbourg |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
In message
, Ken S. Tucker writes 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). And they brought how many motor vehicles with them? Strangely, life has changed just a little since then... Beach head is a problem, but German 88's could seriously impair a Brit counter-attack, At seven tons each, you're not going to get many 88s across. Nor are you going to move them very far. And the shells are heavy, too: how do you plan to keep the guns fed? and once the Nazi's get a farmers field to do Me-109's, A farmer's field that grows 7.92mm and 20mm ammunition, and has aviation fuel bubbling from a convenient spring? That's colonised by a tribe of nomadic fitters and mechanics, who have spares and parts available? If you don't have all of that, you don't have a base and you can't turn aircraft around. A few dozen farmers fields loading up with Me-109's, Stuka's. Stukas. Okay, so you're also bringing bombs for them across and... what? Hand-carrying them out of the barges, across the beaches, to the fields where they get hung on the Stukas? Hitler was more emotionally involved with strengthening the Eastern front than attacking a ****y little island, as detailed in Mein Kampf. And see how much good it did him. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Dean" wrote in message ... On Mar 19, 1:28 pm, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: Look up "Mulberry" I know what a "Mulberry" was. I also know that they were part of a solution. What was the rest of it? Capturing Cherbourg. That was part of it but until a port was captured and repaired the allies relied on a combination of Mulberry harbours and landing supplies on the beach. The allies used large numbers of specialist landing craft and landing ships along with the DUKW amphibious trucks. The Germans had none of these methods available in 1940. Keith |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |