The Superior King Tiger

"Gernot Hassenpflug" wrote in message
...
"Tank" == Tank Fixer writes:

Tank In article ,
Tank on 11 May 2004 03:48:59 GMT, Denyav attempted
Tank to say .....

numerical superiority. One Panther could kill five
Shermans,includive crews but the sixth one will kill the
Panther antway. Since Civil War "overwhelming power" means not
quality but quantity in US.

Tank Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out
Tank Shermans were in another tank a few days later

Really? I was under the impression the Sherman was known as a
Ronson for good reasons. And fire being the worst enemy of tank
crews, is the high survival rate you imply due to the
self-preservation training of the crews? (let's say, for example,
all hatches open, skilled at getting out in a hurry, etc?) Or did
the German shells not cause catastrophic fires and ammunition
explosions?


The introduction of wet storage for ammunition from
1944 onwards greatly reduced the fires risk to crews

Keith

That was my unwritten point - yet Den and Arnt and all of the other Big Lie
dispensers still depict the Third Reich as being capable of ridiculously
improbable feats of engineering derring-do, irregardless of the plain fact
thatthe war accellerated technological progress across the globe. Wartime
shortages in critical raw and rare elements affected everyone, but the
Germans
most of all. Yet in the Denarnt

Typical standardized mind thinking forgetting famous scientific and
technological savvyness of Germans.

For decades world public listened stories made up by the victors:
Germans were short on raw materials:Surely true,otherwise they would win,but
S-Projects run by SS have absolutely priority,they got what needed always.

Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every gram
of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and shipped to
the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must be
very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).If you are interested Japan
A-Bomb was also ready and waiting for uran shipment,(Another small piece of
info that our "Great Leaders" never told us).

Where these Uran came from? Germans have nothing like Oak Ridge,Hancock or TVA.
Who needs them?Germans perfected gas centrifuge technology in late 30s/early
40s.
Late 1943 cenrifuge cascades were up and running and producing weapon grade
Uran.

Germans were so advanced in gas centrifuge technology so US had invited
Dr.Zippe,one of three top German gas centrifuge designers during WWII,in 50s to
train US designers.
Only after arrival of Zippe,US realized how advanced was German and Soviet
(Zippe and others designed gas centrifuges for soviet nuclear program after
WWII) gas centrifuge technology and pressurized Adenuaer government to classify
all german gas centrifuge work.Upon US request German Gov't classified german
gas centrifuge documents in 1960

Urban legends are the stories that our "Great Leaders" told us in last 60
years

"Evan Brennan" wrote in message
m...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
.net...

(snip)

(In case you don't get it, I am laughing my ass off here at your last
paragraph. Thank you so much for the entertainment!)


Looks like Mullen got excited and wet himself for no reason.

I'm terribly sorry to have bothered you, Brenny-boy. I had no idea you were
so very ill. I really hope things improve for you soon, boy.

J

Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out Shermans were in
another tank a few days later

I thought the name of M1 was Abrams not Sherman

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"mut head" Mullen wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
ignored
any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days
to
put
down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't
that
much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents
contained
within it.

I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of
democracy
or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?

Which is a constraint that is removed if the forces operate without
concern
for "collateral damage" and that lack of concern was the primary part of
the
original post by Paladino.

Sure. As long as we recognise that we are in fantasy land, in alternate
universes, in what-if territory, I have no problem with that. I'm sure if we
were able to act as brutally as Saddam did, we could probably crush the
population as effectively as he did.

Trouble no 1 is that that, if successful, would simply give us back the
status quo. We were supposed to have intervened to improve things in Iraq.
(I think WMD were mentioned too, but let's not bring that up again now!)

Trouble no 2 is that Saddam's thugs were at least Iraqis. Our stormtroopers
in this 'what-if' would be furrners. Resistance would be even easier to
organise than it is now.

Trouble no 3 is that for all their many imperfections, the US and the UK are
liberal democracies with a free press. People would not accept seeing on TV
and in the press, the kind of viciousness that Saddam perpetrated, being
done by our troops. They just wouldn't. If anyone was in doubt over this,
this past week's events must surely prove it. So you would need martial law
in both countries and total news censorship. For starters. And censorship is
much harder now than it used to be.


btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
those
polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...iraqsurvey.pdf


Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. A response from 98.5% of those
polled found that less than 10% of them had even heard that US and UK
troops
were in the country and the answers to that question weeds out the
responses
to other questions they asked. Looking at the quoted numbers for
recognition
of local political figures the results probably match the level of
recognition you would expect to find close to an election in the US and UK
(damn low).

OK. I read it as meaning that only 10% answered the question, of whom 98%
expressed that view. Your reading actually makes more sense, when I think
about it. A rather surprising statistic, isn't it?

btw. sorry about the original comment.

No problem. I appreciate the apology.

John

We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use expensive
presicion bombs, so we only need

If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.
Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not enjoy
a vast numerical superiority? Vietnam?,Grenada?Panama?Iraq?Serbia?Afghanistan?
Some of them had not even one flyable aircraft.

A nationons and or its leaders way of thinking is shaped by traumatic events in
nations history.
And traumatic effect influenced the thinking of US leaders is not Pearl
Harbor,Vietnam or 9/11,it is Civil War.


Even during so called union victory at Gettyburg Union lost more soldiers than
Lee,but union losses were only less than a quarter of union army while Lees
losses amounted to more than half of his army,and more importantly union losses
could be replaced within days with fresh supply of immigrants but Cobfederates
losses were the losses for good.

Thats the starting point of "overwhelming force" thinking.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use expensive
presicion bombs, so we only need

If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.
Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not
enjoy a vast numerical superiority?

The reason we won in WWII was that we had *huge* advantages in materiel,
because we had massive productivity compared to the Germans and the
Japanese. The tanks we had, while not as good as what the Germans could
field on a one to one basis, were good enough to make that up by coming
in at ten to one, and had the support to keep them running. We had some
very nice heavy tanks that could manage toe-to-toe fights with the big
German heavies, but they were much more expensive to make and operate.

On the other hand, in some cases during WWII, the US and out allies had
very definite advantages in technology. The Norden bombsight (covered
in another thread), the B-29 (along with pretty much all of our heavy
bombers, which the Germans couldn't seem to match), code-breaking, and
*trucks*. Lots and lots of extremely reliable trucks, which could be
built in the tens of thousands without crippling the production of
fighting vehicles like tanks.

Wars are won with logistics, and even in WWII, we had that down better
than anyone.

Nowadays, while the US has gone into the high tech side of the equation,
we still keep the production side advantage. Sure, there are other
planes that are "pretty good," but nobody has the capability to make
them in the numbers it would take to beat the US.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tank Fixer wrote in message nk.net...
In article ,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
captured from the Nazis)


Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)


some proof please.

Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
Japan. I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
pointing to.
AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
(aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
Wilcox.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Tank Fixer wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy
was
captured from the Nazis)


Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)


some proof please.

Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
Japan.

Giggle-snort!

I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
pointing to.

Yo, Genius! Guess what? Fat Man was a *plutonium* weapon. And you were
saying...?

Brooks

AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
(aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
Wilcox.

Rob

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
We use few bombers and aircraft, but make them ultra high technology and
stealthy, so we don't need to fill the skies like in WWII. We use
expensive
presicion bombs, so we only need

If I built a very expensive bike using most exotic materials available ,it
would be a ultra high tech bike ,but its still a bike.

No, it would be a *good* bike. One that may allow you to win the race easier
than your competition.

Besides can you show me one theater in which USAF and its allies did not
enjoy
a vast numerical superiority?
Vietnam?,Grenada?Panama?Iraq?Serbia?Afghanistan?
Some of them had not even one flyable aircraft.

But in your original post, you said that we stress quantity OVER quality.

That is simply not the case at all. We can afford both. We can build the
highest quality hardware, and procure it in significant quantities. However,
if we were not concerned with quality, as you asserted, we would probably
have 20,000 tanks in our inventory instead of 4,600.



A nationons and or its leaders way of thinking is shaped by traumatic
events in
nations history.
And traumatic effect influenced the thinking of US leaders is not Pearl
Harbor,Vietnam or 9/11,it is Civil War.


Even during so called union victory at Gettyburg Union lost more soldiers
than
Lee,but union losses were only less than a quarter of union army while
Lees
losses amounted to more than half of his army,and more importantly union
losses
could be replaced within days with fresh supply of immigrants but
Cobfederates
losses were the losses for good.

Thats the starting point of "overwhelming force" thinking.

Perhaps, but today the US armed forces are at a point where they no longer
need to think in terms of losing half or a quarter of their soldiers in
battle. Our technology makes it possible to field limited numbers of assets
if necessary (as a percent of the whole) and guarantee victory.