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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" wrote:
"Alan Minyard" wrote: On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" wrote: "John Mullen" wrote: "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message [..] The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time anyway. I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent in·sur·gent (n-sūrjnt) adj. 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com 1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent "a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not recognize it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements. Try a real dictionary, not some web page. It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most libraries in the United States. My copy of Black's Law Dictionary defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who opposes the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the constituted authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary). Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established government". Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority. Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq clearly do not meet this definition. Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian governors. That is an utterly ridiculous argument. How in the world can Mr Brenner be both the civil authority *and* an insurgent?? You are destroying your own argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up your mind. Al Minyard |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net... In article , on 09 May 2004 15:49:39 GMT, Denyav attempted to say ..... You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more time. Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology and top notch scientists were German. If you cannot produce you must steal. B-29 Concorde / Tu 144 John |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
From: Tank Fixer
Denyav attempted to say ..... You know, you keep saying things like this, when what you're really saying is "Russians are superior, you stole everything from us" one more time. Surely US stole some from Russia too,but the bulk of stolen technology and top notch scientists were German. If you cannot produce you must steal. B-29 Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was captured from the Nazis) Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote: On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" wrote: "John Mullen" wrote: "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message [..] The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time anyway. I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent in·sur·gent (n-sūrjnt) adj. 1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com 1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent "a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not recognize it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements. Try a real dictionary, not some web page. It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most libraries in the United States. My copy of Black's Law Dictionary defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who opposes the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the constituted authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary). Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established government". Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority. Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq clearly do not meet this definition. Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian governors. That is an utterly ridiculous argument. If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut head called MULLEN. How in the world can Mr Brenner be both the civil authority *and* an insurgent?? If you had bothered reading the thread I've never made the argument that Bremer is an insurgent. Mullen made an argument that US Forces were not engaged in actions against insurgents. You are destroying your own argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up your mind. I never made the claim that US Forces were insurgents. The original claim was that US Forces could put down an insurgency in 12 hours if they were not concerned about 'collateral damage' which while short could probably be achieved. All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an insurgent. I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:55:28 +1000, "L'acrobat" wrote: Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs intended for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate. When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made, The only good thing is the amount of T&E the germans wasted on these Wunder weapons. Absolutely, you have to wonder what good they thought even a 1000 of these things would do, given their situation.. it would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet bomb the damn things. Assuming they could get them to the front in the 1st place. If not no doubt the front would come to them. But they don't need to be killed at the front, I doubt it would be too difficult to spot them in transit and bomb them. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message ...
First of all, are you insane? What is with you? Do you sit up at night and wish Hitler had won or something? Anyway.... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in engagements with the King Tiger. And yet, at the end of the day, all those mass-produced-pieces-of-**** managed to beat the crap out of just about anything that was thrown at them. What does that say about Germany? The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the allies in the air. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article , (robert arndt) wrote: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the Firefly British conversion). ...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and not go very far, due to high ground pressure The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to handle. However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of mobility. and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress. The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as the German and Allied tanks. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after they ran out of gas. Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some new photos of the 2003 Tiger Meet (Cambrai) | Franck | Military Aviation | 0 | January 2nd 04 10:55 PM |
Airman tells of grandfather's Flying Tiger days | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 04:55 AM |
1979 Tiger for Sale | Flynn | Aviation Marketplace | 65 | September 11th 03 08:06 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |