The Superior King Tiger

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:51:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.



They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
tank museum at Bovington IRC

Crikey, every day a school day LOL.

Any War Office or Pentagon references to what the host nations thought of
the russian armour ?


greg



Keith


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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Now, *that's* funny...

Maybe,but funny things usually are not kept under the lock for 75
years!.

....in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
motion machines, and the bodies of the little grey men from Roswell...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,

Now, *that's* funny...

I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the
ones that started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80
to the Me 262 and try to fit that whole "century" in between them.
Hysterical!

You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
development team.

The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
trip for the Trinity "test").

The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
their records.

Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
fleet designs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:50:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

...in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
motion machines,

"In this house, young lady, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!"

-Homer Simpson

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/10/2004 1:59 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,

Now, *that's* funny...

I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the
ones that started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80
to the Me 262 and try to fit that whole "century" in between them.
Hysterical!

You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
development team.

The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
trip for the Trinity "test").

The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
their records.

Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
fleet designs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Careful there, Chad, you might break the shovel.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:51:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for
testing.



They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
tank museum at Bovington IRC

Crikey, every day a school day LOL.

Any War Office or Pentagon references to what the host nations thought of
the russian armour ?


Indeed , the US information is in the national archives and the British
report is at the thank miseum in Bovington, some excerpts are available
on line at

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/t34/t34a.html

Keith

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby

You have to understand that we took one of the prototype 1945 AD German
time machines, loaded it with plans from the German jet fighter
prototypes, than jumped back a few years to start up the P-80
development team.

The nukes were harder, because they had to take two trips for the two
different German weapons we fired off in 1945 (not to mention the extra
trip for the Trinity "test").

The work on the B-29 thefts was much more difficult, because we had to
steal the German plans for a four-engined high-altitude bomber with
enough range, use them to build the "American" B-29s, then go back again
and erase *all* of the finished German long-range bomber designs from
their records.

Unfortunately, due to slippage in the time differential, a
German/Russian licensed copy of the 1946 Tu-4 was left in the time
stream, and the Russians used that for their postwar strategic bombing
fleet designs.

Careful there, Chad, you might break the shovel.

Don't be silly.

Due to the German metallurgical research we stole in 1945, we now have
Adamantium Assault Shovels.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Sat, 08 May 2004 02:35:18 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

Perhaps the Germans would have been far better advised at that point to
build smaller, cheaper and easier to operate tanks in greater quantities, so
that maybe they would actually be around for more than one fight. I'm sure
that with their obvious technical prowess, they would have been able to
construct a simple, light tank that would have been slightly better than the
Sherman

They produced several: the Pz IV, the Hetzer.

(which is really all it had to be), and could be produced in good
enough numbers to close the tank gap to maybe 5-to-1, and be user friendly
enough that inexperienced tank crews could effectively operate it. Now that
could have made a real difference.

I suspect that last requirement's impossible: you need experienced
crews and commanders to handle formations of tanks properly, so that
you can site them in good defensive positions, use good tactics,
don't silhouete them against the sky, etc.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On 08 May 2004 05:52:33 GMT, Denyav wrote:
Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
globe. Period. It's not even close.


In the eve of the most important paradigm shift in the warfare since the
invention of gun powder its more a liability than an asset.
You might want to use your current military assets agressively before paradigm
shift (while they are still useful) to streghten your positions,but if your
peer competitor is very good on setting up a "Global Trap" for you and might
force you to waste your very limited resources for nothing.
(Any similarities with Brzezinskis' "Afghanistan Trap" are of course purely
coincidental)
As far as I can see, as paradigm shift nears,US administrations are getting
more nervous and aggressive and making even more mistakes
Thats so simple..

What paradigm shift is this, then?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

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

.

If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut
head
called MULLEN.

I am though.

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.

Er... I pointed out the dictionary definition of the word 'insurgent'. Is
that the same thing?

Based on your post it was.

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.

Really? How? (Waiting with non-bated breath)

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.
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


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.

And I would suggest you *think* before you post, mutt-head.

I've already labeled you the mut head.