America's Army Sucks, Fact

America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

(cain_uk) wrote in
om:

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


See, and you Amricans think YOU have to put up with some morons! Where is
Britian anyway? Is it anywhere near Britain?

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

"Drewe Manton" wrote in message
. 4...
(cain_uk) wrote in
om:

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.


See, and you Amricans think YOU have to put up with some morons! Where is
Britian anyway? Is it anywhere near Britain?

Don't know, but reportedly on other side of "Alantic". grin

Lynn

Drewe Manton wrote:

(cain_uk) wrote in
om:


For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.



See, and you Amricans think YOU have to put up with some morons! Where is
Britian anyway? Is it anywhere near Britain?

Well know fact that Trolls can't spell.

-- Darrell

America's army sucks.

They have no idea how to fight a war. I mean dropping bombs from a
B-52 at 30,000 feet isn't war, its called a western. Their a bunch of
cowboys. And now we here about the disgusting behavior of American's
torturing Iraqi prisoners.

For real soldiers, look other the other side of the Alantic, Britian.

As a former Marine, I don't make a lot of excuses for the US Army.

The Brits don't have any really great shakes going for them either.

The most famous Brit general of the 20th century -- Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised. Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships actually
detonated. They were US munitions left over from WWII. Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

Brit military prowess? They have great NCO's. That's what I hear.

Walt

As a general rule I don't respond to threads started by trolls, but some of what
you wrote below in response is both on topic and factually incorrect, so I'll
correct it.

WalterM140 wrote:

snip

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships actually
detonated.

I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly well
known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known among the
readers of s.m.n.

They were US munitions left over from WWII.

No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series 1,000
lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs, either 250
or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax Bay
looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are post-WW2
vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the FAA
doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The reason so
few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the job
of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped from
altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the bombs
dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to clear the
target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by structure
inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding. The
whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about survival
than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG 317.0
(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine pilots
were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just that
reason.

On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a slick Mk.
82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off accordingly.

Guy

WalterM140 wrote:

snip

I watched with great interest the British attack on the Falklands. It's
not
generally known, but only @ 40% of the bombs that hit Brit warships
actually
detonated.

I guess that depends on how you define 'generally known.' It's certainly
well
known among many of the readers of this NG, and even more generally known
among the
readers of s.m.n.

Sure, but 'most people' don't read this newsgroup.


They were US munitions left over from WWII.

No, they weren't. The Fuerza Aerea Argentina used British Mk. 13/18 series
1,000
lb. bombs, US. Mk. 82 500 lb. bombs (the CANA A-4s used the Snakeye retarded
version; the FAA used the slick version), and French Para-retard bombs,
either 250
or 400kg (sources differ. Photos I've seen of one of the French duds at Ajax
Bay
looks to me more like a 250 than 400 kg job.) All of these bombs are
post-WW2
vintage, with the possible exception of some of the British bombs used by the
Canberras. The Mk. 82s would definitely date from post-1965, which is when
Argentina received the first A-4s. The Mk. 82 wasn't even around in WW2, not
entering service until the mid-50s or so. I suspect the same is true for the
French para-retard weapons, if they didn't date from even later.

Thanks for the correction. I heard something else.


Reduce that dud rate to
zero and the whole Brit expeditionary force becomes POWs.

You could equally say reduce the dud rate to zero and the odds are good the
FAA
doesn't have any a/c left, because most of them have been shot down. The
reason so
few bombs detonated is because the FAA pilots had the normal instinct for
self-preservation, and usually flew as low and fast as they could to make the
job
of the defenses much harder. But this meant that bombs were often dropped
from
altitudes too low to allow sufficient time for fuse operation, so many of the
bombs
dudded, or the fuse delays were so long (to allow time for the wingmen to
clear the
target before the bombs exploded) that bombs which weren't stopped by
structure
inside the ship passed on through and out the other side before exploding.
The
whole reason for the defenses was to make the pilots more worried about
survival
than destroying their targets, thus increasing the incident of duds. CTG
317.0
(the amphibious shipping), Commodore Clapp, was very glad that the Argentine
pilots
were chosing to make level bomb runs instead of pop-up dive attacks, for just
that
reason.


Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits were gambling
they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly. Not very prudent.

You seem to agree that if -all- the bombs had detonated the Brit supporting
force would have been reduced below a level where the invasion could have been
supported.

On the few occasions where the defensive fire was minimal, the pilots were
willing/able to climb high enough before dropping (ca. 300 feet AGL for a
slick Mk.
82) that the fuses had time to operate, and the 'dud' rate dropped off
accordingly.

Guy

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn wrote:

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?

Yes, in open water. Exeter claimed to have shot down at least one and
possibly two A-4Cs of Grupo 4, during the combined SuE/A-4 attack on 30? May
in which the Argentines believe (or claim to) that they hit HMS Invincible,
while the Brits say they never got close and actually overflew HMS Avenger,
missing her.

[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

Correct, although Antrim's Sea Slug also limited them somewhat. As a
practical matter, neither Sea Slug or Sea Dart was a factor in/around San
Carlos Water, as the Argentine a/c were coming in 50-100 nm on the deck; any
pop up would have been to clear the hills around the water, leaving far too
little time for the radar-guided area SAM systems to acquire. Exeter shot
down a Learjet while in SCW, but that a/c was cruising at 40,000 feet.
Coming in as low as the fighter-bombers did essentially limited the
engagements to visual detection/acquisition/tracking; even the Sea Wolf ships
usually had insufficient time to fire using radar control when inshore.
Rapier, OTOH, might well have done considerably better if the FAA had gone in
for pop-up dive attacks.

Guy

On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they unavailable?

Al Minyard