The Superior King Tiger

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-sûrjnt)
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

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

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"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

From: Chad Irby

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

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,

Such as...?

We got a lot of defectors, but they mostly just gave us copies of the
stuff the Soviets had been stealing from us in the first place.

but the bulk of stolen technology and top
notch scientists were German.

Only in some fields, and since you haven't noticed, that was about 60
years ago. But I guess you're like Arndt, and are still living in the
past.


Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs, had
a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough fissionable material
was we had captured it from the Nazis.

It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated area and no
one noticed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

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

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic
bombs, had a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough
fissionable material was we had captured it from the Nazis.

It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated
area and no one noticed.

It's fun pointing these things out to these guys, though.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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-sûrjnt)
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.

"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.

"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.

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.