Why We Lost The Vietnam War

In article k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"David Thornley" wrote in message
m...

FWIW, Britain produced most of its own arms, with some
obvious exceptions like tanks.

It seems the UK also acquired many aircraft from outside sources as well.

With the striking exceptions of carrier and transport aircraft, it seems
that, at any given time, the bulk of British-operated aircraft were of
British design and manufacture. The same cannot be said of tanks,
since at some important times the bulk of British-operated tanks were
Shermans.

They got a fair number of ships from the US, mostly convoy escorts
and escort carriers. Artillery and small arms were almost completely
of British manufacture, the biggest exception I'm thinking of being
US submachine guns.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

In article , Spiv wrote:

You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by 1945
could feed itself if it wanted too.

Nope.

Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
importing huge quantities of food from the USA and Canada was no longer a
problem.

Wrong. Anything that consumed a lot of shipping was a problem. In
1944, the war was being fought over tremendous distances, and despite
the fact that the Allies (primarily the US) built a lot of extra
shipping the situation was very tight.

Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems,

In 1944, the Brits were still dependent on the US for tanks and some
varieties of aircraft.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

"David Thornley" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Spiv
wrote:


In 1944, the Brits were still dependent on the US for tanks and some
varieties of aircraft.


For the army trucks were the big issue. A motorised infantry or
armored division has several thousand trucks, while Bedford,
Scammel etc were working flat out a large percentage of those vehicles
were American , not just in the British Army but also in the
Soviet armed forces. The 2.1/2 ton US manufactured truck was
every bit as vital to winning the war as the Spitfire, B-17 or
Sherman tank.

Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
American
colony, Canada,

Canada was an independent nation
by then which declared war independently
on Germany.

Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959

Try 1867.

Jim

Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
(David Thornley) writes:
In article ,
John Mullen wrote:
David Thornley wrote:

Last I heard something like that, the world population was more
like three billion,

More like six IIRC

It is now; the last time I heard somebody talking about "the whole
world's population could stand on X" I think it was closer to three.
Feel free to regard me as having functionally been living in a cave
for the past three decades or so.

Well, maybe they can stand on one foot, then.

On each other's shoulders, it's only double, LOL!

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It was a people carrying jet.

So was the Meteor.

While even appearing to align myself with the egregious and
unnecessary spiv on any topic whatsoever is a truely repellant
concept, the Nene Viking did represent a significant step towards the
passenger-carrying jet in a way that the Meat-Box didn't (as the first
jet-to-see-production to fly[1], the Meteor has enough significance to
keep it going).
The Nene Viking was certainly the first mating of an airliner
fuselage to jet power and the first jet to be capable of
employment as an airliner (engine and type certification aside).
None of this was true of earlier designs, unless you were going
to adopt the approach to passenger-carrying of the BOAC Mosquitoes.
Unlike any earlier jet, the Nene Viking was capable of airline
service (given engine and type certification - the latter
never being sought for the good reason that it wouldn't
have made a half-good airliner), albeit hopelessly uneconomically
(which was why it was never developed as an airliner).
To be sure, the mating of jets and an airliner fuselage (as opposed
to mating jets to a bomber, which was common with testbeds) was
going to happen soon, but the Nene Viking was the first example
and deserves a certain amount of credit as such.

[1] and, with one example still in regular use (with Martin-Baker
Ltd, but carrying an RAF serial), the jet with the longest service
history.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Nonsense. Britain invented globalisation in the 1700s. The UK has
consistently imported produce and products that are cheaper than the
home market. When it comes down to it, it can feed itself. In 1939
it was not ready,still importing vast qualitioes of food from the
empire
and others. By 1945 internal food production was way ahead of 1939.

In other words, the UK could not arm or feed itself during WWII.

You must learn to focus and at least attempt to get a point. The UK by
1945
could feed itself if it wanted too.

Britain wanted to feed itself in 1939, 1945, 1949, 1955 and failed to do
so
even in 1972, when Britain was stil only 70% self-sufficient in food
production.

It hasn't sunk in. Britain always imported cheaper food, and food that
can't be grown in the UK, from the empire and elsewhere. After WW2 the
need to be self sufficient was not there.

Once the battle of the Atlantic was won
importing huge quantities of food from
the USA and Canada was no longer a
problem.

which still meant that Britian was not
self-sufficient in food production.

Bit didn't need to be.

Later in the war the UK could arm itself with no problems, but in
the early part of the war, when Britain was fighting on many fronts by
herself, she could not arm herself against a country that had begun
arming
itself for 10 years before the war, even with British industry running
flat out.

The U.K was never self-sufficient in
the ability to arm itself at any time
in the Second World War or after
the Second World War.

It was.

Britian also started arming itself for
war ten years before the war.

Nonsense. Britain scrapped WW1 destroyers not long before the war. And when
the war started took a whole bunch of WW1 rust buckets from the USA. Also
there were treaties to keep to, which the Germans never.

nonetheless, Britian was
incapable of becoming self-sufficient
in arming itself for war.

Certainly was. Britain was a highly industrialised nation. For example, in
WW1, in one battle the heavy guns lost to the Germans were replaced by
British industry before the battle was over. If started at the same time as
the Germans Britain would have been fully ready.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...


Britian also started arming itself for
war ten years before the war.

Nonsense. Britain scrapped WW1 destroyers not long before the war.

Correction Britain scrapped a handful of elderly destroyers as
they were replaced by more modern ships, these were mostly
ships built before or during the early part of WW1 which were simply
clapped out and too small to useful

Destroyer building in the 10 years before Sept 3 1939 produced
the following ships

The 20 ships of the A&B classes entered service in 1930-31
14 C&D's arrived in 1932-33
18 E&F's were built 1934-1935
18 G&H's were built between 1936 and 1937
9 of I class were built 1937-1938
16 Tribals were built between 1938 and 1939
16 J&K's were built in 1939

In addition some 12 ships of the 1916 R & S classes
and 58 of the 1917 V&W class remained in service at
the outbreak of war

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:
Correction Britain scrapped a handful of elderly destroyers as
they were replaced by more modern ships, these were mostly
ships built before or during the early part of WW1 which were simply
clapped out and too small to useful

Not quite true, Keith: A lot of the ships scrapped were V/Ws or
(more commonly) R & S class destroyers, other examples of
which gave useful war service. However, most of these ships
were WW1 war emergency programme ships which had been built
using non-galvanised steel and so were in poor condition
- hence their scrapping. D.K. Brown has some comments on
the unwisdom of not re-using some of the machinery from
these ships in the escort build-up, but the destroyers
themselves were no asset.


Destroyer building in the 10 years before Sept 3 1939 produced
the following ships

Good stuff snipped.

Interesting to note that both DNC (Goddall) in 1939-41 and Brown
in his re-examination of the period consider that one of the failings
of the RN pre-war was not to scrap ENOUGH of the old and only marginally
useful ships[1] - the manpower they absorbed would have been far more
useful in manning the modern ships coming into service.

Example: Frobisher..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Jim Voege" wrote in message
.. .

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

It didn't need to be in 1945, as it imported food from its North
American
colony, Canada,

Canada was an independent nation
by then which declared war independently
on Germany.

Not so. Independence in 1948, 1959

Try 1867.

Try reading about it.