Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:27:31 GMT
Michael Broadwater writes

> at 02:10 PM 8/17/97 +0100, Spike wrote:
> >|> (I think more Brits died there from American "friendly fire" then
actual
> >|> iraqi weapons...)
> >|
> >|Hell, more _Amercians_ died by American FF than by enemy weapons. At
> >|least they weren't discriminatory. *grin*
> >
> >Nope.
> >Just utterly incompitent...
>
> Yeah, that's it. America just doesn't have any good soldiers. We suck. I
> notice all you ever hear about is American friendly fire casualties.
Despite this they still managed to kill less NATO presonel in the
Gulf than in an average set of NATO exercises that size! Despite both
Sadams and the US's best efforts. (so even the American troops must
have been paying attention).
War by CNN certainly doesn't help the US armed forces in this one.

> Probably because we don't suppress the media, and let that information out.
> British soldiers are great! They can do no wrong! Who cares if they
> can't win a fight without the US's help!
>
> Opps, sorry. Falkland Islands. Almost forgot about _that_. We (the US)
> may fight over a nickle a gallon for gas, but we've never really been as
> hard up on sheep as the UK has.
>
Excuse me!

There is the matter of a lot of Islanders who weren't exactly keen on
being taken over by a military dictator, the only reason the US was
so interested in the Gulf was oil, not people.

The British force that took back the Falklands was outnumbered, and
trying to minimise casualties 8000 miles from home. Ok, so SAS,
Para's etc etc against conscripts isn't fair but don't annoy NATO
contries but outright invading thier teritory.

I have heard they had to stop the British armour in the gulf before
it ran into the US contingent because both forces were clearing up
the opposition far faster than anticipated.

--

Overall a bit more tact here or you will attract Carp :)

I really wouldn't advise anyone to annoy any of the major NATO
countries armed forces (note the USA with around 6 times the
population of most major European members has a distinct numbers
advantage) and some other forces are supposed to be ok but my info
isn't accurate enough to make much comment.

Mark
Message no. 2
From: Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:16:35 -0500
At 04:27 PM 8/20/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:

>The British force that took back the Falklands was outnumbered, and
>trying to minimise casualties 8000 miles from home. Ok, so SAS,
>Para's etc etc against conscripts isn't fair but don't annoy NATO
>contries but outright invading thier teritory.

Ah, see, you understand it. Armies are pretty similiar when it comes down
to it. The Brit's aren't any better than the US, and vice versa (of
course, this'll get a bunch of Brit/US military fanatics breathing down my
neck. I know who you are, I don't want to see anymore of you're one sided
statistics, thank you very much.)


Rasputin-the-no-fancy-middle-name-in-dashes-right-now-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:33:11 +0100
In message <3.0.32.19970820151634.009489a0@********>, Michael Broadwater
<mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM> writes
>At 04:27 PM 8/20/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
>
>>The British force that took back the Falklands was outnumbered, and
>>trying to minimise casualties 8000 miles from home. Ok, so SAS,
>>Para's etc etc against conscripts isn't fair but don't annoy NATO
>>contries but outright invading thier teritory.
>
>Ah, see, you understand it. Armies are pretty similiar when it comes down
>to it. The Brit's aren't any better than the US, and vice versa (of
>course, this'll get a bunch of Brit/US military fanatics breathing down my
>neck. I know who you are, I don't want to see anymore of you're one sided
>statistics, thank you very much.)

One-sided statistics? The US needed more men, ships, aircraft and
helicopters to "liberate" Grenada than we used for the Falklands. And
there was the detail that Argentina had both a Navy (which we scared
into staying in port) and an Air Force (which, with the naval air arm,
fought with quite suicidal valour throughout the conflict).

If you can suggest a comparable US example to any of the Falklands,
Oman, Indonesia, Sarawak, Borneo or Malaya, then I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise, the point remains: the US wins by weight of numbers and
logistics, and despite its troop quality.



Sorry, Mike, but while you flap your hands and say "one sided
statistics" you're talking out of your ass. The statistics are one-sided
because the US forces- the Army and Air Force in particular - really are
that bad.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:21:31 -0500
At 09:33 PM 8/20/97 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

>Otherwise, the point remains: the US wins by weight of numbers and
>logistics, and despite its troop quality.

Ah, but there you have it. We won. And of course, because the British
military is smaller, or didn't send as many troops and we sent in a lot
(lord forgive us for sending in more men than needed. that's never a good
thing. apparently, you can be too prepared.) we suck.

I just love to hear the British whine about how inferior our forces are.
Then I love to see them come to us with their tail between their legs
asking for help. Wonder what flag would be flying over London today if
they hadn't, though.

The thought really, really makes me want to see them invaded.


Rasputin-the-no-fancy-middle-name-in-dashes-right-now-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
http://www.blackhand.org/

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. -- William Clayton
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 01:17:03 +0100
In message <3.0.32.19970820162130.009558b0@********>, Michael Broadwater
<mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM> writes
>At 09:33 PM 8/20/97 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
>>Otherwise, the point remains: the US wins by weight of numbers and
>>logistics, and despite its troop quality.
>
>Ah, but there you have it. We won.

As you did in Korea (status quo restored with heavy losses after three
years, and the US managed to draw China into the fight too).

As you did in Vietnam.

As you did in the Iranian desert in 1979.

As you did in Lebanon in 1983.

As you did in Somalia.

The United States was very lucky that Saddam Hussein allowed it to fight
to its strengths. The last few decades are full of examples where US
numbers and logistics were either useless or downright
counterproductive.

Other victories - Panama and Grenada - are hardly something to claim
superiority over. If the entire might of the US armed forces, operating
in their own back yard, couldn't defeat the Panamanian Defence Forces
(mostly civilians with rifles) then you should take the Pentagon back to
the shop and demand a refund.

>And of course, because the British
>military is smaller, or didn't send as many troops and we sent in a lot
>(lord forgive us for sending in more men than needed. that's never a good
>thing. apparently, you can be too prepared.) we suck.

No, you suck because your troops are ill-disciplined and overconfident,
your logistics and equipment maintenance philosophy depend on
uninterrupted lines of communication, and because your habitual
overconfidence leads you into embarrasing mistakes (like two divisions
of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard escaping past Franks' VII Corps,
because the super-efficient M1A1 Abrams ran out of fuel and Franks
forgot to arrange resupply).

>I just love to hear the British whine about how inferior our forces are.

They are. Trained against them, seen them in action. Nice equipment,
except that it's expensive and all repair-by-replacement, but the users
are often quite alarming.

Example: the Royal Navy selects submarine captains on the basis of their
tactical proficiency and leadership skills. The US Navy selects
submarine captains based on their nuclear engineering ability, and is
then surprised when NATO navies run rings around US boats.


Remember, Mike, this is my job: I _know_ how grossly inferior some US
gear is. And that worries me, since the US is one of the forces we're
most likely to go into action alongside, and for some reason I don't
want to see allies dying.

The US military has a number of fundamental weaknesses, most of them
well known, and it's primarily political considerations that prevent
many of them from being addressed.

>Then I love to see them come to us with their tail between their legs
>asking for help.

Let's see... how many US troops were walking trails in Borneo? Malaya?
Sarawak? Kenya? Aden? Brunei? Oman? Oh, yeah, I forgot, Mike, because
the US weren't involved, none of those ever happened.

The only year since the end of WW2 that no British soldiers have been
killed in action overseas was, if I remember, 1964.


>Wonder what flag would be flying over London today if
>they hadn't, though.

Union Jack. Check your history. Sealion was a dead duck by the end of
1940, insamuch as it was ever going to happen. It was another year
before the US decided to join in: by then Hitler was both fighting
British forces in North Africa, and heavily engaged on the Eastern
Front.

That was the only time this century that the possibility of invasion
even existed: and the Royal Navy and RAF were itching for a chance to
attack a Channel full of flat-bottomed barges crammed with seasick
German troops. It would have been a slaughter, and Hitler's generals
knew that well.


Now, repeat after me several times until reality finally takes hold.

Larger != better.

Who defeated Communist insurgencies in Southeast Asia on no less than
four occasions, without US or other assistance?

And who waded into another such conflict, and staggered out ten years
later with 50,000 dead and their armed forces gutted for a decade?

One is the US. The other is Britain. There's a prize if you can guess
which.

>The thought really, really makes me want to see them invaded.

Why? Got some mythical enemy you want exterminated? Sending them to
invade the British Isles would be a good way to kill them off in a
hurry.

Go get a clue. They're on special offer at K-Mart, I hear.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: Jimpy <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:32:47 -0500
Paul J. Adam wrote:
<snip oodles and oodles <sp> of penis wagging from both sides of the
pond>

>
> >Wonder what flag would be flying over London today if
> >they hadn't, though.
>
> Union Jack. Check your history. Sealion was a dead duck by the end of
> 1940, insamuch as it was ever going to happen. It was another year
> before the US decided to join in: by then Hitler was both fighting
> British forces in North Africa, and heavily engaged on the Eastern
> Front.
>

Sealion may have been dead in the water, and perhaps there was a
seriously delayed entry into the war on the part of the US, but the fact
remains that Hitler was already as good as defeated on the Eastern Front
by the end of 1942, Stalingrad generally being considered the turning
point on that front.

It would have been a logistical impossibility for Britain to launch its
own invasion of the mainland--not enough "sheer numbers."

The United States, IMNSHO, entered the war in Europe for three reasons:
1. The obvious: Hitler declared war on the United States.
2. To help our "ALLIES," a fact that seems to be overlooked in recent
posts.
3. To prevent most, if not all of Western Europe from coming under a
Soviet flag. I consider it to be a "Land Grab."

While American military tactics in Europe and North Africa were
agreeably based on sheer numbers, it is also important to remember that
IT WORKED, despite sometimes atrocious casualty rates.

In documentary footage and pictures in books, you can see many examples
of that "inferior" US equipment being used by British soldiers (as well
as Russian etc.) as a result of Lend Lease (the Grant, Sherman,
Stuart, while all of terrible quality and known as death traps,
were accepted by and asked for by England)--let's not forget the donated
American WWI vintage destroyers that encompassed the bulk of the Royal
Navy's anti-submarine capabilities at the beginning of the war.

To get to my point, the United States had royally fragged up on more
than one occassion, on that I agree.

But shouldn't it be pointed out that the British have made more than one
military blunder as well? Come on guys, everyone screws up...remember
Verdun, the Somme (while technically not a "defeat" the horrendous
casualty rates should be noted), Dunkirk, the Boer War, Northern
Ireland, Bannockburn, and last but certainly not least, those pesky
little colonists in the Americas ;)

So come on, let's all be friends ;)

Jim
Message no. 7
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:17:06 GMT
Paul J. Adam writes
>
> As you did in Korea (status quo restored with heavy losses after three
> years, and the US managed to draw China into the fight too).
>
etc etc.

> overconfidence leads you into embarrasing mistakes (like two divisions
> of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard escaping past Franks' VII Corps,
> because the super-efficient M1A1 Abrams ran out of fuel and Franks
> forgot to arrange resupply).
oops :)
I have heard reliability/availability figures for the Challenger for
that that would make a civilian transport operator green with eveny,
managed in a 'war' in a desert!

> That was the only time this century that the possibility of invasion
> even existed: and the Royal Navy and RAF were itching for a chance to
> attack a Channel full of flat-bottomed barges crammed with seasick
> German troops. It would have been a slaughter, and Hitler's generals
> knew that well.
It was quite simple, Hitler had to kill the RAF (something he failed
totally to do despite 4 times as many planes as the RAF. Given that
German engineering is noted this points the finger squarely at the
NAZI command :) ) then the Navy. Even with the 'pocket battleships'
the German navy in WW2 against the contents of Scapp flow etc. would
have been brief, follow the above.

> invade the British Isles would be a good way to kill them off in a
> hurry.
>
That was refreshing !, Thanks Paul. I know i chopped it to bits but
save on bandwidth.

Mark
Message no. 8
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:34:37 -0400
Side note/question for you British types. Did you guys ever get the Steam
Catapult perfected? Up until at least the mid 80's we were the only ones with
it perfected IIRC, and I remember seeing the curved-up carrier decks that
made up for it.

Wolfstar
Message no. 9
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:57:59 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-20 21:16:55 EDT, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> Who defeated Communist insurgencies in Southeast Asia on no less than
> four occasions, without US or other assistance?
>
> And who waded into another such conflict, and staggered out ten years
> later with 50,000 dead and their armed forces gutted for a decade?
>
> One is the US. The other is Britain. There's a prize if you can guess
> which.
>
Alright. I think you children should stop now. Someone was complaining about
penis envy and who the Brits got kicked out by. That wasn't happening. THIS
discussion is pure military "Who's got the bigger dick?" And it has GOT to
stop. Paul, if you're so gung-ho about the damned British Armed Forces, good
for you. But do NOT bring up Vietnam. You do not live here, you have no idea
what happened to us in Vietnam. We had boys over there who didn't want to be
there, getting called a baby-killer by their former FRIENDS because they were
on MP duty at a surgical unit. We had men being bombed by our own aircraft,
because the politicians didn't know what they were doing at ALL. We were
sending children - 'cause that's all they were - to die for their country in
places that they should never have seen, and half of them are still rotting
at the bottom of a delta or marsh, or in the jungle somewhere. And that
doesn't even mention the ones who are still alive and rotting. You want to
debate tactics and military statistics, go right ahead. You wanna compare and
contrast? Great. But when you reduce what we went through in Vietnam to a
reason why you're better than us, it means it is time to pull your head out
of your ass.
This is by no means tearing into you only, Paul, but you essentially
trivialized an exceptionally traumatic time in our history. Most of the
people in this debate are acting exceptionally childish on both sides. It's
an off-topic thread, and you guys are whipping out the flamethrowers over it.
Both sides have flaws that can be pointed out, and both sides have strengths
as well. Take the sarcasm, insults, and other crap out of this and it'll be a
good discussion. Until then, keep quiet or take it private.

Wolfstar
Message no. 10
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 06:07:08 -0400
George Metz wrote:
>
> Side note/question for you British types. Did you guys ever get the Steam
> Catapult perfected? Up until at least the mid 80's we were the only ones with
> it perfected IIRC, and I remember seeing the curved-up carrier decks that
> made up for it.

It's not a matter of technological advancement, just a matter of
necessity.
Those carriers your thinking of are the only ones the brits have. They
only carry Harriers, and hence don't need steam cats, just a little ramp
to get the birds in the right direction.
And steam catapults have been in use around the world since the 50's,
they don't require a very high level of sophistication to create.
--
Craig J Wilhelm Jr

Reality is nothing but a refuge for those who can't handle role-playing.

http://home.earthlink.net/~craigjwjr/

ICQ UIN: 1864690

-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d? s+:+ a-- C++ !U--- !P !L- !E-- W++ N++
o K- w++ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE+++ Y+ PGP- t-
5+++ X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+ G e++ h* r+ y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 11
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:26:12 +0100
|I just love to hear the British whine about how inferior our forces are.
|Then I love to see them come to us with their tail between their legs
|asking for help. Wonder what flag would be flying over London today if
|they hadn't, though.

When have we EVER crawled to you for help????

|The thought really, really makes me want to see them invaded.

Many have tried, none have succeeded (in the last 1000 years).
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Jaymz <justin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:54:46 -0500
At 04:21 PM 8/20/97 -0500, Michael Broadwater wrote:
#At 09:33 PM 8/20/97 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
#
#>Otherwise, the point remains: the US wins by weight of numbers and
#>logistics, and despite its troop quality.
#
#Ah, but there you have it. We won. And of course, because the British
#military is smaller, or didn't send as many troops and we sent in a lot
#(lord forgive us for sending in more men than needed. that's never a good
#thing. apparently, you can be too prepared.) we suck.
#
#I just love to hear the British whine about how inferior our forces are.
#Then I love to see them come to us with their tail between their legs
#asking for help. Wonder what flag would be flying over London today if
#they hadn't, though.
#
#The thought really, really makes me want to see them invaded.

Who cares whose penis is bigger, all we need to know is that the US has
more dicks in it than any other country!
--
/--justin@****.mcp.com----------------------justin@******.net--\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:05:25 +0100
George Metz said on 5:57/21 Aug 97...

> But do NOT bring up Vietnam. You do not live here, you have no idea
> what happened to us in Vietnam.

In this case, I'll have to add something here too, aimed mostly at
Americans: stop calling people (whose attitudes) you don't like "Nazis." I
don't think I need to explain why.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:06:59 -0600
Jaymz wrote:
|
| Who cares whose penis is bigger, all we need to know is that the US has
| more dicks in it than any other country!

Yeah, but we're the biggest dicks in the world ;)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 15
From: Jaymz <justin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:48:43 -0500
At 01:06 PM 8/21/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
#Jaymz wrote:
#|
#| Who cares whose penis is bigger, all we need to know is that the US has
#| more dicks in it than any other country!
#
#Yeah, but we're the biggest dicks in the world ;)

Oh so true
--
/--justin@****.mcp.com----------------------justin@******.net--\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 16
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:40:58 +0100
In message <970821055757_-1603427355@*******.mail.aol.com>, George Metz
<W0lfstar@***.COM> writes
> Alright. I think you children should stop now. Someone was complaining about
>penis envy and who the Brits got kicked out by. That wasn't happening. THIS
>discussion is pure military "Who's got the bigger dick?" And it has GOT to
>stop. Paul, if you're so gung-ho about the damned British Armed Forces, good
>for you. But do NOT bring up Vietnam. You do not live here,

True.

>you have no idea
>what happened to us in Vietnam.

False.


>But when you reduce what we went through in Vietnam to a
>reason why you're better than us, it means it is time to pull your head out
>of your ass.

George, I'm sorry if I offended you: but it remains a fact. Mike came
out with a few statements suggesting that Britain had not won a single
conflict without US help. I offered a few examples where we had.

French, and then US involvement in Vietnam happened: it's a fact, it's
on record, deal with it. I'm more familiar than you seem to assume with
parts of that history: and I used it as a counterexample.

> This is by no means tearing into you only, Paul, but you essentially
>trivialized an exceptionally traumatic time in our history.

Horseshit, not to be blunt. I'd offer an example of what trivialising
it would have been, but that would be as gratuitously offensive as some
of Mike's comments.

Are you seriously saying that it is forbidden to mention Vietnam,
discuss it, or attempt to draw lessons from it?

If so, then Northern Ireland is similarly off-topic if not more so:
Vietnam was two and a half decades ago, I have acquaintances who are
patrolling in bandit country _today_.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:59:33 +0100
In message <970821053436_888527202@*******.mail.aol.com>, George Metz
<W0lfstar@***.COM> writes
> Side note/question for you British types. Did you guys ever get the Steam
>Catapult perfected? Up until at least the mid 80's we were the only ones with
>it perfected IIRC, and I remember seeing the curved-up carrier decks that
>made up for it.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the steam catapult, the angled deck
(allowing simulaneous launch and recovery) and the mirror landing system
(extending carrier ops into worse weather and visibility) were all
British inventions :)

Eagle and Ark Royal both had steam cats for their full careers.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:36:49 +0100
In message <33FBD2FF.7C9F@***********.com>, Jimpy
<lowfyr@***********.COM> writes
>It would have been a logistical impossibility for Britain to launch its
>own invasion of the mainland--not enough "sheer numbers."

True. Eventual result is Britain looking across the Channel at the
hammer and sickle flying over Calais, if the US doesn't get involved.

>In documentary footage and pictures in books, you can see many examples
>of that "inferior" US equipment being used by British soldiers (as well
>as Russian etc.) as a result of Lend Lease (the Grant, Sherman,
>Stuart, while all of terrible quality and known as death traps,
>were accepted by and asked for by England)

Don't knock the Sherman, it was a grossly underrated tank: it's actually
a match for the vaunted T-34.

Again, the key point was numbers. The US didn't manage a decent heavy
tank until war's end, but then with the numbers of M4s coming off the
lines they could manage without. The Cromwell and Comet were perhaps
better tanks vehicle-for-vehicle than the Sherman; but there were always
going to be many more Shermans.

>--let's not forget the donated
>American WWI vintage destroyers that encompassed the bulk of the Royal
>Navy's anti-submarine capabilities at the beginning of the war.

Actually, that's not true: the RN had well over 200 destroyers in
service in 1939, most of them in better condition and much better
equipped than the fifty Town-class DDs the US sold us under Lend-Lease.
(remember, the US got key basing rights and several billion pounds out
of Britain for all that equipment, it wasn't "donated").

The Towns were, though, valuable hulls for North Atlantic convoy duty:
fast, adequately armed, and a damn sight better than nothing, though
their machinery was old and unreliable (remember, none of them were less
than 20 years old in 1939).

>But shouldn't it be pointed out that the British have made more than one
>military blunder as well?

Never denied it. I objected strenuously to the original poster's tone
and comments, and offered a few counterexamples.

>Come on guys, everyone screws up...remember
>Verdun,

A French affray, no British involvement.

> the Somme (while technically not a "defeat" the horrendous
>casualty rates should be noted),

Most of the First World War, to be honest, qualifies as disaster: too
many cavalry generals waiting for an opportunity to put "Gee in Gap".

>Dunkirk,

You don't win wars by retreating, but you _do_ win by salvaging your
forces and getting them home instead of having them captured. The
Germans intended to capture or destroy the BEF, and instead saw them
slip away. Wasn't good, but it was as good as could be achieved.

> the Boer War,

Didn't we win that one? (After some embarrasing defeats and inventing
the concentration camp, mind you...)

>Northern
>Ireland,

Well, we're still there, and it's been two and a half decades since we
last massacred any civilians there, and the IRA are trying negotiation
instead of blowing stuff up, so it's not exactly a loss yet...

> Bannockburn,

A _little_ more historic than most of my suggesions, and don't forget
Culloden followed it...

>and last but certainly not least, those pesky
>little colonists in the Americas ;)

Oh, the time they invaded Canada and we burned their capital to teach
them a lesson? :)


Add, though, Ireland in general pre-1960s (our bad handling of the
situation led to the Easter Rising); the Walcheren expedition: the
Peninsular War between Moore and Wellesley: Isandlwana: et cetera et
cetera ad nauseam.

Can we at least agree that British forces are frequently able to either
win or lose on their own?

>So come on, let's all be friends ;)

I had thought we were... <g>


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 19
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:47:37 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 17:47:45 EDT, you write:

> Are you seriously saying that it is forbidden to mention Vietnam,
> discuss it, or attempt to draw lessons from it?

No, not at all. But you are COMPLETELY forgetting that the politicians were
had tied the hands of the military. Vietnam is an exceptionally BAD example
of the failure of the US Military.

> If so, then Northern Ireland is similarly off-topic if not more so:
> Vietnam was two and a half decades ago, I have acquaintances who are
> patrolling in bandit country _today_.

Northern Ireland IS off-topic, and I don't think we should go there, simply
because I personally think the British should give up and go home. But that's
another story entirely.

Wolfstar
Message no. 20
From: Jimpy <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:16:21 -0500
Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >Come on guys, everyone screws up...remember
> >Verdun,
>

<grins sheepishly, acknowledging his quick tongue and slow brain>
I'm a bit of a history buff, but WWI has always been a gap for me...I
guess this displays a typical example of an American who can't keep his
big mouth shut :)

> A French affray, no British involvement.
> >So come on, let's all be friends ;)
>
> I had thought we were... <g>
>
> --I believe we are :)

A truly pleasant way to close my last, big-mouthed posting on this
thread...

Jim
Message no. 21
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:27:22 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 22:32:26 EDT, you write:

> In this case, I'll have to add something here too, aimed mostly at
> Americans: stop calling people (whose attitudes) you don't like "Nazis." I
> don't think I need to explain why.

Understandable, but most people who's attitudes I don't like ARE Nazi's, or
Ku Klux Klan members, which are good, CHURCH-GOING Nazi's. Well, Neo-Nazi's,
anyway.

Wolfstar
Message no. 22
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:13:00 GMT
on 21.08.97 M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK wrote:

MJS> > overconfidence leads you into embarrasing mistakes (like two divisions
MJS> > of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard escaping past Franks' VII Corps,
MJS> > because the super-efficient M1A1 Abrams ran out of fuel and Franks
MJS> > forgot to arrange resupply).
MJS> oops :)
MJS> I have heard reliability/availability figures for the Challenger for
MJS> that that would make a civilian transport operator green with eveny,
MJS> managed in a 'war' in a desert!

Hehe...Lots of the Abrams parts are German! (We might not have a real
army, but at least we have neat tech-toys! Leopard 2, anyone?) :))

MJS> It was quite simple, Hitler had to kill the RAF (something he failed
MJS> totally to do despite 4 times as many planes as the RAF. Given that
MJS> German engineering is noted this points the finger squarely at the
MJS> NAZI command :) )

That's what you get, when you think you're superior to all others.

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 R ##
Message no. 23
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 14:04:12 +0100
In message <6cNKsxJgX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>, Tobias Berghoff
<Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE> writes
>
>Hehe...Lots of the Abrams parts are German! (We might not have a real
>army, but at least we have neat tech-toys! Leopard 2, anyone?) :))

It amused me that the M1 Abrams was built with a copied British gun (the
105mm L7). The M1A1 was upgunned... this time with a copied _German_
gun, the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 02:18:32 +0000
On 20 Aug 97 at 21:33, Paul J. Adam wrote:
[SNIP]

> Otherwise, the point remains: the US wins by weight of numbers and
> logistics, and despite its troop quality.
>
You are partly right, but the order is Logistics, Equipment quality,
and Weight of Numbers results the biggest strength overwelming fire
power. Now if we could gain just a bit more presision in its
applcation.

And the problem is not troop quality as much as it is "political
considerations" (more domestic, and inter-service then
international) that cause the most problem. A good example is
Grenada, first every branch of service had to be included. Even
though the Marines and the Navy could have done it by them selves.
Then all the special operations units needed to be used. Resulting in
Delta Force being totally misused. And the use of two half Ranger Bn
rather then one full one. Then for reasons of future promotions,
there was a push to get as maney officers and senior NCOs there. On
of the Ranger Bns. filled the available lift capasity starting with
the Bn Commander and Staff and worked down by grade, no privates or
corprols were taken at all.

On of the reasons that the U.S. Air Force destroyed more British APCs
then the Iraqy army was the requirment that the armoured A-10 attack
aircraft operate above 800 feet so they would not be hit by ground
fire. Unfortunately those Air Farce types have major difficulty in
vehicle identifcation.




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Centre of the Universe - was re:New Seattle Source, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!