Page 12 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 585

Thread: Why are American Cars so BIG?

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Luftwaffe was an order of magnitude greater in size
    Since most of this is speculative I'm just going to do this one:

    THIS IS WRONG.

    Sir Basil Liddel Hart in his History Of The Second World War (1970) states that, "The RAF fighter strength had been rebuilt, after its loss of more than 400 in France to a figure of some 650 by mid-July" He then states that the Germans totaled 900 fighters, of which 200 of those are Meserchmidt 110s, which are really support planes/destroyers... giving the Germans only 700 actaul fighters. I would NOT call a 50 plane difference an order of magnitude. Infact, Hart himself states that, "The superiority of the Luftwaffe over the Royal Air Force was not as great as was generally imagined at the time," or as is *still* imagined, as proven by your continued ignorance.
    Two words: Dodge Viper

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    Since most of this is speculative I'm just going to do this one:

    THIS IS WRONG.

    Sir Basil Liddel Hart in his History Of The Second World War (1970) states that, "The RAF fighter strength had been rebuilt, after its loss of more than 400 in France to a figure of some 650 by mid-July" He then states that the Germans totaled 900 fighters, of which 200 of those are Meserchmidt 110s, which are really support planes/destroyers... giving the Germans only 700 actaul fighters. I would NOT call a 50 plane difference an order of magnitude. Infact, Hart himself states that, "The superiority of the Luftwaffe over the Royal Air Force was not as great as was generally imagined at the time," or as is *still* imagined, as proven by your continued ignorance.
    Disagree, on any one day his numbers are about right.
    The difference were the RAF pilots were on constant duty, Luftwaffe pilots were being rotated and were in better condition. You're not comparing like with like again.

    because of the layout of the British groups, only one fighter group was called on daily to fight the BoB.
    Significant numbers were NOT brought done to bolster Group 11 till later on.
    ( The theory was that if 11 DID lose then a strong group 10 would fight the German invasion forces on the beaches from the northern airfields )
    At the beginning of the BoB it was a small numerical adcantage to the Luftwaffe in planes in the air. The difference was radar allowed the British fighters to be homed in on an attacking group rather than flying air-cover flights as was the norm prior to the integrated British control system.
    There were 3 Luftflotte within strike distance and used in the BoB, each Luftflotte numbered 1000 planes. the RAF had approx 220 spits and 350 hurries. So a potential 3000 versus 550.
    And as for the quote about the strength, I'll leave it to the British Imperial War Musem to say it "In 1940, the German Air Force or Luftwaffe was the largest and most formidable air force in Europe......
    The crucial period of the battle was between 24 August and 15 September. Fighter Command came closest to losing when its vital sector airfields around London were attacked. The decisive turning point came on 7 September when the Luftwaffe switched its attention to the capital. This tactical blunder allowed Fighter Command to recover its strength rapidly to inflict, on 15 September, losses significant enough to show the Germans the battle could not be won.
    "

    If you want some more views from those involved go to http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package...tain/intro.htm and the RAF own page with some great pictures at http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/gallery.html and all the squadron logs for each day. I went through many of these excellent on-line resources as my father wrote his memoirs in tha letter years of his life.

    They were close to bombing the GRoup 11 airfields out of service and it is widely reported that had they not switched to bombing London they would have achieved that goal. Just nobody in the Luftwaffe new that
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 07-31-2004 at 04:40 PM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    Are you serious?

    Do you honestly not see any media/propoganda in the US that has underlying fear-promoting ideas?

    The USA has supported terrorism in the past, in many different forms, and without apology/compensation to the victim countries.
    Are you serious?

    Do you realize that the U.S. has had a part in or by herself liberated more people than any other country in the world?

    Do you realize that the U.S. gives far more in aid to other countries than any other country in the world?

    Do you realize that the U.S. accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world.

    How about some praise for the U.S., instead of making ridiculous statements like "the U.S.A. has supported terrorism in the past."

    How can there be any kind of "propoganda" about terrorist attacks when we already had been hit on 9/11? Are you trying to say that terrorism is not as great a threat as the U.S. claims?

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500
    Are you serious?

    Do you realize that the U.S. has had a part in or by herself liberated more people than any other country in the world?
    How do you reckon that is ?
    There are few theatres of war and police action where there weren't other countries involved. Are you claiming them ALL as US ?? I'll give you Grenada
    Do you realize that the U.S. gives far more in aid to other countries than any other country in the world?
    WRONG.
    The US has a huge deficit on it's obligations to the UN missions around the world.
    Too often US "aid" comes with handcuffs - so it's money to CHina to upgrade a telephone network as long as they buy AT&T switches. So please be careful making such sweeping "goodwill" statements.
    Do you realize that the U.S. accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world.
    Well in raw numbers it will. It's a large land mass and a significatn infrastructure. Of course it will attract and be able to absorb higher numbers.
    How does it do as a percentage of population, or available land, accomodation , GDP ?
    How about some praise for the U.S., instead of making ridiculous statements like "the U.S.A. has supported terrorism in the past."
    In part the same reponse is repeated becuase their is seldom contrition for those past acts. Maybe it will take a strong President to voice that and maybe it can be mroe 'open' for better relations.
    Also, in an area of poor action, it will be difficult to garner praise from anyone other than a 'patriot'.
    How can there be any kind of "propoganda" about terrorist attacks when we already had been hit on 9/11? Are you trying to say that terrorism is not as great a threat as the U.S. claims?
    The connection between Iraq and 9/11 was made in a propganda speech worth of the Nazi machinery at it's best/worst.
    "Blind patriots" wouldn't see it just as ordinary Germans didn't "see" the call to cleansing.
    ( Note I'm NOT comparing the acts, I'm comparing the presentation and appeal to worst fears )
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    There were 3 Luftflotte within strike distance and used in the BoB, each Luftflotte numbered 1000 planes. the RAF had approx 220 spits and 350 hurries. So a potential 3000 versus 550.
    These numbers are utter nonesense. John Colvin in his "Decisive Battles" (2003) states clearly (and more or less coberates Hart) that, "After the battles for Poland and France, in which the Luftwaffe suffered substantial losses, the Germans mustered 805 operational fighters... British fighters, at the same time, numbered a total of 1,032 of which 715 were operational in August."

    So far I've got two sources saying a difference of 50 or 100, and you're talking about 3000 against 500? Where the hell is that comming from? What the hell are you talking about? The Imperial War Museum claims this? Where? I do not recall reading anysuch thing when I visited said Museum two years ago.
    Two words: Dodge Viper

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    These numbers are utter nonesense. John Colvin in his "Decisive Battles" (2003) states clearly (and more or less coberates Hart) that, "After the battles for Poland and France, in which the Luftwaffe suffered substantial losses, the Germans mustered 805 operational fighters... British fighters, at the same time, numbered a total of 1,032 of which 715 were operational in August."
    are you sure that isn't just Luftflotte I ?
    The term "mustered" usually means to put into action. So I think it may be a confusion over terminology.
    As I'd already said, the Luftwaffe put their pilots up in rotation in the early months.
    The issue with collaborated figures is sometimes they use the same source and in worst cases the source IS the orignal 'collaboration'.
    I'll check Janes. My dad had a copy of it from early 40's and it covered the war years. They are the definitive source on types and numbers of aircraft.
    So far I've got two sources saying a difference of 50 or 100, and you're talking about 3000 against 500? Where the hell is that comming from?
    By now I thinkk most folks on UCP know I don't wawste my time if it's self-evident the previous post isn't read.
    I offered you the suggestion why their is a disparity in the numbers you quoted and I used.
    It's been explained once.
    I don't explain 3 times. If you don't bother to comprehend what others write then it annoys. Consiedr this reminder the 2nd
    What the hell are you talking about? The Imperial War Museum claims this? Where? I do not recall reading anysuch thing when I visited said Museum two years ago.
    The quote WAS from the IWM site, stating it was the largest so I'll leave it to you to go through their site and argue it with them I GAVE YOU THE LINKs
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 08-01-2004 at 01:49 AM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    128
    The numbers don't lie.

    The only other peice of proof that I could possibly give you (aside from furhter sources making similiar claims) would be the exact August 1940 TO&Es from Loftflotte 1-3. Now, I can't do that because I don't have acsess to those documents, however, I can offer you a pair of thoeries to explain where your 1000 planes per Fleet number is comming from. Are you including *bombers* in that figure? Bombers would certainly make up a much larger fleet, but hardly count against the Fighters figure, for the obivious reason taht the bombers were really a liability rather then an advantage. Or, are you looking at the figure based on what the optimal size of a Fleet was, because, as my numbers make very clear, the perferred number was not achieved due to the losses suffered earlier. I perfer to assume that you're looking at the former theory though, since it would be *just* simple enough for you to over look.

    I ask you again to check your source.
    Last edited by mr bill; 08-01-2004 at 12:26 PM.
    Two words: Dodge Viper

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    The North African campaign was a joke. It isn't even mentioned in the Official Riech History of the war, as it was always viewed as a total sideshow. Italy... please. The Pacific, yes, you can have that one. But don't ever call Guadalcanal and the BoB a *big* battle. They weren't. The BoB wasn't even an important battle, nor was D-Day or any of that other propagandised gung-ho American nonsense.
    Im sure the relatives of the thousands killed will be dissapointed their loved ones died for nothing. What idiot, simplistic, ignorant crap.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    Are you including *bombers* in that figure? Bombers would certainly make up a much larger fleet, but hardly count against the Fighters figure, for the obivious reason taht the bombers were really a liability rather then an advantage.
    There we go.

    and why do you take out the bombers from the BoB ?

    When the prime purose of the German assault was to knock out the airfields, ports and supply chain ?
    and then in the last month to bomb London.
    Of course the bombers were important in the BoB.

    Odd to consider only fighters, I'd just assumed nobody would do that.
    If you read the IWM and BoB memorial web sites I gave you the links to they describe each of the numbers of planes put in the air each day including bombers, escorts and ground attack.

    Equally the RAF lost a lot of their own bombers in the BoB as they tried to knock out forward airfields and mustered craft in ports. It was in those days the Blenheim proved itself as a day and night bomber.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Purdue, Indiana
    Posts
    1,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    I think D-Day was quite important.
    How else were the allied forces going to get the German army out of the occupied countries?
    Asking them nicely?

    I do agree that the popular "version" of events as described by the American media isn't neccissarily true.
    I.e. Tom Hanks did not single handedly take over most of Northern France.
    If you want a very good movie series showing the reality of D-Day and many other battles, get "Band of Brothers". It follows Easy Company of the 82nd paratroopers(I'm not sure if this is right, but I do know that it was Easy Company). It shows the company from their training to the end of the war. I've seen it more than once and it is a very good series(it's on a few DVD's, I can't remember how many).

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    Since most of this is speculative I'm just going to do this one:

    THIS IS WRONG.

    Sir Basil Liddel Hart in his History Of The Second World War (1970) states that, "The RAF fighter strength had been rebuilt, after its loss of more than 400 in France to a figure of some 650 by mid-July" He then states that the Germans totaled 900 fighters, of which 200 of those are Meserchmidt 110s, which are really support planes/destroyers... giving the Germans only 700 actaul fighters. I would NOT call a 50 plane difference an order of magnitude. Infact, Hart himself states that, "The superiority of the Luftwaffe over the Royal Air Force was not as great as was generally imagined at the time," or as is *still* imagined, as proven by your continued ignorance.
    One of the reasons the British aircraft industry was able to achieve this was that Hitler had turned his attention from airfields and factories to cities. A fortuitous turn of events (not for the civillians) gave the RAF breathing space. You are indeed an expert strategist from 60 years hence.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by aNOBLEman
    If you want a very good movie series showing the reality of D-Day and many other battles, get "Band of Brothers". It follows Easy Company of the 82nd paratroopers(I'm not sure if this is right, but I do know that it was Easy Company). It shows the company from their training to the end of the war. I've seen it more than once and it is a very good series(it's on a few DVD's, I can't remember how many).
    A great series. Having spoken to vets in the hospice my dad was in, the one thing that movie does get over is the fear, action and finality of it all.
    One complaint I've heard is it was too focussed on the US forces and gave little info on the other fronts and units involved.
    On the 'focus' issue I don't see a problem. The program WAS about the Band of Brothers in Easy company. It never set out to portray the all of the battles - though unfortunately I HAVE met some folks who think that WAS the whole battle
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by aNOBLEman
    If you want a very good movie series showing the reality of D-Day and many other battles, get "Band of Brothers". It follows Easy Company of the 82nd paratroopers(I'm not sure if this is right, but I do know that it was Easy Company). It shows the company from their training to the end of the war. I've seen it more than once and it is a very good series(it's on a few DVD's, I can't remember how many).
    I have seen it (a few times), a superb piece of televisual drama.
    It did just focus on E-company, there were very few references to any other troops or their efforts, be it American, UK, Russian etc.
    Thanks for all the fish

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    and why do you take out the bombers from the BoB ?
    Becuase you're talking about 3000 vs 500 (700) when of those 3000 only 600 or so can actaully engage in combat. It makes no sense to include bombers in the battle, when it was the purpose of the fighters to protect the bombers. So really, regardless of how many bombers you have, the numbers are still 700 vs 600 bassicaly. Put another way, would you include reconnaisance planes in an ariel battle? Of course because they can't engage in the battle. Without the presence of German fighters, it would (and was proven on several occasions) be suicidal to attack with bombers alone.
    Two words: Dodge Viper

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by mr bill
    Becuase you're talking about 3000 vs 500 (700) when of those 3000 only 600 or so can actaully engage in combat. It makes no sense to include bombers in the battle, when it was the purpose of the fighters to protect the bombers. So really, regardless of how many bombers you have, the numbers are still 700 vs 600 bassicaly. Put another way, would you include reconnaisance planes in an ariel battle? Of course because they can't engage in the battle. Without the presence of German fighters, it would (and was proven on several occasions) be suicidal to attack with bombers alone.
    Your error is in assuming the BoB was fighter-fighter in the air above Kent.

    Don't know anyoen who has ever put forward THAT proposition.

    It's wrong.
    The "battle" was to hold off the Luftwaffe from destroying airfields, factories, ports and supply chains.

    The Luftwaffe main force was bombers with fighter escort.
    PLEASE take the time to read the daily reports in the links I gave you.
    You will see the engagement on bomber formations.
    Here's one random date 12th July--
    Casualties:
    Enemy: Fighters - 2 unconfirmed; Bombers - 10 confirmed, 2 unconfirmed.
    Own: 3 Hurricanes.


    See BOMBERS.
    Please take the time to read links I give you with FACTS to review and understand the situation better before engaging in any more dis-information.


    Trying to suggest BoB shouldn't include bombers is pointless.
    It's like saying that people can run faster than cars because they go faster in the first 2 metres !!!!

    I think you've seen/read too many glorified reports which talked only about the Spit/Hurris and the dog-fights.
    In terms of losses the Blenheim crews were worst hit on losses per sortie.
    Not including their efforts to disrupt the airfields and reducing the planes that coudl take off is an insult to their memory and a distortion of fact !!!
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. German cars VS American cars
    By Swissbeatz in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 284
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 08:43 AM
  2. Exotic Cars The Defining Characteristics
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 08:59 PM
  3. Rice burners
    By cobrapower in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 392
    Last Post: 08-26-2006, 08:55 PM
  4. would german or american cars ever replace italian cars?
    By silverhawk in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 09:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •