Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / March 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

British "Supercarriers"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 25 Mar 2006 20:27 GMT
Hilarious!

The Brits describe a ship only displacing 40,000 tons and carrying 50
aircraft as a "Supercarrier".

Get Serious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------

Bingo!

DSH
---------------------

"Vaughan Sanders" <vjs@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e044ur$f1k$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

> "Julian Richards" <see@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3k4b221tcaoicti0o4dfdvug3l2fmvt0ak@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:16:25 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>> <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But still no funding for the carriers?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402679.stm
>> --
>>
>> Julian Richards
>> medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
>
> It's 2006 now Julian and they are still not on the drawing board.
> Invincible is mothballed.
> http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1278
>
> Jamie
Northern Raider - 25 Mar 2006 22:06 GMT
". its based on the french designed nuclear carrier the Foch or koch or
something I think, anmd when the frogs built theirs they suddenly found oput
that their planes would not fit it.
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk - 25 Mar 2006 22:51 GMT
Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?
ray o'hara - 25 Mar 2006 23:59 GMT
> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
> commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?

well would you name one after a french admiral?
John Dean - 26 Mar 2006 01:16 GMT
>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
>> commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?
>
> well would you name one after a french admiral?

The US Navy came close a few times, like the USS Lafayette or USS La Salle.
Plus several ships named after a Russian Kontradmiral.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

ray o'hara - 26 Mar 2006 03:19 GMT
> >> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
> >> commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> John Dean
> Oxford

neither was an admiral.
John Dean - 27 Mar 2006 00:32 GMT
>>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
>>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> neither was an admiral.

Hence the use of the expression "came close". Do try to keep up.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

ray o'hara - 27 Mar 2006 07:23 GMT
> >>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
> >>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> John Dean
> Oxford

came close? neither was an admiral.
one a  general in the american continental army and the other an explorer.
they were no more an admiral than louis pasteur or babe ruth.

if they want a french admiral then bougainville would be appropriate. he
figured in american history.
he commanded the rear division of the french squadron at the battle of the
capes.
he explored the pacific for france naming an island and a quite pretty plant
afterhimself and at the battle of quebec he was left to surrender the french
force when montcalm was killed and the governor fled.

was naming a destrer the u.s.s. winston churchill almost naming it after a
brit admiral.
after all he was british that almost makes him an admiral by your standards.
Christophe Chazot - 27 Mar 2006 17:59 GMT
USS Comte de Grasse could fit, maybe ?

______________

>> >>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
>> >>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> after all he was british that almost makes him an admiral by your
> standards.
John Dean - 27 Mar 2006 18:01 GMT
>>>>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
>>>>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> came close? neither was an admiral.

You were pouring scorn on the idea that anyone would name a bateau after a
senior French military type. You were specifically referring to the naval
types but I reckoned that your scorn would spread to the idea of any French
military figure.
Anyway. La Salle did more sailing than many Admirals and was in charge of
five canoes all at the same time.
Just funnin, son.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

ray o'hara - 27 Mar 2006 19:41 GMT
> >>>>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
> >>>>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> John Dean
> Oxford

he must have been a crackerjack leader as his men murdered him .
John Dean - 28 Mar 2006 15:36 GMT
>>>>>>>> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was
>>>>>>>> supreme commander allied forces,you are not really that
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> he must have been a crackerjack leader as his men murdered him .

Did they throw a fragmentation grenade into his tent?

What about Admiral Byng? Those weren't enemy bullets that ruined the fit of
his coat.
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

ray o'hara - 29 Mar 2006 03:14 GMT
"John Dean"> > he must have been a crackerjack leader as his men murdered
him .

> Did they throw a fragmentation grenade into his tent?

they either shot him or rab him through.

> What about Admiral Byng? Those weren't enemy bullets that ruined the fit of
> his coat.

what has byng got to do with anything, he was tried convicted and shot, he
was guilty of having the wrong friends in parliment.
Pete Granzeau - 27 Mar 2006 20:15 GMT
>was naming a destrer the u.s.s. winston churchill almost naming it after a
>brit admiral.
>after all he was british that almost makes him an admiral by your standards.

Actually the destroyer is USS Winston S. Churchill.  The "S." is
significant.  Winston Churchill was an American novelist.
ray o'hara - 28 Mar 2006 03:01 GMT
> >was naming a destrer the u.s.s. winston churchill almost naming it after a
> >brit admiral.
> >after all he was british that almost makes him an admiral by your standards.
> >
> Actually the destroyer is USS Winston S. Churchill.  The "S." is
> significant.  Winston Churchill was an American novelist.

i didn't know that, but now i've looked it up. , they became aware of each
other and they met. winston s churchill used his middle initial to avoid
confusion. they got along well it seems.live and learn

thanks for the info.
Pete Granzeau - 28 Mar 2006 20:23 GMT
>> >was naming a destrer the u.s.s. winston churchill almost naming it after
>a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>thanks for the info.

To enlarge:  In fact, the family name is actually "Spencer-Churchill",
and has been since the 5th Duke of Marlborough adopted that name in
1817 (his father, the 4th Duke, was George Spencer) to honor the 1st
Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill, who had no male children,
allowing the title to pass via his daughter, who had married a
Spencer.  Winston's father, Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill, dropped
the hyphen, but the "Spencer" name is still always present.
Tank Fixer - 26 Mar 2006 06:52 GMT
In article <1143323476.840053.289390@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
on 25 Mar 2006 13:51:16 -0800,
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk attempted to say
.....

> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
> commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?

And such a fine job he did too.....

Signature

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

Frank F. Matthews - 26 Mar 2006 19:09 GMT
> In article <1143323476.840053.289390@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>  on 25 Mar 2006 13:51:16 -0800,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> And such a fine job he did too.....

He did manage to put down the French army mutiny.
ray o'hara - 26 Mar 2006 19:20 GMT
> > In article <1143323476.840053.289390@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  on 25 Mar 2006 13:51:16 -0800,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> He did manage to put down the French army mutiny.

actually petain did that.
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk - 27 Mar 2006 00:23 GMT
Yes you are right,Germany won the first world war and German troops
occupied Paris,London and Washington,sorry I forgot about that.
Northern Raider - 26 Mar 2006 11:15 GMT
> Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
> commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?

I dont follow the military history of nations that lose more than they win,
IE Italy, france and America, I prefer to read about scussesful nations.
Nick - 26 Mar 2006 15:00 GMT
> I dont follow the military history of nations that lose more than they
> win, IE Italy, france and America, I prefer to read about scussesful
> nations.
LOL.   I like it  ;)
ray o'hara - 26 Mar 2006 19:23 GMT
> > Its FOCH after the famous World War One French General,he was supreme
> > commander allied forces,you are not really that ignorant are you?
>
> I dont follow the military history of nations that lose more than they win,
> IE Italy, france and America, I prefer to read about scussesful nations.

you mean winning nations like germany ,0 for two in the 20th century. or
england and their being run out of their empire by the loser americans and
the scruffy indians on the subcontinent.?
Northern Raider - 26 Mar 2006 20:12 GMT
> you mean winning nations like germany ,0 for two in the 20th century. or
> england and their being run out of their empire by the loser americans and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>american victories achieved by the US on its own since it was created, i
>will give you the American Spanish  war all 45 minutes of it.
ray o'hara - 27 Mar 2006 07:30 GMT
> > you mean winning nations like germany ,0 for two in the 20th century. or
> > england and their being run out of their empire by the loser americans and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >american victories achieved by the US on its own since it was created, i
> >will give you the American Spanish  war all 45 minutes of it.

the united states itself is an empire and we still have it. 13 small
colonies went on to conquer a continent.
britian only gave up india and all the rest because they could not hold
them.
you've been strictly tag-a-longs since 1942 to america. there was no way
england could have prevailed in either the pacific ot in europe in ww2 and
without the french to contribute half the troops in ww1 and american troops
in 1917-18 you lose ww1 not to mention all the arms and ammo we provided in
two wars that weren't of our making and which we could easily stayed out of
in europe.
B - 27 Mar 2006 08:05 GMT
> not to mention all the arms and ammo we sold in
> two wars

I've corrected your post for you.
IE J - 25 Mar 2006 22:59 GMT
Northern Raider - stay out of soc.history.medieval. Your today fiction or
fact has nothing what so ever to do here.

Inger E

> ". its based on the french designed nuclear carrier the Foch or koch or
> something I think, anmd when the frogs built theirs they suddenly found oput
> that their planes would not fit it.
ib011f9545i@blueyonder.co.uk - 25 Mar 2006 22:25 GMT
yes but our naval housing officers are world class!.
I wish we still had big carriers,we did after all invent the armoured
deck,the angled deck and mirror landing systems,the jet
engine,radar,ejector seats,and you can drink on RN ships.

Remember TARANTO.
Vaughan Sanders - 25 Mar 2006 22:59 GMT
> Hilarious!
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
>> Jamie

65,000 tons Spence if you are comparing it to the 98,000 tons of the Nimitz

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
"The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approx. 160m for the
STOVL Joint Strike Fighter and a long runway, approx. 260m over the full
length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft. The deck will
have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the
stern of the ship."

The new Prince of Wales on paper would be more than capable of seeing off
the present day Nimitz, if Blair actually intends to build it and get the
JSF of course.

Also I think you will find that the new Euro Typhoon is more than a match
for a Tomcat or Hornet, apparently it is the only fighter capable of a
dogfight at supersonic speeds.

Jamie
carsss1234567@yahoo.com - 25 Mar 2006 23:16 GMT
I don't like that VTOL JSF, when the engine turns down it looks like a
dog having a sh.t.
Paul J. Adam - 25 Mar 2006 23:19 GMT
>The new Prince of Wales on paper would be more than capable of seeing off
>the present day Nimitz, if Blair actually intends to build it and get the
>JSF of course.

Depends on what airwing you put on the Nimitz - they're built big, and
currently run "comfortable" rather than "full". A Nimitz-class can,
literally, spot twice the aircraft that a CVF maxes out as: both will be
uncomfortably crowded and overworking the air bosses at that level, but
the CVF tops out at forty-eight spots while the Nimitz can cram in
ninety-odd.

(And let's not even start on comparing the carrier's escorts...)

>Also I think you will find that the new Euro Typhoon is more than a match
>for a Tomcat or Hornet, apparently it is the only fighter capable of a
>dogfight at supersonic speeds.

One of two - the F-22's the other, and has a few advantages. (It damn
well should, at twice the price...)

However, what is even a navalised Typhoon using for AEW, for command and
control, and for mid-air refuelling? Building CVF as STOVL chops into
all those capabilities; which are not too critical against someone like
Iraq (you only need 'better than your adversary') , but become key
factors if you're stupid enough to take on the USN. (Apart from anything
else, the 'more capable' AEW option for a STOBAR or CTOL CVF vis... a US
aircraft!)

Which is the key point, of course - let's go wild and assume that one
CVF actually is more capable than one US CVN. The trouble then arises,
that we'll have two CVFs; the US has a dozen CVNs; so worst case is we
buy a delay until they can send two.

Signature

He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
                                            Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam         MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

carsss1234567@yahoo.com - 25 Mar 2006 23:42 GMT
I don't like that VTOL JSF, when the engine turns down it looks like
it's having a sh.t.
Dave - 26 Mar 2006 20:17 GMT
>I don't like that VTOL JSF, when the engine turns down it looks like
>it's having a sh.t.

It wasn't very funny the first time.
Fred J. McCall - 26 Mar 2006 00:11 GMT
:>The new Prince of Wales on paper would be more than capable of seeing off
:>the present day Nimitz, if Blair actually intends to build it and get the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
:
:(And let's not even start on comparing the carrier's escorts...)

And let's compare like with like.  By the time the PoW is built (if it
is) we'll have our next CVN out (and, unlike you, we're actually
building it now).  It alone will generate twice the sortie rate of the
UK 'super carrier (270 surge rate for 4 days vice 110).

:>Also I think you will find that the new Euro Typhoon is more than a match
:>for a Tomcat or Hornet, apparently it is the only fighter capable of a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:else, the 'more capable' AEW option for a STOBAR or CTOL CVF vis... a US
:aircraft!)

That 270 sortie rate is with its normal complement of strikers.  It
still has the AEW complement, which will presumably be being served by
helicopters for the UK (although France bought some E-2C aircraft, so
perhaps the UK will do likewise).

:Which is the key point, of course - let's go wild and assume that one
:CVF actually is more capable than one US CVN.

It's not.

:The trouble then arises,
:that we'll have two CVFs; the US has a dozen CVNs; so worst case is we
:buy a delay until they can send two.

At which point you have none.

Signature

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                          -- Charles Pinckney

Northern Raider - 26 Mar 2006 11:18 GMT
"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> (And let's not even start on comparing the carrier's escorts...)

Yes they can knock down a civiliasn airbus at 200 milies, but can not defeat
a dinghy with two arabs in it at 20 yards.
ray o'hara - 26 Mar 2006 19:28 GMT
> "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > (And let's not even start on comparing the carrier's escorts...)
> >
> Yes they can knock down a civiliasn airbus at 200 milies, but can not defeat
> a dinghy with two arabs in it at 20 yards.

as oppsed to the brits who can do neither. the brit escorts watched
helplessly as the argies attacked and hit the atlantic conveyer because the
waves were too big.
Paul J. Adam - 26 Mar 2006 19:50 GMT
>as oppsed to the brits who can do neither. the brit escorts watched
>helplessly as the argies attacked and hit the atlantic conveyer because the
>waves were too big.

No. The Argentinians attacked HMS Ambuscade (mistaking a Type 21 frigate
for an aircraft carrier) who successfully broke the missile's lock. In
what was the first demonstration of "flythrough", the missile continued
through the chaff to hit Conveyor.

Signature

He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
                                            Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam         MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

ray o'hara - 27 Mar 2006 07:31 GMT
> >as oppsed to the brits who can do neither. the brit escorts watched
> >helplessly as the argies attacked and hit the atlantic conveyer because the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> what was the first demonstration of "flythrough", the missile continued
> through the chaff to hit Conveyor.

that's a nice spin. and you believe that too.
Paul J. Adam - 27 Mar 2006 16:35 GMT
>> >as oppsed to the brits who can do neither. the brit escorts watched
>> >helplessly as the argies attacked and hit the atlantic conveyer because
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>that's a nice spin. and you believe that too.

Well, I'd guess my version is better sourced than yours...

Signature

He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
                                            Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam         MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Alistair Gunn - 27 Mar 2006 14:23 GMT
In sci.military.naval Paul J. Adam twisted the electrons to say:
> the missile continued through the chaff to hit Conveyor.

... of course, if Atlantic Conveyor had gotten a little more warning then
it *might* have gone a little differently.  They had a "plan"[1] for
dealing with an Exocet attack - turn the ship away so that the incoming
missile would hit the rear ramp rather than the side of the hull.  Said
ramp being of much sturdier construction.  Unfortunately they hadn't
completed the turn when the Exocet arrived ...

Still, it wasn't alone in it's positioning - it was just at one end of a
line of RFAs that where doing "useful service" as last-ditch missile bait
in front of the carriers.

[1] Okay, calling it a plan is something of an exageration!
Signature

These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Northern Raider - 26 Mar 2006 20:16 GMT
>> "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>since 1776, America is a hugely powerful miltary  of that their is no
>doubt, but it is also in number one position for military ineptitude.

>In 1812 the yanks thought they could gain a second victory over the British
>and invaded Canada, But this time the British had just defeated Napoleons
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>library of congress before the Brits withdrew without meeting any American
>resistance.

Korea 1950 the American troops of the 2nd infantry division were driven from
their positions by the Naktong river by the Comchis. British troops rushed
forward to rescue them and to fill the breach in the line. Two Brit
battalions found themselves covering a front of 18,000 yards. During
repeated attacks by the Chinese on a feature known as point 282 two
companies of British troops of Argyles were defending a hilltop and clearly
displaying recognition panels. A flight of USAF mustangs attacked the wrong
hilltop and dropped napalm onto the British troops that had so very recently
rescued the Americans, various accounts attribute the deaths of 6 officers
and 80 men to the american attack.

Let us not forget the Mai Li massacre in Vietnam where the brave and noble
American troops massacred an entire village of men, women, children and
babies ( A trend repeated in iraq)

>In GW1 the USAF attacked two British Warrior APCs in error killing and
>injuring
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>only to find out they were allied locals responding to a summons by US
>forces to attend a meeting.

In Iraq a family of 5 including three children were machined gunned by the
yanks, their crime??, daring to drive along a road in their own country en
route to a family gathering.

In Iraq in an effort to capture or kill 200 insurgents the US laid siege to
the city of Falujah, in the battle that followed the city was almost
entirely destroyed and thousands of civilians killed in the air and
artillery bombardment, The bulk of the insurgents plus their leader escaped
( naturally).

During WW2 following a massive naval bombardment 35, 000 US troops
stormed ashore at Kiska. 21 troops were killed in the fire fight. It
would have been worse if there had been any Japanese on the island.

We try not to embarrass the yanks to much about their total humiliation in
Vietnam, Somalia, and Iran or how they managed to drown an entire SEAL team
when they wanted to invade Grenada. Or how an aged arab farmer armed only
with a vintage WW2 bolt action rifle shot down an apache helicopter.

> Xmas 2005 A woman who emigrated to the US has been killed by a stray
> bullet shot threw her apartment window.
> Selina Akther was shot in the head and died instantly at the window of her
> fifth-floor apartment in the Queens borough of New York.
> Police arrested a US soldier who they said was on leave and had been
> drinking when he fired shots into the air.

The US military has apologised for dropping a bomb on the wrong house in
Iraq, killing between five and 13 people.

A spokesman said it dropped the 500lb laser-guided bomb after mistaking it
for a nearby insurgent hideout.

He said the military "deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives".

The bomb destroyed a villa in the village of Aaytha near the city of Mosul.

Locals said 13 people were killed including four women and three children,
while the US military said its reports were that five Iraqis had died.

It is understood the dead are all from the same family.

In May, a US air strike near Qaim, a town on the border with Syria, killed
around 40 people.

Locals claimed that the strike hit a wedding party, while the Americans said
the house was a gathering point for "terrorists".

The US military bombed suspected insurgent targets in the former rebel
stronghold of Fallujah from June until its November offensive

to reclaim the city from insurgents.

US commanders acknowledged that their air campaign in Fallujah claimed the
lives of some innocent civilians.

Soldier Faces Execution

A US soldier has been sentenced to death for a grenade and gun attack that
killed two of his own colleagues during the Iraq war.

The 15-person military jury took seven hours to decide that Sgt Hasan Akbar
should be executed - jurors could have sentenced him to life in prison.

Akbar, 34, threw grenades into tents housing troops from the 101st Airborne
Division in Kuwait and then fired at soldiers as they ran to escape the
blasts.

US Soldier Pleads Guilty

Updated: 22:12, Monday May 02, 2005

An American soldier accused of abusing Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison has
pleaded guilty at a court-martial in Texas.

Private Lynndie England was infamously photographed holding a leash attached
to the neck of a naked Iraqi inmate.

The 22-year-old mother is one of seven junior soldiers who were charged with
mistreating captives at the Baghdad prison in 2003.

She has pleaded guilty to seven of the nine charges and has asked to be
sentenced by a special military panel.

Jail For Abu Ghraib Abuser

Updated: 16:06, Saturday February 05, 2005

A US soldier who admitted stepping on the hands and feet of handcuffed
detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has been sentenced to six months
in jail.

Sergeant Javal Davis was also given a dishonourable discharge.

Other guards later stripped the seven hooded prisoners and stacked them into
a naked human pyramid.

Soldier Guilty Of Murder

Updated: 08:44, Saturday January 15, 2005

An American soldier has been sentenced to just one year in jail for the
murder of a severly wounded Iraqi teenager.

He shot the severely wounded teenager in a Baghdad slum district last year.

The US military said: "Staff Sergeant Cardenas Alban was convicted on one
count of murder and one count of conspiracy to murder."

The court martial took place at the 1st Cavalry Division courthouse at Camp
Liberty.

Besides his jail term, he has been sentenced to a reduction in rank to
private and a bad-conduct discharge.

'Bodies For Porn' Probe

Updated: 14:11, Wednesday September 28, 2005

The Pentagon is investigating claims American soldiers posted pictures of
dead Iraqis on the internet in return for access to pornography.

A message board appears to show American soldiers laughing and joking beside
Iraqi corpses.

It is alleged the soldiers who posted the pictures were then allowed to view
pornographic pictures.

The owner of the website said he had offered soldiers free access to the
pornography if they could prove they were members of the American military.

Some soldiers had sent in pictures of Iraqi landmarks while others had sent
in pictures of corpses.

Jan 06

US sailor held over Japan death A US sailor in Japan is being held on
suspicion of involvement in a local woman's death, the US Navy has said.

The sailor is being held in US custody near where the incident took place,
in Yokosuka - where the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier is based.

Yoshie Sato died on Tuesday, after being found beaten and unconscious.

Incidents involving US troops and local Japanese are particularly sensitive
because of a 1995 case when three US servicemen raped a schoolgirl.

14 Jan 2006 US aircraft attack a village in friendly allied nation Pakistan,
killing 18 people including many women and children, they claimed they were
seeking the second in command of Al Quaeda, but that is still not good
reason to invade the airspace of an allied nation and bomb one of its
villages, naturally the target the yanks were hunting was not killed in the
attack

US officer guilty of Iraqi death A US officer has been found guilty of the
negligent homicide of an Iraqi general who was being held in custody.

But a jury of six army officers found Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer
Jr not guilty of the murder of Maj-Gen Abed Hamed Mowhoush in 2003.

The officer now faces up to three years in jail for homicide. He was also
convicted of dereliction of duty.

Prosecutors say Gen Mowhoush was bound, placed headfirst in a sleeping bag
and died with an officer sitting on him.

It was one of a number of deaths of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan under
investigation by the US military.

At the beginning of the trial, defence lawyers called a witness who claimed
he had overheard a juror coming under pressure from a senior officer, and
applied for the case to be dismissed because of "unlawful command
influence".

But the judge rejected the request.

Gen Mowhoush died while being held at al-Qaim in Iraq, near the Syrian
border.

A death certificate published by the Pentagon gave the cause as asphyxia due
to smothering and chest compression.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4636344.stm

Published: 2006/01/22 06:48:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Near-miss US jet crews criticised Two US fighter crews and ground control
staff have been criticised in a report after a near-miss with a civilian
aircraft over Bedfordshire.

The Air Accident Investigation Branch said there was "general confusion"
when the F-15E Eagles from RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk passed close to the
aircraft.

They were at 21,000ft and above the level to which they were cleared to fly
on 27 January 2005.

There were 35 passengers on board the British Airways regional flight.

The captain of BA CitiExpress (now BA Connect) aircraft told air traffic
control he had just seen an F15 pass about 100ft below the nose of the
Embraer 145 and "no more than about 200 yards ahead, descending," said the
report.

    Also poor use was made of the highly sophisticated aids available
     AAIB report

The report said the fighters passed within about 1,000 yards of the Embraer.

The AAIB report went on: "Inadequate transmission and acknowledgements of
clearances within the formation plus the crews' inability to fly either as a
coherent formation or as two independent aircraft during the diversion were
major contributory factors to the ensuing general confusion.

"Also poor use was made of the highly sophisticated aids available to the
crews in monitoring fuel loads, monitoring ground position and using
airborne radar."

The report was also critical of air traffic control at Lakenheath in Suffolk
for a communication failure which "contributed to the subsequent radar
identification problems".

The two fighter planes were flying from RAF Lakenheath for a close air
support training sortie at Otterburn Range near Newcastle upon Tyne.

During the training exercise, both aircraft became low on fuel and decided
to divert due to poor weather and air traffic delays at Lakenheath.

'Critically short of fuel'

It was some time after this that the Embraer captain reported to
London-based air traffic controllers that a military fighter aircraft had
passed close in front of him.

Eventually the two fighter planes landed safely at RAF Valley at Holyhead in
Anglesey.

The AAIB report said the decision to divert was left too late.

The report went on: "Because they were critically short of fuel, the (US)
aircraft climbed through their cleared flight level, without transponding,
entered controlled airspace and conflicted with the Embraer 145."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/4694932.stm

Published: 2006/02/09 00:33:49 GMT

© BBC MMVI 12 Feb 2006

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4706902.stm
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> who
> are hunting al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects in the mountainous border area.

US army to probe NFL star's death The US army is to launch a criminal
investigation into the death of a former American football star who was
killed in Afghanistan.

Pat Tillman gave up his professional contract to join the army after the 11
September 2001 attacks on the US.

It took some time for the US military to admit he had been killed by US
fire, drawing criticism from his family.

The US military has always said his shooting was accidental, but conceded
that a criminal inquiry was warranted.

"We are obligated to answer the family's questions, as we are with all
grieving families," Colonel Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman said.

He said the scope of the investigation had still to be determined.

'Cover-up'

An unnamed army official quoted by Reuters said the inquiry would seek to
determine whether one of the troops involved in the shooting committed
negligent homicide or another crime.

He said "no one soldier" was the subject of the investigation.

Tillman was 27 when he was hit by gunfire on 22 April, 2004 on a road near
the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. At the time the army said blamed enemy
fire.

The truth did not come out until after his funeral.

His family claims the story was manipulated by the Pentagon to turn Tillman
into a hero of the war on terror.

The footballer had been hailed as a role model when he walked away from his
multi-million dollar Cardinals contract to serve his country.

His father, Pat Tillman Sr, has called the army inquiries so far "shams" and
alleges a cover-up.

The army has admitted that some evidence - including Tillman's uniform and
armour - was destroyed.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4775362.stm

Published: 2006/03/05 02:07:08 GMT

© BBC MMVI

US soldier abused Iraq prisoners A US army dog handler has been found guilty
of abusing detainees in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison from 2003-2004.

A Maryland court martial convicted Sgt Michael Smith on six out of 13
charges including maltreating detainees, dereliction of duty and assault.

Prosecutors said Smith, 24, used his black Belgian shepherd to menace
prisoners for his own amusement. He will be sentenced later on Tuesday.

He is the 10th US soldier to be convicted over the abuse scandal.

In one case, prosecutors at the court martial in Fort Meade said Smith
competed with another dog handler to see who could make a detainee defecate
out of fear.

One of the photographs to emerge from Abu Ghraib prison depicts Smith
holding his dog inches from the face of a detainee who appears to be
cowering in terror.

The prosecution said he had violated rules on treating prisoners humanely
and using the minimum amount of force.

The defence had argued that rules governing the use of dogs were unclear.
They said Smith was a good soldier who had done what he was supposed to do
by having his dog bark at prisoners in what it described as dangerous
environment.

The military jury announced its verdict after deliberating for about 18
hours over a period of three days.

Smith was found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with two
counts of maltreatment, one count of conspiring to make a contest of making
detainees soil themselves, dereliction of duty, assault and an indecent act.

Nine other soldiers have been convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Charles Graner received the stiffest sentence - 10 years in jail.

Another dog handler, Sgt Santos Cardona, is to stand trial on 22 May.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4830362.stm

Published: 2006/03/21 18:17:05 GMT

© BBC MMVI

> US military probes Iraq killings
> US military investigators have flown to Iraq to study reports that marines
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
>
> © BBC MMVI
ray o'hara - 27 Mar 2006 07:35 GMT
"Northern Raider" <

america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
when it comes to massacring civilian.
you boys did a fine job in india in the late 1940s never mind what went down
in african countries in the 19th century.
Max Muir - 28 Mar 2006 06:58 GMT
> "Northern Raider" <
>
> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
> when it comes to massacring civilian.

Does it?  Dresden?  Tokyo?  Hamburg?  Nagasaki?
It seems to me the USA is our peer in that.

> you boys did a fine job in india in the late 1940s

Oh yes; I know what you mean.  You mean the British provoked
the Japanese into shutting off the rice supply from Burma, and
altering the weather, forcing the Hindus to hoard rice, etc.

> never mind what went down
> in african countries in the 19th century.

Something like this was it?

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/DestroyAllGooGoos.htm
Fred J. McCall - 28 Mar 2006 15:43 GMT
:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
:> when it comes to massacring civilian.
:
:Does it?  Dresden?  Tokyo?  Hamburg?  Nagasaki?
:It seems to me the USA is our peer in that.

I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
by Bomber Command and not the US.

Signature

You are
What you do
When it counts.

Vince - 28 Mar 2006 15:49 GMT
> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
> :> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
> by Bomber Command and not the US.

We shared Dresden

Vince
ray o'hara - 29 Mar 2006 03:18 GMT
> > :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
> > :> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Vince

the u.s. effort was minor in dresden. and the u.s. was less indiscriminate
at dresden.
curtis lemay who burned osaka and tokio and nagoya learned from his mentor
and hero arthut bomber harris.
Keith W - 28 Mar 2006 15:52 GMT
> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> england
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
> by Bomber Command and not the US.

USAAF aircraft were involved in bombing both Dresden
and Hamburg, the Americans bombed by day and the
RAF at night.

On 24 July, 791 bombers dropped 2,000 tons of bombs on
the centre of Hamburg, with the loss of only 12 aircraft, the
Americans attacked the following day with 114 aircraft, 19
of which were lost.

In the case of Dresden the RAF attacked in two waves
followed by the 300+ B-17's of the USAAF the next day.

Keith
Fred J. McCall - 28 Mar 2006 16:27 GMT
:> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
:> england
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
:In the case of Dresden the RAF attacked in two waves
:followed by the 300+ B-17's of the USAAF the next day.

I'll simply note that you gloss right over who was hitting what and
who was dropping what.

Fire bombing was the Bomber Command signature tactic.

Funny how you lot always want to blame US for YOUR war crimes.

Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....

Signature

You are
What you do
When it counts.

Brian Sharrock - 28 Mar 2006 17:08 GMT
> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> :> england
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....

Remind us again Fred...; the 'US' you refer to would be your German
grandparents?

Fred suffers from a dichotomy; his mother told him that the German Reich was
bombed and this was bad... his father told him that 'his' US bomber buddies
fought against his mother's parents and that was good.... Fred has resolved
this by stating that RAF bombers = bad, Eighth Air Force bombing = good. The
minor incidental point that the Supreme Commander Allied Forces allocated
targets doesn't fit into his world view.
Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 03:21 GMT
:> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
:> :> england
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
:Remind us again Fred...; the 'US' you refer to would be your German
:grandparents?

Remind us again Brian...; the 'US' you refer to would be your German
royals?

:Fred suffers from a dichotomy; his mother told him that the German Reich was
:bombed and this was bad... his father told him that 'his' US bomber buddies
:fought against his mother's parents and that was good.... Fred has resolved
:this by stating that RAF bombers = bad, Eighth Air Force bombing = good. The
:minor incidental point that the Supreme Commander Allied Forces allocated
:targets doesn't fit into his world view.

Brian suffers from a dichotomy; his ex-King told him that the German
Reich was bombed and this was bad... his Queen told him that 'his' US
bomber buddies fought against his ex-King's parents and that was
good.... Brian has resolved this by stating that RAF bombers = good,
Eighth Air Force bombing = bad. The minor incidental point that Bomber
Harris frequently told his own command structure to go suck eggs and
Churchill wanted to "drench the Ruhr with poison gas" doesn't fit into
his world view.

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

Brian Sharrock - 29 Mar 2006 09:01 GMT
> :> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league
> of
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> bomber buddies fought against his ex-King's parents and that was
> good....

Actually Fred; I'm rather confused by the "ex-King" tags you're scattering
about.
Who do you mean by 'ex-King'? Edward? or George? George would be the
'late-King'.
BTW, my grandmother(s) and mother and the neighbours told me that my city
was bombed by the Luftwaffe. I didn't realise why we had to go to the 'Air
Raid' shelters constructed down the centre of the street (around the
corner). But I certainly played with my colleagues amonsgt the rubble of the
'bombed sites' (or 'debris' as we called our improvised playgrounds).  My
uncles told me of the RAF bomber raids on which they were engaged - so I
didn't need to be 'told' anything by any Sovereign.

> Brian has resolved this by stating that RAF bombers = good,
> Eighth Air Force bombing = bad.

Nowhere have I stated the above. The bombing campaign against the evil if
the Nazi Regime - it's death camps, it's desire for Lebensraum; it's
doctrine of the HerrenVolk; ... was a  _combined_ Allied (coalition) effort.
It's _you_ who have the attitude.

> The minor incidental point that Bomber
> Harris frequently told his own command structure to go suck eggs and
> Churchill wanted to "drench the Ruhr with poison gas" doesn't fit into
> his world view.

Remind the readers ... what did you German ancestry do for Hitler?

Signature

Brian

Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 14:54 GMT
:> :> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
:> :> :> :> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
:Actually Fred; I'm rather confused by the "ex-King" tags you're scattering
:about.

Go study your own history.  You'll figure it out.

:> Brian has resolved this by stating that RAF bombers = good,
:> Eighth Air Force bombing = bad.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:doctrine of the HerrenVolk; ... was a  _combined_ Allied (coalition) effort.
:It's _you_ who have the attitude.

Nowhere have I stated the above.  The RAF bombing campaign against
civilians, striving to incinerate as many as possible, is on the same
level as the evil if the Nazi Regime - it's death camps, it's desire
for Lebensraum; it's doctrine of the HerrenVolk; just another "let's
incinerate these evil women and children" program.  Fire bombing in
Europe against housing and city centers rather than against military
targets was a strictly RAF Bomber Command effort.  It's _you_ who have
the ignorance.

:> The minor incidental point that Bomber
:> Harris frequently told his own command structure to go suck eggs and
:> Churchill wanted to "drench the Ruhr with poison gas" doesn't fit into
:> his world view.
:
:Remind the readers ... what did you German ancestry do for Hitler?

Remind the readers ... what did your ex-King do for Hitler?

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

Brian Sharrock - 29 Mar 2006 17:37 GMT
> :> :> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the
> league of england
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Go study your own history.  You'll figure it out.

Why can't you explain what you've written? I've already stated that I'm
confused by the tag 'ex-King'. What do you mean?  [I note that you've not
repsonded and snipped out my request for amplification; AIUI there was only
_one_ 'ex-King' (the abdicated; Edward, eighth of that name). AFAIK, no part
of the Reich was bombed during his reign. So he can't have said ,
<quote>that the German  Reich was bombed and this was bad <unquote>. If
you're trying to insinuate that the _late_ King (George; sixth of that name)
ever said reciprocating the bombing raids that the Luftwaffe inaugurated was
<quote> a bad thing <unquote>; then either you're demented or simply making
up statements. Can you offer any supporting cites?

> :> Brian has resolved this by stating that RAF bombers = good,
> :> Eighth Air Force bombing = bad.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nowhere have I stated the above.

I'm confused again ... you wrote " Brian has resolved this by stating that
RAF bombers = good, Eighth Air Force bombing = bad."
Nowhere, nowhen, never; have I made such a statement. it's all in your
feeble grasp of reality. So can you cite when I 'resolved' any conflict.

> The RAF bombing campaign against
> civilians, striving to incinerate as many as possible, is on the same
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Remind the readers ... what did your ex-King do for Hitler?

Once agaain; who is this ex-King.?

But once again you're skipping  the question again; Fred.
Remind the readers ... what did you German ancestry do for Hitler
You must know what your mother's father/uncles/brothers at.al did?
Why so coy?

Signature

Brian

Fred J. McCall - 30 Mar 2006 04:26 GMT
:> :> :> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
:> :> :> :> :> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
:Why can't you explain what you've written? I've already stated that I'm
:confused by the tag 'ex-King'. What do you mean?  

It's so straightforward that even a low-grade idiot ought to be able
to figure it out, Brian.  Oh, wait, I may have to explain it to YOU>

:[I note that you've not
:repsonded and snipped out my request for amplification; AIUI there was only
:_one_ 'ex-King' (the abdicated; Edward, eighth of that name).

And since there was only one you are confused as to which one I mean?

:AFAIK, no part
:of the Reich was bombed during his reign. So he can't have said ,
:<quote>that the German  Reich was bombed and this was bad <unquote>.

He was struck dumb when he abdicated and his vocal chords just stopped
working?  If not, your 'logic' above is merely stupider than your
usual.

Did I say he said it during his reign?  No.

:If
:you're trying to insinuate that the _late_ King (George; sixth of that name)
:ever said reciprocating the bombing raids that the Luftwaffe inaugurated was
:<quote> a bad thing <unquote>; then either you're demented or simply making
:up statements. Can you offer any supporting cites?

You appear to be the demented one and quite stupid into the bargain.
See above.

:> :> Brian has resolved this by stating that RAF bombers = good,
:> :> Eighth Air Force bombing = bad.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:Nowhere, nowhen, never; have I made such a statement. it's all in your
:feeble grasp of reality. So can you cite when I 'resolved' any conflict.

Can you cite when I did?  You're slowly starting to catch on, though.
Do I really need to echo this statement for you to start to get the
point?

:> The RAF bombing campaign against
:> civilians, striving to incinerate as many as possible, is on the same
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
:
:Once agaain; who is this ex-King.?

You say yourself that there was only one and yet you're too thick to
figure out which of that one I might be referring to?

:But once again you're skipping  the question again; Fred.
:Remind the readers ... what did you German ancestry do for Hitler
:You must know what your mother's father/uncles/brothers at.al did?
:Why so coy?

But once again you're skipping  the question again; Brian.  Remind the
readers ... what did you German royalty do for Hitler.  You must know
what they did?  Why so coy?

Signature

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                              -- Thomas Jefferson

Keith W - 28 Mar 2006 17:11 GMT
> :USAAF aircraft were involved in bombing both Dresden
> :and Hamburg, the Americans bombed by day and the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I'll simply note that you gloss right over who was hitting what and
> who was dropping what.

I'm simply correcting your erroneous post inwhich you claimed
the USAAF played no part in the bombings.

> Fire bombing was the Bomber Command signature tactic.
>
> Funny how you lot always want to blame US for YOUR war crimes.

Since I dont believe it was a war crime this makes no sense.

> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....

Your paranoia is showing, I made no mention of blame.

Keith
Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 03:27 GMT
:> :USAAF aircraft were involved in bombing both Dresden
:> :and Hamburg, the Americans bombed by day and the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:I'm simply correcting your erroneous post inwhich you claimed
:the USAAF played no part in the bombings.

Please show where I made any such claim.  You're lying again, Keith.

:> Fire bombing was the Bomber Command signature tactic.
:>
:> Funny how you lot always want to blame US for YOUR war crimes.
:
:Since I dont believe it was a war crime this makes no sense.

And you want to try to 'share the blame' with anyone who DOES believe
it was a war crime, but you can't make that sale to anyone who knows
anything about the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.

:> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....
:
: Your paranoia is showing, I made no mention of blame.

Your paranoia is showing, I didn't deny Tokyo (for example) which
falls into the same category as Hamburg and Dresden.

We learned how to be war criminals from your lads at Bomber Command.

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

Vaughan Sanders - 28 Mar 2006 17:47 GMT
> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> :> england
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....

Freddie knows very well that SHEAF AIR ordered Dresden, Bomber Harris is his
hero :-))
A Russian and US strategic target btw.

Jamie
orb_at_cts_dot_com@fastmail.co.uk - 28 Mar 2006 22:28 GMT
> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> :> england
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> :> I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
> :> by Bomber Command and not the US.

Funny how the pattern goes Brit, USAn, Brit, USAn, isn't it?

Merely conincidence, you think?

> :USAAF aircraft were involved in bombing both Dresden
> :and Hamburg, the Americans bombed by day and the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I'll simply note that you gloss right over who was hitting what and
> who was dropping what.

You've done a lot of simple noting recently Fred.  Is it your
signature tactic?

> Fire bombing was the Bomber Command signature tactic.

Borrowed from the German fire-bombing of Antwerp and London in WW1.
Also eagerly adopted by the USA.

> Funny how you lot always want to blame US for YOUR war crimes.

Funny how you creatively reinterpreted my mixed list
intended to show that we are equals in the matter of
of bombing enemy civilian populations as an effort to
blame the US for Dresden and Hamburg!

> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....

Don't see how you can blame the British for this...

"The American raid on Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945, was even
more catastrophic.  The United States launched 334 B-29s loaded with
2,000 tons of incendiaries and targetted twelve square miles in which
wooden housing made up, according to USAAF estimates, about 90% of the
area.  There was no military or economic target of any significance
of any importance in the bombing area.  The resulting firestorm covered

and area of 16 sq. miles and the flames could be seen 150 miles out to
sea, and the air above the fire was so violent that bombers at 6,000
feet were turned over and the crews had to wear oxygen masks.  The
official U.S. Strategic bombing survey concluded: "Probably more
persons
lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man."  About 100,000 ppl died, 1,000,000 were injured

and 1,000,000 lost their homes.  The fires were so intense that people
who jumped in the canals of Shitamachi to save themselves were boiled
alive.  The head of the USAAF sent the overall commander of the
mission,
General Curtis LeMay, the following message:  "Congratulations.  This
mission shows your men have got the guts for anything."  Over the next
few nights the USAAF bombed Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe in the same manner,

killing about another 100,000 people.  The raids stopped only because
the US ran out of incendiary bombs.

The US bombing of Japan was so intense in the period after November 44
that the committee directing the A-bomb effort had to insist on the
"reservation" of three cities so that there would still be enough
targets left on which to drop the new weapon."

(see ARMAGEDDON by Clive Ponting ISBN 0-679-43602-2, page 243).

It seems to me you are very much
in our English league, gentlemen.


Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 04:11 GMT
:> :> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
:> :> england
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
:
:Merely conincidence, you think?

Nope.  It's my experience that all Brits live in denial of the war
crimes of Bomber Command and can be relied on to immediately form a
mob any time anyone dares to point them out.

The only surer response is to mention terrorism, since that
automatically brings up the IRA, as if they are the worst who ever
lived, and screams of 'US complicity and support'.

:> :USAAF aircraft were involved in bombing both Dresden
:> :and Hamburg, the Americans bombed by day and the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:You've done a lot of simple noting recently Fred.  Is it your
:signature tactic?

Merely an effort to get people to think just a bit about the actual
facts.  You needn't bother, of course.

:> Fire bombing was the Bomber Command signature tactic.
:
:Borrowed from the German fire-bombing of Antwerp and London in WW1.

Nope.  Borrowed from earlier experiments by various UK squadrons under
the command of folks like Bomber Harris in the 1920s.  The Germans
just weren't very good at fire bombing, even into WWII.  They tried,
but they hadn't gone out and run 'live exercises' on a bunch of poor
wogs to figure out the best approach.

:Also eagerly adopted by the USA.

Not so eagerly.  It was quite an argument when it was proposed against
Japan.

:> Funny how you lot always want to blame US for YOUR war crimes.
:
:Funny how you creatively reinterpreted my mixed list
:intended to show that we are equals in the matter of
:of bombing enemy civilian populations as an effort to
:blame the US for Dresden and Hamburg!

Perhaps you should learn to express yourself more clearly?

:> Yep, it's always the fault of the US, no matter who did what....
:
:Don't see how you can blame the British for this...
:
:"The American raid on Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945,

I don't.  Please point to where I did.  Or are you just engaging in a
bit of trolling lying now?

:It seems to me you are very much
:in our English league, gentlemen.

Yeah.  We learned it from you.  I view Tokyo as the same sort of war
crime that Hamburg and Dresden were.

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

orb_at_cts_dot_com@fastmail.co.uk - 28 Mar 2006 22:07 GMT
> :> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
> :> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
> by Bomber Command and not the US.

Wow, there's no fooling you Fred!
Eric Stevens - 28 Mar 2006 22:22 GMT
>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
>:> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I'll simply note that two of the four cities you list were 'browned'
>by Bomber Command and not the US.

Dresden and Hamburg were bombed by the RAF at night and the USAF by
day.

Eric Stevens
Keith Willshaw - 29 Mar 2006 00:42 GMT
>>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
>>england
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Dresden and Hamburg were bombed by the RAF at night and the USAF by
> day.

Yes but Fredland US bombing = heroic deed and RAF bombing = War Crime

Go figure

Keith
Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 04:20 GMT
:>>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
:>>england
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:
:Yes but Fredland US bombing = heroic deed and RAF bombing = War Crime

You're a liar, Keith.  I've expressed my views on this REPEATEDLY.
There is no way you could have missed my position on the US fire
bombing of Tokyo, so the preceding statement can only be a deliberate
falsehood.

:Go figure

Yeah, go figure, indeed.  Keith will lie to defend the crimes of
Bomber Command (or at least to try to discredit anyone who points them
out).

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

Keith W - 29 Mar 2006 11:18 GMT
> :>>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> :>>england
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> bombing of Tokyo, so the preceding statement can only be a deliberate
> falsehood.

US 1st Bombardment Division that dropped 678.3 tons of high explosives
and 400 tons of incendiaries on the city. The nominal target point was the
marshaling yards but eyewitnesses reported US bombers attacked
other undamaged sectors of the city while the P-51 escorts
conducted strafing runs on targets of opportunity

> :Go figure
>
> Yeah, go figure, indeed.  Keith will lie to defend the crimes of
> Bomber Command (or at least to try to discredit anyone who points them
> out).

I simply point out the facts , you cant seem to handle that however.

Keith
Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 15:01 GMT
:> :>>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
:> :>>:> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
:other undamaged sectors of the city while the P-51 escorts
:conducted strafing runs on targets of opportunity

And what did the RAF drop and where did they drop it?  US bombers
weren't using the same sorts of loads as Bomber Command, even when
dropping incendiaries.  Bomber Command policy was to TRY to start
firestorms to fry as many civilians as possible.

:> :Go figure
:>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:
:I simply point out the facts , you cant seem to handle that however.

No, you simply lie about my position.  Your lies are not a 'fact' and
you can't seem to handle having that pointed out.

Signature

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                     -- Socrates

David McArthur - 31 Mar 2006 09:35 GMT
> >>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of
> >>england
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Go figure

I hate to jump in, but has anyone read "Tail End Charlies: The Last
Battles of the Bomber War 1944-45" by John Nichol? Makes interesting
reading regarding how the BC aircrews thought they were perceived by
the powers that be near the end of the war and after. It makes v. sad
reading.

David
Fred J. McCall - 29 Mar 2006 04:03 GMT
:>:> america has a long way to go before we can even enter the league of england
:>:> when it comes to massacring civilian.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:Dresden and Hamburg were bombed by the RAF at night and the USAF by
:day.

Now go look at what was dropped by each group and where it landed.  My
statement stands correct as written.

Signature

"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
                                     --G. Behn

Keith W - 29 Mar 2006 11:37 GMT
> Now go look at what was dropped by each group and where it landed.  My
> statement stands correct as written.

Between 14 Feb 1945 and 17 April 1945 the USAAF made 5 raids on Dresden
with the nominal aiming point being the railway marshalling yards

The weapons used on each raid were

14-2-45  487.7 tones HE . 294.3 tons incendiaries
15-2-45 465.9 tons of HE
2-3-45   940.3 tons HE , 140.5 tons incendiaries
17-4-45 1562.4 tons HE, 164.5 tons incendiaries

The raids were the results of recommendations by SHAEF(Air)
on 8th Feb 1945 resulting in orders being issued by the Supreme
Commander (General Dwight Eisenhower) via his deputy
Marshal Tedder.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff Directive governing employment of the British
and American strategic air forces established the authoritative principle
that the primary effort of the RAF Bomber Command should be the mass
destruction of important German industrial areas and population centers by
night area bombing and that the primary effort of the American Eighth Air
Force should be daylight precision bombing of key installations within the
larger industrial and population centers attacked by the RAF Bomber Command.

see
Report of Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker on USAAF Activities in the
UK Covering Period from February 20, 1942 to 31 December 1943

This joint and complementary effort of the British and American strategic
air forces was authorized by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in order to
accomplish "the German people to a point where their capacity for armed
resistance is fatally weakened."

source https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm 
Fred J. McCall - 26 Mar 2006 00:05 GMT
:The new Prince of Wales on paper would be more than capable of seeing off
:the present day Nimitz, if Blair actually intends to build it and get the
:JSF of course.

If you want to compare paper to paper, I'd suggest looking at the
Nimitz is the wrong place to look.

:Also I think you will find that the new Euro Typhoon is more than a match
:for a Tomcat or Hornet, apparently it is the only fighter capable of a
:dogfight at supersonic speeds.

And just what's the utility of that?  

I also believe you're misreading things.  It can maintain supersonic
speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
(F-22 does it as well).  This is NOT during a dogfight.

Signature

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                          -- Charles Pinckney

Eric Stevens - 26 Mar 2006 11:10 GMT
>:The new Prince of Wales on paper would be more than capable of seeing off
>:the present day Nimitz, if Blair actually intends to build it and get the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
>(F-22 does it as well).  

But then so could the now totally obsolete English Electric Lightning.
Apart from that, do you remember how a flight of these intercepted a
U2 at 80,000 ft by diving on it?

>This is NOT during a dogfight.

Eric Stevens
Julian Richards - 26 Mar 2006 18:34 GMT
>I also believe you're misreading things.  It can maintain supersonic
>speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
>(F-22 does it as well).  This is NOT during a dogfight.

I think that Jamie is like me in that he relishes the idea of naval
Typhoons and their Meteor missiles. Dogfight? Most opponents wouldn't
get anywhere near that close.

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
D. Spencer Hines - 26 Mar 2006 19:15 GMT
I can understand you British folks using the Metric System for measuring
petrol and other goods you exchange with the wogs [your term, not mine] on
the Continent -- for obvious reasons.

But now you are measuring your WAR SHIPS in metric terms?

Hilarious!

Viva The FPS System...for measuring American War Ships.

Further, I can't believe you are designing an ostensible state-of-the-art
aircraft carrier that can only make 25 knots -- balls to the wall.

Is this some sort of Labour Party joke?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Fred J. McCall - 26 Mar 2006 20:12 GMT
:>I also believe you're misreading things.  It can maintain supersonic
:>speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:Typhoons and their Meteor missiles. Dogfight? Most opponents wouldn't
:get anywhere near that close.

The US isn't "most opponents"....

Signature

"Then tomorrow we may all be dead.  But how is that different
from every other day?"
                             -- Morpheus

Julian Richards - 27 Mar 2006 07:55 GMT
>:>I also believe you're misreading things.  It can maintain supersonic
>:>speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>The US isn't "most opponents"....

So when is the USA going to war against the UK? Should this unlikely
event happen, the Typhoon is an aircraft still very capable of taking
on all comers.

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Fred J. McCall - 27 Mar 2006 09:49 GMT
:>:>I also believe you're misreading things.  It can maintain supersonic
:>:>speeds without reheat.  It is not the only aircraft that can do this
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:
:So when is the USA going to war against the UK?

Well, that seems to be what a number of posters have been talking
about.

:Should this unlikely
:event happen, the Typhoon is an aircraft still very capable of taking
:on all comers.

Once it's carrying the extra weight for carrier ops?  I'd be inclined
to bet on the US airplanes that started life designed to operate from
a deck.

Signature

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                          -- Charles Pinckney

Julian Richards - 27 Mar 2006 12:07 GMT
>Once it's carrying the extra weight for carrier ops?  I'd be inclined
>to bet on the US airplanes that started life designed to operate from
>a deck.

Potent radar coupled to one of the best long range missiles that there
is. For naval operations, the Meteor must surely be an even more
potent weapon than it would be in air force hands.

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Fred J. McCall - 27 Mar 2006 14:18 GMT
:>Once it's carrying the extra weight for carrier ops?  I'd be inclined
:>to bet on the US airplanes that started life designed to operate from
:>a deck.
:
:Potent radar

Which may or may not work after it's been slammed down onto a carrier
deck a few times.

:coupled to one of the best long range missiles that there
:is.

And how many of those do you have in service again and what will the
other guy have by then?

:For naval operations, the Meteor must surely be an even more
:potent weapon than it would be in air force hands.

Uh, why is that, again?

Signature

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                          -- Charles Pinckney

Julian Richards - 27 Mar 2006 22:46 GMT
>:For naval operations, the Meteor must surely be an even more
>:potent weapon than it would be in air force hands.
>
>Uh, why is that, again?

The same reasoning as for the Tomcat's Phoenix. If you are defending a
naval force, the ability to take out incoming attackers at distance is
a real plus. There's little benefit in destroying the plane after it
has launched an anitshipping missile at your aircraft carrier.

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" rich