British "Supercarriers"
|
|
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
|
|