Posted: 24/March/2006 at 20:10 | IP Logged  |

Ah, sorry. I don't own the software for adobe reader, so I just assumed it was a report of terrorist defense prior to 9/11.

TriMT7 wrote: do YOU feel safer yet? So much WASTE!!!!!

You may have a point there. Personally, I do feel much safer. However, considering the resources put into this effort, I should probably feel a lot safer than I do. Bush's administration isn't the best at what they do....but they're better than the alternative Gore or Kerry administrations.

Anyway...

I think that homeland defense has been successful, if a bit inefficient, if our goal is to be safe. Personally, I don't feel quite as free, and I'm not inclined to trade freedom for safety so quickly, but safety is what was promised, and I think its whats being delivered, despite whatever that report says.

TriMT7 wrote: Watch the Moussaoui defense.

The what now?

I have to admit I've never been interested in all of the things looking back at 9/11, since they all seemed to turn out like fahrenheit 9/11 and fahrenhype 9/11 did.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 20:15 | IP Logged  |

Ahh, feels nice to have discussion without cursing each other out.

Maybe its because Mr. Foley hasn't been here for awhile.

Posted: 04/April/2006 at 21:56 | IP Logged  |

Naeman wrote: I don't own the software for adobe reader,

Its free for the reader! just download it!

Posted: 15/May/2006 at 15:29 | IP Logged  |

Excuse me? One of the most idiotic decisions of Hitler was to use the jetplanes as bombers. But not even all jetplanes getting used as fighters would have delayed D-Day much, Germany simply didn't have the resources to produce enough of them.

Producing bombers yourself at a time when your own country is under bombing raids each day is fucking stupid. And turning the by far best fighter panes of that time into bombers - with a tiny load and disabling their great advantages is even more than stupid.

It's like using a Formula 1 car as a truck.

Posted: 15/May/2006 at 22:31 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: Excuse me? One of the most idiotic decisions of Hitler was to use the jetplanes as bombers. But not even all jetplanes getting used as fighters would have delayed D-Day much, Germany simply didn't have the resources to produce enough of them. Producing bombers yourself at a time when your own country is under bombing raids each day is fucking stupid. And turning the by far best fighter panes of that time into bombers - with a tiny load and disabling their great advantages is even more than stupid.

How you wrong, twiw... You don't understand how war works... It was one of the most genuine decisions of Hitler sabotaged by his Luftwaffe generals and aces... When war was over Hitler was dead and his generals began to write memoirs shifting responisibility off to Hitlers stupidity and russian winter...

Hitler knew that in the situation of 1944-45 german industry wasn't able to produce a lot of jet fighters... Also he knew that only MASSIVE usage of ANY fighters could stop raids of allies... If you want statistics I can prove that big count of propeller planes FW-190 and BF-109 was much more effective against british and american raids than most modern but few Me-262... In opposition to bombing raids a ground operations like D-Day had only few weak spots which were strongly covered by AA guns and aviation so old propeller bombers had no chance to break through... The jet bomber had such a chance because of its speed.

twiw wrote: It's like using a Formula 1 car as a truck.

I'd say it's like using high caliber artillery to shoot sparrows...

Posted: 24/May/2006 at 18:10 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: few Me-262

American forces had absolutely no defense against German jets. German jets with enough gas to get to our bombers and enough ammunition to shoot at them would do so with impunity.

That said, it would take an aweful lot of Me-262's and an aweful lot of jet fuel to protect all of fortress Europe with them.

This is kinda like the "whose tank was better" argument from before. The best tank is the one that best helps you win the war, not which one can take more shots, shoot bigger rounds, etc etc.

We won the war therefore all our shit was better. QED. Oh, and Russia's shit was better too and Russia was super-important and fought most of the war yada yada yada. Got to admit that with a Russian in the room. (but the USA "won" for real because our ideals prevailed over communism, so there, neener, neener.)

Posted: 25/May/2006 at 01:38 | IP Logged  |

ES wrote: This is kinda like the "whose tank was better" argument from before. The best tank is the one that best helps you win the war, not which one can take more shots, shoot bigger rounds, etc etc.

Exactly... Twiw's comparision - if using Formula-1 cars as a trucks may somehow help you to win the war make sure you'll do it.

ES wrote: but the USA "won" for real because our ideals prevailed over communism, so there, neener, neener.

Our victory was at least the same real because we fought for survival, not for ideals... Ideals came after war, one veteran told me that it only movie soldiers in bloody attacks shouted 'For Stalin!', in reality they shouted something untranslatable, close to 'Fucking shit!'

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 14:35 | IP Logged  |

ES wrote: The best tank is the one that best helps you win the war

Bullshit. The best tank is the best armoured and best movable tank with the best firepower.

The best war industry is those that can produce any tank in higher numbers than any other country.

Producing more Shermans than the Germans produced Tigers doesn't make the Sherman any better. As a tank that piece was shit, and, like even the Germans troops said, a shame to put soldiers into.

The production numbers of a tank have nothing to do with a single tanks quality.

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 14:42 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: The jet bomber had such a chance because of its speed.

The jet bomber didn't have any chance at all. It didn't make any sense.

1) It was almost impossible for ME-262 pilots to get a straight shot at enemy planes because they were simply too fast. In fact they hat to slow down and then attack the enemy.

2) The bomb load of the ME-262 was ridiculous.

3) Attacking the allied landing forces with ME-262 bombers would have made as much sense as to shoot the ants in your yards one by one with am airgun.

4) You don't build bombers when enemy bombers flatten your country, your cities and your productions sites. You build fighters. Or an anti-aircraft rocket, like the "Waterfall".

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 21:40 | IP Logged  |

Wrong. We have M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks in Iraq and an inexhaustible ability to field more. If we tried real hard we could make faster ones with more armor and more firepower.

Riddle me this war idiot: What is your recommendation for how many more Abrams tanks we should ship to Iraq so we can win that war?

I suppose if we built more battleships we'd have won the war in the Pacific faster.  (dumbass)

The best tank is the one that best helps you win the war

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 21:42 | IP Logged  |

EngineerSoldier wrote: (dumbass)

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 23:38 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: The jet bomber didn't have any chance at all. It didn't make any sense.

I guess we were pretty stoopid to not ask you about this first before we built all these jet bombers we have today.  I'll call the Pentagon and see if we can find a way to put propellers on our B52's and stealth bombers.

What we lose in range, speed and stealth, I'm sure we'll recover in whatever the hell twiw here thinks is better about a propeller driven bomber. (again, dumbass)

Posted: 26/May/2006 at 23:50 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: 1) It was almost impossible for ME-262 pilots to get a straight shot at enemy planes because they were simply too fast. In fact they hat to slow down and then attack the enemy.

If I was a German and I had a ME-262, it really wouldn't hurt my feelings to slow down to kill a fat, slow bomber full of Americans at my convenience.

twiw wrote: 2) The bomb load of the ME-262 was ridiculous.

Bomb load is irrelevant relative to the ability to deliver unopposed. The idea is genious, timing it for when you're in the middle of getting your ass kicked isn't the best planning.

twiw wrote: 3) Attacking the allied landing forces with ME-262 bombers would have made as much sense as to shoot the ants in your yards one by one with am airgun.

Thinking that you'd use a weapon like that to kill infantry makes about as much sense as being swiss and offering tips on warfighting outside your area of expertise in collaboration and finance.

It might be worth the flight to go out 5-10 miles and sink the ships that the ants are coming from.  (dumbass)

twiw wrote: 4) You don't build bombers when enemy bombers flatten your country, your cities and your productions sites. You build fighters. Or an anti-aircraft rocket, like the "Waterfall".

No wait, what they REALLY should have done is build some really big heavy tanks with big guns. Because those are the best kind of tanks.

Build a tank so strong that it can survive the bombing raids unscratched then it doesn't matter if you can't stop the bombers. Your big awesome tanks will still be ok.  

If you're cities are getting flattened, you've sort of missed the "planning stage" and should rather focus on how to surrender to the Americans rather than the Russians (little tip, Americans are way nicer to surrender to, we have always been accustomed and somewhat tolerant of foreign stupidity, we know you don't know any better, the Russians of the time took the whole matter more personally and likely would hold a bit of a grudge, no offense Artemy).

Its very hard to build a warmachine when your factories are on fire.  That was kinda the idea behind the carpet bombing. Believe it or not giving twiw something to bitch about 60 years later was not the only purpose for leveling German cities.

I'm starting to get a very clear picture about why the USA and Russia were the only serious military powers of the late 20th century, wouldn't you say, Artemy. 

But don't worry twiw fortress Switzerland can stand up against any foe because every Swiss citizen has a rifle. That'll do it for sure. Afterall that is what scared Hitler away, it certainly had nothing to do with collaboration.