Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?

05-03-2005, 12:27 AM

Plan_D,

Still waiting to hear some examples of those executed on suspicion of being communists. Or anyone who was executed just for being a communist for that matter.

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 11:22 AM

Be patient, pest. I have to question an American friend of mine who informed me long ago. Surely you can wait like I did for your tank reply...which I never got.

05-03-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Be patient, pest. I have to question an American friend of mine who informed me long ago. Surely you can wait like I did for your tank reply...which I never got.

At some point I will do a post on tanks. It's a big topic and it takes a lot of research to get the real details. For instance trying to figure out the actual cost of a tank is rather difficult given the accounting and labor systems in each nation - Germany and the Soviets both used slave and forced labor so their accountings of the costs do not reflect the actual resources utilized.

Identifying those you believe were executed because the US "thought they might be commies" should be easy. However, I think you are going to find this refrence applies to the Rosenburgs. If that is the case, your friend is mis-informed, they were not executed for being communists, they were executed for being traitors, and the evidence that they were in fact guilty was 100% conclusive and they deserved what they got.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 11:54 AM

The reply I was expecting had nothing to do with the cost of the tank. It was on pure combat capability. Pz. Kpwf V Panther Ausf G Vs. T-34/85-I.

To be a communist supporter is illegal in America? Please be so kind as to inform us all how much America feared the Red Threat. Socialists and Communists alike tried, questioned and interogated...some even executed.

Tell me, does this insult you? "America, you're so fine. You're so fine you blow my mind, America"

evangilder · 05-03-2005, 11:59 AM

PD, the red scare happened years ago. That is not the case today. Those incidences happened during the McCarthey era and resulted in many people being blackballed from their jobs and career fields. I am not aware of anyone being executed for just being a communist, but the Rosenburgs were spies, not just communists. There is a big difference.

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 12:32 PM

I know it's not happening today, evan. Don't get me wrong on this, I find that the US were well within their rights to act on any sucsipions of spies from the Soviet Union.
What I am pointing out with this is that the US wasn't sat there with a big grin on its face with absolutely no fear because in reality, it was crapping its pants just as much and in some cases even more than other Western nations.

05-03-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

The reply I was expecting had nothing to do with the cost of the tank. It was on pure combat capability. Pz. Kpwf V Panther Ausf G Vs. T-34/85-I.

I did not take it to be simply combat ability, but also combat reliability, general servicability, and costs. Simply comparing the two tanks sitting face to face does not really compare their real combat worth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

To be a communist supporter is illegal in America? Please be so kind as to inform us all how much America feared the Red Threat. Socialists and Communists alike tried, questioned and interogated...some even executed.

Tell me, does this insult you? "America, you're so fine. You're so fine you blow my mind, America"

The only "executions" I'm aware of were the Rosenburgs - and they were caught red handed giving away nuclear secrets to the Russians. Espionage and high treason merit the death penalty in just about every nation!

Again, you are uninformed.

05-03-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

I know it's not happening today, evan. Don't get me wrong on this, I find that the US were well within their rights to act on any sucsipions of spies from the Soviet Union.
What I am pointing out with this is that the US wasn't sat there with a big grin on its face with absolutely no fear because in reality, it was crapping its pants just as much and in some cases even more than other Western nations.

Sure, because we were the ones taking on the Russians via MAD. We were the ones who were going to recieve the brunt of any nuclear exchange. It was the USA that faced down the Russians, not you Euro nations. All you did was protect yourselves with a great deal of our help.

evangilder · 05-03-2005, 12:41 PM

Okay, now it makes sense. Yes, McCarthy created a panic atmosphere with his House Un-American Committee. Unfortunately, some people were unfairly targeted as a result and forever blackballed.

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 01:11 PM

Compare the costs and maintence, be my guest. It will still prove the Panther has the most combat effective. It evens out it's cost by destroying more tanks before it itself is destroyed.
The overall kill:loss ratio for the Germans on the Eastern Front being 4:1. That's not taking that most of those were T-34s killed but not most of those lost were Panthers.

You are misinformed, RG, on the state of the Cold War. The US recognised that the brunt of the war would take place on European soil, not US soil. The Euro-nations would receive just as much a nuclear strike as the US would. We had nuclear weapons too, just in case you didn't know.
The Soviet Union were going to strike through Germany and take over Europe before turning on the US. West Germany and Britain were the too frontlines. We were protecting the US just as much as the US was protecting us. That is what you don't understand, it was an alliance. Both the US and Europe had mutual interests to be in alliance. To protect one another! Why would the US pour men into Europe if it didn't think that Europe was any help?

You're full of bull ****, RG. You think America saves the world. You think that only America can do anything. You probably salute the flag everytime you see it. Get insulted when one bad word about America is said.

Europe was protecting itself and the US at the same time. The US was protecting itself and Europe at the same time. It's an alliance, you moron. If Europe fell the US was next. The same applied for World War 2, the US supported Europe for the sole reason that it was in the US interest to keep the combat on European soil.

On top of that, the only aircraft that NATO had to reach the Soviet bombers before the Phantom was the EE Lightning. Amazing really because only Britain had that. How is that? Britain can't have anything decent, they're obviously inferior to America just like Europe is. We're all out to belittle America because we have inferority complex. Is that what your mind tells you, RG!?!

The rest of the Americans on this site are mostly decent. It's easy to understand why though, because most of them have been in the military and know the world. They've been to Europe or met Europeans and talked as friends. And they UNDERSTAND what it means to have your friends on the field.
You obviously don't, or you'd understand what the alliance in both the first, second and cold war was.

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-03-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG

It was the USA that faced down the Russians, not you Euro nations. All you did was protect yourselves with a great deal of our help.

do you make it your business to irritate people with you're simply mind bogoling ignorance?? dude you're full of complete ****!!!!

i'm 14, and even i know the situation better that you it would appear, what do you mean you faced down russia alone?? if you were the only ones to face them down, that means that you would be the only nation they were worried about, it would mean that russia wouldn't be in the least bit worried about the fact that, in the event of a russian nuclear missile strike on england, would could be dropping nukes all around russia within a few hours?? that wouldn't worry them at all??

of course if you were the only ones to face them down you would have done it solely by yourself, with no one elses help BANG!! there goes your bases in Europe, it's a long trip over the north pole to russia you know..........

and i'm confuzzled, how were we simply "protecting ourselfs", we were more than capable of striking back at Russia, and we'd be able to strike back a damn site quicker than you could..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG

We were the ones who were going to recieve the brunt of any nuclear exchange.

in responce to this i'm not sure if i should laugh at your stupidity, or by you a rather large history book, and bash you round the head with it before making you do some heavy reading from it, as that is complete rubbish, bases in europe were always going to be attacked before america, why?? because you can launch a quicker counter attack from a base in Europe.............

and now we move on to the idea of an "allience", which is what Briton, America and many other nations had, just in case you'd forgotten which seems very likely, now then, when you're in an allience, you help each other, you respect each other, why?? because everyone has something to bring to the allience, say we didn't share things with our allies, well, that's what you did, we had to develop our own nuclear weapons, and you know, we came up with some pretty good stuff, but say, going back as far as WWI, we had no respect for each other, we were fighting for the same cause but not as allies, there go all your basesin europe, AGAIN!! looks like the american troops would be coming straigt off the ships from america into battle, but they didn't have to do that, why?? because they came to briton or france first, we also sent you back lots of nice ideas for planes, because yours sucked!! you see we respected you americans and i know you guys respected us by sending us food and other supplies, and we haven't forgotten that, but just imagine the war without that mutual understanding??

then we move onto WWII (oh no we haven't stopped yet), if we didn't respect you as an ally, again, there go your bases and lots of lovely new technology that we put your way, and again we'd have starved without your help, again there was a mutual understanding between two allies, yes that word again, that word that means respect baisically.........

you see, we need you guys, and weather you're mature enough to admit it or not, you need us too.............

evangilder · 05-03-2005, 02:16 PM

RG, that is a very one-sided view of the cold war. Europe was a very important part of the cold war strategy and were key to the prevention of the spread of communism.

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 02:56 PM

Take the view of evan, RG. He's a better American than you because while patriotic he recognises the aid of other nations towards America.

One can love their nation without stupidity.

delcyros · 05-03-2005, 03:02 PM

Actually it wasn´t the US, who won the thread. It was the SU, who lost (but was envisioned enough under the rule of Gorbatschov to recognize that they lost). By the way, not to downscale the importance of any other nation, especially Britain, but the two superpowers have been US and SU. Nobody mentioned the UK or China. And fact is that the US are the only remaining superpower. However, it´s obviously not that simple...
RG, I reffered that the GERMAN, not the US wind tunnels did not featured computerization for mesurements. And even the old Braunschweig high speed (transsonic) wind tunnel has a diameter of 8 meters. The supersonic ones are for models, exclusively, right. However, I do not have any datas about correct compression rates but the supersonic ones do compress the air more than 10 atmosspheres, you can prove it with basic maths. Not to speak of Ötztal, which makes even more. This one is, after all I know, superior to any US windtunnel in 1945. However, if you disprove this with good arguments I´m open to change my mind.
You may say that Ötztal did not get online, agreed. But this was only a matter of time and you are still not factoring that the germans continued for 5 years with it´s construction. Unlike the US, under wartime circumstances, so after all I disagree with your opinion that no other nation was capable to do such a huge project and no other nation was willing to pay such expansive bills over years.

plan_D · 05-03-2005, 03:05 PM

The United States and Soviet Union were the two main players in the Cold War. Depending on opinion that could be a good thing for their history, or a bad thing.
That certainly doesn't mean that no other nation was involved and certainly doesn't mean that the US was propping up a defenceless Europe. I know you understand this, delcyros, but there are just some that don't.