I wondered why the BW were grinning all the time :lol:
without a link to refernece that to I can only go on what you ahve said but…
1000’s not tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands! Just thousands!
Realistically bearing in mind that we commited over 1000 ground troops to Iraq that means that before we take into account Airforce or Marines, or support arms or TA contributions, each soldier would have had less than ten tablets each, Bearing in mind this is “IF” they all got to IRAQ and not stuck in some container in Dover!
SO. of the 1000’s presuming this is 9,999 tablets, we could have kept our forces wake for maybe, ten days! denying hte fact that the body will seriously crash after about 7/8 anyway!
If we wanted to kit up our troops with psychology altering drugs as a matter of course we would have taken more than 9000 dont you.
Get a more accurate source and provide the link you dribble stained MONG[/quote]
Only 9000? ONLY?
United States of America Country Britain
$399 Billion Yearly Military Expenditure $42,836.5 Million
3.9% % of GNP 2.4%
18 Min Enlistment Age 16
73,597,731 Available Manpower 14,943,016
471,500 Active Military Personnel 113,900 (6,380 women)
220,000 Frontline Personnel 65,000
18,169 Airborne Units 1,891
29,920 Armor 5,121
5,178 Artillery 455
35,324 Missile Defense Systems 1,575
2,441 Infantry Support Weapons 3,236[/quote]
ok… what is your point, that is nearly half our airborne units, but, that was an MOD "order (unreferenced - still waiting) and you have declined to note that 9,000 is a drop in the ocean for the size of those likely to recieve medicines from the MOD. Even MODplod sitting on the gate leighton heath can probably have some of those pills if he asks! how many hayfever pumps were ordered FFS its a tiny slice of the greater figure!
9,000 tablets split between 113,000 people - if they all had a quarter of a tablet we might be able to get 36,000 people mildly more chipper!
Only 9000? ONLY? That’s 9000 that are know of outside the UK military, that is. Now remember Oh Smart One, that only a small fraction of the UK’s air units are in Iraq. :lol:
Is that better? :lol:
No not really what have the amount of paras in the British army got to do with the taking or not of any medication?
Sounds like 30 pills per pilot if you ask me. Maybe much more. Maybe 50 or 100.
Ahhh you civvy
Airborne does not equal Airforce
What a divvy :lol: :lol: :lol:
In June 1944 at Villers Bocage a German tank company single-handedly took on a column of the British 7th Armoured Division, and literally destroyed it, forestalling General Montgomery’s planned unhinging of the Wehrmacht’s Caen defense. In this battle there were 138 destroyed British tanks and 250 destroyed armoured personal carriers, anti-tank guns and transporters. 1 German commander’s tank alone destroyed with eas 14 British tanks. Even days after this fight just the sighting of a Tiger tank caused panic amongst British troops. During further battles German radio men sometimes picked up such messages like “Help, Help, Tiger Tank!” Montgomery banned any combat report describing the fights between German and British tanks. According to Montgomery these reports undermined the morale of British troops.
Anyone have a comment on why the Germans were so effective against overwhelming odds?
What has this to do with anything? But the reason could be that the British army had to rely on shoddy (compared with the Tiger) Sherman tanks. Just a guess
edited to add: plus the Germans were fighting a defensive action if you can understand the significance of this.
What has this to do with anything? But the reason could be that the British army had to rely on shoddy (compared with the Tiger) Sherman tanks. Just a guess
edited to add: plus the Germans were fighting a defensive action if you can understand the significance of this.[/quote]
But there weren’t many German tanks there at all. Couldn’t you kill a Tiger with 14 Shermans though? Hell, it would only take 2, possibly 3 rounds at the most.
Still not following your logic but that wouldn’t be the first time.
ps since when do Paras equal pilots?
[quote=“Fuchs66”]
Still not following your logic but that wouldn’t be the first time.
ps since when do Paras equal pilots?[/quote]
Really? Well, you see it was a slaughter. Hundreds of british vehicles including 138 tanks destroyed by about 14 German tanks?
What has this to do with anything? But the reason could be that the British army had to rely on shoddy (compared with the Tiger) Sherman tanks. Just a guess
edited to add: plus the Germans were fighting a defensive action if you can understand the significance of this.[/quote]
But there weren’t many German tanks there at all. Couldn’t you kill a Tiger with 14 Shermans though? Hell, it would only take 2, possibly 3 rounds at the most.[/quote]
How? It doesn’t make a difference if one or three 76 mm rounds bounce off a Tiger. There was only on average one Firefly tank (Sherman with British 17 Pdr AT gun, which had a fighting chance against a Tiger) for three Shermans. The only way a normal Sherman could take on a Tiger was if the the Tiger crew was stupid enough to let a Sherman come up it’s rear and very close. The armour on the rear of the Tigers was weaker.
Ironman, you are grasping for straws and now you really look like an idiot.
Jan
Edit for stupid error: replaced 6 Pdr with 17 Pdr.
Still not following your logic but that wouldn’t be the first time.
ps since when do Paras equal pilots?[/quote]
Really? Well, you see it was a slaughter. Hundreds of british vehicles including 138 tanks destroyed by about 14 German tanks?[/quote]
shit happens and your point is? I believe we were discussing pill popping and whether Paras are all pilot trained (they both wear badges with wings on them but believe me they are a bit different) as to the “slaughter” as you put it. A small force in dug in defensive positions (especially if it is ultimately defending it’s own country) is perfectly capable of inflicting severe casualties on a numerically superior force especially if that force is equipped with inferior equipment. Once again your point is?
The armour on the rear of EVERY tank is weaker, not just the Tiger. But it’s the numbers that are bizarre. All those tanks and vehicles destroyed by a dozen Tigers? How many times can you miss when you have 138 Shermans?
Now I will spell it really slow, so that you might hasve a chance to understand:
It doesn’t matter how many times a 76 mm gun of a Sherman tank or of ten Sherman tanks hits a Tiger. Unless it is from a close distance through the rear armour, the 76 mm Sherman rounds will just scratch the paint. Panzeranklopfgerät anyone? The Sherman is outarmoured and outgunned by a Tiger, period.
The only western Allied tank that could take on a Tiger on more or less equal terms was the British Sherman Firefly with the British 17 Pdr anti tank gun, and even this tank suffered from much weaker armour than a Tiger, but at least it could give out from a safer distance.
German Tiger commanders knew about their weak spot, so they made sure that their rear was covered.
The only thing I can blame the British commanders for is that they didn’t withdraw once the danger was noted and kept on pressing the attack.
Jan
Edit for same stupid error as above, 17 Pdr versus 6 Pdr. I had close looks at both guns and also at the Firefly owned by the Belgian Army museum.
Like friendly fire? Didn’t I say “sht happens" some time back? OH WAIT. You were griping about Americans then. But when it’s British getting 138 tanks and lots of other vehicles including mobile artillery wiped out by a handfull of German tanks, it’s "sht happens”. :roll:
I love the idea of a para fresh fro P-company charging across an airfield in greens and webbing before leaping valiantly into the cockpit of his waiting tornado!
Pilots from AAC might be allowed to take Pcoy but I hardly imagine every recruit from Aldershot to be a “Maverick” with his own jet! Slightly two many Bond Films for you!
Dug in positions are always going to do better! 13 tanks impervious to the weaponry of the advancing British Shermans, of course htey did better.
If your point is that the Germans were on drugs, then great yes they probably were on drugs and could manage a higher work rate and faster reloads too. No-one said that drugs did not improve performance you numpty that is why people take them. But… What about the drug addled mind of those same soldiers a few days or weeks maybe months down the line, when you still want htem to be a predictable and consistent force. One of htem is licking hte window the other is in remission and crying about his childhood, the other has just beaten up his wife and one of them is chatting to his freind charlie that isnt in the room anymore!
Drugs make you better that is why athletes use them! it is not a revelation its just that Soldiers should be good enough without them and that Drug abuse is likely to lead to further problems or become a crutch to those that are dependent on them.
anyway, back to those “airborne” units! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
9000 divided by 2000 - so thats what 4.5 - nearly a full five days of added wakefulness! IRONMAN I have to hand it to you, with crabs slightly more awake for an entire five working days they would almost manage to do the work rate of a standard infantryman, indeed these drugs are bound to make them more dangerous thanks for drawing this to my attention.
Bullshiot. A 76er will take out a Tiger in a few rounds. Good Lord. They just didn’t hit a darned thing.
well it would be 100 pills per pilot if we only had 90 pilots! - Get a grip chunda thunda
Bullshiot. A 76er will take out a Tiger in a few rounds. Good Lord. They just didn’t hit a darned thing.[/quote]
and IRONMAN knows cos he was there… :roll:
I am tempted to take the word of a full time committed WW2 re-enactor who has spent a large portion of his adult life clambering over said objects alot more seriously than the world champion quake player 3 years running, whose most convincing reference to date came from the call of duty game manual / Dad!