Ox

I dare question your logic and your political beliefs because of what you post, your patriotism is something I have no doubt you will shout loudly about whenever you are required to but you are glorifying someone who fought for the Japananese, you support Bose, as far as I am concerned you support the Japanaese war aims. not a difficult concept. It pisses you off, oh dear what apity, never mind . Your family must be very proud off you. Anyway sunshine as I said wait untill you are in the marines I seem to recall that they take a justifiable pride in their actions against the IJA. I may be wrong but try talking about Bose on the aniversary of oh Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc Doubt if too many people will listen to your nuances then. Bose voluntarily fought for the Japanese ergo he was a bad guy, simple. Now please take your faux outrage and sociology GCSE observations back to school and go and argue in the playground, maybe people will listen to you there. Oh sory I forgot to ask,how is your goat now

I fly out on Sunday, a few days visiting friends in HK and BKK before arriving in London on Thursday 1 Sept. Get over the jet lag and see the sights in the southwest for a week then drive up to Aberdeen. Really looking forward to it now.

I for one will be very interested to hear the reaction from your fellow marines when you start gloryfying someoen fighting for the Nazis and Japanese. That should go down a tread, I do hope you will come back and tell us their reaction to you.

and could not therefore have had a fanny. See some of us Brits have a firm grasp of history, bioligy and logic

Noone we can see even goes to help the poor sod hit by the recoil. Now why does that not surprise me. I see it so often when someone comes off their motorbike here a crwod gathers and stares but none does anything to help.

No, London's high rise blocks of flats went up in the sixties. before that the working class housing in the poorer areas was rows of terraced housing on quite narrow roads. In the war their would still have been a lot of back to back housing so thinking about it, yes that large warhead could well have destroyed 29 houses

Sounds way to high. Yes the ones that fell in London may have damaged 170 homes but destroyed 29? the ones that fell outside London, I doubt it somehow. Does this take into account the ones tipped over or shot down across southern England?

So what effect on gun reliability would there be having it sat between two big rows of cylinders pumping out heat, the guns must have got rather warm

no and the auto loader can not replace another crew member if injured or help with maintance but does add extra maintance to the tank. I think the first hunter killer system first appeared on the Conqueror, not quite the same sytem but not far off. If the leclerc has an outer roof taller than the M1 making the internal volume bigger would onl mean losing some roof armour, not a vast disadvantage

The problems with using g agents as strategic weapons with V weapons as the delivery sytem is their gross inaccuracy and limited numbers. Combine the V2's very limited accuracy with the problems of dispersing a liquid from it and it becomes a very poor stratecic weapon. Could the germans have developed a dispersal sytem that operated at the optimum alttitude during the V2's terminal dive, well maybe but with out it most of the nerve agent gets driven into the ground and not spread round the impact area. How long would the agents have remained viable exposed to typical British rain lying in the bottom of a crater? To close or even restrict a port with V2's using G agents seems pretty hard to do. Also how many V2's would be needed and how many could the Germans produce.The V1's would have been no less vulnarable carrying nerve agents than HE, which would mean large parts of the south downs got a sprinkling of nerve agents. Dangerous to the locals under the flight path but not an effective strategic weapon either. Neither V weapon had the range to be used as a strategic weapon against the Russians. An excellent book on this is a Higher Form of Killing by Paxman and someone else, Bill B you once told me the other author, can you help us here? It also discusses the UK's antrax tests on Gruinard Island off the coast of Scotland.

Istvan 47. In the 25 May attack that sunk Coventry, do you include as a failure of Sea wolf ,the time when Coventry moved infront of Broadsword and Sea Wolf lost lock.

Sell it to the UK, that way we might actually get a carrier. A bit old, foreign and clapped out, well name it HMS Duke of Edinburgh. Send it to foreign countries we want to insult.

King Jester said. had to run a google search to find out what you were talking about. The spelling is Kon, with K. Daniel Kon is a novelist and a movie script writer. He wrote "Los chicos de la guerra" or "Boys of the War", which is fictional story about three conscripts from different social strata, and their experience in war. The novel was written in 1983 and the movie opened in 84. Never minding the fact that Kon is no historian, nor a veteran, and did not write an essay, nor anything which could be considered historical investigation, but a fictional war-drama movie script, I have to say in his defense that by 1984 the myth about the stoned gurkhas, or for that matter the myth about gurkhas slicing the throat of the wounded, was still very popular in Argentina as a direct relict of the war propaganda effort by the Junta. I have not read the novel, but saw the movie. I read the English translation in 1984 and nowhere did it mention it was a fictional account. I have heard many references to it and again have never heard it called a fictional script. This begs the question why did you not mention this when I first raised the subject? You clearly understood what I was refering to despite my poor spelling and grammar in the title.

I vaguely remebr an interview with Weinburger but the timing s here are confusing me. Did he make these statements before the intial invasion by Argentina or during the Hague shuttle diplomacy when the US was officially being even handed and before the sinking of the Belgrano? Likewise the Hague statements? I still find it hard to believe that the US would have intervened miltarily, not saying Weinburger and Hague didn't say this but I wander how much of it was bluff to force the argentine hand. It is big step from supplying the UK with weapons to having US personnel killed in the fighting.