Tero

By Cuirassier Nor did they have as many tank-vs-tank engagements as the Soviets. When it comes to infantry training and unit casualty replacement/replenishment procedures the Allies were both screwed and out of league with the Germans. They had to make up the difference by using their superiority in sig-int, artillery firepower and aerial superiority. The few times these encounters occurred the US armour spanked the Germans only when they were in defense and after the German units had been depleated by aerial interdiction. The rest of the time they were against infantry and did not make any head way until they reached terrain favourable for armour. True. But for some reason after the war most, if not all armies, modelled their small unit tactical doctrine after the German and not the Western Allied (ie. for example use of high powered light weight belt fed SAW with automatics for the rest of the squad). True. But the Ardennes campaign showed just how dependant the Western Allied success was on the heavy artillery and aerial support being available. Assuming ALL the engagements were armour-vs-armour. Which they were not. And AFAIK these favourable exchange rates do not take into account all KO'd vehicles, only write offs.

By undead reindeer cavalry Indeed. The point of bringing up Winter War is the fact that heavily mechanized forces with absolute superiority in every cathegory of materiel you care to think up went against a prepared enemy with 2 (two) 37mm ATG's per infantry regiment and no armour to speak of and still managed to rack up an impressive armour loss tally to show for its victory. My point is just that. The tactical level stuff was pretty screwed up for the Western Allies but their operational superiority saved their bacon. That means that, just like the Red Army, the Western Allies had to resort to keeping a fleet of adequate models like the Sherman and TD's in such numbers the undisclosed but reported as "heavy" losses in the tactical level could be made up for (as well as undisclosed losses incurred during transit to U-boats). The British and the US army focused on the big picture. The British "minor tactics" infantry training was not much more than a joke compared to the German infantry training and the US forces managed to rack up a divisions worth of infantry losses due to trench foot during the winter of 1944. The only difference between the Red Army and the Western Allies is the fact that the Arsenal of Democracy was in the West and Western histography does not allow any guestioning the Western decision makers decisions while Stalins strategies concerning manpower losses are labelled as "typically callous befitting such a tyrant".

But you can't be bothered to list even one such source by name ? And all the sources I have read list German losses in great detail but Allied losses as "heavy" without going to any detail.

By dieseltaylor To some extent, yes. But for example the US tankers apprehension of their ride at the time is not a what-if. Statistics are wonderful. Lie, bigger lie, statistics. I'd say it was a judgement call alright. But IMO the call was made based on known attrition rates and available production volume and capacity, not projected German production decisions. Those who made the call made the same call Stalin made: quantity over quality even if it means certain higher loss rates in both men and materiel. This is IMO one of the reasons the sources of actual Allied armour losses have always been vague, usually remarking "high tank losses" without any definitive number. Villers-Bogace seems to be the only engagement where the exact number of lost vehicles is known. But any longer period loss rates are nowhere to be found. True to some extent. I have not seen any bad appraisals of Stalins decision to stick to producing T-34/76 over upgunned/improved version earlier than the T-34/85 was historically made available. But his willingness to sacrifice human lives instead of jeopardizing production is selfevident to everybody. To think Western leaders were so callous is just not on.

By Vark What I find interesting is the fact that he uses production figures to show viability of both doctrinal and design features of the Allied armoured forces. I would have thought comparing loss, recovery, repair and replacement rates would have been more appropriate yardsticks. Then again so far I have not come across any source or research which would have presented Allied armour loss figures and breakdown of them in anything like what you have on the German armour losses which are extensively and exhaustively researched. Lets not forget the Winter War where the disparity of forces was so evident and the force mixes so mismathed that any comparsion of forces on paper would have indicated a cake walk for the attacker even against a prepared defender. Yet the Red Army managed to lose during three months fighting in the Karelian Isthmus front 3179 tanks of which 1904 were combat losses, 1275 were mechanical failures. 368 of the losses were total write offs but I am not sure if it contains the vehicles the Finnish forces managed to capture. I would assume according to JasonC's logic the Red Army lost only 368 tanks but the Red Army force strenght reports show the Finnish forces managed to knock out 1904 tanks against a force which had absolute air, manpower, firepower and AFV superiority. I find it incomprehensible the production figures are available but any kind of loss figures can not be researched from the Western Allied archives when researchers have managed to pull detailed loss figures from the Red Army archives.

It is also abused with at least equal zeal for illegal and semi-illegal purposes. And I have not seen any official reports how many stolen/lost laptops have actually been recovered with such means. The only stories have involved lucky individuals who have happened to spot their machines been used by the thief. Who more usually than not was known to that person. AFAIK even in the US you need a court order for the ISP to provide the exact location of the IP address of any given machine, lost/stolen or otherwise engaged in dubious activity. I'd hazard a guess the cyberstalking has been a feature ever since internet was conceived. The more immediate problem as I see it that any access permission hoaxed from the firewall opened up the pertinent IP/UDP ports for abuse by third party malware/software attacks on the home machines. The users were not advised/warned the machine camera was used to monitor their behaviour, at school or at home. I guess the terrorists have won when "the establishment" feel the need to monitor every word and expression of the members of their respective communities.

I read the lawsuit and one thing is uncertain: whose network connection was used in the home ? If they used their own web connection how did the school admins access the pictures ? When the machine was hooked up at school the pics got downloaded to the server or did the machine send live imagery to the school terminal ? The specs seem to indicate the machine sent data automatically to the school. Bypassing the home firewalls perhaps ? (If the machine was indeed a Mac as shown in the pictures in the story the implications are huge ).

By Stalin's Organist Everything is wrong with the idea. People have been sentenced to years of imprisonment for lesser invasions of privacy. Why is there such an easily exploitable built in feature like this in the first place ? AFAIK the unauthorized webcam take over is among the easiest to accomplish (right up there with the CD/DVD-station open/close gag). The problem IMO is why the school board would need to monitor for student behaviour ? General security cameras in hallways are sort of OK but this kind of monitoring is control freakishly sick to the core. If you condone this you can not complain when the thought police comes to take you away.

The land of the free and in the home of the brave ?

And after Google the Register will be sued for invasion of privacy for not deleting the address from its reporting......

Well, I'm überTero. A shot through the kneecap is definitely an option...

15 year mark coming up with the missus next summer. If I had to learn new tricks with a new opponent I would propably freeze up on sight.

Gamey ? The victory flags are worth 0 points, by the time the opposition is all set up to go your machine packs up, your off board artillery is short on ammo and what is at hand is wasted on secondary missions by AI, the on board artillery is way too puny for the task at hand, the game ends way too soon when you are woefully short of acheiving goals, the victory conditions are stacked against you and when you finally see how close you were to total victory you can only demand a rematch which will take place in a month or two as it is what suits your opponents mood.

Before the nappies hit the ventilation agree a schedule. You sleep the nights and you let her sleep when you get home from work. Or alternatively you are up from 1800 hrs until 0100 hrs and the missus is up from 0100 until morning. No point in both of you getting (too) tired at the same time.

By Wicky You forgot Telecockneys

Not the 9 o'clock news Goodness Gracious Me The Fast Show Human Traffic The Lakes Life on Mars (OK, I'm a bit of a John Simm fan ) The Pathfinders Danger UXB Ashes to Ashes 24 hour party people

My fabulous four (the last being twins) were born three years apart each (give or take). You do the math.....

Pinetree, be warned: that is exactly what you are going to have to make do with for the next couple of years.

By Sergei My father and mother-in-law were both cremated but the coffins were without handles. In fact, there were no coffins with handles available in the funeral parlour. That is true. But we do have the custom of not carting living people off (in hospitals for example) feet first.

By Michael Emrys If MOD is chartering the whole plane then why do the men have to check in at the regular counter ?

Wan't it Beeb who in their infinite wisdom shunned Enid Blythons books as garden variety garbage ?

May your cones flourish to a mighty forest !

By dieseltaylor How many who quote the study actually have seen it and/or replicated it ? That is IMO the problem. We are fed all kinds of stats backed up by references to supposedly reputable studies. That would indeed be the case if the study was done properly. However, since you (and others) have to imagine how the study was conducted and ALL the pertinent background info is in place and in order there really is no way to ascertain if the findings reported are really a) what they studied and what the findings mean. Purpose driven studies are ripe with all kinds of presupposed criteria. Could be. Then again how the diet affects is really dependant on the subjects psychological make up. Otherwise we would have more teenagers running around killing people. Then again it may just be that all kinds of alarmist crap is being floated around just to make people be more dependent on authorities instead of trusting their own judgement.

By costard The argument would be valid if there was a perceived or real disparity between the distribution wealth and other associated social issues. I have 4 (four). My wife stayed at home until our youngest (twins) turned six and went to pre-school. Propably true. But the distribution wealth has polarized at the same time the (native) population has been decreasing, family units have gotten smaller through fewer kids per family and disruption of the family unit. (Go global markets and free trade ! ) Yes, it is infinitely better to multiply the number of perpetrators globally by violently (and what is more both blindly carrying a fox's tail under your arm) stomping around enraging and alienating people. Can't see any results just quite yet. Standing by.....

That is what you get when feminist "immigrant huggers" are given freedom to act according to what feels good without any regard to RL issues pertaining the matter. It is good and proper to think good of all people but it is stupid to be too trusting.