F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[bush_cheney2004]

We should veto that Keystone pipeline and ship it elsewhere.

Right...but Canada won't...it never has. That is the problem. Talk is cheap.....

Edited January 7, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[chris-b-crunch]

We should veto that Keystone pipeline and ship it elsewhere.

America has never cancelled a $400 billion project and that massive cost is what the slap will be. I'm not just talking Canada. We wont make that big splash. I'm talking the rest of the countries who will be running come summer at the latest lol.

The F-35 as far as I'm concerned will be nixed. And when it is, oh boy will that be fun to watch. The U.S. needs to learn. Lockheed used to build such good aircraft. They got greedy with the F-35 and now them and the U.S. are gonna pay for it.

[chris-b-crunch]

Right...but Canada won't...it never has. That is the problem. Talk is cheap.....

Well, we can certainly try to make it an election issue

[chris-b-crunch]

Well, we can certainly try to make it an election issue

That's not much but beyond that I fail to see how just sitting back and doing nothing helps either. I know how hard these things are

[chris-b-crunch]

Your article is factually wrong........the F-35A's gun (and the gun pod for the B and C) will be integrated with the Block 3F software in Spring-Summer of 2017........unlike current types that use for air-to-air mode the aircraft's radar and avionics to process several dozen calculations based on both the aircraft/targets range, speed, deflection etc, then a ballistic computer for air-to-ground, the F-35 will incorporate both modes into its avionics aided by the aircraft's DAS.........making the F-35's guns, both mounted and podded, far more accurate then current types.......

That's assuming that information is actually accurate. Again, this all just strengthens my position that the F-35 should be backed out of and is not what we need. Too much misinformation and too many people who stand to lose big to trust.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your article is factually wrong........the F-35A's gun (and the gun pod for the B and C) will be integrated with the Block 3F software in Spring-Summer of 2017........unlike current types that use for air-to-air mode the aircraft's radar and avionics to process several dozen calculations based on both the aircraft/targets range, speed, deflection etc, then a ballistic computer for air-to-ground, the F-35 will incorporate both modes into its avionics aided by the aircraft's DAS.........making the F-35's guns, both mounted and podded, far more accurate then current types.......

So... bad F35 articles wrong, good F 35 articles right? I think I get it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I was so happy to read that article. I still have hopes the F-35 will fail. America needs that slap in the mouth and we don't need that headache.

Apparently we are supposed to see a report our government has in it's hot little hands soon after they Jan 26 when the house gets back in session. I fear it will just be another coverup though.

[chris-b-crunch]

Apparently we are supposed to see a report our government has in it's hot little hands soon after they Jan 26 when the house gets back in session. I fear it will just be another coverup though.

Fingers crossed

[bush_cheney2004]

America has never cancelled a $400 billion project and that massive cost is what the slap will be. I'm not just talking Canada. We wont make that big splash. I'm talking the rest of the countries who will be running come summer at the latest lol.

The F-35 as far as I'm concerned will be nixed. And when it is, oh boy will that be fun to watch. The U.S. needs to learn. Lockheed used to build such good aircraft. They got greedy with the F-35 and now them and the U.S. are gonna pay for it.

This doesn't make any sense....LM makes money either way.....fixed price or cost plus contracts. $400 billion over many years is not going to break the U.S., which spends far more on other programs.

Recall that Canada originally purchased the U.S. Navy's F-18 by way of default after bailing on other options. The other final contender (F-16 Falcon) went on to become the largest multi-role fighter still in production (4500 + units).

Edited January 7, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not much but beyond that I fail to see how just sitting back and doing nothing helps either. I know how hard these things are

Then where are the east-west pipelines ? Where are the refineries ? Why is 70% of Canadian oil production foreign owned ? This has been going on for decades....all political parties....why would it change now. The F-35 is just another punching bag in this longstanding squabble and paralysis.

[Derek 2.0]

They can, and the only reason they don't have a nuclear arsenal is because the Americans actively persuade them not to.

Right......but they don't have a nuclear arsenal, were as the North does.

My god, maybe it's just that you don't actually have any clue what western intelligence knows. As for how many pieces can hit Seoul, it's generally estimated at less than a thousand, with the doctrine being that around 25% of them are held in reserve. These guns would be spread across the DMZ line, many of them out of range of Seoul, although greater concentrations likely in range.

In terms of dud rates, the Yeongpyong Do island shelling incident saw only ~75/100 actually explode...a testament to North Korean expertise.

Sure I do........do you?

You brought up the Allied bombing campaigns as valid comparisons. They weren't, since carpet bombing yields entirely different results, but whatever you say!

That's not how it works Derek, and any respectable armchair general with half a clue would know better. Larger and more concentrated ordinance magnifies the effect. Firing fifty 80 lb shells over an hour or two does not produce the same effect as a single 4000 lb high-capacity bomb. Look up why Hamburg and Dresden burned down, maybe a few quotes from Arthur Harris (heard of him?), and you'll start to understand. Right now, it's painfully obvious you don't.

How many tons of explosives were used to level Dresden with a weeks long bombing campaign by the Allies?

(its a rhetorical question, as I already know and contrasted with what Western intelligence experts expect the North Koreans could deliver on Seoul with several hours of artillery bombardment...)

because it assumes that they have a near-endless supply of ammunition, that their air defense is impenetrable, that their thin-skinned supply convoys wouldn't be mangled, that their already-terrible logistic capacity wouldn't be targeted (roads, bridges, depots etc), that their artillery is immune to counter-fire and that the DMZ would be impenetrable along its entire length despite the North Koreans focusing their artillery on attacking civilian targets instead of military ones. All of this needs to be assumed when we know Pyonyang has trouble even feeding its people and keeping the lights on.

You realize, the North Koreans have been preparing artillery positions for decades........

Unprepared!? What? They've had 50 years to prepare, and they're much better equipped, trained and technically capable. They'd also have FAR better aerial and satellite recon, better counter-battery radar and despite your claims their artillery is not immune to counter-attack. Their hardened artillery defenses are far from invulnerable, which is why a large portion of their long-range artillery is mobile, most of it being this technical marvel:

You're speaking about the South Koreans right? The same South Koreans who's army is comprised mostly of 70s era western technology? Fighting a superior force of North Koreans, comprised mostly of 70s era Soviet and Chinese technology in hardened positions? You understand for the South Koreans to counter-battery the North, they will have to position themselves in-range of far more North Korean guns right?

[Moonbox]

How many tons of explosives were used to level Dresden with a weeks long bombing campaign by the Allies?

(its a rhetorical question, as I already know and contrasted with what Western intelligence experts expect the North Koreans could deliver on Seoul with several hours of artillery bombardment...)

You're obviously dodging my bringing up the importance of the size of munitions and concentration of bombardment. There's a reason that Lancasters and B-17's were dropping 500-4000 lb bombs instead of 80 lb ones. Pound for pound, bigger bombs do far more damage, and that's magnified when they're dropped in higher concentrations over shorter periods of time. That's why the bombing in Dresden was so much more deadly, with the allies doing in a couple days what took the Germans months to accomplish during the Blitz, and with only a fraction of the overall tonnage in explosives.

Like I said already, it's painfully obvious you don't know as much as you think you do.

You realize, the North Koreans have been preparing artillery positions for decades..

Sure, and how many times in modern history have static defenses held up? Also, from your goofy link:

Anti-tank guns are of little value against the K-1 and M-60s of south Korea's military. North Korea's only realistic chance to take out modern armor is with the use of anti-tank missiles, mines, or close infantry assault.

You're speaking about the South Koreans right? The same South Koreans who's army is comprised mostly of 70s era western technology?

Fighting a superior force of North Koreans, comprised mostly of 70s era Soviet and Chinese technology in hardened positions? You understand for the South Koreans to counter-battery the North, they will have to position themselves in-range of far more North Korean guns right?

Wait, what? North Korea's armor and air force isn't even 1970's era. The majority of it is 1950's and 1960's garbage, with the remainder being updated versions of the same garbage. We've already seen how legacy Soviet armor designs fair against the likes of the Abrams/K1. Mig-21's similarly struggle against F-15's.

As for artillery and counter artillery, the only artillery capable of dueling with South Korea's K55's or newer K9's are also the only guns capable of hitting Seoul, so North Korea faces either heavy attrition focusing on Seoul, or a losing battle with 2:1 odds against South Korea's larger and better supported long range forces.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

You're obviously dodging my bringing up the importance of the size of munitions and concentration of bombardment. There's a reason that Lancasters and B-17's were dropping 500-4000 lb bombs instead of 80 lb ones. Pound for pound, bigger bombs do far more damage, and that's magnified when they're dropped in higher concentrations over shorter periods of time. That's why the bombing in Dresden was so much more deadly, with the allies doing in a couple days what took the Germans months to accomplish during the Blitz, and with only a fraction of the overall tonnage in explosives.

Like I said already, it's painfully obvious you don't know as much as you think you do.

I'm not dodging your failed point at all......B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Likewise, a bomb stick comprised of 100lbs, 250lbs and 500lbs bombs didn't land in higher concentrations then repeat artillery fire, with bombs being strewn across the target area, which in the case of area bombing could be measured over square miles...........

Sure, and how many times in modern history have static defenses held up? Also, from your goofy link:

Anti-tank guns are of little value against the K-1 and M-60s of south Korea's military. North Korea's only realistic chance to take out modern armor is with the use of anti-tank missiles, mines, or close infantry assault.

That is weak........in mobile warfare, hardened defenses are either subjected to significant in-direct fire first or bypassed all together......of course that isn't applicable with counter battery fire between a superior in size dug in force versus a smaller force with little to no protection

You can criticize Global security all you like, but it is far better then your cited "sources"....

Wait, what? North Korea's armor and air force isn't even 1970's era. The majority of it is 1950's and 1960's garbage, with the remainder being updated versions of the same garbage. We've already seen how legacy Soviet armor designs fair against the likes of the Abrams/K1. Mig-21's similarly struggle against F-15's.

But said garbage still has to be destroyed by the South........

As for artillery and counter artillery, the only artillery capable of dueling with South Korea's K55's or newer K9's are also the only guns capable of hitting Seoul, so North Korea faces either heavy attrition focusing on Seoul, or a losing battle with 2:1 odds against South Korea's larger and better supported long range forces.

The North Koreans have comparable size sp artillery to the South's, none the less, I would assume they would use unguided rockets to country battery South Korean guns........

But, now that you're providing odds on South Korea being able to defeat nuclear armed North Korea on their own.........why are the Americans still there? If they're not needed in the defense of South Korea, why haven't the Americans brought their forces home?

Thinks of all the money that could be spent on food stamps!!!!

[Moonbox]

I'm not dodging your failed point at all......B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities.

except that's 100% not true, clearly demonstrating how little you actually know about the stuff you're pretending to. The 4000 lb Cookie/Blockbuster bomb was a standard part of the Lancaster payload, being mixed with either a load of incendiaries or ~20 500 lb bombs. The British dropped over 90,000 of them on German cities, and they fitted them on Wellingtons, Lancasters and even Mosquitos! For someone who's brought up the Dresden bombings in numerous recent threads, it's pretty damn funny that you appear to know nothing about them!

Likewise, a bomb stick comprised of 100lbs, 250lbs and 500lbs bombs didn't land in higher concentrations then repeat artillery fire, with bombs being strewn across the target area, which in the case of area bombing could be measured over square miles.

Sure it did. The explosions were significantly bigger and they happened all at once in a designed area. The bombers flew in huge, tight formations, and they usually dropped their bombs in unison, quickly and progressively saturating an area with explosives and/or incendiaries. That's why it's called carpet bombing, and the firestorms that obliterated huge sections of Dresden/Hamburg etc were only possible because of these tactics and munitions.

That is weak........in mobile warfare, hardened defenses are either subjected to significant in-direct fire first or bypassed all together......of course that isn't applicable with counter battery fire between a superior in size dug in force versus a smaller force with little to no protection

Except the North Korean army isn't a superior force at all. It's just larger, and you know of enough examples of larger, poorly equipped/organized armies being picked apart by better equipped/organized ones to understand that. From your own Global Security link, North Korea has no real way of handling South Korea's armor, so the South rules the open ground and the North has to hope it can sufficiently defend a 250km line.

As far as mobile warfare theory goes, the strategy would obviously be for South Korea to concentrate on one section of that line with artillery and air attacks while an armored spearhead punches through. The Germans had a few buzz-words for that, and armchair generals everywhere know them.

You can criticize Global security all you like, but it is far better then your cited "sources"....

My criticism wasn't directed at the website (which I read frequently), it was of how poorly-chosen it was and how it gave every indication we needed of how incapable the North's equipment would be. They're digging in like rats behind defensive positions for a reason.

But said garbage still has to be destroyed by the South........

and they would with ease. A spotted North Korean tank would be a dead North Korean tank, while a spotted South Korean tank would be something the North would run from.

The North Koreans have comparable size sp artillery to the South's, none the less, I would assume they would use unguided rockets to country battery South Korean guns.

The MLRS (an estimated few hundred of them) are being accounted for. Even counting them, the South Koreans outnumber the North in long-range artillery beyond the 30km range envelope. If, as you say, the North wanted to flatten Seoul, their largest guns would need to be in range of South Korea's largest, while the remaining North Korean guns would still be out of range (look them up).

North Korea can't flatten Seoul and engage in a +30km artillery duel at the same time. They don't have the numbers for it. They can either choose to focus on terrorizing Seoul and have their ~700 long range guns fired upon by over 1300 counter-artillery, or they can sit pretty and wait.

But, now that you're providing odds on South Korea being able to defeat nuclear armed North Korea on their own.........why are the Americans still there? If they're not needed in the defense of South Korea, why haven't the Americans brought their forces home?

Because American involvement, with their obviously superior capabilities, would ensure a much quicker resolution with much smaller loss of South Korean life, especially when the North's only real play is to terrorize Seoul or threaten NCB attack.

[On Guard for Thee]

And now we have to add in the cost of painting the fuel trucks white so the "juice" doesn't get too warm for those cantankerous P and W stoves that tend to blow up just before a major airshow. (Farnborough) And then you can't even shoot the guns for 4 years or so. That of course assuming LockMart hits the current production targets, which is unlikely, given the history.

[Derek 2.0]

except that's 100% not true, clearly demonstrating how little you actually know about the stuff you're pretending to. The 4000 lb Cookie/Blockbuster bomb was a standard part of the Lancaster payload, being mixed with either a load of incendiaries or ~20 500 lb bombs. The British dropped over 90,000 of them on German cities, and they fitted them on Wellingtons, Lancasters and even Mosquitos! For someone who's brought up the Dresden bombings in numerous recent threads, it's pretty damn funny that you appear to know nothing about them!

Ahhh no..........You're confusing high capacity bombs with the "blockbuster's" size (which was a HC bomb)........The capacity of the bomb is a ratio between the explosives carried and the steel bomb casing not the overall weight of the bomb.......

There were lower capacity/general purpose bombs with a ~25/75 ratio of explosives to casing, which created lots of steel shrapnel, perfect for anti personal, parked aircraft, fuel tanks etc.........then there were medium capacity, the standard for area bombing by both the USAAF and Bomber Command, which used a ratio of ~50/50 explosive to casing, used against buildings, railroads, bridges, factories etc......

Then there were your mentioned HC bombs, in varying sizes used by both the British and Americans (against Japan), with HC bombs, the explosive to casing ratio was ~75/25% (or better). When used against cities in conjunction with incendiaries, the HC bombs would often be retarded with a parachute and ground proximity fuse to create an air burst to blow-out windows, stucco, roofing tiles and paper walls (in Japan), hence the creation of "fuel" for the follow-on incendiaries......these combination attacks though proved ineffective against steel bar concrete buildings and is why the follow on bomber waves carried medium capacity bombs.........So to defuse (pun intended) your lame attempt, MC HE very much so played a part in flatting cities, and no, high capacity bombs and incendiaries are the least effective against concrete buildings.......like what is found in a modern city like Seoul

But hey, I appreciate you trying to teach me that of what I already know..........

Sure it did. The explosions were significantly bigger and they happened all at once in a designed area. The bombers flew in huge, tight formations, and they usually dropped their bombs in unison, quickly and progressively saturating an area with explosives and/or incendiaries. That's why it's called carpet bombing, and the firestorms that obliterated huge sections of Dresden/Hamburg etc were only possible because of these tactics and munitions.

In unison? Quickly? Saturating an area? For a minute, I thought you were describing an artillery barrage........

Except the North Korean army isn't a superior force at all. It's just larger, and you know of enough examples of larger, poorly equipped/organized armies being picked apart by better equipped/organized ones to understand that. From your own Global Security link, North Korea has no real way of handling South Korea's armor, so the South rules the open ground and the North has to hope it can sufficiently defend a 250km line.

Reread the passage you quoted of mine...............And your description of the South ruling the "open ground" and the North having a large front to defend, with poorly equipped forces sounds awfully familiar......almost like it happened once before....maybe 60 sum years ago.......Will the South Korean forces be home by Christmas?

As far as mobile warfare theory goes, the strategy would obviously be for South Korea to concentrate on one section of that line with artillery and air attacks while an armored spearhead punches through. The Germans had a few buzz-words for that, and armchair generals everywhere know them.

Sure and what happened to the Germans when confronted with a larger force, comprised of poorly equipped/organized soldiers?

You better pull-up your socks if you ever want to see armchair corporal.........

My criticism wasn't directed at the website (which I read frequently), it was of how poorly-chosen it was and how it gave every indication we needed of how incapable the North's equipment would be. They're digging in like rats behind defensive positions for a reason.

I would assume because being on the receiving end of American firepower would suck.......Alas, in your scenario, the Americans are no longer there.........

and they would with ease. A spotted North Korean tank would be a dead North Korean tank, while a spotted South Korean tank would be something the North would run from.

Run? Why? The North Koreans have a zillion mines planted on their side of the DMZ............

The MLRS (an estimated few hundred of them) are being accounted for. Even counting them, the South Koreans outnumber the North in long-range artillery beyond the 30km range envelope. If, as you say, the North wanted to flatten Seoul, their largest guns would need to be in range of South Korea's largest, while the remaining North Korean guns would still be out of range (look them up).

North Korea can't flatten Seoul and engage in a +30km artillery duel at the same time. They don't have the numbers for it. They can either choose to focus on terrorizing Seoul and have their ~700 long range guns fired upon by over 1300 counter-artillery, or they can sit pretty and wait.

The North doesn't need to engage both at the same.......by the time the South Koreans have mobilized their army/reserves, Seoul will be a parking lot.......remember, the South Koreans no longer have a trip-wire force of an entire modern, well trained, combat experienced American field army and air force........

Because American involvement, with their obviously superior capabilities, would ensure a much quicker resolution with much smaller loss of South Korean life, especially when the North's only real play is to terrorize Seoul or threaten NCB attack.

Right, so the Americans are just handy to have around........and instead of increasing the size and scope of their own military, the South Koreans can just expect a solid from those pesky Americans that spend sooooo much money on defense instead of social programs.........

So why do the Americans subsidize the defense of South Korea??????

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe the same reason they send Dennis Rodman to North Korea.

[Moonbox]

Ahhh no..........You're confusing high capacity bombs with the "blockbuster's" size (which was a HC bomb)........The capacity of the bomb is a ratio between the explosives carried and the steel bomb casing not the overall weight of the bomb.

Nope, you're just trying to save face with a bunch squirming and long-winded gobbledygook after very clearly denying that the Allies were dropping massive 4000 bombs on German cities. They dropped over 90,000 of the 4000 lb bombs alone, not to mention all of the other 2000 -> 12,000 lb bombs they dropped.

The 2 paragraphs that followed your above quote were little more than useless technical blabber, using lots of words but saying very little. Typical!

In unison? Quickly? Saturating an area? For a minute, I thought you were describing an artillery barrage........

which can't match an large-scale aerial bombardment in terms of blast sizes or intensity. Ooops!

Reread the passage you quoted of mine...............And your description of the South ruling the "open ground" and the North having a large front to defend, with poorly equipped forces sounds awfully familiar......almost like it happened once before....maybe 60 sum years ago.......Will the South Korean forces be home by Christmas?

That's pretty damn weak Derek, even for you, displaying a poor understanding of the Eastern Front in WW2 and an even poorer ability to draw reasonable comparisons. The Soviets were not poorly equipped at all (just poorly trained and led), holding material, technical and numerical advantages against the Germans at virtually every point in the war. Despite this, the Germans still managed to penetrate ~1300km into Soviet territory, which in a Korean scenario would bring the South Koreans to Beijing, nearly 7 times the distance from Seoul to Pyonyang.

Sure and what happened to the Germans when confronted with a larger force, comprised of poorly equipped/organized soldiers?

You mean the larger, better equipped and better supplied Soviet forces? Ask the ~11 million members of the Red Army that died.

Run? Why? The North Koreans have a zillion mines planted on their side of the DMZ.

Mines can't shoot from several kilometers away, which is how far North Korean tanks would have to be behind the mines to stay safe! Either way, the DMZ isn't impenetrable. Bunkers and minefields can be bypassed and/or cleared, and South Korea has growing amphibious capabilities.

The North doesn't need to engage both at the same.......by the time the South Koreans have mobilized their army/reserves, Seoul will be a parking lot.......remember, the South Koreans no longer have a trip-wire force of an entire modern, well trained, combat experienced American field army and air force........

No, they'd put their own forces there instead, and as previously discussed Seoul as a parking lot is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Right, so the Americans are just handy to have around........and instead of increasing the size and scope of their own military, the South Koreans can just expect a solid from those pesky Americans that spend sooooo much money on defense instead of social programs.

Very good!

Edited January 8, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Nope, you're just trying to save face with a bunch squirming and long-winded gobbledygook after very clearly denying that the Allies were dropping massive 4000 bombs on German cities. They dropped over 90,000 of the 4000 lb bombs alone, not to mention all of the other 2000 -> 12,000 lb bombs they dropped.

The 2 paragraphs that followed your above quote were little more than useless technical blabber, using lots of words but saying very little. Typical!

Perhaps you best recheck your sources and grade school math.......90k x 4000 lbs HC bombs would equate to one 60+ Lancaster raid dropping 4000 lbs bombs, every single day, from mid 1941-to the end of the war.....or one 1000 Lancaster raid, every ~16 days, dropping 4000 lbs bombs from mid 1941 to the end of the war...........Where did Bomber Command ever find the time to drop any other type of bomb?????

Perspective please...........Your 90k source is either being misread by yourself or includes HC bombs, ranging from 100lbs and up (250lb and 500lb bombs being dropped mostly with incendiaries)

Care to share your source?

which can't match an large-scale aerial bombardment in terms of blast sizes or intensity. Ooops!

Because 4000 tons of bombs dropped over a target measured in square miles is more "intense" then 4000 tons of artillery dropped over the same area.....

That's pretty damn weak Derek, even for you, displaying a poor understanding of the Eastern Front in WW2 and an even poorer ability to draw reasonable comparisons. The Soviets were not poorly equipped at all (just poorly trained and led), holding material, technical and numerical advantages against the Germans at virtually every point in the war. Despite this, the Germans still managed to penetrate ~1300km into Soviet territory, which in a Korean scenario would bring the South Koreans to Beijing, nearly 7 times the distance from Seoul to Pyonyang.

The example was of UN forces being halted and turned back by North Korean/Chinese conscripts armed with then decades old bolt action rifles.........None the less, the Soviets were poorly equipped conscripts, poorly led, yet halted the then modern and combat experienced Heer.........The South Koreans today are no comparison to the German army then......

You mean the larger, better equipped and better supplied Soviet forces? Ask the ~11 million members of the Red Army that died.

Sure, but then the Soviets won and the South Koreans are not the then modern and experienced German army.......

Mines can't shoot from several kilometers away, which is how far North Korean tanks would have to be behind the mines to stay safe! Either way, the DMZ isn't impenetrable. Bunkers and minefields can be bypassed and/or cleared, and South Korea has growing amphibious capabilities.

The North Koreans have mines strewn from coast to coast (likewise the South).......hard to bypass, and I suppose South Korean sappers could clear paths through minefields, well under fire from North Korean artillery, creating choke points for the South, in which the North knows where to concentrate their own forces.......kinda the reason behind landmines........as to Amphibs, the USMC has the ability to both land and support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade on opposed shore........South Koreans.....not so much.

No, they'd put their own forces there instead, and as previously discussed Seoul as a parking lot is a ridiculous exaggeration.

I see, so in this scenario now, the South Koreans have added another field army and air force (to say nothing of an additional Marine Div, CSG and fighter wing) to their military.........is this before or after they added their own nuclear arsenal?

[GostHacked]

Aside from the reliability of said statistics, it ignores the fact that Chinese defense industries (like the Soviets) are state owned and operated by the military.........likewise, such areas as research and development.....

Centralized economy says it all.........

Maybe the West should have rethought having China produce and manufacture every piece of high tech equipment we use. We simply just handed them the tech providing them a huge technological leap in a very short time.

[Moonbox]

Perhaps you best recheck your sources and grade school math.......90k x 4000 lbs HC bombs would equate to one 60+ Lancaster raid dropping 4000 lbs bombs, every single day, from mid 1941-to the end of the war.....or one 1000 Lancaster raid, every ~16 days, dropping 4000 lbs bombs from mid 1941 to the end of the war...........Where did Bomber Command ever find the time to drop any other type of bomb?????

Ask the RAF. They dropped over two billion pounds worth of bombs on Germany, with the Lancaster accounting for ~2/3 of that and with its most common bomb load including a 4000 lb bomb (the RAF code word for the loadout being "USUAL"). Are you still ACTUALLY insisting the RAF didn't drop these things on German cities en masse? Talk about entrenching yourself in a losing argument!

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm (for bomb loadouts)

Perspective please...........Your 90k source is either being misread by yourself or includes HC bombs, ranging from 100lbs and up (250lb and 500lb bombs being dropped mostly with incendiaries)

Yes! Very good Derek! Perspective! 90,000 x 4000 = 360,000,000 pounds, or around 15% of what the RAF dropped on Germany!

Care to share your source?

Sure!

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60 for specific numbers of 4000 lb "Cookies" dropped

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster for more bomb load-out trivia as well as specific mention of the 608,000 long tons the Lancaster alone dropped - numbers you can confirm numerous other places like http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II - just to give you PERSPECTIVE on how much bombing was done, with the RAF alone dropping 960,000 long tons of bombs on Germany for a pound total of ~2.2 BILLION.

Because 4000 tons of bombs dropped over a target measured in square miles is more "intense" then 4000 tons of artillery dropped over the same area.....

No. My god man.

It's because a 4000 lb bomb has far greater destructive force than the equivalent weight in smaller artillery hits, with a far more powerful blast wave which surrounding structures are less capable of absorbing and the atmosphere less capable of dissipating. It's basic physics Derek, and if you're curious then compare the effects of lobbing a big rock to lobbing a handful of pebbles weighing the same into a pond. Compare the splash and the ripples, and you'll be sufficiently educated.

None the less, the Soviets were poorly equipped conscripts, poorly led, yet halted the then modern and combat experienced Heer.

I misinterpreted your reference, sorry. Either way, the Soviets were not poorly equipped, but let's leave it at that. I doubt either of us want to derail our derailment further.

The South Koreans today are no comparison to the German army then.

No, but they're still a heck of a lot more capable than the North Koreans, and we all know that simple numbers aren't an accurate measure of a country's military strength.

and I suppose South Korean sappers could clear paths through minefields, well under fire from North Korean artillery, creating choke points for the South, in which the North knows where to concentrate their own forces.......kinda the reason behind landmines........

Granted, but this assumes a lot of things that the South would presumably be trying to prevent. The North Korean reaction would face all sorts of problems of their own, including counter-battery fire, interdiction of their troop movements, logistical bombing etc...It also assumes the South isn't willing to accept heavy casualties, which I'm not sure either of us know much about.

I see, so in this scenario now, the South Koreans have added another field army and air force (to say nothing of an additional Marine Div, CSG and fighter wing) to their military.........is this before or after they added their own nuclear arsenal?

Are you saying they couldn't/wouldn't, if they knew the Americans were leaving? Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, can you come up with a scenario where the Americans simply vanished and a war between the two started immediately after, with no time for the South Koreans to plan, adjust or increase its individual capabilities?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Ask the RAF. They dropped over two billion pounds worth of bombs on Germany, with the Lancaster accounting for ~2/3 of that and with its most common bomb load including a 4000 lb bomb (the RAF code word for the loadout being "USUAL"). Are you still ACTUALLY insisting the RAF didn't drop these things on German cities en masse? Talk about entrenching yourself in a losing argument!

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm (for bomb loadouts)

Neat page, but it doesn't support your claim the RAF dropped over 90k, 4000lb high capacity bombs on Germany......

Yes! Very good Derek! Perspective! 90,000 x 4000 = 360,000,000 pounds, or around 15% of what the RAF dropped on Germany!

Now you're saying the most "USUAL" loadout, only represents ~15% of what Bomber Command dropped? Both unusual and contradictory.......

What your claim amounts to is if I said that Bomber Command dropped over a zillion "Tall Boys", then linked to the above page to indicate that the Lancaster can in fact carry "Tall Boys".....

Sure!

A blog, with a neat wiki follow-up.....

But from viewing your source, and then following said link to the UK national archives to verify, there is this:

During a visit to England by General Arnold of the American Army, he was so impressed by the bomb that on his return to the U.S.A. he requested the American Ordnance Department to produced 4,000lb bombs of similar design and full details of the British bomb were made available, American produced bombs were known as the Mk V and VI.

Which would correlate with the bloggers annual usage chart uptick through 1943-1945......As I said, you misunderstood your own sources........

No, because a 4000 lb bomb has far greater destructive force than the equivalent weight in smaller artillery hits, with a far more powerful blast wave which surrounding structures are less capable of absorbing and the atmosphere less capable of dissipating it. It's basic physics Derek, and if you're curious then find a pond and compare the effects of dropping a big rock in it to dropping a handful of pebbles weighing the same.

Physics indeed! A 4000 lbs rock makes a bigger splash the 4000 lbs of smaller rocks........Well if that's the case, 4000 tons of artillery dropped on Seoul would have no effect!!!

No, but they're still a heck of a lot more capable than the North Koreans, and we all know that simple numbers aren't an accurate measure of a country's military strength.

Sure, but as I said, the South Koreans are not as capable without the Americans..........

Are you saying they couldn't/wouldn't, if they knew the Americans were leaving? Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, can you come up with a scenario where the Americans simply vanished and a war between the two started immediately after, with no time for the South Koreans to plan, adjust or increase its individual capabilities?

Without a doubt... If the Americans left, the South Koreans would have no choice but to increase their defense spending, and as you suggested, develop their own nuclear arsenal.....the same could be said of the Japanese......but that was not what you stated, that the South Koreans could defeat the North Koreans on their own.

[Moonbox]

Neat page, but it doesn't support your claim the RAF dropped over 90k, 4000lb high capacity bombs on Germany.

but it does clearly smash your earlier claim that:

B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities.

since virtually any research on the Lancaster shows they frequently/commonly/usually did exactly that.

Now you're saying the most "USUAL" loadout, only represents ~15% of what Bomber Command dropped? Both unusual and contradictory.......

I'm saying the most common load out included a 4000 lb bomb, along with another ~10,000 lbs worth of other bombs, presenting zero contradictions. You're REALLY digging yourself a hole here now. This is really funny!

What your claim amounts to is if I said that Bomber Command dropped over a zillion "Tall Boys", then linked to the above page to indicate that the Lancaster can in fact carry "Tall Boys".....

Your logic continues to flounder with a flimsy and failed analogy. I can quickly refute your claim of a zillion Tall Boys with a 30 second google search, confirming less than a thousand were ever built. You, on the other hand, can't provide anything, nor have you even tried, regarding the 4000 lb cookie bomb.

A blog, with a neat wiki follow-up.....

But from viewing your source, and then following said link to the UK national archives to verify, there is this:

Which would correlate with the bloggers annual usage chart uptick through 1943......As I said, you misunderstood your own sources.

No, this is just you flailing around and BS'ing to massage your hurt ego. The reason for the uptick is because British bombing became far less restrictive after 1943, with the major raids on Hamburg, Dresden etc happening only after 1943. You can whine petulantly all you want about sources, but you've provided nothing on the matter to prove otherwise, nor can you.

I'm not about to request materials from the British National Archives just so that you can't quibble about whether American figures are included in RAF statistics. That would only make me 100% certain you're full of crap, rather than 95%. You denied 4000 lb bombs were even dropped on soft targets, and it's been clearly demonstrated that they did - in their tens of thousands. You're just too internet-proud to admit you were wrong, and that's hilarious.

Physics indeed! A 4000 lbs rock makes a bigger splash the 4000 lbs of smaller rocks.

Very good Derek, except 4000 lbs of smaller rocks make 4000 (smaller) splashes, and they all happen at different times and in different places! Congratulations. You learned something that most 10 year-olds know.

Well if that's the case, 4000 tons of artillery dropped on Seoul would have no effect!!!

Nice red herring! Nobody said that.

Without a doubt... If the Americans left, the South Koreans would have no choice but to increase their defense spending, and as you suggested, develop their own nuclear arsenal.....the same could be said of the Japanese......but that was not what you stated, that the South Koreans could defeat the North Koreans on their own.

But once again, you're demonstrating your inability to keep track of the original argument. You get so caught up in your own tangents and semantics that you forgot what the argument started off as - whether or not American military spending is excessive. You provided North Korea as an example of an enemy the Americans would struggle to sustain a war against, yet they they don't appear to be able to do much against US ally South Korea aside from terrorize Seoul and threaten NCB attack.

Since the North would obviously struggle against the South by itself, with the vast majority of its antiquated army required for holding down the DMZ, how is it that they ALSO manage to fight off a US invasion by sea, much less sustain this conflict when they can't keep their lights on or feed their people? Please, explain.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

but it does clearly smash your earlier claim that:

since virtually any research on the Lancaster shows they frequently/commonly/usually did exactly that.

Different context and partial quotes.........getting desperate now? Revert back to your link and look no further than the differing loadouts between your blast/incendiary mission on cities and industrial demolition of concrete targets....

I'm saying the most common load out included a 4000 lb bomb, along with another ~10,000 lbs worth of other bombs, presenting zero contradictions. You're REALLY digging yourself a hole here now. This is really funny!

The most common load out......equating to 15% of what Bomber Command dropped........It's not my fault your actual comments contradict.....

Your logic continues to flounder with a flimsy and failed analogy. I can quickly refute your claim of a zillion Tall Boys with a 30 second google search, confirming less than a thousand were ever built. You, on the other hand, can't provide anything, nor have you even tried, regarding the 4000 lb cookie bomb.

In my previous post, I pointed out from your own linked source, how you were wrong.......

No, this is just you flailing around and BS'ing to massage your hurt ego. The reason for the uptick is because British bombing became far less restrictive after 1943, with the major raids on Hamburg, Dresden etc happening only after 1943. You can whine petulantly all you want about sources, but you've provided nothing on the matter to prove otherwise, nor can you.

I'm not about to request materials from the British National Archives just so that you can't quibble about whether American figures are included in RAF statistics. That would only make me 100% certain you're full of crap, rather than 95%. You denied 4000 lb bombs were even dropped on soft targets, and it's been clearly demonstrated that they did - in their tens of thousands. You're just too internet-proud to admit you were wrong, and that's hilarious.

It's from your own link!!!! Where in your link, the link you provided, does it state the totals only included RAF figures? It does though, clearly state the Americans started production of 4000 lbs HC capacity bombs.......Of which, the Americans used to great effect fire bombing Japanese cities........

And I never stated the allies didn't drop 4000 lbs bombs, but 4000+ lbs demolition bombs, on soft targets.......as I clearly stated several posts ago, such bombs were dropped on concrete targets.......

Very good Derek, except 4000 lbs of smaller rocks make 4000 (smaller) splashes, and they all happen at different times and in different places! Congratulations. You learned something that most 10 year-olds know.

........but a 4000 pound rock and 4000 pounds of smaller rocks both displace an equal amount of water.......or so says some guy named Archimedes

But once again, you're demonstrating your inability to keep track of the original argument. You get so caught up in your own tangents and semantics that you forgot what the argument started off as - whether or not American military spending is excessive. You provided North Korea as an example of an enemy the Americans would struggle to sustain a war against, yet they they don't appear to be able to do much against US ally South Korea aside from terrorize Seoul and threaten NCB attack.

Go reread my post.........North Korea and Iran.

Since the North would obviously struggle against the South by itself, with the vast majority of its antiquated army required for holding down the DMZ, how is it that they ALSO manage to fight off a US invasion by sea, much less sustain this conflict when they can't keep their lights on or feed their people? Please, explain.

There will be no US invasion by sea, if the Americans are also fighting Iran.

[Moonbox]

Different context and partial quotes.........getting desperate now? Revert back to your link and look no further than the differing loadouts between your blast/incendiary mission on cities and industrial demolition of concrete targets.

Reverting back to my own link, as you say, we can see that the Avro's most common loadout was one 4000 lb mixed with 8000+ lbs of small 4-30 lb incendiary bombs - bombs that are only useful against soft targets like cities and which by itself proves how full of crap you are!

The most common load out......equating to 15% of what Bomber Command dropped........It's not my fault your actual comments contradict.....

But it is your fault that you struggle with the meaning of everyday English words and can't seem keep track of your own incoherent rambling. First, you suggested that if the RAF dropped 90,000 4000 lb bombs on Germany, they wouldn't have had the capacity to much drop much else. This turned out to be a brutal miscalculation on your part, since that have only amounted to 15% of the total that they dropped!

Having been embarrassed on that note, now you're incompetently attempting to argue the semantics of words you obviously don't even understand. Synonyms for the words usual/common are: Widespread, occurring frequently, prevalent. None of the above conflicts whatsoever. I did not say anywhere that the 4000-lb bomb made up the majority of the overall RAF tonnage dropped, or anything even resembling that!!!

In my previous post, I pointed out from your own linked source, how you were wrong.

No, you attempted a REALLY flimsy conjecture that isn't supported by any data.

It's from your own link!!!! Where in your link, the link you provided, does it state the totals only included RAF figures? It does though, clearly state the Americans started production of 4000 lbs HC capacity bombs.......Of which, the Americans used to great effect fire bombing Japanese cities........

My link shows a little trivia bit that explains the Americans were impressed by the 4000 lb bomb and developed their own. It doesn't say anything else to support your conjectures. Simple knowledge of the actual bombing campaigns would also crush your argument, since large-scale strategic bombing against Japan didn't start until mid-1944 and over 30,000 of these bombs had already been dropped by then!!

Knowing that, your vapid point suggests that the British stopped dropping Cookie/Blockbusters after 1943, that none of the 1944 figures are pre-June (when the large-scale Japanese strategic bombing campaign began) and that British National Archive numbers from 1944-1945 are purely for American statistics for area bombing against the Japanese! Holy mental gymnastics!

And I never stated the allies didn't drop 4000 lbs bombs, but 4000+ lbs demolition bombs, on soft targets.......as I clearly stated several posts ago, such bombs were dropped on concrete targets.

Yes, but the Cookie/Blockbuster WAS a demolition bomb and it WAS dropped in large numbers on soft targets like cities!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/demolition-bomb.htm :

a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. In some of the very large light-case bombs, the detonating charge accounts for 75 percent of the bomb's weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb :

A blockbuster bomb or cookie was any of several of the largest conventional bombs used in World War II by the Royal Air Force (RAF)...These bombs had especially thin casings that allowed them to contain approximately three-quarters of their weight in explosive, with a 4,000 pound bomb containing over 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) of Amatol.

Just give up already! Don't embarrass yourself any further...

but a 4000 pound rock and 4000 pounds of smaller rocks both displace an equal amount of water.......or so says some guy named Archimedes

Let's put it in a perspective even you can understand. If you had a choice, would you prefer having a single 50-lb rock dropped square on your head from 10 feet, or 50 1-lb rocks emptied out of a bucket over top of you? (this should be good!)

Edited January 9, 2015 by Moonbox