Strangest damn thing...

On 5/20/2012 6:20 AM, Jared wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:18 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/19/2012 11:40 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/19/2012 5:12 PM, Daryl wrote:

To put is politely, I believe you are blowing smoke up our arses.


Well, now we can end this discussion. If it's Japanese, it's better. If
it's made today, it's better. If it's made in the USA, it's inferior.
Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Have a nice day.

My car was made in Africa, and my first motorcycle (that I traded last
year) was made in Southeast Asia. I prefer either one to a B-52, as they
get better gas mileage and have superior road-holding abilities.

It is also hard to filter through traffic in a B-52, not to mention
finding a suitable parking spot.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 5/20/2012 9:24 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:20 AM, Jared wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:18 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/19/2012 11:40 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/19/2012 5:12 PM, Daryl wrote:

To put is politely, I believe you are blowing smoke up our
arses.


Well, now we can end this discussion. If it's Japanese, it's
better. If
it's made today, it's better. If it's made in the USA, it's
inferior.
Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Have a nice day.

My car was made in Africa, and my first motorcycle (that I
traded last
year) was made in Southeast Asia. I prefer either one to a
B-52, as they
get better gas mileage and have superior road-holding abilities.

It is also hard to filter through traffic in a B-52, not to
mention finding a suitable parking spot.


You don't Thread your way through Traffic. You obliterate the
other traffic.

After you do that, every space is a suitable parking spot.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

In article , "Tom $herman (-_-)" says...

On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/19/2012 11:40 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:

Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations of
near total air superiority - would they have really been able to
penetrate Soviet air-space?

The B-47 did successfully on numerous occasions and the Soviets never
managed to shoot one down. Also, Hanoi during the Vietnam war had air
defenses equivalent to those around Moscow, which did not prove
sufficient to deter B-52 strikes. So yes, the B-52 would have been able
to penetrate Soviet airspace.

On 5/20/2012 9:21 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:


Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations
of near total air superiority - would they have really been able
to penetrate Soviet air-space?

They called it "Going Downtown". The Migs would come up and
play. And the AA and Sams were thick as flies. And quite a few
Buffs were lost.

The Bombers no longer have to penetrate so deeply now. They use
standoffs for nukes these days. And the Buff carries tons of
tons of these things. When you build it right the first time......

It's so outdated they can't come up with something to replace it.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

On 5/20/2012 10:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , "Tom $herman (-_-)" says...

On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/19/2012 11:40 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:

Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations of
near total air superiority - would they have really been able to
penetrate Soviet air-space?

The B-47 did successfully on numerous occasions and the Soviets never
managed to shoot one down.

Uh, when did the US fight a war against the Soviet Union (other than
putting about 13K boots on the ground during the immediate post WW1
period, which of course pre-dated the B-47)? And flying a bit into East
German airspace is not the same as going all the way to Moscow (for
which you need a Cessna 172).

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

Also, Hanoi during the Vietnam war had air
defenses equivalent to those around Moscow, which did not prove
sufficient to deter B-52 strikes. So yes, the B-52 would have been able
to penetrate Soviet airspace.

Oh yes, the North Vietnamese had well trained fighter pilots, state of
the air aircraft, and large numerical superiority as the Soviets would
have had in the theoretical (but planned) mission of the B-52 flying
well into Soviet territory to deliver nuclear weapons.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 5/20/2012 11:00 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:21 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:


Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations
of near total air superiority - would they have really been able
to penetrate Soviet air-space?

They called it "Going Downtown". The Migs would come up and play. And
the AA and Sams were thick as flies. And quite a few Buffs were lost.

Nothing like what the Soviets would have put up at the start of a war.

The Bombers no longer have to penetrate so deeply now. They use
standoffs for nukes these days. And the Buff carries tons of tons of
these things. When you build it right the first time......

It's so outdated they can't come up with something to replace it.

So why have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent on the B-1 and
B-2 programs?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 5/20/2012 10:27 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 11:00 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:21 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:


Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations
of near total air superiority - would they have really been able
to penetrate Soviet air-space?

They called it "Going Downtown". The Migs would come up and
play. And
the AA and Sams were thick as flies. And quite a few Buffs were
lost.

Nothing like what the Soviets would have put up at the start of a
war.

The Bombers no longer have to penetrate so deeply now. They use
standoffs for nukes these days. And the Buff carries tons of
tons of
these things. When you build it right the first time......

It's so outdated they can't come up with something to replace it.

So why have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent on the B-1
and B-2 programs?


The B-1 and B-2 both will also do standoff. Are you aware there
would have been a Soviet Fighter on US Fighter not far above the
Canadian Border all the way to the southern part of Siberia?

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

On 5/20/2012 2:19 PM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:27 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 11:00 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:21 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:


Someone care to explain that to a B-52?

Well, a B-52 is about as outdated as an air-cooled H-D cruiser.
Consider that the B-52 has only been used in combat in situations
of near total air superiority - would they have really been able
to penetrate Soviet air-space?

They called it "Going Downtown". The Migs would come up and
play. And
the AA and Sams were thick as flies. And quite a few Buffs were
lost.

Nothing like what the Soviets would have put up at the start of a
war.

The Bombers no longer have to penetrate so deeply now. They use
standoffs for nukes these days. And the Buff carries tons of
tons of
these things. When you build it right the first time......

It's so outdated they can't come up with something to replace it.

So why have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent on the B-1
and B-2 programs?


The B-1 and B-2 both will also do standoff. Are you aware there would
have been a Soviet Fighter on US Fighter not far above the Canadian
Border all the way to the southern part of Siberia?

Well, B-52 launched cruise missiles came along well after the B-52.
Also, while I would have expected US Air Force and Navy fighter pilots
to have great success against Soviet MIGs and Sukhois in relatively even
numbers, the Soviets went with the cheaper but more approach. Air
superiority would have been far from assured, as it would have often
been 3 to 4 Soviet fighters to 1 US fighter.

Not that this would have mattered, as the US submarine fleet would have
launched ballistic missiles in overwhelmingly destructive numbers, not
to mention the ICBM's of SAC. Both heavy bombers and the lighter
bombers (e.g. B-58 and Navy fighter bombers) with nuclear weapons would
be little more than a side-show in MAD.

The only advantage of bombers over ICBM's is the ability to call off an
attack if launched by mistake. Not sure if this ever happened in the
US, but the Soviets came close at least once due to false interpretation
of information. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed, and it was confirmed
that no US attack was occurring, or none of us would be riding our motos
this weekend.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:40:21 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam "Tom $herman
(-_-)" " wrote:

Well, B-52 launched cruise missiles came along well after the B-52.
Also, while I would have expected US Air Force and Navy fighter pilots
to have great success against Soviet MIGs and Sukhois in relatively even
numbers, the Soviets went with the cheaper but more approach. Air
superiority would have been far from assured, as it would have often
been 3 to 4 Soviet fighters to 1 US fighter.

Not that this would have mattered, as the US submarine fleet would have
launched ballistic missiles in overwhelmingly destructive numbers, not
to mention the ICBM's of SAC. Both heavy bombers and the lighter
bombers (e.g. B-58 and Navy fighter bombers) with nuclear weapons would
be little more than a side-show in MAD.

The only advantage of bombers over ICBM's is the ability to call off an
attack if launched by mistake. Not sure if this ever happened in the
US, but the Soviets came close at least once due to false interpretation
of information. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed, and it was confirmed
that no US attack was occurring, or none of us would be riding our motos
this weekend.

Do you carry bombs on your bicycle, Tom? I carry bombs.

They can be lethally... dropped!

Jones

On May 20, 8:21 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/20/2012 3:18 AM, Daryl wrote:

On 5/19/2012 11:40 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 5/19/2012 5:12 PM, Daryl wrote:

To put is politely, I believe you are blowing smoke up our arses.

Well, now we can end this discussion. If it's Japanese, it's better.

In terms of value and reliability, yes.

One of my primary tools is a Seiko. I've had a number of watches in
my lifetime, but worn this one for the last twenty years or so, and
expect that it will - as a good movement should - last a lifetime.
Good value it was, too, though not "cheap".

snip



Of course, all too often (not necessarily in this case), anti-Asian
racial prejudice rears its head when Japanese products are discussed
versus USian and European products. Familiar with the terms "Jap crap",
"rice burner", etc?


Yeah, but that's not goign on here. When it does, it's an all too
obvious sign of an altogether separate, much wider and at the same
time more fundamental problem, and serves to color and pretty much
entirely discount any opinion of the products themselves.

snip


If it's made today, it's better.

Ever hear of technical progress? All else being equal, the materials
available today will make for better performance. There is no way an
engine made with the metals and processes available in 1968, and running
the lubricants then used can compete with something 40 years newer.
Same for shocks, tires, forks, etc. To claim so is ridiculous, unless
you believe in mythical lost secrets (the reverse is true, since
engineers have the benefit of 4 decades additional experience).


Sure, but there's an elegance and other appeal to vintage classics.
And too much of the progress is directed to success in the market and
production cost-cutting to maximize profit.

If it's made in the USA, it's inferior.


I like my Joseph Grado phono pickup, and my Schrade Uncle Henry. Not
too many other things that I wouldn't prefer foreign made, though.

snip

Have a nice day.

I would if you produce a credible source for a stock, air-cooled,
parallel twin, 2-valve/cylinder, 745cc engine made in 1968 producing 122
HP, when a modern, I-4, 4-valve/cylinder, liquid cooled, and
fuel-injected sport-bike engine is barely above that range (120 to 127
HP at the rear wheel indicates around 130-140 HP at the crank).

Here are some published dyno charts for the Suzuki GSX-R750:
http://www.motorcycle.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/291997-2/2011-Suzuki-...,
http://image.sportrider.com/f/18278548+w750+st0/146_14+sportbike_perf...,
http://image.motorcyclistonline.com/f/roadtests/8845836++w760+ar1/04g...,
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/69539/Motorcycle-Photo-Gallery-Photo/20....


Ever seen "Clambake"? You know that seen where Tom (Scott) is waxing
skis on the deck and remarks to Sam on the sound of a racing boat.
Neither man needed a dyno to see that boat wasn't going to win (and in
the end Scott won with Sam's boat and got the girl).