Quote from: katmai on June 24, 2012, 07:26:39 AM
Canadians don't know dick about football so your opinions are null and void, stick to Hockey you hoser.
Neil's prejudice against NCAA football is just further proof that the more American he tries to be, the more foreign he actually is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 24, 2012, 07:26:39 AM
Canadians don't know dick about football so your opinions are null and void, stick to Hockey you hoser.
Neil's prejudice against NCAA football is just further proof that the more American he tries to be, the more foreign he actually is.
Do I really try and be American? If so, why? I have a job, health care, a comfortable climate and I don't have to worry about criminal minorities messing up my comfortable life.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:21:14 AM
Do I really try and be American? If so, why? I have a job, health care, a comfortable climate and I don't have to worry about criminal minorities messing up my comfortable life.
Because we're the cool kids.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:21:14 AM
Do I really try and be American? If so, why? I have a job, health care, a comfortable climate and I don't have to worry about criminal minorities messing up my comfortable life.
Because we're the cool kids.
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better political system, a monarch, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
They have history, and that's all they have. So they're the Al Bundy of the world, scoring 4 touchdowns in The Big Game 30 years ago. Yahoo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
They have history, and that's all they have. So they're the Al Bundy of the world, scoring 4 touchdowns in The Big Game 30 years ago. Yahoo.
They also have a better political system, rock music and they're a nicer country to visit.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:40:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
They have history, and that's all they have. So they're the Al Bundy of the world, scoring 4 touchdowns in The Big Game 30 years ago. Yahoo.
They also have a better political system, rock music and they're a nicer country to visit.
They have a stupid political system, their rock music was only better than ours from 1964-1968 or so, and while the UK
may be a nice place to visit, nobody really wants to live there.
Quote from: dps on June 24, 2012, 10:08:38 AM
They have a stupid political system,
True.
Quotetheir rock music was only better than ours from 1964-1968 or so,
True. It was over when The Doors showed up.
Quoteand while the UK may be a nice place to visit, nobody really wants to live there.
Or eat there.
Quote from: dps on June 24, 2012, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:40:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
They have history, and that's all they have. So they're the Al Bundy of the world, scoring 4 touchdowns in The Big Game 30 years ago. Yahoo.
They also have a better political system, rock music and they're a nicer country to visit.
They have a stupid political system, their rock music was only better than ours from 1964-1968 or so, and while the UK may be a nice place to visit, nobody really wants to live there.
Westminster is the best, which is why all the Westminster countries are better governed than the US.
When the illegals think that Mexico is a better place to live than the US, you got problems.
So funny coming from a Canadian. The English look at you the way Republicans look at their own supporters in Dumbfuckistan: they would hate you if they knew you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
No, the Brits are the cool kids. Cool accent, better city, better naval history. The Brits have it all.
They have history, and that's all they have. So they're the Al Bundy of the world, scoring 4 touchdowns in The Big Game 30 years ago. Yahoo.
It wouldnt have been for TD's if the US hadnt have helped.
Neil has strange notions about what a comfortable climate is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 10:22:02 AM
So funny coming from a Canadian. The English look at you the way Republicans look at their own supporters in Dumbfuckistan: they would hate you if they knew you.
Who cares? Since I'm in Alberta, I'm already living in the best place on Earth. That doesn't change the fact that the UK is still superior to the US.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2012, 10:29:49 AM
Neil has strange notions about what a comfortable climate is.
Neil has lots of strange notions. That's what pegs him as a foreigner so easily.
It would seem something has transpired to shoot all these spitballs at each other. :hmm:
Neil's totally wrong about naval history.
The UK was late in developing a strong carrier force, and even then they were third place in a game that only had two serious players. As for the other important naval arm, their submarine force was practically vestigial.
Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:54:43 PM
Neil's totally wrong about naval history.
The UK was late in developing a strong carrier force, and even then they were third place in a game that only had two serious players. As for the other important naval arm, their submarine force was practically vestigial.
Are you retarded? Britain invented the carrier and did all the work in making it useful. They had the first strong carrier force, with Furious, Argus, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes and Eagle all being in service before Ranger. Their carrier aviation was built to complemement the European situation.
As for submarines, the UK had a top-flight submarine fleet especially in the interwar years.
QuoteAlso, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.
Too many drug addicts and Canucks fans.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:37:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:54:43 PM
Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth
Too many drug addicts
Well, you can see why Ide likes it, then. Bet Fireblade would love the place.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:54:43 PM
Also, Vancouver is the best place on Earth, the Primum Mobile to Seattle's Fixed Stars and Portland's Saturn.
I see the truth is spread even in my absence. Well done. Keep up the good work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-BPWQv-yRk&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:37:22 PM
Are you retarded? Britain invented the carrier and did all the work in making it useful. They had the first strong carrier force, with Furious, Argus, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes and Eagle all being in service before Ranger. Their carrier aviation was built to complemement the European situation.
The Brits held the lead in carrier development for a while, but made the understandable mistake of believing the carrier was to replace the battlecruiser and just engage in search and sniping attacks. They developed neither the carriers, the planes, nor the tactics to utilize carriers in their true (by the late 1930s) role as the replacement for the battle line. And I wouldn't call a carrier force that relied on ships like the Argus, Hermes, or Eagle "strong." Only Courageous and Furious of that group would be considered actual fleet carriers, of which the US had 2 much better ships (which normally carried more aircraft than all the British carriers combined). The Brits, as usual, combined superb ideas with crap execution.
QuoteAs for submarines, the UK had a top-flight submarine fleet especially in the interwar years.
The British submarine service never did get the credit it deserved; on a unit-for-unit basis, it was arguably the best submarine service to see action in WW1 or WW2. We must exclude from that assessment the 17 or so units of the unfortunate K class, of course. More than a third of themh were lost to accident in the mere 4 years between the completion of the first and the decision to scrap the whole lot - one served an entire five years, which I believe was the record for that class. Again, a brilliant concept married to crap execution.
Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2012, 04:17:13 PM
The Brits held the lead in carrier development for a while, but made the understandable mistake of believing the carrier was to replace the battlecruiser and just engage in search and sniping attacks. They developed neither the carriers, the planes, nor the tactics to utilize carriers in their true (by the late 1930s) role as the replacement for the battle line. And I wouldn't call a carrier force that relied on ships like the Argus, Hermes, or Eagle "strong." Only Courageous and Furious of that group would be considered actual fleet carriers, of which the US had 2 much better ships (which normally carried more aircraft than all the British carriers combined). The Brits, as usual, combined superb ideas with crap execution.
I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames. Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships. They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event. The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.
QuoteThe British submarine service never did get the credit it deserved; on a unit-for-unit basis, it was arguably the best submarine service to see action in WW1 or WW2. We must exclude from that assessment the 17 or so units of the unfortunate K class, of course. More than a third of themh were lost to accident in the mere 4 years between the completion of the first and the decision to scrap the whole lot - one served an entire five years, which I believe was the record for that class. Again, a brilliant concept married to crap execution.
The whole 25-knot sub thing never really panned out for them until nuclear power, did it?
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames. Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships. They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event. The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.
I think the British were the first to realize that the carrier would replace the battlecruiser, and so were the first to employ carriers. My point isn't that the Brits made a mistake in replacing the BC with the CV; they did so very effectively, IMO. My point is that they then failed to realize that aircraft had developed enough by the 1930s that the CV would replace the BB, as well. Even the
Ark Royal, the most capable British carrier (though poorly designed) carried far fewer aircraft than she was capable of carrying, because the Brits didn't see the utility of the carrier massed air strike (and, to be sure, lacked the types of aircraft necessary to make a massed strike).
What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 06:44:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
I don't think that the RN was unique in the 'battlecruiser carrier' concept, at least looking at how the Lexington and Saratoga were used in wargames. Still, it's not like the British had the option of building Lexington-class ships. They didn't have enormous, partially constructed hulls kicking around, and it would have been illegal for them to build a 36,000-ton carrier in any event. The British had small battlecruiser hulls, and so they had small carriers.
I think the British were the first to realize that the carrier would replace the battlecruiser, and so were the first to employ carriers. My point isn't that the Brits made a mistake in replacing the BC with the CV; they did so very effectively, IMO. My point is that they then failed to realize that aircraft had developed enough by the 1930s that the CV would replace the BB, as well. Even the Ark Royal, the most capable British carrier (though poorly designed) carried far fewer aircraft than she was capable of carrying, because the Brits didn't see the utility of the carrier massed air strike (and, to be sure, lacked the types of aircraft necessary to make a massed strike).
They did take a very Eurocentric view of carrier aviation, but then again their main strategic concern was Europe, where carrier aviation didn't exactly replace the battleship. They both had their roles to play, but land-based aviation and in the ineffectiveness of RN aircraft meant that carriers would never really dominate a body of water in Europe the way they did in the Pacific or the way that battlefleets had in WWI.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 26, 2012, 07:00:18 AM
What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?
No idea and because he is Neil.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 26, 2012, 07:00:18 AM
What's Neil prejudice about the NCAA & why is he wrong?
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:15:36 AM
Not professional. Also crappy and boring. I'd rather watch guys kick rouges all day then watch some retard try and run the option against a crap defence. At least CFL games are competitive. In college football, the real game is by the scheduling guys who secure for their team the weakest opponents, in order to act like they're good so that they can get elected national champion while being challenged as little as possible.
No, the hierarchy is as so:
NFL
CFL
An XFL reunion game
AFL
Soccer
NCAA
In short, he's talking out of his ignorant foreign ass. Again.
I see. He's not wrong about the schedule.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 26, 2012, 08:33:00 AM
I see. He's not wrong about the schedule.
Agreed that he's not so much "wrong" as he is just plain ignorant. But I forgive him, and ignore him, because I expect no better from a Canadian.
I doubt the Canadian TV network even shows games like Michigan-Alabama this upcoming year, or Oregon-LSU last year, so how would Neil know that there are tons of competitive games in the NCAA every year. Hell, the best sports rivalry in North America (as determined in many polls in many venues over many years) is in NCAA division I-A football.
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 09:09:02 PM
I doubt the Canadian TV network even shows games like Michigan-Alabama this upcoming year, or Oregon-LSU last year, so how would Neil know that there are tons of competitive games in the NCAA every year.
Well, when you're Canadian and being beamed the University of Guelph Griffons versus the Wilfrid Laurier Golden Hawks, you'd be pretty ignorant, too.
We get all your channels up here. Local stations are either out of Washington State or Michigan.
I wish we got more Canadian stations.
I know Seattle can get the Vancouver CBC affiliate on cable(probably similar in other border regions)...that's all I've ever seen.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2012, 10:01:34 PM
I wish we got more Canadian stations.
I know Seattle can get the Vancouver CBC affiliate on cable(probably similar in other border regions)...that's all I've ever seen.
When I was in Buffalo once, I saw a Canadian TV channel. My frontal lobe caved in during the news when they got to the weather. Fucked up metric system. WHAT THE FUCK IS 29 CELSIUS? IS THAT GOOD?
I mostly just remember, while travelling through, that their version of the the Weather Channel had really hot babes. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2012, 10:01:34 PM
I wish we got more Canadian stations.
I know Seattle can get the Vancouver CBC affiliate on cable(probably similar in other border regions)...that's all I've ever seen.
When I was in Buffalo once, I saw a Canadian TV channel. My frontal lobe caved in during the news when they got to the weather. Fucked up metric system. WHAT THE FUCK IS 29 CELSIUS? IS THAT GOOD?
A shame you lost that war eh?
Still, at least you'll be able to see Wes Clark's reality TV show.
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 06:44:09 AM
the Brits didn't see the utility of the carrier massed air strike (and, to be sure, lacked the types of aircraft necessary to make a massed strike).
The real problem with the British carriers was that the RAF had pretty much emasculated FAA--in fact, the RN didn't get control over the carrier planes back from the RAF until just before the outbreak of WWII. That left the carriers stuck with planes like the Blackburn Roc and Skua, and not nearly enough of them. So it ended up that while British carriers didn't have the hanger space to carry as many aircraft as comparable US or Japanese carriers, in practice they didn't even carry as many planes as they could have. For example, the Ark Royal and the Wasp were contemporay designs, more or less (the Ark Royal entered service in '38, the Wasp in '39) but whereas the Wasp was designed to carry up to 100 planes and did so, the Ark Royal was designed to carry 72, and probably never got within a dozen of that number. This despite the Ark Royal being a considerably larger ship.
Quote from: dps on June 26, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
The real problem with the British carriers was that the RAF had pretty much emasculated FAA--in fact, the RN didn't get control over the carrier planes back from the RAF until just before the outbreak of WWII. That left the carriers stuck with planes like the Blackburn Roc and Skua, and not nearly enough of them. So it ended up that while British carriers didn't have the hanger space to carry as many aircraft as comparable US or Japanese carriers, in practice they didn't even carry as many planes as they could have. For example, the Ark Royal and the Wasp were contemporay designs, more or less (the Ark Royal entered service in '38, the Wasp in '39) but whereas the Wasp was designed to carry up to 100 planes and did so, the Ark Royal was designed to carry 72, and probably never got within a dozen of that number. This despite the Ark Royal being a considerably larger ship.
What do you perceive the motive behind the RAF emasculating the RN? Treason?
I agree that the situation wasn't good WRT aircraft types in the FAA, but think that the aircraft developed were developed for the role that the RN saw for their carriers - that of scouting, sniping at the enemy fleet, hunting down commerce raiders... all the things that the BC used to do.
The point you made about the Ark Royal is the same as the one I made in the post you quoted. The reason the
Ark Royal didn't carry more aircraft wasn't because of RAF treason though. It was because fifty or so aircraft was enough to accomplish the mission that the Brits conceived for the her. There were more aircraft available to be assigned to her, but they were not felt to be needed, because the RN didn't see the opportunity for using massed CVW strikes as a decisive tactic.
The RN got many types of aircraft between the wars, designed to met RN specifications. Those specifications just didn't include any consideration of the need to have all the aircraft of a carrier wing able to move briskly and together to the attack, because the RN didn't see any need to do so; attacks by carrier aircraft were seen as squadron-strength affairs, not wing-strength.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2012, 10:01:34 PM
I wish we got more Canadian stations.
I know Seattle can get the Vancouver CBC affiliate on cable(probably similar in other border regions)...that's all I've ever seen.
Much Music causes uncontrollable vomiting and the CBC gives you the shits.