A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old August 11th 19, 10:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 624
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:40:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.


I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:


No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your
statement that:
" There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day
landings". Note the word "landings".

Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day
landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support,
the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building
of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all
the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all
"land".

So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant
"landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed
out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were
talking about.

entire Japanese Army for one single action.


"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.


Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures
include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks
and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the
mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations,
they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army"..

Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you
have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer.

The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang,
combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of
12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the
military.

The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations
is 1 out of 10.

Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having
the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you
don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the
time - wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.


John, you said you were in the Air Force. Apparently you do not consider the Air Force as being part of the landings simply because they provided air cover and allowed the massive numbers of para-troopers to land.

ALL of that over 2 million personnel WERE NECESSARY for that landing. That you are even arguing that makes you look like an ass. Without THOSE SUPPORT there would have been no landings at all.
Ads
  #212  
Old August 11th 19, 10:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,406
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.


Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon?


But Tom, the stated intent of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor
wasn't to invade the U.S. it was, and was so stated to be, an attempt
to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

By the way, your figures of 1.7 million men and the possibly invasion
of the U.S. is delusional at best as while the Imperial Japanese Army
strength in 1941 was 1.7 million, in some 51 divisions, 40 divisions
of of these troops were stationed in China.

So for your imaginary invasion of the U.S. some 11 divisions, about
20% of the army was available.

That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of
American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most
of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one.
Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as
maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to
pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could
present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through
the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against
Migs.

I think I'd have to ask for a little backup for that statement as to
my personal knowledge there were no F-51 units assigned to actual air
combat and the units stationed in Korea were assigned to ground
support missions and nothing I've read to date indicates that the F-51
was particularly effective against the Chinese MIG-15's.

Again, you do not surprise me.

--
cheers,

John B.


Methinks that perhaps Tom is confusing the F-51 with the F-86 Sabre jet fighter.

The F-51 even had trouble with the Yak-9 which could out-climb and out-turn the F-51. As far as dealing with Mig-15s goes, the F-51 had very little chance against a Mig-15. From https://warisboring.com/the-p-51-mus...-war-comeback/

"The speedy Soviet jet’s 23-millimeter and 37-millimeter cannons out-ranged the Mustang’s own machine guns and could critically maim most aircraft with a single explosive hit. Over-matched in almost every way, the only way for a Mustang pilot to survive was to turn into the oncoming MiG and fly straight under its flight path and escape."

Cheers
  #213  
Old August 11th 19, 10:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,244
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 10:10:17 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:40:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:


No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your
statement that:
" There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day
landings". Note the word "landings".

Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day
landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support,
the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building
of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all
the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all
"land".

So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant
"landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed
out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were
talking about.

entire Japanese Army for one single action.


"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.


Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures
include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks
and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the
mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations,
they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army"..

Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you
have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer.

The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang,
combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of
12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the
military.

The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations
is 1 out of 10.

Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having
the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you
don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the
time - wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.


John, you said you were in the Air Force. Apparently you do not consider the Air Force as being part of the landings simply because they provided air cover and allowed the massive numbers of para-troopers to land.

ALL of that over 2 million personnel WERE NECESSARY for that landing. That you are even arguing that makes you look like an ass. Without THOSE SUPPORT there would have been no landings at all.


The huge numbers and the short time are important too. The Germans were already at full stretch*, fighting a war on two fronts. Imagine their shock when the Americans from a standing start in their first year landed well over 2m soldiers, complete with equipment and supplies, in Britain. The Germans still used millions of horses/mules to move their cannon and supplies; the Americans were fully mobilised, and putting a transport (Liberty) ship in the water ten days after they started building it and they were building them by the hundreds, on a production line as if they were cars. Maybe a jumped-up corporal like Hitler didn't grasp the importance of these logistical facts, but you can bet they frightened the German War Office ****less.

Andre Jute
The biggest industrial base will win the war, every time

* Oddly enough, Hitler feared the populace to the extent of not putting the home front on full war footing until very late in the game. America, despite various central planning war boards -- the highlight of the lives of people like John Kenneth Galbraith, never actually even approached full a full war footing, partly because it wasn't necessary and partly because all other wars had been followed by a slump, and this time the government wanted to be prepared without any conversion period.
  #214  
Old August 12th 19, 01:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:40:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:


No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your
statement that:
" There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day
landings". Note the word "landings".

Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day
landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support,
the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building
of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all
the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all
"land".

So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant
"landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed
out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were
talking about.

entire Japanese Army for one single action.


"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 navala total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.


Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures
include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks
and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the
mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations,
they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army"..

Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you
have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer.

The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang,
combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of
12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the
military.

The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations
is 1 out of 10.

Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having
the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you
don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the
time - wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.


John, you said you were in the Air Force. Apparently you do not consider the Air Force as being part of the landings simply because they provided air cover and allowed the massive numbers of para-troopers to land.


Tom, you can include all the mother's and wives back in the U.S. with
the signs in the front window with the white or gold stars on them.
You can include Rosy the Riveter, you can even include the earthworms
in the front yards of all the houses in the U.S. keeping the lawns
aerated. All as supporters of the Normandy landings. Anything your
little heart desires, anything to "prove" your pitiful, lying
statements.

As for Air Force "landings" Yes, I'm pretty sure that every pilot
while roaring down the runway on his takeoff roll is very likely
hoping against hope that "this flight" will terminate in a landing.


ALL of that over 2 million personnel WERE NECESSARY for that landing. That you are even arguing that makes you look like an ass. Without THOSE SUPPORT there would have been no landings at all.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #215  
Old August 12th 19, 01:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 14:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 4:13:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon?


But Tom, the stated intent of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor
wasn't to invade the U.S. it was, and was so stated to be, an attempt
to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

By the way, your figures of 1.7 million men and the possibly invasion
of the U.S. is delusional at best as while the Imperial Japanese Army
strength in 1941 was 1.7 million, in some 51 divisions, 40 divisions
of of these troops were stationed in China.

So for your imaginary invasion of the U.S. some 11 divisions, about
20% of the army was available.

That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of
American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most
of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one.
Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as
maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to
pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could
present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through
the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against
Migs.

I think I'd have to ask for a little backup for that statement as to
my personal knowledge there were no F-51 units assigned to actual air
combat and the units stationed in Korea were assigned to ground
support missions and nothing I've read to date indicates that the F-51
was particularly effective against the Chinese MIG-15's.

Again, you do not surprise me.

--
cheers,

John B.


Methinks that perhaps Tom is confusing the F-51 with the F-86 Sabre jet fighter.

The F-51 even had trouble with the Yak-9 which could out-climb and out-turn the F-51. As far as dealing with Mig-15s goes, the F-51 had very little chance against a Mig-15. From https://warisboring.com/the-p-51-mus...-war-comeback/

"The speedy Soviet jets 23-millimeter and 37-millimeter cannons out-ranged the Mustangs own machine guns and could critically maim most aircraft with a single explosive hit. Over-matched in almost every way, the only way for a Mustang pilot to survive was to turn into the oncoming MiG and fly straight under its flight path and escape."

Cheers


At the beginning of the Korean war the U.S. did mobilize some F-51's
to Korea, primarily for ground support. As for the mig-15's their
performance and armament was pretty much superior to everything that
the USAF had at the beginning of the war. Even the F-86 was not
substantially superior to the mig, in aerodynamics. And while the F-86
carried six M-3 .50-caliber machine-guns, the MiG-15 carried two 23mm
and one 37mm cannon. In U.S. terms that would be 2 each 0.90" cal
cannons and one 1.45" cannon.

The mig's speed was higher than the fire control system of the
RB-29's, that I worked on, could compute.

The F-100 may have been equal or maybe even superior but they came a
bit later in the conflict.
--
cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trek X01/Bontrager Race wheels GrandTheftVelo Techniques 7 August 16th 08 12:48 AM
Trek Fuel superior technology LIBERATOR Mountain Biking 1 September 1st 06 09:58 PM
FS: Trek/Bontrager carbon fork Charles Stickle Marketplace 0 October 3rd 05 12:22 AM
Stock Trek Tires (Bontrager) Badger_South General 5 June 2nd 04 07:24 PM
The secret of Trek's OCLV technology . . . Stan Shankman Techniques 21 May 12th 04 02:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.