potpourri

9 posts ยท Jan 11 2002 to Jan 12 2002

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:50:29 -0500

Subject: potpourri

1) Debacle: see Dieppe. see Stalingrad. see most of WW1.

2) John the Inflammatory (in a comment which was unlikely to provoke the usual
excitement) said "I'd mount them all in Wiesels." Sorry, but I immediately
thought of "a plan so fiendishly cunning you could put a tail on it and call
it a....
Weasel!"[1]

3) Regarding shipping things around in the GZGverse. Take a look at the real
world people. Real economies are huge. Look at the relative total tonnage of
merchant shipping to military today. Then look at the size of the GZGverse
fleets (a la Indy, but its a good estimate)... many many many (care to throw
out some mass totals Indy?) mass worth of ships. Figure civilian shipping will
be many times this rated value. It must in order to keep the economy
functioning. Ergo shipping large heavy weight items between known endpoints
isn't going to be terribly expensive.... if it was, not so much would have
happened and been built in 180 yrs.

I agree military force sizes will be moderate for mobile forces, but this
stems more from procurement costs and ongoing personel and upkeep costs than
from shipping related issues.

Tomb.

[1] John, if you don't know the reference,
you're going to buy _ME_ a beverage of my
choice at our first meeting.:)

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:48:30 +0100

Subject: Re: potpourri

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Bif Smith <bif@b...>

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:34:15 -0000

Subject: Re: potpourri

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:29:43 -0800

Subject: Re: potpourri

IIRC, isn't also serviceable using standard Porsche/VW
parts/tools?

> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:29:58 +0100

Subject: Re: potpourri

[quoted original message omitted]

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:03:53 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: potpourri

> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:

From: Bif Smith <bif@b...>

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:58:03 -0000

Subject: Re: potpourri

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@s...>

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:57:16 -0500

Subject: Re: potpourri

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> 3) Regarding shipping things around in the

The problem I have with this opinion is that waterborne merchant ships are
almost an order of magnitude cheaper than military vessels. Whatever the
latest REALLY BIG cruise ship happens to be (enclosing a volume of 125,000
cubic metres), it only costs about as much as the
latest 747-400, with all of the bells and whistles [this is still about
$400 megabucks], and bulk cargo vessels cost even less. Unlike warships, the
largest cost of a merchant ship is its hull (for warships, it is systems
integration, I suspect that for the smaller combatants, the hull is
practically free).

Do not forget one of the many reasons that there is a huge merchant fleet: It
is cheaper for Detroit to buy steel from Japan (smelted from British Columbian
iron ore with Albertan coal [depending on market

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:38:31 +0100

Subject: Re: potpourri

[quoted original message omitted]