From: dgrev (dgrev@iinet.net.au)
Date: Sat Oct 22 2005 - 03:24:57 PDT
Ron
> I think I can understand your confusion. Let's see if I can try
> to clarify the strange way we think here in the former colonies...
> When YANKS talk about TANKS we spell it ARMOR.
> When YANKS talk about ARMOUR we think about this:
> http://www.dialcorp.com/index.cfm?page_id=125
Is that Spam in a different can?
> And when you folks down under or across the pond speak of
> Frenchmen or Englishmen in can like clothing with easy flip top lids, we
> YANKS think of the above, too. (Read the description closely...)
I must be having a vague out, either that or my ability to pick up
subtle hints has failed.
> In Iraq the ELITE Republican Guard operated ARMOUR.
> The US Army had ARMOR.
Hmmmm.
> At the Battle of 73 Easting during the 1991 Persian Gulf Invitational
> Games, the US 2nd ACR lost 1 M1 Abrams and 4 Bradleys, with 7 KIA due
> to friendly fire and 30 WIA, mostly due to friendly fire. The 2nd ACR
> destroyed 85 tanks (mostly T-72s) and 40 BMPs and BRDMs by means of
> unfriendly fire. They were meat in a can and the 2nd 'potted' them.
> That is what happens when ARMOUR meets ARMOR.
Ahh, right got the inference, flipping turrets etc..
Regards
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:30:50 PDT