No, I believe in this context, my word is correct. The definition of overstatement is: The act or an instance of exaggerating. I maintain my belief that weeks is a gross exaggeration of the time frame involved. Weeks are less than months or years, but the thrust of your comment was that it would take minimal time, which I view as exaggerated. Thank you for your concern though about my proper use of vocabulary!
Probably everyone the other half knows....good old Kate...She keeps sheep n stuff...everyone mucks in. Farms everywhere, guns everywhere, tractors and tools everywhere...4wd everywhere, wellies everywhere, tools everywhere..which is why in ww2 they tended to be folk picked out as auxilleries and not home guard as such. But then she is not normal.
Sorry, no, I said they would run out in a matter of weeks, i.e. within weeks they would have run out. If you think it would have taken longer that would have been an understatement, if you think supplies would have run out before that it would have been an overstatement. If you think 'weeks' is an overstatement that means you think it would have taken less than several weeks. If I were to have exaggerated in this case then I would have claimed it would take more time than it actually would. No problem, no charge
I'm at loss to find the source, but I read a news article a long time ago detailing a crime committed by a man who built an armored tank by himself. He smashed through several buildings (including his place of work) while police surrounded his armored vehicle and attempted to bring it down with small arms fire. Naturally, this didn't work, so the man smashed into the last building and his vehicle ran into mechanical difficulty. By the time the police managed to pry open the door with some machine tools, the man was already dead, by his own hand...
CNN.com - Bulldozer rampage gunman dead - Jun 5, 2004 http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3383547/detail.html
But what kind of a match is this armoured vehicle going to be for say a Tiger or Panther? Sure you could build a vehicle with armour on it, how quickly would it become a metal coffin though?
The guy was in Colorado. He was upset with the bank and a local businessman. Felt they ruined him. He welded 1/4 and 1/2" plate over the roll cab and engine of his bulldozer and proceeded to flatten much of the small town he lived in. A policeman finally got on the machine and was able to shoot through a vision slit killing him.
Yeah, that's the one. He did indeed kill himself after destroying a lot of property. His vehicle had 12 inches of concrete in places and he had a 50 cal. machinegun.
Not so sure, considering that the infantry they would be fighting would be trained to deal with real tanks. Some sort of a-team style improv job wouldn't last long. See now this is an interesting turn for the the thread to take. I mean what kind of vehicle do you think you could produce in terms of mobility, firepower and armour?
Here's something someone with a lathe, mill and, drill press could produce. You would need a source of explosives for the rounds though. http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12468-panzerabwehrwerfer-600-a.html
I'm thinking that armored cars and bulldozers etc. would be a "one-shot" deal. Ambush and inflict as much damage on the occupying forces, but this would probably result in the loss of the vehicle(s)
They were used against British army in Northern Ireland many times. If your already invaded and are under occupation and acting as partisans, they would indeed be one shot wanders....pretty easy to follow as you drive back home and difficult to park on road outside house. Probably have dogs on leads and big men with guns watching as you park...ahhh.....sir....you come with us yes? Or worse. If your using it to ambush a trained army who are on edge because they are an occupying force, then as in Ireland you wont get too close. Apart from one wrecked station and a major firefight.... I cant think of many others where vehicles like this were used to good effect. Many littered the ground after prospective ambushes and attacks with trails of blood leading into the countryside or alley ways. If your attacking an invading army with all the weaponary they have for that purpose then I dont give much hope for trading the vehicle in afterwards. Doesnt stop the art of resistance...but what a waste of patriots. Better to hit and run than hit and die.
Stefan, it almost sounds like you are advocating that it's better to fight with nothing because your enemy is trained to deal with whatever you can come up with. I realize that whatever you can build can be destroyed by your enemy, but then again, I would feel much better about my odds if I'm behind anything with some kind of protection then if I was just out in the open. Also, what would be the reaction of the enemy when they see some sort of improvized armoured vehicle being used against them. It's got to have some kind of demoralizing effect.
Actually no not in present years anyway...Most were destroyed while approaching sangars or barracks or patrols only a few years ago in dear old blightyland... The moral of the troops was actually quite high when they got the chance to blow them from here to eternity. But I suppose we are talking ww2 and there may be a difference in the perception over history.
Sorry, you miss my point, it isn't a question of whether it is better to fight but whether you are able to fight. It was suggested that US partisans would build armoured vehicles, which is fine but if they rapidly go from 'armoured vehicles' to 'funeral pyres' then how long is such resistance going to last and how much is it going to achieve? I am with Urqh on the latter part, I imagine morale would be pretty high as the feared partisans rumble from the woods in an armoured ford truck and are engulfed in flames.
This talk reminds me of "technicals" and the SAS. I can imagine many of these around in the US to conduct fast surprise raids, etc.