From: Ron (rojoha@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Oct 22 2005 - 02:29:23 PDT
Hi Ian and Doug.
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
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...)
In Iraq the ELITE Republican Guard operated ARMOUR.
The US Army had ARMOR.
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.
The ARMOUR is destroyed by the ARMOR.
Here endeth the first lesson....
----- Original Message -----
From: "dgrev" <dgrev@iinet.net.au>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: 21 October, 2005 19:47
Subject: [MV] Is it armour or armor?
> Ian
>
>> I STAND CORRECTED. At least I spell "armor" as "armoUr".....
>
> As do we in Oz.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:30:50 PDT