Youtube comments of TheThirdMan (@thethirdman225).
-
530
-
335
-
305
-
281
-
244
-
236
-
A few points that never really come in for consideration: first of all, the PzKpfw III was a mature tank whose development was a lot longer than it might have been because of the difficulties with the suspension. If I remember correctly it was nearly cancelled because it was taking so long. By contrast, the T-34, despite its numbers, had not been in production for very long when the war on the Eastern Front broke out. It was a pre-war design that was developed in circumstances of no threat.
Secondly, the PzKpfw III was very much a combat proven weapons by the time it was committed to Barbarossa. The tank crew were no longer in a position of trying to find out how best to operate it. It had done well in both France and North Africa and was a known quantity in practically all kinds of conditions.
Finally - and this is almost never pointed out - the T-34 was produced in conditions that were not experienced in the same way by any other combatant nation in WWII or, indeed, any other war. Much is made in any video about the quality of design and manufacture of the T-34 without acknowledging that it was built by people who were unsuitable for front line combat and occasionally, such as in the Leningrad factory, under the most horrendous conditions. It's certainly true that in some tanks you could put your finger between the plates. It's true that some parts were badly designed (you should see the original turret design) and it's true that many of them broke down in the early part of the war. But when you stop to consider the fact that the factories had to be moved to safety behind the Urals, that practically all the skilled workers were at the front and those manning the factories were mostly old, very young or unskilled, the fact that they were able to produce anything at all is quite amazing. Whether by design or coincidence, the T-34 was not terribly difficult to build.
Overall, it's hard to imagine amore difficult situation in which to build and perfect and complex piece of machinery like a tank. On top of that, the Red Army had little time in which to learn how to use it to best effect.
And by the way, I can't recall anyone saying the T-34 was actually revolutionary. The Germans were certainly very interested in the sloped armour and it was an influence in later tank designs. Even the BT series tanks had sloping armour.
190
-
187
-
177
-
161
-
161
-
157
-
149
-
140
-
137
-
120
-
108
-
86
-
73
-
70
-
65
-
58
-
56
-
54
-
52
-
48
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
@Jonny Croxville Do some research on how gun laws work in those modern neo-liberal democratic countries which have gun control. You will find that the “criminals will always get guns trope” doesn’t apply. The black market isn’t a place like Walmart where you just go in and jet your illegal gun off the shelf, pay and leave. An AR-15 costs about $1,000-$1,200 in the United States. In Australia, where that weapon is illegal, it costs about $35,000 on the black market. How many school shooters, fired employees, jilted lovers, house breakers, convenience store bandits and rapists are going to be able to afford that?
And that explains why gun control works. It gets dangerous weapons out of the hands of the vast majority of people who would use them illegally. That’s why the murder rate in the United States is eight times what it is in those countries.
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
It depends on a lot of things. If the Hamburg firestorm raids were anything to go by then yes, there probably were a number of people who were incinerated and never found or identified. But the casualty figures for Dresden have always been ‘in play’. The truth is that nobody knows. Do you count the victims in the city and stop there? Or do you include the refugees on the roads outside the city in the days following? The figures over 100,000 are almost certainly not accurate and yes, some of that was Nazi propaganda but with books from the likes of Frederick Taylor, I think there has been a bit of a tendency to swing back the other way, perhaps to the extent of underestimating. I didn’t like Taylor’s book. I didn’t like his book on the Berlin Wall either, for much the same reason. Not because his version of events didn’t tally with mine - in fact, he did succeed in changing my view. But Taylor seems to be trying to erase that sense of guilt felt by many a bomber crew on this operation and so many others like it and he’s just a bit too strident in his characterisations for me to be comfortable with what he’s saying. I will never know how those men felt and yes, everyone knows there was a war on. But adopting the, ‘Oh well, the Germans bombed Coventry’, line as a central tenet for thinking it only right and proper that Dresden should suffer as it did doesn’t quite cut it. Sure feelings ran high at the time but trying to take us back to thinking the same way isn’t a particularly noble position fifty or sixty years later.
I was in Dresden a bit over 30 years ago and it was still in ruins but with a large amount of realestate occupied by DDR-era monoliths. In fact I stayed in one of them, a former youth training facility to the south west of the city centre. The cobblestone streets still spoke, even then, of the city’s tragic history.
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
@chuckysmaria6466 There weren't nearly as many of those as people think. It doesn't take a lot of reading to find that the number of people actually opposed to Hitler after say, 1933, was pretty small. A lot of people believe there was a significant proportion of the population who were against Hitler but within a year or so they were all gone. The average German figured that as long as the kept their noses clean, they led a reasonably good existence. Many just lived a life of conflicted resignation. There was no real resistance and certainly no formal resistance movement. There were plenty of big businesses that cooperated with ad supported the Nazis. Krupp, Porsche, MAN, Henschel, I.G. Faben and a whole host of others, who were actually a bit too big for even Hitler to intimidate, were quite happy to go along for the ride.
The Nazis were very corporate.
The point of all this is that if a nation as collectively intelligent as Germany could fall for a fraud like Hitler, anyone could. And we're seeing history repeat itself today.
23
-
We have been seriously affected by this in Australia.
In February 2009, there were massive bushfires in Victoria which burnt half the state and killed 173 people. Australian timber is almost all hardwood. We have pine forests here but our native forests are all eucalypts - usually very dense hardwoods. The most common trees for our lumber industry have been straight grain trees like the gigantic Eucalyptus Regnans, AKA, the mountain Ash. These are consistently among the tallest trees in the world. In the construction business, the timber is known as ‘KD’ (kiln dried). The largest mountain ash ever found (which had fallen over) measured 435 feet from the base to where it had broken off, at which point it was still three feet across. That’s in the Guinness Book of Records, who speculated that it might have been 500 feet tall. It was found near Trafalgar in Victoria.
During the fires of 2009, huge forested areas of Victoria, the home of mountain ash, were completely destroyed. Now, most Australian trees respond well to fire and it helps them to regrow. Mountain ash doesn’t work that way and it will take 200-300 years for those forests to recover. In fact, the truth is that they may never recover. I was working as a news cameraman at the time and I remember flying over those forests in our helicopter and just seeing thousands of hectares of blackened trees. Total destruction that just left black and spindly and with no green, not even on the forest floor.
As it happened, it seems they can’t even be logged, not because of rules but because the trees were simply too badly damaged to be of any monetary value.
Our ‘big box store’, as you call it, is Bunnings. I had to go there a few years ago to get a piece of timber to repair my mother’s garage. I was appalled at the quality. It was full of knots and every bit as warped and bowed as anything you’ve shown here. A lot of it was heartwood too. It took me about 15 minutes of sorting through this rubbish to find anything worth having. Then I noticed a few other things that made my blood boil. First of all, the price was ridiculous, especially considering it was mostly unusable. The second problem was that it had ‘Not Structural Grade’ stamped on it. That didn’t matter so much for this project. Finally, it said ‘Product of Brazil’. This was at a time when Bolsonaro was declaring open slather on Brazilian rainforests and fires were taking off.
I wrote to Bunnings and complained. They got back to me and apologised. I said this stuff was so bad that it was not fit for purpose. I was also concerned about the fact that it came from Brazil but they assured me it was chosen from sustainable farming.
Working it was another matter. Even with sharp tools, this timber worked badly it was as though it was chunking, rather than cutting. Instead of fine sawdust, it produced small chips. It took nails and screws badly and I had to go a gauge or two bigger to be confident that the screws would even hold.
In conclusion, I would not buy from anywhere but a timber yard again but they are becoming rare. Whether they are price competitive or not kind of depends on the timber.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@bigverybadtom
"Based on past history, it has worked extremely well for us ordinary people."
Look, you can lie to yourself but you can't lie to me.
What history shows is that a robust middle class is what makes economies stable and more resistant to economic downturns, inflationary and unemployment spikes.
Look at the history of the Western world in the post-WWII era, up to about 1980. Even credit squeezes and the occasional bear market didn't have much effect.
Now look at what has happened since the twin adoptions of economic rationalism and trickle down economics.
The most immediate and profound effect has been the shrinking middle class and that has meant that instead of economic sneezes every few years, we have economic pneumonia. Economies are less stable without a large middle class and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Take a look at Western Europe. Those countries with large middle classes: Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, have all remained stable.
Look in contrast at what happened in Iceland in 2008. A Milton Friedmann-esque economy at the time, Iceland entrusted everything to international currency markets and privatisation. They were rich for about five minutes.
The result? Everyone went bust and the government fell. The PIG states of Europe: Portugal, Italy and Greece, all shared the same problem of a small and shrinking middle class and all of them suffered horrendously.
Trickle down economics relies on self-delusion. Rich people didn't get to be rich by being altruistic, even the altruistic ones. So why would anyone believe they would suddenly be overcome by a generosity of spirit and give their employees a pay rise above and beyond CPI?
It's an attack on the middle class because it sends money to people who don't need it, rather than to those who can use it and spend it in a flourishing economy. That's how economies get stronger.
That's the funny thing about the right: they think they have a monopoly on economic intelligence. But when it comes to living and historical proof, their policies actually end up wrecking economies and people's lives with them. Trump's plan to give tax breaks to the rich and put tariffs of up to 100% on imports are a massive inflationary pressure.
If you think things are bad now, don't vote for Trump. They will get much worse.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
They do, indeed, work very well. The seats in this aircraft were K1-M1, which is basically the same as in the MiG-21 and MiG-25. It has its origins in the 1950s. The seat in the MiG-29 at Paris, 1989, was a K-36D, which is different again. The K-36D, which is also used in the Su-26 and 27 families and the Tu-160, has full zero-zero capability. It was investigated for use in the F-22 and a factory was even built but the US chose the British Martin-Baker instead.
The 1989 Paris ejection was the most dramatic I’ve ever seen because Is was an example of a seat pushed to its absolute limits. That it worked from 200 feet, sideways and while going downwards is testament to how quickly the ‘chute deployed. It’s been said that the pilot, Anatoly Kvotchur, was also lucky that the shockwave caused by the explosion helped compensate for the fact that the ‘chute wasn’t fully open when he hit the ground. His only injury was a black eye, caused by kneeing himself in the face when he landed. But I can’t imagine any contemporary seat doing a better job. Half a second later and I doubt he would have survived.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@carloMr
"so you recognize the fatalities because the awful chinese gov. is your first step. Germany and any other country will never hide those fatal erros, only china."
What rubbish. Those fatalities were known about years ago. It is that great anomaly old news. China didn't hide them. I have been aware of them for years. And from this you conclude that I must be supporting the Chinese government. Well son, if that's the case, by your logic so were Bombardier, Alstom and Kawasaki for even helping them out in the first place.
"but you are a propaganda machie."
Quite the little polemicist, aren't you? You think that because I don't follow your hate-fueled narrative that I must be some kind of communist apologist. Do you really think all the cool kids are going to follow your line or are you just following all the other hate-fueled crap on the internet that presumes there's a simple answer to complex problems? Well, here's some news for you; I have been following these projects for a couple of decades and not just in China. My interest actually goes back to the days of the Eurotunnel. If you think I'm going to be blackmailed into your way of thinking because you call me a Chinese propagandist then think again.
"lol you are pathetic and all your references are irrelevant."
Why don't you do some reading? This is a much, much more complicated process than, it seems, your mental powers would allow you to believe and it goes way, way beyond government and all your simplistic nonsense. In short, you know fuck all about it.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@Todd Craw
"It's actually historically correct that the Germans were going to win the Battle of Britain."
Maybe but they didn't.
"England was done, their airfields and industry were in ruins and the RAF had massive losses."
Not true. Their airfields in South Eastern England - 11 Group - got hit pretty hard but there we many other airfields the Germans could not hit without suffering unacceptable losses. In fact, it was these unacceptable losses which resulted in the Germans eventually abandoning the battle.
Britain's industry had not been seriously affected. For a start there were a number of new factories coming on line in 1940, the most notable of which was the Supermarine works at Castle Bromwich, near Birmingham.
A crash program initiated after the Battle of France meant that British industry was actually gearing up rapidly and the Germans at that time could have done little about it. One reason for that was the emergence of cottage industries subcontracted out from major centres.
American aid had started to flow in but there were problems. Rifles and ammunition got mixed up and other weapons, such as (I think) the Canadian Ross rifle, ended up not being used at all, despite sharing the British round. Artillery was a bigger problem. Many British weapons had been left at Dunkirk but by July 1940, there were just enough artillery pieces for the regular army to manage any local threat.
There's no denying that factories had been hit but those raids were simply not enough to stop manufacturing.
There's lots of good information in Leo McKinstry's book "Operation Sealion".
"Massive blunder."
Yes. No question. But it had nothing to do with Hitler.
"There was also an insane radar battle going on that no one ever shows in movies and the Germans were very good there."
There was little between the British and the Germans. Both made technical breakthroughs at various points but more important was how they exploited them. The British were using airborne intercept radar as early as the winter of 1940-41 but they did not use "Window", an early version of chaff, until 1943. The German setup called the Kammhuber Line made very good use of the early warning radar they had in place along the German and Dutch coast lines. But by then they had airborne radar in their night fighters too.
Highly recommended is Peter Hinchliffe's book "The Other Battle". There is no better book on the subject that I'm aware of.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@IrishCarney
"It's a "myth" grounded in reality especially from the German perspective because the Germans repeatedly under estimated Soviet numbers especially reserves."
Yes but this has to be carefully considered in context. The Red Army numbers can be confusing. First of all, a Red Army division was smaller than a German numbers so when you see them head-to-head on a map, don't assume parity Secondly, as David Glantz says, the Red Army mobilisation was what surprised them. The Germans went into Barbarossa with 3.9 million front line troops, compared to 2.8 front line Soviet troops. But! The Germans had only about 330,000 in reserve, while the Red army had millions. The German attitude to war against the Soviet Union was that it would be a push over. They assumed that once they got to Moscow, it would be Brest-Litovsk all over again. Meanwhile, Stalin had put the entire Union on a political, social and economic war footing. It was callous and ruthless but there was, with hindsight, no alternative.
"Then when at the limit of their strength at Moscow they were hit by a wave of fresh troops.”
Again, be careful with this. These guys might have been fresh but they were inexperienced and not, for the most part, armed with modern weapons. They achieved what they set out to achieve but at huge cost.
"Finally the behind-the-scenes Soviet bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping efforts to scrounge up manpower for the big offensives of 44 and 45 were not visible to the Germans, who only saw themselves being outnumbered by dauntingly huge numbers of attackers - so it seemed inexhaustible."
This is the old German generals' excuse. Halder, Guderian and Manstein all wrote of being overwhelmed by "Russian hordes" (in fact, by the time the got to Berlin, they were mostly Ukrainian and Belarusian. It might sound pedantic but the difference is quite significant). The Germans never complained about being outnumbered when they were winning.
All in all, none of this matters because it all comes back to the stupidity of German ambitions and assumptions in the lead up to Barbarossa. The German generals blame three things:
1) Hitler,
2) General Winter and
3) Overwhelming numbers.
It's been shown time and again that these were excuses and not completely grounded in reality. It never occurred to them, because of their racist views, that if they went to war with the Soviet union, they would be made to pay.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@thewhite8uard That's a pretty complicated point. The BT series of tanks were good, as long as everyone remembers what they were designed to do. Some armies used their light tanks very well, The British were very aggressive in their use of their Vickers Light Mk VI tanks, particularly against the Italians in North Africa. There were the occasional disasters, like Buq Buq but by and large they did well, despite their paper-thin armour and machine gun armament. The Allies used M3 Stuart tanks well in Normandy too.
Prior to the invasion in June, 1941, the Red Army was undergoing a major modernisation program (despite the effects of the purges). Their philosophy changed and changed back again. Among the things they considered was the idea of a light cavalry tank for rear echelon raids and reconnaissance. The result was the BT series. As a cavalry tank (the French were still using that term too), the BTs were, on paper, very good. They had a good gun and were very fast.
However, a cavalry tank isn't a lot of use when your army is in full retreat. It's an offensive weapon for hit-and-run work. They were simply unsuited to the sort of defensive work needed, like setting ambushes.
Added to that, at the start of June, 1941, the Red army forward units were desperately short of fuel, to the point of being non-operational. They were crewed by people who had no experience, much less combat experience, pitted against the veterans of the Polish and French campaigns (those who had survived).
So just saying that the Red Army didn't use them well (I don't talk about Russians unless I mean Russians) doesn't really take into account what they were up against. They had thousands of them at the start but by the time the German advance had been halted, there were only a few left. I'm really not sure what they could have done to make the BT series work any better under the circumstances. They were eventually replaced by the less-than-loved T-60 and the equally-egregious T-70.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@OGPatriot03
"It was perfectly fine as was his call with the Ukrainian president, the transcript PROVED that and Biden's crime that Trump was talking about was recorded, admitted, and public knowledge."
What crime was that? What was the actual crime? The inquiry found - even the Republicans who looked into it - that there was no case to answer, In fact, the company simply withdrew funds because the Ukrainians refused to investigate their own corrupt politicians. This fits with US policy. There was no theft. How can you steal something that was never granted?
Nothing was proved and the inquiry exonerated him.
"The media said the virus was 50 to 100 TIMES more deadly than it was, I would suppose Trump knew that early on and didn't want to dramatize it like the media did."
Wrong.
Scientists and medical experts said that this is what would happen if the virus was allowed to go unchecked. The scientific modeling at the time was based on the experience gained in the SARS epidemic. Covid is a close relative of SARS, its official name being SARS-CoV-2.
Trump had a responsibility to keep the public informed. Instead, he played it down, resulting in a loss of life that was far in excess of what it might have been had he taken a more responsible attitude.
And please explain what "50 to 100 TIMES more deadly than it was" in real terms. With a reference.
"He was right in all 3 instances and the media was wrong on all 3 counts."
No, you are wrong. So was Trump. No good blaming the media.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I suggest you read the reports from the West German pilots who got to test it after unification. The MiG-29 was pretty primitive, even crude, in comparison to the latest Western designs and was very short or range but it was a lot more manoeuvrable thanks to its high T/W and lifting body design.
"Peter “Stoini” Steiniger was a former West German fighter pilot and graduate of the prestigious Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. Returning to Germany, he flew the F-4F, an export version of the legendary McDonnell Douglas Phantom, which would continue in German service until 2013. As a lieutenant in 1986, he and his fellow pilots had been shown satellite photos of a sobering new Soviet design. A scant five years after reunification, he was living a surreal twist of history: He was not only a mission-ready Fulcrum pilot, but also JG 73’s operations officer, busy coordinating exchange visits. “For example,” Steiniger says, “I would pair this young, pumped-up, and all-excited F-16 pilot with an ‘original’ NVA equivalent to go out and fight one-on-one neutral [basic fighter maneuvers]. We had hundreds of missions like this, with thousands of lessons learned in debriefings with our counterpart [in Western aircraft] hanging on our words and staring at our video tape…most of the time in astonishment.”"
The article this comes from could not realistically be described as particularly neutral. It is, for the most part, very critical of the MiG - even down to irrelevancies like,
"Let’s face it: Soviet jets are ugly, and MiGs are some of the worst offenders."
So if this article, which has been reprinted in a lot of other places, could come to the conclusion that its T/W and BFM characteristics were enough to leave the average black-suiter agape, then I'm inclined to believe it's probably quite true.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Grundy Malone
"You suggest to me to read some modern garbage books, claim that the guy in charge of damage reports on american tanks is discredited,"
It is not a garbage reference. It is a good reference but you hate being proved wrong. Since you have one reference and can't quote it, I'll show you something you don't know about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH3OGUHy5OI
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/
But remember one thing; Belton Cooper was not a tankie. He was an ordnance officer.
"the tigers could attack shermans on terrain virtually impassable to shermans."
And vice versa. Listen Moosh, if you're going to make direct spec. sheet comparisons between the Tiger and the Sherman, be prepared to be laughed at, especially if you're going to quote Wikipedia. The Tiger wa a super heavy tank. The Sherman was a medium tank. They fulfilled two completely different roles. I'd suggest you find out what they are but I know you won't. You might also like to know that the Shermans did very well in Italy, despite the presence of Tigers, on top of which is the fact there are only three known occasions when American tanks ran up against Tigers in France. The first was a win for the Sherman, the second was a loss for the Pershing and the third wasn't even a battle because the Tiger was already on a flat bed rail car.
"The raw data of Death Traps is incontrovertible"
Like hell. This is why his book is so controversial. He talks about losses but just watch that video from Chieftain - a man who is paid to research this stuff - and then tell me the Sherman was a death trap. Fun fact for you: America sent 50,000 tank crewmen overseas in WWII. Not all were in Shermans. What would you say about the M3 Stuart? Of those 50,000, approximately 1,400 were killed, as many as a third of them outside the tank at the time. It even includes people who were killed on sentry duty. In any case, that gives a fatality rate of <3%.
"it can't address the raw factual data that says the shermans got stomped on tank on tank battles, struggling even against the panther 4 in spite of material superiority in every way and the fact that most of the german tanks they faced that were lost did so due to lack of fuel."
Give me an example where there Shermans got stomped on in tank battles. Go on - a historical example please. No more internet bullshit. Show me where they struggled against the PzKpfw IV.
"English put a huge 90 mm cannon on the sherman which gave it much more firepower, but even then it still was terrible off road and not reliable in real world use cases even by the time of korea."
They didn't. They put a QF 17-pounder on it and called it the Firefly. The 17-pounder was about 76mm, not 90mm. And they didn't use it in Korea. They used the Centurion.
"The biggest flaw of course was it had a mere 50 mm of armor which was totally unsuitable."
You left out the fact that it was sloped at 60 degrees. But you would, wouldn't you?
"even the late pazer Ivs had 80mm up front."
Which was vertical. You left that bit out too. But you would, wouldn't you?
"When used by the russians the sherman sank into the mud in the spring, wouldn't start in the winter, and broke down in the summer after light driving."
Source?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@shibanibiswas1769 I've said already that I agree with the video: it's simply impossible to say. Everyone has their favourites: mine was Guderian. My Dad was a big fan of Rommel and Manstein. Having read more, I'm simply looking at it differently now. Until the late sixties, the US Army was taking everything the German generals said literally. After that they realised they needed to look further and that there were two sides to every story.
The amateur fraternity - of which I'm very much a part - has taken a lot longer and the market for the memoirs of the German generals remains strong. I read Guderian's "Panzer Leader" and "Achtung Panzer!" decades ago and was pretty impressed. But in more recent times I've read different books and while they don't exactly contradict what Guderian says, they certainly cast them in a different light.
At that point, there are just too many variables and the question becomes much more difficult.
The one thing I have never agreed with was the idea that the German generals were better than Allied generals. I think the Germans, by and large, got more out of their troops than the Allies did but that goes back way before the war even started.
So, in fact, these days, I think it's too difficult to answer. Sure, Manstein, Guderian, etc., were all very good (they had their bad days too) but I think the myth expired long ago.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@yungmalaria Ah me... standard gun lobby tactic: bring technicalities to an argument about social policy. It's just a distraction technique.
"You do realize the “damage” a firearm can do is mainly tied to the ballistics of the bullet itself right?"
Yes, that's what this video is about.
"I can get a metal tube and put the same 223 FMJ cartridge and with common household items could make a weapon just as deadly as the AR-15 according to you criteria."
No, that's your version of what I said.
"Who are the actual experts that these “gun lobbies” arent listening too?"
No, these are doctors. If you want more detail on this, I would refer you to Nicholas Maiden's "The Assessment of Bullet Wound Trauma Dynamics and the Potential Role of Anatomical Models". It's a .pdf and I'm personally banned from posting links on YouTube so you will have to find it for yourself. If you are going to look it up, make damned sure you quote it in context. Pro-gun people are notorious for cherry-picking.
"Basic firearm operation"
Former shooter and gun owner here. This is not a matter of who knows what. It's about statistical overrepresentation of the AR-15 in mass shootings and the murder of law enforcement officers (Maryland Circuit Court, 2012).
"How basic attachments are just that, basic attachments and a gun is still dangerous with 5 rounds or 30 rounds."
Nonsense. When Omar Mateen opened fire in an Orlando nightclub, he had the advantage of a large magazine. How well do you think he'd have done if he'd been jumped while changing mags? How do you think Stephen Paddock would have killed 60 people and wounded a phenomenal 480 in Las Vegas with 5-round mags?
"You are trying to regulate a piece of plastic with a spring and it will never be difficult to find."
Regulating them makes them easier to find. That's the point. Don't bother with the old, "when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns" because by doing nothing, all you're doing is making it easier for them. When something goes to the black market it means there is a risk to the seller. As every ten year-old knows, when risk goes up, price goes up. An AR-15 costs $1,000-$1,200 in the United States. In Australia, where that gun is illegal, it costs $35,000 on the black market (with no return policy...). That's going to put an awful lot of potential buyers out of the market.
And yes, 3D printing is a thing but it is unlikely to be mainstream. If such things are outlawed then it really will only be outlaws who want them. Sounds like a good reason to do something constructive about it.
"More ammo per mag is more weight and more chances for the weapon to malfunction as well."
They functioned perfectly well at Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Orlando and Uvalde. Red herring.
"Full automatic fire doesn’t make weapons more “dangerous” "
That's an argument you can have with yourself. I wasn't talking about "full auto". Someone else raised it.
"With some basic logic you can deduct that a person trying to kill unarmed people has no reason to do that."
Gun lobby "logic" is far from logical. People who carry out mass shootings are rarely in a rational frame of mind so logic simply doesn't apply.
"Also any argument you make specifically about the AR15, will only fall on deaf ears because its just a model name for an old rifles that numerous rifles of completely different types are based on."
So what?
"It is the result of your gun laws if anything, which is why it will only become more common as regulations become stupider and pointless and make it harder or more expensive (key point here), to own anything else."
LOL!! The old "it won't work anyway" argument again. Gun control has worked in every peer nation in which it's been tried. Why do you think your murder rate is seven times that of any Western European country? Don't tell me it's gangs or mental health because they all have those problems. What they don't have is saturation levels of gun ownership. Gun control in the United States has always failed because governments have allowed the gun lobby to call the shots. Look at the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban". Stupid law. Probably the best example of bad law making I can think of. It was so shot full of loopholes and exceptions, it was clearly intended to fail. If anything, this teaches us that allowing the gun lobby full reign in such discussions isn't worth the trouble.
And BTW, no one uses an AR-15 for hunting.
I keep seeing the same thing here: no remorse or regret from the gun lobby that people are continually murdered with these things. If you had any morality, you'd be trying to work out a deal with the government that could at least bring some reason to your argument instead of the same old shibboleths we hear every time. If you guys can't bring a rational argument to the table then it's time for you to hand the dialogue over to people who understand this stuff and are genuinely committed to reducing the atrocious levels of gun violence in the United States.
Just for the record, I didn't get any of this from mainstream media. I got it from primary sources like the FBI, the CDC and any number of university or public health studies, both in the United States and other countries.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@helmshardover No, that is not true. Nobody approached Elon Musk about developing anything. Musk approached dive team leader Rick Stanton and asked if there was anything he could do. Stanton, who had no time for any prolonged conversation, said basically, yes, go for it. That was the extent of both sides of the interaction.
Musk spent the next several days working on that silly ‘mini submarine’ thing and posting relentlessly on Twitter. Among his many posts was his claim to have had ‘great feedback from the military guys’. This was, in itself, a red flag because ‘the military guys’ were not running the operation. It was largely a cooperative effort between a team of mostly British and Australian divers, the Thai navy and supported by some Americans who worked out a lot of the logistics.
When Musk arrived on the scene in the manner of an emperor, he was told in no uncertain terms that his device was not needed. The ‘mini sub’ was a total embarrassment to Musk because it showed to be both a liar and a self-promoter. He had so clearly not been in touch with anyone of importance since his call with Rick Stanton because 1) as everyone knows, the ‘mini sub’ was of no practical value and 2) the Thai government had approved one rescue method and only that method was to be used.
To cover this growing embarrassment, Musk’s next move was to denigrate the rescuers in the most childish way. He actually put a private investigator onto Vern Unsworth. The joke was on Musk because the PI basically made up a story that wasn’t true.
I jumped ship from Twatter as soon as he bought it.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@i_like_chomp6382
"69% includes guns and accidental shootings to yourself or others. Wealthy places like the Uk, france, and Italy for example have extremely high knife crime and pickpocketing."
Now you're guessing. No. Let's give an example which I can quote off the top of my head without having to look it up.
In 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States. 11,078 were committed with guns. 68.15% That's just murders. If you want to include all gun deaths, the number is over 30,000. Look it up at the CDC website. The current gun stats at the CDC are 6.0/100K for all murders and 4.5/100K for gun murders.
As for your claim that the UK, France and Italy have "extremely high knife crime and pickpocketing", I'm going to ask for a reference for that claim. And don't bother linking to some gun-humper page. Extremely high in relation to where? Show me the rates. You know, numbers per 100,000 people, as I showed you before.
"Also Texas may have the highest rate of "gun" violence but its extremely well off compared to so many other states when it comes to general crime and thats the stat that matters not yours."
Jesus. We're talking about gun crime. Texas has the highest rate of gun crime in the United States, which makes a complete mockery of your earlier claim that crime was low there because of "good guys with guns".
The stats that matter are the ones that come from credible bodies that collect them, like the CDC. You haven't provided any stats, much less any backup, so you're in no position to says whose stats matter.
Mine matter because I got them from a credible and relevant authority, not from gossip on the interwebs. When you can find an institution like the CDC that proves your claim I might start taking you seriously.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Just about everything in this video is wrong. The Americans had nothing to do with it and should not even be included. This was purely a French-British operation. The SOE knew, through their contact, Dominique Ponchardier, that eleven resistance prisoners had been shot in December 1943 and that there were more executions planned. The possibility of a bombing operation was planned and the task was passed on the 2 TAF. The commander of 2 TAF, AM Arthur Coningham passed it on to AVM Basil Embry. Embry planned to lead the operation himself but was vetoed by Coningham so the task fell to Pickard.
There was no choice by Pickard to use Mosquitoes: Coningham had made that decision early on. The three squadrons were 21 RAF, 464 RAAF and 487 RNZAF. The crew were well briefed before the operation so there was no sudden call at no notice. They knew well in advance what they had to do and all leave and outside communication was immediately banned.
The attack formation consisted of three waves. A formation of six Mosquitoes - not three - from 487 RNZAF, led by Wg Cdr “Black” Smith, would drop their bombs against the external walls. This would be followed by six from 464 RAAF, led by Wg Cdr Bob Iredale, whose job it would be to bomb the guards quarters and break open the walls of the prison building on the side where the political prisoners were. The formation from 21 Sqn, led by Wg Cdr “Daddy” Dale, would be a reserve force. Theirs was the grimmest task of all. If the mission failed, they were to bomb the prison flat. Pickard went in with 487 in the first wave and they came in so low along the Amiens Road that they barely cleared the 22 ft high walls. Their bombs landed squarely and they made breaches on both sides of the compound.
The second wave from 464 came in three minutes later. Theirs was the most difficult task because they had to blow the walls of the building without killing too many prisoners. While it was always going to be difficult, it’s generally agreed that the bombing was too heavy and the casualties too high. Some suggest that 500 lb bombs were probably too much. But the thickness of the prison walls was not reliably known and resistance reports from the time say that all the doors were blown off. In the end 21 Squadron was not required and everyone turned for home. That was when the formation was bounced and Pickard shot down.
There is still much speculation about what happened, including but not limited to the numbers of prisoners who escaped successfully, that there were 12 more to be shot the following day and how many were actually killed in the raid. There is also still some argument about how the operation was conceived and who approached whom. A book was written from the French point of view some 20 years ago, casting considerable doubt on the story and that probably should be taken into consideration too.
But the basics of this story, the parts that are agreed upon, are very different from how they are presented in this rather silly version of events. Anyone who wants to see the original vision from the RAF photo reconnaissance unit can easily find it on YouTube.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@hailbane9633 Good grief, it’s hard to know where to start with these assumptions. First of all, unions were banned under the Nazis. Who was the principal beneficiary? Corporations. Secondly, the Nazi party members who controlled the boards or were members of said board were board members before they became Nazis. They were not parachuted into the corporations as part of some imaginary Nazi policy. Finally, the much quoted example of price fixing is not an example of left wing policy. Quite the opposite. In most western democracies, price fixing is illegal. Without such laws, corporations will fix prices themselves. Who are the principal beneficiaries of this and other cartel-like behaviour? The corporations.
Unfortunately, this and other knee jerk reactionary assumptions are rarely tempered by a step backwards to look at the bigger picture. Before declaring something you don’t like as “left wing” or “socialism”, you would do well to use the Latin moto, “qui Bono?” (Who benefits?”) In other words, follow the money. Corporations had a very large amount of leverage in the Nazi economy and were not acting under the direction of the government.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Speaking as a qualified sports science teacher and former high jump coach for about ten years, I can say that this is simply wrong. First let’s clear the air of a few assumptions made by this video.
1) Fosbury’s technique is revolutionary because of centre of gravity advantages not found in other techniques and
2) That the performance increases were due to those advantages.
The centre of gravity issue is massively overstated here. Anyone who saw a competent dive straddle jumper like Valeri Brumel or Vladimir Yashchenko (the last straddler to hold the world record) or roll straddlers like Rolf Beilschmidt or Stefan Junge could not help but notice that, in terms of bar clearance, the CoG advantage of a well executed flop jump is marginal. The difference is not what happens in the air but what happens on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zdDeu-RWtQ
This is where the differences lie. A straddle jumper normally uses a slower run up but has a deeper gather in the final stride, giving a longer foot contact time. The swinging free leg generates a lot of momentum and at the time the jumper leaves the ground, the jumper’s foot will probably be above the level of their head. This requires exceptional hip and thigh flexibility but places the CoG well above that for a flop takeoff.
The flop approach is completely different. It is a sprint approach with a short foot contact time, the jumper increasing the height of their CoG with vigorous arm swings. Some use both arms. Others, like Fosbury himself, use only a single arm.
Once the jumper leaves the ground, the path of the CoG is determined and nothing can be done to change it.
On to the second point. There are several advantages to the flop technique. The main one is that it is easier to learn and new jumpers will achieve results more quickly than with other techniques. The second advantage is that it does not require the extreme levels of hip and leg flexibility that the straddle does. Taken together, the straddle has a more efficient takeoff but the flop has a more efficient bar clearance.
I am also of the opinion that, with new pits and bars, flop jumpers are probably less likely to suffer injuries than straddle jumpers.
Most important of all is understanding that the actual jumping part is the most important bit. I don’t care which technique you use. If you don’t get off the ground, you won’t clear big heights. At least 90% of the work is done on the ground.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Matthew Littlejohn
"You're implying that they would have had any kills at all if the Germans had even close to the number of planes in the air."
No, you are inferring it.
"In the Battle of Britain, where the numbers were closer to even, German fighters hardly had enough fuel to dog fight at all before they had to return."
Only in the later stages of the battle. Prior to that, the numbers were extremely lopsided. That meant the RAF was going into what is now known as a "target-rich environment". That didn't guarantee anyone a kill or even that they would survive. It was, however, all the force that they could afford to commit. They were desperately short of pilots. It wasn't until the Czechs, Poles and other large groups of experienced pilots were declared combat ready that those numbers started to change. Even then, the mathematics of that combat were decidedly in Germany's favour, on paper at least.
The fuel situation is a different matter. Relevant but different.
"One of the main reasons for the loss on the Eastern front was the Wehrmacht took too many prisoners, hampering their logistical capabilities."
I have never seen anything on this in all my years of reading. The Germans certainly had to spend a lot more time in the back lines keeping order and oppressing people than the Allies did. But that did not involve combat units.
"Give the wehrmacht some credit for chrissakes."
Credit for what? Where they were able to use the tactics they had planned and trained for, they were effective. Where they could not do it or were simply outfought or out manoeuvred, they suffered the same way anyone else did. He makes it abundantly clear how the Germans lost the Eastern Front. They went from 136 combat-ready divisions to 8 in the space of eight months. In other words, as he says, they were beaten by the Red Army and not by the Russian winter.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Masteradamant See, wrong again. The AR-15 is not “.22 rifle” except in the most literal sense. It certainly does not equate to a .22 LR, having about 10-15 times the kinetic energy and capable of blowing off someone’s head or limb. So if anyone is trying to create a false narrative here, it’s you.
The AR-15 presents a number of new problems for tactical police for a number of reasons. It’s widely available, has very significant firepower because of both the penetration of the round and the tumbling. It also has a hydrostatic shock effect which is amply demonstrated in this video but which you chose to ignore. It carries a large capacity magazine and is easy for even a tyro to shoot because of its comparatively low recoil. It’s a mass shooter’s dream weapon. It will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Tactical police ballistic vests won’t stop a straight shot, even if they will stop a pistol bullet.
As for whether it’s an assault rifle or not, that’s just semantics. The round is either a .223 or 5.56mm, which is the standard military load for what the gun lobby insists is an assault rifle. And before you start crapping on about how “it has to have selective fire” the AR-15 was used in Vietnam by both US and ARVN troops before the M-16 arrived. I can quote references on this. So in other words, even if the definition of “assault rifle” has changed, it has been applied by the Army to the weapons it used, especially in reference to the AR-15.
Calling it “a weak rifle cartridge” is, of course, the standard gun lobby tactic of trying to turn this into a pathetic pissing contest. “That’s nothin’, you should see what mah .338 can do”, is something we hear all the time. The plain fact is that two of the children who were killed at Uvalde were decapitated by bullets. Is that not powerful enough for you? Because that’s what hydrostatic shock does. And this is a cartridge you claim is “weak”. So yes, anyone with a brain should be afraid of the AR-15. Why else would you buy them?
But what sickens me the most is that we hear no expressions of remorse or regret about the deaths of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde. All we get from the gun lobby is comparative nonsense and crap about “self defense” and the second amendment. None of you people has a grain of morality between you.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Sean Baca Well, this started badly and got worse but I never got to the point of calling anyone names. Sure sign of a weak argument right there. Soviet/Russian achievements in space include first satellite in orbit, first man, first woman, first spacewalk, first space station and first spacecraft to photograph the far side of the Moon. The N1 you refer to spawned the development of the first closed cycle engine (on the oxidiser side), which American engineers did not believe until they saw it. A derivative of that engine now powers the Atlas V and that’s been a very reliable rocket, so not the only one. Light years ahead? Not really. A Russian engine on a US rocket? Who’da thunk it? The Soviets were never that serious about the Moon and did not even start until 2 years after Kennedy’s speech announcing US intentions. There were lots of reasons why it didn’t work but they’re not worth going over here.
By the end of the 1980s, 80% of the world’s successful launches were by the Soviets. That must really leave a bad taste in your mouth.
And since you’ll probably accuse me of fanboi-ism or being a closet communist, I’ll say that I grew up with the Apollo program and watched wide-eyed as Armstrong took his first steps on the Moon in 1969. I’ve never had anything but total admiration for US space achievements but like American astronauts and engineers, I also recognise that there are things the Russians do extremely well. That’s why Soyuz has been ferrying American astronauts to the ISS since 2011.
So don’t make these veiled threats about not going there. It’s probably not an avenue you need to explore yourself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Too bad so much of the script is fiction. I don't blame the producers for concentrating on Legasov. I blame the excessive focus on individualism for distorting a lot of what happened. It is almost impossible to write a script for an American movie or television series without individualism. That s not necessarily a bad thing. Television and movie scripts are very hard to write without individualism, by which I mean condensing several characters into one.
However, if you choose to use individualism the way HBO did, and the way described in this video, you can ascribe whatever personal values you like to that character, without necessarily knowing what their attitudes were. So we assume they think like us. One thing that's certain is that Soviet values - and that included many personal values - were very different from those of the West and in particular, those of the US.
After reading Serhii Plokhy's book, "Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy", it becomes clear that, once you go outside of the expected values around family and friends - values which are mostly universal - things change. The Soviet people had different attitudes to group identity and personal sacrifice. This is not a value judgement but a simple statement of what is described in Plokhy's book. Once that gets put through the HBO script generator, with its usual presets of individualism and standing up to authority, the entire structure of the reality of the story is distorted.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ricardosoto5770 I'm asking you for a direct link - no, I'm not going to do your research for you - not your version of events or your version of what you have read.
Manoueuvrability is a function of a number of facts: principally engine power/thrust, wing area and induced drag. I don't know the figure for the last one but in other respects, the MiG-29 is well placed. The MiG's climb rate was better than any US teen fighter and that points very directly to engine power while having a lower wing loading.
"According to people who flow the type, the Mig 29 has better instantaneous nose pointability thant a F 16 and better high AOA performance, but in a sustanined turning doghfight the F16C was better."
Links or it didn't happen. I'm serious. You have posted no proof whatsoever that your claims are genuine, so I'm taking you up on the matter. And by the way, 28 degrees is still 28 degrees and in most people's experience, 28 degrees is more than 26. With the MiG's excess thrust and wing loading, I have no problem believing that it should be well capable of maintaining that kind of turn rate without bleeding energy.
As for the F-16 being better in a dogfight, it's hard to know where to start with such a generalised remark. What kind of "dogfight" are you talking about? Did you not read what that pilot said? "I can't be beaten" and "The MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable" (in close in dogfighting).
Furthermore, if you think you know more than two German pilots - not one but two - who flew as line military pilots in ACM against all comers in the early 90s, then you're wrong.
Nobody doubts the MiG-29s shortcomings. Manoeuvrability wasn't one of them.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
”Another key tenet that was not mentioned is the ultimate allegiance to the state. The State rules all. In Nazi Germany, a business could be run by an owner, as long as that business was ultimately subordinate to the whims of the state.”
This is not as simple as it sounds. In a state that is preparing for war, all industry contributes to the requirements of the state. It doesn’t matter if it’s communist, neo-liberal or totalitarian.
In Nazi Germany, the vast majority of industrialists were Nazi supporters. The reasons were relatively simple. It started with Fritz Thyssen in the early 1920s and gradually built up to include Krupp, I.G. Farben, Porsche, Fritsch and Quandt. In the end, this was probably the major reason the Nazis succeeded. Hitler didn’t seize power. He was propelled into it by conservatives who were far more prepared to tolerate the Nazis than the German left, including moderates.
So it was a symbiotic relationship: the industrialists supported the Nazis and the Nazis returned the favour.
It’s true that they were expected to support Hitler to the end but it is also true they held some sway over him. It was Dr Ferdinand Porsche who capitalised on Hitler’s concerns about the performance of German tanks in the Battle of France. It was Porsche who read the room and appealed to the Nazi sense of power by proposing the monster tanks that Germany ended up building, in spite of the admonishments of the army.
That was the kind of influence industry had.
As for the state, Hitler was the state. Hitler demanded loyalty and this was the reason for the army oath that replaced “the Fatherland” or “Germany” with “Adolf Hitler”.
In conclusion, German industrialists had a lot more freedom than most people realise and grew immensely wealthy as a result. If they were state controlled, it was only in as much as they were producing war materiel for the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe. It was nothing like the state owned factories in the Soviet Union.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yungmalaria
"Everything you said was wrong down to “nobody uses an AR15 for hunting”."
Yes, I thought you'd bite at that one. The market for AR-15s is quite different from the hunting market. Remington recognised that. That's why they sold so many of them. They realised that there was a new market called" the tactical market" and that's what got them into trouble.
"But yes I am supporter by gun lobbyists because I actually know of the current laws and how firearms work."
Then you should know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a pity lawmakers aren't as hard on gun manufacturers as they are on other industries. It's entirely possible to make effective firearms laws without any need for operational detail. In fact, it's a ruse on your part to hamstring any attempts to make effective laws. "Fool me once..."
"Its actually kinda sad how polarized you are, literally go buy a firearm and use it for yourself"
You don't read well, do you?I have already been a shooter and gun owner. But I'm sure that doesn't fit with your stereotype of anyone who is pro-control, does it?
"You are anything but rational, you just have more freetime than me."
I assure you, calling me names is not a rational argument itself.
"Also please stop with your ballistics argument it literally means nothing when it comes to firearm policy BECAUSE LEGAL USERS DONT INTEND TO SHOOT PEOPLE UNLESS THEY HAVE TO."
Stephen Paddock, Omar Mateen, Slavador Ramos...all legal gun owners.
"Its not my fault somebody who doesnt need a gun gets one, nor will focusing on arguing about AR15s and bullet damage will get you any closer and will just make you look more like an imbecile."
You're losing it. It is your fault. The gun lobby opposes any and all reasonable attempts to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And when you fail to acknowledge your role in it, all you are doing is lending a hand to more and deadlier massacres.
"But please, keep calling me a gun lobbyist just because I enjoy calling you wrong and knowing you are"
You are pro-gun and have no interest in making amends for the horrific violence caused by saturation levels of gun ownership. You are part of a movement that is accountable to nobody and apparently doesn't care in the slightest as long as you are not inconvenienced. You have blood on your hands.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Nothing is ever that simple. Both those types were instrumental in wresting control of the air from the Japanese but their effects were more local than you might realise. It is certainly true that the the F6F was unquestionably the premier fighter of the Pacific theatre, shooting down more that 5,100 Japanese aircraft. The F4U got about 2,100. For reference, the P-38 - touted by many as the best fighter of the Pacific theatre - shot down about 1,800. 19:1 W/L ratios, blah, blah, blah.
But - and it's a very big but - the Hellcat was not available before mid 1943, by which time, the US Navy had already developed dicta for dealing with Japanese fighters. At the start of the Pacific war, the differences between forces was more tactical than technical. There has been a plethora of things written about the technical differences between the Zero (that includes pretty much all Japanese fighters of the time) and and the F4-F. In reality the biggest difference was the tactics employed by pilots. Principally, this meant never getting into a dogfight with them and using "zoom and boom" tactics instead. Along with that came other techniques like the Thach Weave, which American pilots needed to develop just to survive against their more experienced Japanese opponents.
Then there was Midway. This happened something like a year before the deployment of the F6F or F4U in any meaningful numbers. As we know already, the IJN lost the cream of its naval aviation force there and it could never have been replaced. This was because the Japanese never had the kind of relaxed training schedule American pilots had and most who went to the front after Midway simply didn't have the hours needed to survive against an American force that was gaining in experience and confidence.
In short, technology doesn't win wars. It is simply a component which is either there or it's not. But there are plenty of analogies which run counter to current internet truisms.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@benjaminmiddaugh2729 "Battles are won with tactics, campaigns are won with strategy, but wars are won with logistics. Eisenhower understood this and strategized accordingly."
Hardly simple. We'd have to go into all the different bits they won and lost. I don't know who said wars were won with logistics. Yes, they are the things that keep commanders awake at night but they are far from the only things. The point is that logistics are not the only things that win wars.
"Eisenhower understood this and strategized accordingly."
Yes but don't get the idea that it was simple matter. If it had been simple, the Allies wouldn't have needed Eisenhower to run it. Just getting people to work together in a common goal was one thing: Montgomery and Patton; Harris and Spatz, are just a few examples (personally, I think Harris should have been replaced). Then there are the supply lines, which were never going to be an easy matter. There is a difference between goals and objectives. A goal can be simple enough: to win the war against Germany. The objectives are the roadmap to the end goal and they measure the success or otherwise of the overall campaign.
The point that I'm making is that if you simplify to a matter of, "Germany lost the war because X", then there are those who will look for something that might have solved X. Chances are, a single entity to solve that problem doesn't exist. There are people who think that if Germany had build more Maus tanks then the war would have turned out differently. There are those who say the same about German jets. Some point to oil as the biggest problem, others to wrecked infrastructure. There was no, one, single, identifiable factor.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I know this is a popular view and that's the way the current runs but it's not entirely true. You're also not being very specific as to whether you mean the political administration or the military administration. Certainly, between Weygand, Petain and Gamelin there were no new ideas. At his headquarters in Valenciennes, Gamenlin is said to have had only one telephone. He did everything else through dispatch riders. Ironic for an army which pioneered the use of telephones in warfare. However at the corps level, there were still some who could manage to take the initiative. Remember, the French won the Battle of Hannut - the first major tank battle of WWII - even without radios. At the political level, the conservatives were opposed to another war while the left wing were in favour of it. That led to all kinds of problems with supply in the pre-war period. The flow on effects like loss of morale. poor co-ordination and finally, an unfinished Maginot Line. Mobilisation was too quick because everyone believed France would be next. They were right but nothing happened for months and most of the troops just wanted to go home.That, combined with poor pay, created a crippling morale problem.
It's hard to know what France could have done. After the end of WWI, the prevailing sentiment was that such an invasion should never be allowed to happen again. That is why the Maginot Line was built. The problem though, as Bernhard had said, was that it meant that defence dominated all military thinking and served to protect Germany better than France. The Germans knew the French would not make any serious advances.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Shillquad1
”Wanna talk CDC? the CDC estimates that defensive gun usage is used 100,000 to 1.67 million times per year in the united states, prohibiting guns would result in a lot of these crimes stopped with a gun to be, well, not stopped”
LOL!! Oh, God, not Kleck & Gertz again! Haha! This is one of the best examples of why you need to know the back story of some of this. First of all, for 18 years, the CDC was effectively prohibited from studying the effects of guns on American society. The law basically said that Congress wasn’t allowed to fund such studies (lest they reveal something negative) and without funding, they couldn’t do it. That restriction was lifted under Obama. Secondly, that piece of information is from a 27 year-old “study” by pro-gun academic Gary Kleck and one of his students, Marc Gertz. In it, Kleck and Gertz asked one question: have you ever used a gun to prevent a crime. What they failed to do was to correct for false positives. The following year, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig did the same survey and made the correction. Their results were very different - a figure more in line with NCVS figure. But to any statistician, a spread like that is very suspect and Kleck’s only explanation was that people didn’t report it, a classic example of absence of evidence not being the same as actual hard evidence. Rose tinted optimism at its finest. He also estimated, from his own study, that between 33 and 66% of DGUs were probably illegal anyway.
So the CDC convenes again and guess who is riding shotgun on the committee? Gary Kleck, no less. There have been dozens of these studies done in the intervening years, most of them far more thorough and up to date, yet the CDC was hammer locked into quoting an incomplete and out of date “survey” that put guns in a favourable light, something which more recent, more complete and more ethical studies have patently not shown.
See? This is what happens when you argue with someone who has spent ten years on the subject and has a copy of that report on his hard drive. If ever there was a study designed to put guns in a favourable light, it is Kleck and Gertz (1995). The CDC was basically railroaded into using it because of Kleck’s presence on the committee and for no other reason.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Mustapha1963 So basically everything the? Look, ALL tanks have their limitations. If your criteria were to be used, the only tank that would meet it would be the Maus.
But if you take the trouble to read how these things were used, you’ll find that the Sherman was a very good tank which was highly thought of by its crews. In this day of the internet, gamers in particular, have contributed a large swath of information based entirely on tank v tank on a level playing field (Tank battles are never fought that way).
That is not the best way to assess a tank.
If you are a designer, you will most likely try to minimise compromising the triangle of effectiveness. If you are an end user, you probably want the thickest armour and the heaviest gun available and neither could ever be big enough. If you are a senior army commander your values are different.
It has to stop somewhere. And what about the commanders? They needed a tank that could be there and work well, while providing high levels of effectiveness. The Sherman did that probably better than any other tank in WWII, barring the T-34-85.
Just because a Sherman could be defeated by a Tiger doesn’t mean the Sherman was not a good tank. In fact, the two only rarely met. But the fact is that about 85% of the work of a tank in WWII was in the role of infantry support. Only maybe 15% of the time did they come to blows with enemy tanks.
This was reflected on both sides. Only 15% StuG III’s ammunition was AT. The rest was HE. The British tank units used one Firefly for every 5 75mm versions. The 75mm gun was very good at infantry support. The 17-pounder, less so. The two complimented each other and again the German ratios and British ratios agree.
Read James Holland’s book Brothers in Arms and Steve Zaloga’s book, Armored Champion. Holland describes the war from the perspective of a British Army tank unit from D-Day to the end of the war. Zaloga tries to assess the best tank of each year of the war from various perspectives. He’s done a great job. IMHO, it’s arguable that there was no greatest tank of WWII but some were better than others. The Sherman was pretty good. It was also one of the more survivable tanks. Casualty rates among American tankies were quite low.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@altrohlau111 Please provide a reliable source. The ONLY sources I have on this are William Green’s “Warplanes of the Third Reich” and Eric “Winkle” Brown’s book “Wings of the Luftwaffe”. Neither claims it ever went supersonic, though Green, rather uncharacteristically, resorts to conjecture. But Green also points out that the aircraft suffered badly from “Mach tuck” - a sudden nose-down pitch - when it got to about Mach 0.85. The whole shape of the aircraft is wrong for sonic or supersonic flight. The wing leading edge is way too bluff and the wing has too much camber too far forward. There is also the matter of the incident when the Me-163 lost its tail feathers after exceeding its critical Mach number.
So, in fact, any suggestion that the Me-163 could have gone supersonic is redundant because nobody was going to do it without risking catastrophic structural failure. There are two factors here that are relevant: Critical Mach Number and Drag Divergence Mach Number. Both are always less than Mach 1. Critical Mach Number is the speed at which the free stream airflow becomes sonic at some point on the aircraft. Drag Divergence Mach Number is the speed at which drag rise, which is already exponential and not linear, rises dramatically, leading to what used to be known as the Sound Barrier. They called it that because a lot of people thought it could not be broken.
And before anyone tells me that Mach number is not an actual speed because it’s dimensionless and varies with temperature, I already know. But it would be pretty hard to explain it another way, so for convenience, I have called Mach number a speed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yungmalaria
"Making workable social policy without knowing basic functions of the thing you are regulating."
Take a quick look at gun legislation around the world. The stuff that works, like in Western Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan and New Zealand, is all simple. It doesn't get lost in the minutiae that is found in American gun law and that's why other countries' laws work and America's don't. It's perfectly simple: if you want to ban pump-action shotguns, for example, you make a law saying, "No pump-action shotguns". That's it. If you want to make a law banning AR-15s and their clones, you do the same thing. That would be less easy but still entirely doable: "No AR-15 or AR-15 clones". You don't need to go into the minutiae of whether or not the gas port can be switched or whether the weapon has a safety catch on both sides. Because as soon as you do, you can bet there'll be a court case to get an exemption.
And by the way, you criticised me for not knowing basic gun nomenclature, yet you never pointed out what I said that was wrong. And therein lies the point I'm making. It doesn't matter. Get the basics right and the courts can deal with the rest.
"Also you actually have not made a single argument about policy that actually can be implemented in a bill, and more importantly why you need to in the first place."
See above.
"Either that or its thrown in the 10 paragraph hogwash with you dodging half the questions regardless. Not worth my time, not worth anyones time."
Yes, I think you've said that three times now. Do you actually proof read what you write before you post or is this just rage-posting? If you're going to quit, then quit. But now all your criticisms are so generalised that you're no longer addressing anything I've said. All you're saying is that it's wrong. No explanation. Nothing specific, not even on gun nomenclature.
Are you even reading what I said or are you just wasting both our times?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
After reading more about this and watching it a second time, I realised that there were so many incredibly important points that went begging here.
1) All the military advice, including that from the Americans, was not to go to war over the Sudetenland,
2) The Czech Army was nowhere near as strong as Richard Evans claims and even less strong than what Churchill claimed. It consisted of 14 regular divisions and 15 or 16 reservist divisions, not 30 or 40 ‘crack divisions’,
3) Nobody could decide on a venue,
4) Hitler proved, 6 months later, what everyone knew: he could walk into Czechoslovakia any time he liked and there wasn’t anything anyone could do about it.
That’s for starters. Nobody even asked questions about this.
The talk of a united front against Hitler is pointless if a) there was nothing anyone could do about it in time and b) there was nowhere to stage any potential armed confrontation.
And finally, nobody went into any detail about the roles of people like Benes or Hodza and the split in the Czech government.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hubewa24 Not what I said. I apologise for not making myself clearer.
First of all, it is incredibly unlikely that Australia will ever build nuclear weapons. It isn’t worth the effort. If things came to blows, there is no way Australia would be going it alone to use nuclear weapons. For a start we couldn’t build enough of them, even if we had the vast infrastructure needed to do so. Secondly, we would absolutely have to consult with our political masters in Washington before pushing any buttons. And I think in an emergency, they’d be well across what’s going on.
Secondly, strategically, building a grid based on renewable energy, which we are already doing, increases our energy security and to a limited extent, our national security too. It makes us less reliant on trading which can be disrupted in more hostile times. It also makes for a more versatile energy system that is spread all over the place, instead of in huge centralised power stations.
If you want to see what’s wrong with the old centralised model, have a look at what happened in the first few hours of the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict. Power stations were among the primary targets and Iraq was pretty much plunged into darkness. The same thing happened to Belgrade during the NATO campaign over Kosovo in 1998.
With a widely distributed power generation system, that is much more difficult to achieve.
But before that can happen, we get cheaper and more reliable energy instead of waiting 20 years for something we don’t need.
By the way, nuclear reactors come in a variety of flavours. Power generation reactors are very different from fast breeder reactors needed to make nuclear weapons.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"The Great War was started with the assasination of Austrian emperor and his wife by a Serbo Bosnian youngman named Gavrilo Princip on 28 July 1914."
Franz Ferdinand wasn't the Emperor. Franz Josef was.
"Afterwards Austria, Hungary, and Germany declared war against Great Britain, Italy, France, and Russia. Great Britain, Italy, France, and Russia also declared war against Austria, Hungary, and Russia."
WTF? Have you never heard of "the blank cheque"? There was a month between the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife and the first shots of the was (which were fired by the Austrians against Serbia).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@w8stral Well you fell head-long into that, didn’t you?
You might have missed it but the increasing gap between rich and poor and the growth in insecure employment at the lower end of the job market in the west is hardly Marxism. Furthermore, with universities running courses to supply industry, the content is hardly likely to be Marxist either, for reasons of practicality, if nothing else. If humanities courses are run by Marxists then perhaps you could explain the runaway success of basically unregulated capitalism over the past thirty years because according to you, this is a product of “the left”, or whatever else you imagine it to be. Ye they are the products of parliaments made up of largely University-educated representatives. Then there’s the massive growth on alt-right ideology that has spawned such cultural luminaries as Anders Behring Breivik and Brenton Tarrant. Was it cultural Marxism that stormed the Capitol building in January? No, of course it wasn’t. Well, not unless you believe another well-known cultural Marxist mouthpiece, QAnon. Was it a cultural Marxist who shot up that mosque in Christchurch? Nope. Was it a cultural Marxist who shot and killed more than 70 people at a meeting of young socialists in Norway a few years ago? Nope.
If the marxists are in charge, they’re doing a rubbish job of being Marxist.
In short, cultural Marxism is the rally cry of a loser/victim cult that has no use in society. And you can call me all the names you like for daring to disagree but really all you’re doing is trying to enforce your own version of political correctness, the thing you people despise the most.
I’m loving this.🤗
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@theaceofknaves3285
"Still, I don't understand what points you meant me to review again!"
No, that's okay. I pretty much agree with all you said in that post.
The problem with a lot of people - and I'm not saying you said this - is that they look at this and say, "oh, they only won because of numbers", which is definitely not true. It is true that once the numbers on the eastern front evened out, the Red Army's position started to improve.
It is also important that the Red Army had a very large reserve force but the quality was low, while the Germans had about 300.000 reserves, all of which had been used up before they even got to Moscow.
The Red Army could never have won the war in the east by numbers alone. They had to become better and they had to be allowed to become better, meaning that Stalin had to keep his hands off, which he more or less did.
But to those who do argue that the Red Army only succeeded by numbers, I would say two things: a war of attrition is not always the wrong strategy, even if it appears callous (we are talking about war here...) and secondly, more fool the Germans for taking them on in the first place.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Cody Mcconnell
"no because we have millions of dead russians that fell underneath him and millions of German as well as other nations who can testify to all his success when most other generals were failing."
If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, stop calling them "Russians". You might think this is a small point but it most definitely is not. Without knowing the difference between "Russians" and "the Soviet Union", you miss an awful lot of nuance and that eventually catches up with you.
Aside from that, you're making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical error: that millions of dead enemy soldiers must be Manstein's success. Well, let's look at it in context. There were a lot of other battles going on in the Soviet Union in Manstein's time there so are you going to attribute the failure at Stalingrad to Manstein as well? Because if you're going to make those kinds of blanket statements, you have to cover everything. Was Manstein also responsible for the defeat at Kursk? Was he also resoponsible for the failure of Fall Blau ? Because, regardless of Soviet Losses, Fall Blau was a major failure and Manstein was one of the senior commanders.
So, to put it more simply, you can't judge him in isolation on a front where there were so many things going on. It wasn't like North Africa where you could point to Rommel or Montgomery and say, they were responsible because they were the obvious commanders and you didn't have dozens of hyperlinked - for lack of a better word - battles going on around the main action.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nickmitsialis There really isn't a lot known about Baer. Kind of unfortunate because not only did he gain a lot of victories in the West (more, I think, than anyone else, except Marseilles), he also claimed a lot of 'Viermots' - mostly American. It's said that Baer was overlooked a couple of times for promotion and probably wasn't accorded the same level of recognition in Germany. He was overlooked for the Knight's Cross with oak leaves, swords and diamonds, despite having easily qualified for it. The reason is not entirely clear. He is said to have been disliked by Goering and to have had an insubordinate personality. This comes admittedly from Wikipedia but it is unsourced. It smacks of Kurowski. If it comes from Franz Kurowski - and it sounds consistent with Kurowski's idolatry - then it's probably doubtful at the very least. Kurowski used a near-identical description of tank ace Kurt Knispel which, while casting no doubts on Knispel, was later totally contradicted by his unit comrades. The pattern gives it away: an overabundance of individualism as a way of sanitising him. It isn't remotely helpful and muddies the waters, rather than clearing them.
Baer died in a flying accident in 1957, before the level of interest in the exploits of people like him reached its zenith.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@FranciscoPartidas Borzhe moi... Why did you say it could do almost Mach 1 in a dive if you also knew about its aerodynamic problems?
Let's get a few things in order about air combat. In the post war period, an American pilot called Bob Hoover postulated that there were two kinds of air combat: energy and angles. In WWI pretty much all fighters were angles fighters and they spent much of their time trying to get a lead on their opponent. There were exceptions, like von Richthofen who stalked his prey. In WWII, virtually all aircraft were energy fighters. Their pilots usually used speed and altitude to bounce their opponents.
The P-38 was 100% an energy fighter. It had three advantages for the pilot: long range, which was very useful in long flights over the ocean in the Pacific campaign; good speed and finally, its rather limited firepower was highly concentrated in the nose of the aircraft, which totally eliminated the need for convergence. It also had its down sides. It was bigger and heavier with higher levels of inertia meaning that whatever its aerodynamic layout, it would always be at a disadvantage in manoeuvres, such as roll, against single engine, single seat fighters in an angles fight. If the initial bounce didn't work, the pilot was left with rather limited options and if manoeuvre evolved.
The P-38 had another problem: it was much more complex aircraft than a single engine aircraft. It was said of the F6f Hellcat that you could teach a college grad to fly it in six weeks but a P-38 pilot needed about 400 hours to be combat ready. The aircraft was a lot more expensive to build and a lot more expensive to operate. It had, to use a modern expression, a high pilot workload. That meant the pilot had to ficus on flying the aircraft to a greater extent than others while he was trying to stay alive.
In spite of the OP's original comment, I doubt if any reasonably contemporaneous fighter would have been an "easy kill".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lqr824
"But it wasn't just the cost of the aircraft, you also needed 50% more fuel than the Mustang, so 50% more tanker trucks, 50% more tanker boats, etc. etc. The P-47 was on the other hand cheaper for losing probably fewer pilots and airframes in similar circumstances."
Oh, God, another Greg rigmarole. Rinse and repeat...
The directive from Hap Arnold to his Chief of Staff, Lt Barney Giles in October, 1943, was to find a fighter that could escort the bombers to any target in Germany in six months, even if it meant developing one from scratch.
Cost was no object.
Giles knew the range potential of the P-51 and there was no practical cure for the P-47's lack of range. Drop tanks could not make enough difference to matter and Republic were way too slow making changes to the design in response to the needs of the USAAF.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
By the way, if anyone is looking for the motive behind Musk’s raid on government offices in the last few days, this is it.
The tech bros vision for the future is couched in terms of how humanity benefits and could not be further from the truth. There was personal information he needed for this which will be part of the AI management of your life. They will basically own you. This is what will run digital feudalism. So Musk and his troop of spotty faced hackers went to get it from highly secure SCIF which basically nobody is allowed into because of what is stored there. This went a fair way towards completing the circle.
This is also what is behind the cosy relationship they are trying to build with government because they want people to believe that they and only they can be trusted with it. In other words, they want no competition and they’re spinning it to show that it requires billions of dollars in funds to make it work. Trust us. As long as we are in charge, nothing will go wrong. This is straight from Peter Thiel’s monopoly model.
So when DeepSeek was dropped, along with two or three other apps last week, it made them look pretty stupid. But that didn’t stop them negotiating billions more in government funding to recover from their embarrassment. It’s not just a competing system but it’s open source and you can run it at home. On a Raspberry Pi with a decent size graphics card (doesn’t even have to be NVidia).
So when the tech bros talk about furthering humanity, it’s code for benefiting them. When they talk of a digital God, it’s a digital god they control. I’m not totally convinced they are all signed on. But Sam Altman, Elon Musk and the more secretive Peter Thiel are all controlling it.
Personally, I can think of a better future than one run by a bunch of geeky, amoral, noodle-armed billionaires, who have to talk in manufactured gravelly voices because their balls have barely dropped, owning my life and everything in it. But since the US government scrapped a lot of the carefully negotiated regulations in the last couple of weeks, that will be what it is unless we reject it.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@rusoviettovarich9221 I disagree. Communism, even under Stalin, was internationalist in its outlook., rather than nationalist. It presumed that once other countries saw the benefits of communism, they would eventually become communist themselves. The Soviet leadership had great hopes for a communist revolution in Germany at the end of WWI but it didn’t happen. That did not mean they did not continue to trade with Germany. In fact the Rapallo agreement of 1922 expanded that trade considerably and each became the others biggest trading partner and that remains so to this day.
Stalin had a few territorial ambitions but they centred around regaining the territories lost at the end of WWI, notably eastern Poland. That ambition was realised with the Molotov Ribbentrop agreement in 1939.
Any notion that Stalin was somehow plotting to start WWII early by becoming involved in Spain is simply not true. Unfortunately, the West has deluded itself again with large swathes of people choosing to believe Suvarov’s unsubstantiated claims of a Soviet mega tank army to take over all of Europe. It has no currency among any historians, whatever their personal bent. It certain fails to explain why Hitler was able to annex places like Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland unopposed and, in the case of Poland, with some connivance from Stalin.
As far as the Spanish Civil War is concerned, Soviet aid to the republic was, in part, conditional. Stalin wanted to make sure the left wing parties in Spain were the same brand as he was in order that support be continued. This was shown in the oppression of libertarian socialist groups like the POUM, which Orwell was fighting for and left wing libertarian communist groups.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@signolias100 Entrenched positions, while used, were not all that common in WWII. While the Allies had no problem with besieging towns like Metz, their goal was to advance. A lot of the time that was achieved by pinning the Germans down and attacking them in the rear with tactical bombing and pincer attacks. Once the rear was cleared, the advance could continue, largely unopposed. A good example of what I'm talking about in some respects was the Falaise Pocket. The Canadians and Poles became the anvil against which the Germans were pinned so that they were eventually cut off. Those who tried the escape road were attacked mercilessly from the air and as a result, an army of 50,000 was destroyed.
Now, in a literal sense, I suppose the Canadian and Polish forces could have been considered to have been fighting a defensive action but the overall posture was entirely an aggressive one. You can fight ambushes and still be advancing, though in the strictest terms, ambushing is more of a defensive posture.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
RadicalRC You have an interesting way of dodging your own words.
_"All involuntary adult human interactions are an establishment of slavery (criminal). Examples are rape, molestation, robbery, property confiscation, and etc."_
And presumably socialism...?
This is why I posted what I did. Any limit on types of firearms would, by your measure, be seen as involuntary and therefore "criminal".
Interestingly, your version of criminal presupposes that there is a law in place to protect. Any such law would necessarily be applied involuntarily and therefore, in itself, criminal.
Thank you for the rest of that irrelevant diatribe. I don't care one way or the other about what you think of socialism, merely why you felt the need to apply it in your first post.
Fred Bieser made no reference to it in the video yet you saw the need to raise it. Was this some kind of stereotypical view, an extension of your "treat boys as broken girls" theory?
Your version of liberty would have to be applied involuntarily to some like me. I already live in a free society (whatever you think of it) and having your version of liberty overlaid on it would be just another version of oppression.
3
-
RadicalRC "I do not have the capacity to obtain a nuke. I do not want a nuke."
Read again. That wasn't me.
"Now, I am fascinated by the concept of a thorium reactor."
Me too. Let's move on.
"There are no hysterical nit-wit Objectors to Liberty running around with their hair on fire screaming the world is at an end because of all the proudly free American Citizens there."
As someone with formal training in just about everything from black powder to a Bren LMG, I find that laughable. It is not an expression of anything other than an unhealthy place. That sort of fascination belongs to 10 year-olds. I am repelled by it.
However, I do not oppose gun ownership and never have. I oppose unrestricted gun ownership. Again, you have a strange way of denying what you say. You have no opposition to people owning or operating fully automatic weapons. Am I correct? If so then you have neatly proven my first comment absolutely correct, yet you denied it at the time.
"My answer to your question is to ask you how long you've been an advocate of violence to force others to take your own personal choices as theirs?"
I have not ever advocated violence. Show me where I said this.
"Have you ever sought counseling? Where you beaten as a child?"
This is the bit where I tell you where to go.
"How did you come to believe force and violence is superior to voluntary cooperation between people?"
I didn't.
"The Marxists/Communists/Socialists have successfully influenced people to believe crime is Liberty."
Whatever their faults - and they are many - this is the most twisted piece of non-logic I've seen since Bush Jr tried to link Sep 11 to Saddam Hussein.
ALL idealists believe everyone else is wrong except them. You are no exception and in fact, you're no different. I deal with people like you all the time. The phenomenon is called projection: fill the box with everything you hate and ascribe it to those you see as your enemies. It satiates your need for absolving yourself, gives you someone to blame and gives you the political tool you need...
A villain.
Of course, that makes you a saint. It means your system is perfect and it means it will work. So what happens when it doesn't work?
Fortunately, the world is never so black and white except in the minds of those who seek to subvert, even if secretly. You probably don't even know you're doing it. You keep saying "I'm for liberty" as though it meant something. I'm beginning to seriously doubt it. I think you're repeating it to convince yourself. You're not convincing me.
The communists in the Russian Revolution said the same thing.
Every political philosophy has its good and bad points. If it didn't it would appeal to nobody. Good grief, do you really think that all those communists of 70 years ago were just robots who were incapable of thinking for themselves? There had to be something to attract them in precisely the same way that voluntaryism attracts you.
Sooner or later it comes down to the same thing. Everyone is different and no system is perfect. Often we pick parts out of other systems which work well in certain environments and adapt them.
"You can't enslave people who are free and they must tear down the perceived value of freedom and Liberty."
A motherhood statement which every political philosophy advocates, a bit like saying "I'm against paedophilia". The sign of a weak argument. Don't believe me? Read this:
http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/mlc.pdf
You'd be surprised how much you have in common and we all know how well communism turned out.
Marxism, communism, libertarian communism, socialism, libertarian capitalism, fascism, Nazism, anarchism, voluntaryism... Over the years they've attracted an awful lot of people. I've wasted enough time on you and you still have not explained what possible connection could exist between Mr Bieser's statement and you rather pathetic conclusion that he's a girly boy and that he's about to spout socialist doctrine on cue.
You repel me. Goodbye.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@coolvegandad Not necessarily. This is going to depend on a couple of things:
1) the intestinal fortitude of a few judges who know full well that capitulation runs counter to their oath of office and
2) the ability of a small number of people, like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Jasmine Crockett and Jamie Raskin, to motivate the public and develop a viable policy platform to get out of the mess.
There are many things that can happen along the way, including but not limited to martial law, blue states refusing to implement Trump’s rule-by-decree executive orders, extreme civil unrest from the extreme right paramilitaries (something that, under normal circumstances, would be a trigger for the insurrection act), attempted secession of a number of states from the Union, economic disaster, political assassinations and even civil war (along the lines of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia).
It’s my belief that if the judges do their jobs properly and there can be a genuine democratic left wing alternative found to the Surrendercrats, there’s hope.
But people have to engage.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@haydenquakenbush8626
"He literally said that Mao and Stalin used many of these tactics but they can't be called fascists because they weren't nationalists or conservative, which are 2 of the biggest conditions of fascism."
Oh dear. Jason Stanley makes 10 clear points which, when combined, clearly define a fascist state. But if you look hard enough, you can probably find all of these tactics used - usually in watered-down form - in most of the world's governments, even the democratic ones.
For example, sexual anxiety. Many governments around the world have resisted attempts to remove legislation making homosexuality illegal. For the most part, they are just conservative governments. It changes though when those people are singled out for 'special treatment', which they were in places like Nazi Germany.
Hierarchy is another. ALL capitalist countries accept that there will be some stratification of society and it is almost always defined by income. But having large gaps between rich and poor is not the same as fascism. Fascism is when there is a stratification based on the ideal of a fascist man (and it is always a man because fascism is patriarchal). You either fit the mould or you fall behind. I don't think Stanley makes this point as well as say, Kevin Passmore does. Because there is an ideal fascist man, there is by association, a utopian goal. And as Passmore says, utopianism always leads to terror. But that doesn't mean that every capitalist state is a terror state. Hard for many people, yes. But not a terror state.
Stanley is basically right but he occasionally leaves himself open for this because he doesn't close the loop properly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cole590 No, that’s not correct. First of all, every national economy on the planet has a degree of central planning so that’s largely an irrelevance.
Secondly, the Vietnamese lost a couple of million people to the war, many millions more crippled, a huge amount of economic growth and a lack of opportunity as a result of more than 20 years of continual conflict. By the end, they were no longer under the control of either the French or the Americans and basically had to start from scratch.
For its population size, it is still a relatively small economy. But rather than become a ‘banana republic’, Vietnam has actively encouraged international investment from large technology companies, making consumer electronics, etc.. In some areas they are now in direct competition with China, in much the same way as Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. It’s true that agriculture and mining make up a significant proportion of the economy, as do service industries like tourism but when you think of where they were 50 years ago, they have come a long way and have tried to create a good business mix, instead of the traditional unstable, exploited agricultural 5-year-plan trope that so many people think.
The rights or wrongs of the communist government are not contested but they are not quite the hopeless backwater you might think they are.
If they had sided solely with the United States, they’d have been totally exploited in the way they were by the Colonial French. It would have turned into another Cuba under Bautista. Even the US government couldn’t fathom the levels of endemic corruption among their preferred leaders in Saigon, which is one of the reasons which they actually encouraged a change of junta every couple of years.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ronfox5519 The evidence I have is that, while it had a great reputation, there are other factors that have not been addressed. The pilots had a lot of faith in it, which is nice, but statistics are pretty inconclusive. The first statistic you’ll come across is that the P-47 had a loss rate of 0.73, compared with the P-51 at 1.18. Superficially, that’s a win for the Thunderbolt. The argument is rather more nuanced than that and the real question comes down to survivor bias.
To begin with, the P-47 was built out of roughly the same gauge of duralumin that other fighters were. While the internal structure is probably where the differences lie, the skin has the same level of bullet or cannon shell resistance as any other fighter: bugger all.
My comment in this thread was in reference to the kind of work the P-47 and P-51 were called up to do. Since the Mustang was a clear winner on range, it follows that it spent a lot more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. The Thunderbolt, on the other hand, did most of its work in northern France as well as Belgium and Holland. Because of that, a wounded P-47 had less distance to travel to get home than a P-51 with a similar problem, hence my illustrative example.
This is survivor bias.
And because the P-51 arrived later in the war, it faced much heavier Flak defences as the Wehrmacht retreated into Germany. Pretty much any pilot memoir from the late war period talks about how heavy the Flak was.
I have other statistics on this but again, they are largely inconclusive. They neither prove nor disprove the claim that the P-47 was more resistant to battle damage than the P-51. In any case, it rather gives the lie to the claim that the P-51 had a ‘glass jaw’ or was severely handicapped by its liquid cooled engine.
I know you didn’t say this but again, I’m trying to illustrate the fact that the differences were not as great as people think.
3
-
@ronfox5519 Well, again, this kind of depends on how you look at it. Are there more photographs because the P-47 was tougher or are there more photographs because it had less distance to travel home? Is it a combination of the two? Probably.
Yes, the P-47’s reputation in this department is pretty stellar and I know that pilots placed a great deal of faith in their mount. But there are some things that get reported which I have yet to see photos of. I know there are anecdotes of P-47s returning with missing cylinders but I have yet to see a picture of one. I know there are similar claims for the FW-190. According to the internet, it was an every day occurrence. There are loads of pics, mostly real, of damaged P-47s but there is also context. Were they returned aircraft or were they damaged in a raid or airfield collision? Then there is the fake. There is a famous picture that purports to be a P-47 with most of the right wing missing. Closer inspection reveals that the undercarriage is in the wrong place.
I want to stress that I’m not saying that the stories aren’t true. My beef is not with the aircraft or the pilots. There are stories of Spitfires that came back with massive holes in them too and that was supposed to be, if anything, a somewhat delicate aircraft. So it kind of depends on context. The internet has made it possible to believe just about anything. Again, I want to stress that I’m not saying the stories aren’t true.
As I have said, whatever else is the case vis a vis survivability, the statistics are simply inconclusive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ericcartmann
"To close. The American Left is Fascist."
That's a nice line in the politics of "us and them" you're running there. Did you even watch this video? Or are you just here for some banal political trench warfare?
"They support the merger of the corporation at the state."
Apparently you didn't watch it.
"They support the state religion of wokism and all the corporations that adopt it."
What's wrong with being against racism?
"They support the destruction of small businesses....especially white own businesses."
Oh? How so?
"They think wealth from white people should be transferred to non-white people."
Given the gap between rich and poor in the United States is proportionately greater than in any other wealthy, neo-liberal democracy on the planet, I don't blame them. Look up the GINI Index.
"They are anti-free speech"
Oh, please, do explain this!
"They are anti-gun"
So am I. And proud of it, So what? The implementation of gun control has worked in every comparable neo-liberal democracy it's been tried in. This comes from a former shooter and gun owner.
"They are anti-freedom"
Ha, ha! This is the problem with living in a polarised society where the constitution failed to adequately separate the powers of church and state. You get to make these rather hysterical (by the standards of more advanced societies) remarks and not get called out for sounding a bit hysterical. This is a problem with optional voting. In societies where voting is compulsory, the political discourse happens in the middle. in societies where voting is optional, it happens in the margins.
In short mate, nothing you have said shows that you have any understanding of fascism or what constitutes a fascist state. All you're doing is finger pointing and blaming. If you're going to post in a forum like this, you really should have watched the video first.
The term "fascist" has been widely over-used in the past and all Jason Stanley is doing is trying to address the problem. It doesn't give you a licence to start misusing it too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@duality5503 Once again, so what? Who denies that the Nazis were violent? Nobody. Who denies that they had left wing policies? Nobody. Who denies that they had right wing policies? Nobody. Well, nobody who knows anything about it, anyway. So really, all you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about is being able to leverage this as an argument against socialism. If you had ever read anything of substance about the history of Hitler and the Nazis, like Fest’s book, “The Face of the Third Reich” or “Hitler” by the same author, you would know that everything you are saying is completely pointless and designed to “convert” you.
In short, you are being manipulated, mostly by elaborate fakery and distortion. If you can’t learn to grade information properly then you probably haven’t much hope.
All extremist and totalitarian movements come disguised as people’s movements. That doesn’t make them socialist. In fact, it doesn’t confer any particular political belief. What history does show us though is that such movements are usually happy to embrace dictatorship. Look what’s happening in Eastern Europe right now as irrational fear of socialism gives rise to the extreme right and increasingly one party states.
Look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia when propagandists primed the population on all sides and rode the crest of filthy nationalism to what was supposed to be a glorious victory. All because people believed what they were told and didn’t check it.
You are being led along by the nose. I hope you learn the art of bullshit detection before it’s too late because you are falling for the very tactics Hitler and the Nazis used. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it.
3
-
@jasonmatthews4449
"there is no 2000 hp street legal car lmfao stop lying."
You seem to be addicted to some sort of binary logic: "He says something I don't agree with, ergo: he must be lying because there's only truth and lies and I only tell the truth." Can you be sure he's actually lying? Are you sure he's not simply misinformed or that maybe, heaven forbid, you are? Can you think of no other possible alternative?
"so there is no such thing at f1 running above 1000 horsepower back in the 80s at all?"
Where did I say that? Those are your words, not mine. I have unreliably heard that the BMW made 1,400 hp and maybe 1,450 hp. I have never seen anything conclusive to prove that it's true. It's been my experience that those who exaggerate horsepower figures rarely understand much about it.
Have a look at this clip of a turbocharged 7 litre Chev-powered Holden Torana at the Canberra Summernats a few years ago. My brother-in-law was the software engineer working for the company who made the dynamometer. That's his work you can see on the screen behind. The car ran up to 2,025 hp before it lunched the turbo and spat the impeller out the exhaust. I have a fairly good idea of how these things work and what is reasonable and what is BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAa_aUXoPk
I have yet to see anything like this from an F1 car. When someone shows me, I'll believe it. But the fact is that this was done on one dyno pull, not a hot lap around Monza, much less a race.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slumzur
"It could with drop-tanks"
Okay.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Sorry but this will be a long post.
This is a huge topic and not nearly as simple as you might think. There are several considerations and they're not always clear cut.
I will say one thing though: if you got your information from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', as so many people on YouTube have, then I urge you to reconsider. Greg's research was almost entirely technical, very light on history and basically setup to prove a bugbear of his. It would be hard to consider it impartial.
The problem with the P-47 wasn't drop tanks. It was internal fuel capacity. Drop tanks buy you range, of course, but you use half the fuel getting the other half there. I suspect that is still true today.
But in 1943, The USAAF's main focus was on coastal raids, which presented no problem. Their early raids over Germany did not incur unacceptable losses. As they moved into Germany, they had more mixed success but were still largely ahead. On paper, at least, it looked like bombers could defend themselves.
Of course the raid/s everyone wants to talk about are Schweinfurt and Regensburg. At that time there was no fighter in service that could have done the job of getting to Schweinfurt and back but that ignores one of the fundamental problems, at least with the first raid. The weather. Cloud cover over southern England and the Dutch coast meant that many of the escorts, including British Spitfires, never met up with the bombers and despite what they might have been able to do, they could do nothing to prevent the Luftwaffe's initial onslaught. Drop tanks would have made little-to-no difference to that. The next problem they faced was over the target and no fighter then in service could have done anything about that either, drop tanks or no drop tanks.
So let's have a look at the P-47 for a minute. Whatever else it was, the P-47 was thirsty. It's tanks carried about 370 gallons of internal fuel (the Mustang had about 200) and the centreline tank gave it an extra 108 gallons. That total of 478 gallons gave it enough range to reach the Dutch border. By early 1944, just before 'Big Week' and Operation 250 - the first American raid on Berlin - a small number of P-47s had been re-plumbed for underwing drop tanks, making 576 gallons possible. But this was less than 20% of the fleet and still didn't get them any further than just west of Magdeburg.
The 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank Greg talks about - the clue is in the name - was not available in significant numbers and wouldn't have made a lot of difference if it had been, Three external tanks would have been a ridiculous drag penalty*. There were never more than 3,000 made and they were constructed in the Ford factory, in Brisbane, Australia. The only other tank was a hemispherical 200 gallon ferry tank which was unsuitable for combat. The claims in some quarters that Republic was told not to build drop tanks for the P-47 are ridiculous. If mechanics in the Pacific could design tank and get Ford, Australia to build it without getting approval then that claim can be consigned to the dustbin. I have my doubts that it is even true.
A major part of the problem was that Republic took its sweet time about making the plumbing changes a line modification and all those P-47s that flew in 'Big Week' were modified in the field by cutting metal. Hardly an ideal state of affairs. They hadn't done much to increase the internal capacity either and the P-47N arrived too late to have any effect. It is not a factor in this debate, in part because it was intended for the Pacific campaign. By then, the P-51 had largely replaced the P-47 in Europe.
The curious aspect of all this is that the USAAF high command were unaware of the potential of the P-51 and apparently, even less aware that Merlin-powered Mustangs had been rolling off the production lines for a considerable part of 1943. By summer, there were more than 1,300 of them and more than half were Merlin-powered. But communications were nothing like they are today, especially across the Atlantic and the depth and sophistication of the US industrial base - America's and the Allies' greatest asset - meant that it was not always clear what was going on.
Hap Arnold wrote a memo to his deputy Lt Gen Barney Giles and gave him six months to have a workable solution, without knowing that it was already underway. Part of the problem was that this was being handled by a civilian, a Mr Robert A. Lovett, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for War. He had apparently told Arnold of the P-51's range potential but Arnold had either forgotten or filed the information somewhere while got on with the war.
The idea that hundreds of American lives were sacrificed because of bullheaded 'doctrine' - a term so loaded we might as well call it 'communism' - is nonsense. It also doesn't prove that there was a campaign against the P-47. After all, they might have got away with Schweinfurt. But in cold analysis, it had to be attacked and the only available force was what they had. The raid couldn't wait for more of this or more of that.
Even by the time of Mission 250, the P-47 couldn't get to Berlin.
I'm happy to provide any references if you want to look them up.
*If the 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank had been on the centreline pylon and another 108 gallons under each wing, that would have basically equaled the total amount of fuel the P-51 carried, including external tanks, that got it to Berlin and back. 416 gallons of external fuel for the P-47 versus 417 gallons total for the P-51. And that's before we start counting the P-47's internal fuel.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS
”Thats because the way corporatism operates in practice is that the state allows people to “keep” their businesses, but they must do what the state tells them to, which pretty much destroys the point of having your own business.”
There isn’t enough room here and I frankly don’t have the time to refute this comment. It’s so riddled with assumptions that, aside from being wrong factually, shows no evidence that you have any idea what corporatism is, much less how it functioned in fascist economics.
In Nazi Germany, corporatism reduced the entire German labour force to a single pool of workers with effectively no rights. They had virtually all their entitlements stripped away, some of which went back as far as Bismarck. The only beneficiaries of that were wealthy industrialists.
In Italy, corporatism was a loaded dice that favoured the industrialists over workers every time. All the panel hearings were stacked with fascists who supported wealthy industrialists because they were quite simply corrupt. Again, fascism treated workers as a single labour pool for industry.
The idea that companies could only make what they were told is nonsense and anyone who understands the nature of German wartime production knows this.
And you need to stop blurring the lines between the state and the party. They were not the same, making your assumption that fascism is left wing, based on state power, total nonsense.
3
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS
”Yes it did. Hugo Junkers was not Jewish, yet he was arrested in 1933 when he refused to accept government oversight of his aircraft company.”
No, that is patently inaccurate. Let me quote from William Green’s authoritative book, ’Warplanes of the Third Reich’, p.404:
’… the Ju-52, the tri-motor version of which first flew in April 1931 and soon gained international acclaim. By this time, the Junkers company was in serious financial trouble. Some financial support was provided by the Reichsverkehrsministerium for the sake of the reputation of the German aircraft industry, but the crisis of 1931 progressively worsened, and in 1933 the Junkers concern was taken over by the state and Dr Heinrich Koppenberg appointed Director General.’
Now, I have a pretty good hunch as to how this happened and I’m backing William Green over you every time. I can find zero reliable evidence that Hugo Junkers was arrested for non-cooperation and the only references to that I’ve seen say he was placed under house arrest. They are all unsourced and originate in the United States.
”Notice how early on in NSDAP rule that happened.”
That must have come as a surprise to everyone. The NSDAP was banned after the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 and rebranded as the Nazi Party the following year.
”They who refused like Junkers were removed.”
Fantasy. Name ten others.
”Those who accepted remained, but become little more than figureheads while the state made most of the key business decisions.”
Rubbish. Read Germa Bel on this. Read David de Jong on this. You have no idea how the Nazi economy functioned or why. How, for example, did the Nazis fund rearmament and the major capital works programs, like the Autobahnen? You need to stop inventing a narrative to support your flimsy argument and start reading and citing some reliable sources. Your story about Hugo Junkers is very touching but not exactly reflective of how the Nazis dealt with wealthy industrialists.
Furthermore, you should read about the influence clowns like Ferdinand Porsche had on major military decisions and how he overrode army requests and recommendations to curry favour with Hitler and Speer. Once again, you need to read David de Jong’s book about how the wealthy industrialists became mega wealthy under the Nazis and why.
”From the very start, they worked towards state control of the economy.”
Well, I’ve read Germa Bel and David de Jong and you haven’t so you can puff and blow all you like. You still won’t know what you’re talking about.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"For the record, Zeros slaughtered Mk 8 Spitfires at first over Australia, Mk 1 Spitfires wouldn't have been a problem during the BOB."
No, that isn't true. For a start, the Zeros mostly fought against Mk VC Trop models over Northern Australia. They saw very few combats against the Mk VIII.
The introduction of the Spitfire into Australian service was necessary because the fighters we are using - the Kittyhawk and the Buffalo - could not compete with the Zero at altitude. In fact, the Buffalo was no competition for the Zero at all. Bu the biggest thing about the Spitfire was the propaganda value. Some of this was just contemporary racism but most of it was the glamour of the Spit, whose reputation had followed it everywhere it went after the Battle of Britain.
Secondly, I would argue that the contest was a lot closer and the exchange rate was about 1:1. The best source, by far, on this is 'Darwin Spitfires', by Anthony Cooper. It describes virtually all the combats that happened between the RAAF and the Japanese Navy and army (there was only one Army raid). While the RAAF ultimately made further incursions unprofitable for the Japanese, it was no thanks to the Spitfire, which was very unreliable suffering cannon stoppages and - worse - constant speed unit failures. There was really only one example of a Japanese fighter that kind of stereotypically folded up. That was a Ki-43, shot down by Flt Lt Tim Goldsmith in the only Army raid.
The RAAF also used outdated and frankly, foolish 'big wing' tactics, with which the RAF were also saddled after the political fallout of the Battle of Britain.
That said, there is little doubt that the Zeros gave the RAAF a hard time. Even at the end of 1943, Japanese pilots were still extremely well disciplined and deployed excellent tactics, like attacking out of the sun. Furthermore, the Zero was employed in a role that most would find surprising: high altitude. The bombers frequently came over at 25,000 feet and their escorts at least 3,000 feet higher. Their combat formation flying was exemplary, despite the lack of radios.
I strongly recommend you read 'Darwin Spitfires'.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Fire Work47 Loads of companies are launching space vehicles. Look at all the different kinds of rockets that are used, like Delta, Atlas etc in the United States and that’s before you get to Blue Origin, who haven’t started commercial launches yet. There are also other, smaller companies in the micro satellite launch field, like Rocketlabs in New Zealand. Lots of companies are building electric vehicles and yes, they have done it independently. Toyota have been building and selling hybrid vehicles for over 20 years. That has allowed them to refine their engineering to a point where it is basically almost perfect (I know, I own one) and that has spilt over into all-electric vehicles because their batteries are fantastic. Hyundai are now producing an all-electric vehicle as are a number of others. Only the United States and Europe lag behind on this. Until relatively recently, the only Tesla cost over $100,000, making it uncompetitive in any market, unless you really wanted an electric car. Even then you had to put up with battery range claims that were frankly, nonsense. GM made an all electric car in the 1990s that they recalled for some reason but there was no doubts about its success.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertnugent7397 Oh God, not "German tech" again.
1. Jets were concurrently developed by the British.
2. Missiles - just one category will do.
3. How did they invent the concept of "the main battle tank"? You could easily make the same claim the the Soviet Union.
4. Airframe mounted radar was in use on British aircraft before German ones.
5. Portable anti-armour weapons like the Bazooka and the PIAT were concurrently invented by the Allies.
6. Night vision? Do tell.
The rest... good grief. Do you really think there were no Allied equivalents?
What the Allies did not have:
1. ballistic missiles, a la the V2.
2. Type XXI submarine.
3. Some aerodynamic developments relating to wing sweep.
Now let's look at Allied inventions and developments that the Germans did not have:
1. The aircraft carrier. The Allies not only developed it but they learnt how to use it.
2. Landing ships of any kind.
3. Any kind of heavy bomber.
4. Sonar. The Allies developed techniques for using it effectively instead of just relying on it as a thing.
5. The atomic bomb.
You pass these off as though they were easy to dismiss whereas they were, in a good many cases, war-winning weapons. Who cares about assault rifles if you're facing a wall of heavy bombers you can do next to nothing about, day and night? 'German tech" that the internet is so in love with, was just part of a war machine that was focused on achieving a quick result. The Allies knew they were in it for the long haul. Their development times were more relaxed and their final forms better developed and sorted out. Technology on its own does not win wars. While you and everyone else is waiting around for a better weapon, the enemy has broken through to your rear, advanced to your town, overtaken your house, eaten your babies.
Bernhard has done a video on technology in war which is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJcLG4rzTLk
Also worth looking up is military strategist, Col Mike Pietrucha:
"If one succumbs to the belief that technological superiority is the most significant attribute a military can have, there is no need for vision, a grasp of strategy or any appreciation of the adversary or environment. This justifies skipping the hard work of concept and strategy development and under-resourcing personnel and training in favor of advanced systems. This attitude is pernicious and deeply embedded in the Department of Defense. Instead of looking at military problems and trying to find a broadly applicable solution, efforts are consumed with a host of “shiny penny” technologies. It takes little effort for technologists to sell advances to managers, neither possessing operational experience, in a concept-free environment where none of the participants have a deep understanding of combat operations."
https://warontherocks.com/2015/08/the-search-for-the-technological-silver-bullet-to-win-wars/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The whole story about Vernon Unsworth is arse about. Unsworth wasn't the head of the operation but he had a very high level of understanding of the cave system when the team was trapped. The rescue team was led by a British diver called Rick Stanton. Early in the operation, Musk called Stanton and offered to help. Stanton said, 'Yeah, whatever you can do', and left it at that. So Musk started this high profile attempt to build a kiddie sub, which he claimed was built from rocket parts (pretty small rocket). His Tweets were viewed by over 30 million people and included veiled claims that he'd spoken to 'the military guys', which seemed to give him a lot of street cred. In fact, 'the military guys' had little or nothing to do with the actual method of rescue and were there, mostly for their logistical capabilities. There were three Thai divers who actually went all the way into the cave where the boys were found but great as their contribution was, they weren't part of the planning. And, of course, there was Sanam Gunan, the Thai navy diver who perished. In fact, nobody from the Thai Navy actually spoke to Musk.
In a highly publicised crash development, Musk's engineers cobbled together a giant lipstick, stuffed someone inside and ran it through a swimming pool. About as unrealistic an environment as you could get. The upshot of this farrago of shit was that he turned up at the cave - having talked his way through the police cordon - and announced he had a means of rescue right there. What Musk didn't know -- because he hadn't talked to anyone - was that the Thai government had decided, on medical advice*, that only one method was going to be allowed. What he also didn't know was that the path through the caves was so tortuous that even the most experienced cave divers in the world - like Rick Stanton and his dive buddy John Volanthan - could barely get through. The water was muddy so visibility was non-existent and the current extremely hazardous. There was simply no place for Musk's toy submarine and he knew it.
Musk's embarrassment at this misfire must have been obvious to all and he left in high dudgeon. Asked about Musk's demeanor, Unsworth said he could shove his submarine and that it was of no possible use. That's what triggered Musk into action. He hired a dodgy private investigator and though the pair of them, the rumour started that Unsworth was a paedophile. This unleashed a storm of Tweets from Musk's worshippers and a final post - which he later deleted - saying, 'Bet you a signed dollar it's true'. Unsworth, who has no criminal record and doesn't have a Twitter account, only found out third hand and launched legal proceedings against Musk. He eventually lost because the jury were incapable of framing the question properly. There's no doubt Unsworth's reputation was irreparably damaged and the Twitterverse rejoiced with, 'See? Told ya he was a paedo', despite no evidence being presented in court. Musk had even offered to settle out of court, basically an admission that he shouldn't have said it.
You shouldn't either. Your remarks are potentially defamatory and you should probably remove that line before you get sued yourself for what is otherwise an entertaining video. That's just friendly advice. I know enough about publishing law to know what I'm talking about. Don't do yourself any harm if you can avoid it, even if it was a poorly aimed attempt at humour. I'm not sure a court would see it that way. If this video has been legalled then feel free to ignore this advice.
*the medical advice was provided by Australian doctor Richard Harris, a professional anaesthetist who sedated everyone before they were shuttled out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@haroldfiedler6549
"None of them thought victory was possible with Blitzkrieg tactics precisely because the Soviet Union was so huge."
Well, they didn't object. Why not?
"And even if the Germans had defeated the Red Army and collapsed the Soviet Union, it would have taken a massive force just to garrison or occupy such a vast nation."
After France, Germany suffered from "victory disease", something which was not unique to Germany. France suffered from it after WWI. The Unites States - and to a degree, the rest of the West - suffered from it after Iraq in 1991 and the end of the Cold War. Whatever the supply problems, the Germans actually did believe that they could kick in the door of the Soviet Union and the whole rotten edifice would come tumbling down.
The Army were as guilty as anyone of making poor judgements. Hitler's directive to live off the land - another thing that was hardly unique to Germany in war - was supposed to offset the logistical problems, along with the expected victories in the Caucasus and the Ukraine.
In short, the German generals talked themselves into it.
The diaries of Halder, Guderian (I've read his) et al, were all written under rather peculiar circumstances in that they had a vested interest in distancing themselves from Hitler.
"Secondly, it was Stalin and his thugs who vilified the Germans in racist terms to whip up the hatred of their clueless soldiers and get them to fight."
They didn't have to. The Germans laid waste to every part of the country they passed through. Soviet soldiers needed no more motivation than what was done to their fellow countrymen and women.
"No such thing existed in Germany. It's pure BS."
I agree: Mein Kampf is pure BS. But it's all in there and in Hitler's speeches.
"The SS had high ranking slavs in its ranks well before the war even started. One perfect example is Odilo Globocnik. The man most responsible for the implementation of Operation Reinhard."
So what? One man. Big deal.
"This thread worn tale is completely false. The real enemy of the Germans was the rasputitsa."
That affected both sides. And it's not like the Germans didn't know about it. If they didn't plan for it, then more fool them.
"In summary, you're a typical brainwashed no-nothing, who's thinking us all of 1mm deep. Grow the F up little boy."
I'll say whatever the fuck I want and there's not a thing you can do to stop me. If you have anything intelligent to say then you've kept it well hidden. Typical Nazi: trying to silence dissent.
Finally, it was never my contention that the winter stopped the Germans. The Germans, by their own record, were stopped by the Red Army. You only have to look at the state of the Army in June and compare it to December. If you could read and comprehend, you'd have understood that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
By the way, here's a bunch of other Hub Zemke quotes:
"The P-51 Mustang was the best fighter we ever had...It was the best fighter for the job."
"The Mustang was the best fighter anyone had ever designed."
“The Cadillac of the sky.”
'Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I
requested one time for P-51s. And I was sent to the United States, and during my
absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organization over and
was influenced to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was
determined in the program they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat
airplane was the P-51. I know it is. I later transferred—I don’t know whether you knew
this to another organization I was going to pick up organizations that were the lowest guys
on the tote board, bring their morale up—and it worked well—to an organization that was
getting P-51s. And they got them. They came right along the line. Good little
organization. Sure, you’ve got to have—you got to have a Ferrari if you want to win the
Grand Prix, don’t you?'
3
-
@mxrz This accords with the information I have. Ian Bamsey - not known for exercising restraint on such matters - reports that Penske tested a 5.4 litre engine to 1,500 hp but it was destroyed in the process. I suspect even Bamsey was exaggerating to keep his audience entertained but it rather makes nonsense if the 1,600 hp claim, which is already an exaggeration of the 1,580 hp claim we see everywhere. The only source I have seen for that claim is video game.
Furthermore, even using mathematics, the figures don’t model component failure. They just assume that a torque reading of X, with an RPM of Y and a fuel flow of Z will give a theoretical result.
Finally, the car had a boost controller but it was not calibrated so nobody really had any idea what the boost pressure was when it was running at maximum.
I’ve been watching this bidding war for decades, accompanied by the inevitable unverifiable claims of top speeds.
Even the claims that it’s was the car that killed CanAm ignores the fact that the series had been dominated by McLaren for five years before that. What actually ‘killed’ CanAm was the 1973 oil price crisis.
And of course, this being the internet, I have to defend against the idea that I’m trash talking one of the most iconic racing cars ever built. Of course I’m not. Its record speaks for itself. But even the way this video mentions the Talladega speed record doesn’t differentiate between that car and the normal race car and doesn’t mention that Talledega was not part of the CanAm series.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"One thing that is often forgotten about the Mosquito is that, because of its wooden construction, it had a very low signature on the Germain radar sets of the day. That, along with its extreme low level penetration capabilities, makes it the world's first stealth bomber."
It's not forgotten. It simply isn't true.
First of all, there are no records to support this.
Second, the radar used in WWII was pretty low frequency; 50-500 MHz. Modern X-band radar is 7-11 GHz. The characteristics are totally different.
Thirdly, there was plenty of metal in the Mosquito, from the engines to the undercarriage to the armament to the thousands of fasteners that were used.
Finally, if it had been a stealthy aircraft, it would have obviated the need to fly at such low altitudes, with all the attendant risk.
The tests that were done on the Horten flying wing replica about 20 years ago didn't actually prove anything and were done incorrectly. The conclusions they came to were wrong for WWII. But the assumption that just because something is non-metallic it must be non-reflective is incorrect. I have been using microwave links in the Ku Band for years and I assure you that many, many things are reflective. It could come down to the paint used or even the glue that held the plywood together.
Please stop spreading this reverse-engineered hoax. You may not be responsible for it but it's simply wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
LRRPFco52 The United States is largely responsible for problems with Russia and blames Russia alone for those problems. At the end of the Cold War, former Soviet and Soviet client states applied for NATO membership and most were approved. This was just after Bill Clinton was elected President. He was advised by George Kennan, an extremely experienced diplomat, not to isolate Russia. Guess whose was the only NATO application which was rejected? It was a stupid decision, motivated not by a wish for a peaceful settlement but by the prospect of arms sales, something that was expected to decline when the Cold War ended. As a result, Russia now totally distrusts Western motivations and that is why they have Putin as their leader. He gives them what they want, right or wrong. This, of course, has stirred nationalist sentiment in pretty much all Eastern European countries, as well as the former Soviet states. That too has furthered arms sales.
That’s your free enterprise right there.
I don’t see how you, as an American, can continue to point the finger when virtually every move you make revolves around rattling sabres. Why else were American ships operating so close to Russian territory a couple of years ago? There was absolutely no strategic or tactical reason to be there. It was 100% about politics and arms sales. If Russia approaches Cuba again and all you give them is a couple of low level flyovers, I’ll believe you’re serious.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@watersoup6270 It's hard to argue with that level of prejudice, especially when no sources are quoted. Let me first point out something that many people seem blissfully unaware of: the terms "Soviet" and "Russian" are not interchangeable, irrespective of the vernacular. The Soviet Union was a loose confederation of 15 republics, Russia being only one of them.
Secondly, you seem to have missed the point of the whole campaign - and it was a campaign, not merely a battle. The plan was to draw the Germans into a war of attrition which the Red Army commanders knew they could ill afford. The Red Army set a trap and the Germans fell headlong into it. Once the German attacks failed, the Red Army counter attack not only held the Kursk salient but moved well beyond the city of Orel, thus joining up a significant gap in the line.
Yes it was a Pyrrhic victory. It was still very much a victory. You can't spin it any other way. There were even some defeats, like Prokhorovka, along the way. But the Germans did not achieve a single objective and ultimately, the losses in men an materiel were unsustainable, whatever the Soviets lost. That's how an attrition strategy works. As abominable as it sounds to sacrifice so many, it was the correct strategy.
3
-
@JavaScrapper Given that it was exactly the type of system (centralised control, 1960s-style, Soviet-style, 1960s and 70s non-networked fighters) the coalition was designed to defeat, so it should have. Iraq was about a tenth of the size of the force it was designed to defeat. That’s what we paid all that money for. All the coalition forces had been recently upgraded and were networked to the hilt.
Being the 4th largest army in the world is neither here nor there, if you have air power like the coalition did. It almost becomes an irrelevance. Air superiority - or better yet, air supremacy - makes the size of the army irrelevant.
And FFS, stop using the ‘we’ pronoun. You’re giving yourself far too much credit for what should always have been easy. As an Air Force they were a paper tiger. Surgical strikes… Jesus, I mean, you really swallowed all the buzz words, didn’t you?
As for Chef’s Kiss, I read books. I have been reading books and trade rags about this for decades. There’s very little I can learn from a single video. I know what happened on the first day of the air campaign. I probably know better than you do. Most of the serious work was done by cruise missiles anyway. But if you want to jerk off about perfection, the only person you’re kidding is yourself (oh, and the others who you might want to form a circle with). It fucking well should have been perfection. We paid enough money for it. The Iraqi forces were massively overmatched. It’s highly unlikely coalition forces could have taken on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces without suffering significant casualties.
Man.
The coalition forces had months to prepare for it, massive amounts of surveillance and time to train and develop strategies, unmolested by Iraqi attacks. Even when the Iraqi retaliation came, there was only the thrust to Al Khafji and a few old Scud missiles and it made no difference.
The most dangerous this in military planning is what is known as Victory Disease. Even 32 years later and after defeat in Afghanistan, Americans still tell everyone how great their armed forces are. Anyone who believes their army is perfect has no idea what they are in for. Desert Storm was not a sufficiently high intensity conflict to draw any conclusions from. Mussolini thought his army was great after massacring the Abyssinians. Then they were routed by the British and Commonwealth forces in 1940-41.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jock Webb Meh, very different aircraft. There’s a lot of bull talked about the P-47, especially the new prop being worth an extra 1,000hp. On the other hand, it had a very good combat record and even British reports on its performance were quite complimentary, its handling being better than expected for such a heavy aircraft. In my opinion, the P-47 was a very good aircraft but not a great one. Although much is made of its high altitude performance, I would argue that its greatest asset was the group commanders like Gabby Gabreski, Hub Zemke and Don Blakeslee, who was as good as any allied group commander of the entire war and better than pretty much everyone else.
The Tempest V had a shorter career than the P-47 and there were fewer of them. For all the fuss made about the engineering in the P-47 in this video, there wasn’t really anything “insane” about it and the Tempest was rather more sophisticated. Probably overly so. The 24 cylinder, sleeve valve Napier Sabre was a good engine but a temperamental one and overall, the aircraft was not as forgiving as the P-47. On the other hand, at low to medium altitude, the Tempest, in good hands, was a beast of an aircraft and more than a match for anything the Luftwaffe had in service, barring the Me-262.
The Tempest was a late-war aircraft and evolutionary, rather than new and was in a corner of performance rather than being a jack-of-all-trades, which the P-47 was. The P-47 was a mid-war aircraft that made a large step into higher performance via a 2,000+ hp engine. It was a new design that underwent a lot of incremental changes. Ironically, the bubble canopy they put on it was nicked from a Tempest.
As in most cases, the deciding feature was the pilot. If he couldn’t get the best out of it, it didn’t matter what he was flying.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rickl5596 Not necessarily. If you regard Spain under Franco as fascist (some do but most don’t), then yes, the church was absolutely part of the problem. It played a critical role. It was less of a problem in Catholic Italy, though there seems to have been little doubt about where their sentiments lay. In Nazi Germany there were some in the church, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who spoke out against the Nazis at considerable risk to themselves.
If we assume that the United States has slipped into fascism, then the church was onboard from early on, especially with the co-opting of the Supreme Court. The capturing of the Supreme Court was a critical step and always is. So the church’s role in the slide to fascism is a moot point. In some cases, absolutely. In others, not so much. But again, if we assume America has moved to fascism then the church did play a major role.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisr3120
"Have they tried actually assessing whether or not the gun crime in New Zealand is actually significant enough to justify banning these weapons?"
They don't have to. The massacre of 50 people - which is about the third-largest single such incident in modern history - requires immediate action against the enabler.
"The thing about having freedom is that it inherently comes at a risk."
Stop using American terms of reference. New Zealand is, by any measure, one of the freest countries on the planet. It has a very high standard of living with very high standards of health and education - almost certainly higher than those of the United States - and also has low levels of corruption. It has one of the freest media landscapes in the world and consequent very high levels of government transparency with commensurately low levels of corruption.
Those are the real guarantees of freedom, not semi automatic guns.
"Congratulations, you banned guns."
No, they just banned semi automatics which have no place in modern society.
"Just means the next terrorist attack will probably be a truck attack or a bombing, and now bombingyour citizens have less means to protect themselves."
Two false narratives here. First of all, any attack with a truck or a bomb doesn't mean they should do nothing about guns. Secondly New Zealanders have never protected themselves with guns. For a start, New Zealanders are not like that and secondly, self-protection is not a reason to own a gun in New Zealand. Never has been.
"semiauto handguns, that are actually easier and less cumbersome to use indoors without drawing attention for an attack like this are still legal, so yea"
Watch this space. I doubt if they're finished. My guess is that they will bring their gun laws into line with Australia's.
"This is a poorly thought out move made only to make you feel like you've done something."
I would say it's just the first step.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alricthered226 Okay. Sorry I got mad at you. This case annoys me, partly because of the fact that someone, who is kind of ‘part of the family’, died and partly because so many people have expressed uninformed opinion.
The reason I say what I say is kind of multi factorial.
First of all, the armourer is responsible for the weapon. The court agreed with this.
Secondly, there are all kinds of OH&S protocols on set which have to exist, not just for crew safety but for insurance purposes. This has all kinds of other implications, including financial backing. That is the responsibility, primarily of the first assistant director but ultimately, the FAD reports to the director and the producer. In this case I understand that Alec Baldwin fulfilled both of those roles.
Finally, while I accept that things might be done differently in the United States, there is no way that pointing a gun - empty or loaded - at any crew member for any reason would pass a dynamic risk assessment, which is how things are done. Even with a thick piece of glass (it would have to be optical glass), the DRA would determine that the risk was low to moderate for an unloaded gun and extreme for a loaded one but the potential consequences were catastrophic.
This is why I blame Americas casual attitude to guns. The risk just wasn’t taken seriously enough. I know there were mitigating circumstances and I know that many of the crew members had walked away from the movie because of safety concerns but that only makes it worse. I can’t see how Alec Baldwin is going to avoid jail.
Once again, sorry for going off like that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ed_Downunder Is this how you talk to people you disagree with? Do you know how contracts and tenders work? The Australian government’s behaviour on this was disgraceful. Whatever Morrison did or didn’t say to Macron, unless the Australian government formally announced that they were going to change their policy and reissue requests for tended, there was no reason to pre-suppose that the contract was going to be cancelled. Even then, the government should have issued another request for tender and given DCNS another opportunity to make a submission. Instead of that, we cancelled the contract without telling them and signed up for something with no price tag. How’s that for responsible economic management?
Not content with that, Scummo actually releases the contents of the text message conversation. In doing so, he betrayed the first rule of diplomacy. Whether or not this is the French view, I neither know not care. They don’t represent us, Scummo does. For those who think the French don’t matter, it’s worth asking yourself how many powers are there in the Pacific who are bigger, more important or more powerful than the French. The answer is “not many”. If we are going to resist China we need all the friends we can get.
As for the cost, I agree. But how much are the replacements going to cost? Signing up for AUKUS is buying a pig in a poke. We have no idea how much it will cost but the current estimate is that it could be as much as $200 Bn. At the moment there is no cost.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Demetrios1999
"Do you really think that Russia is judicious?"
Frankly, yes. They're just doing what they know they can get away with. They don't need the world on their side, as they would if they invaded somewhere like, oh, I don't know, somewhere in the Middle East. They also know that while the campaign they're waging is expensive, it's not beyond their means.
Look at what they've done in Syria. Once again, they have only committed so much. Any more and there would be an outcry and possible punitive action from the West.
Whether you agree with them or not, it shows better diplomacy than most people in the West would give them credit for.
"Belarus was 'controlled', but he lost control of Ukraine. He didn't react judiciously but went to war against it."
Ukraine was never controlled. Neither was Belarus. It just so happens that there was little to quarrel with Minsk about. Ukraine, on the other hand, had the Donbass region which has plentiful supplies of raw materials, such as coal, and a large industrial base. What ties it all together is that the majority of the population there is ethnically Russian. Nationalism has always been a major part of life in that part of the world.
"My view of Russia getting weaker is because it makes useless/self-harming wars and because its growth is handicapped by the political stances of the Russian government."
Really? Putin is a Western creation. Were it not for the stance taken by the West, Putin probably wouldn't have lasted as long as he has. I can explain this but it would be a rather long post.
Secondly, I don't believe Russia is getting weaker. They are just not getting stronger at the same rate as China. Their current stance is probably the smartest thing they can do. As this video says, they're learning by their experiences in both Ukraine and Syria.
People have been predicting that Russia would collapse since Czarist times. They confidently predicted it multiple times during the Soviet era and they're still predicting it now. I see no signs of imminent collapse Their economy isn't all that big - about the same size as Brazil - but they punch well above their weight.
Their biggest worry is what will happen now that Merkel is gone. She was the circuit breaker between Moscow and the West.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KaleRylan
"A lot of nations struggled with the idea of the UN from the beginning because it was seen as interfering with national sovereignty. Which it was."
Which is why lawyers recommend you read anything before you sign it. Honestly, I know you're right but I also know that they knew this before they signed on the dotted line.
'Sovereignty' was always going to be a problem but it involves concepts that are not necessarily well understood in places like the United States or Australia, which is where I'm from. That is the concept of disputed territory. We're not very good at understanding it because it has little or no bearing on our lives, yet border disputes and nationalism are critical concepts for world peace. The Donbass, for example, is what would be described as disputed territory. The Crimea probably also fits the bill. The Sudetenland was disputed territory. Most of the former Yugoslavia was disputed territory.
You see where I'm going with that?
Some nations. like Russia or Serbia claim sovereignty over those places and over smaller nations like Ukraine, who might have an equally compelling claim.
After WWII, I'm sure this was in the minds of a lot of people.
"Again, it's up to you how you feel about that, but to JUST make it out to be bad faith arguments by big greedy countries is an overly simplistic view. Why SHOULD a country, big OR small, have to listen to a bunch of other countries about what to do?"
I've explained the basis of what I consider to be 'bad faith', even though I think there was a lot of optimism when the treaty was signed. More than 50 countries had agreed to it by the end of 1945. The bad faith started afterwards when the predecessors of today's billionaires got into the ears (and hip pockets) of the politicians and lawmakers of the day because they had been exploiting small countries for centuries. As someone said when Nixon was facing probable impeachment: 'Why change Dicks in the middle of a screw?'
That's the bad faith. The politicians were very positive about it. Once the mega rich had words with them, the positivity evaporated.
"Had it been formed as originally conceived as essentially a government over the other governments, then I'd be for it as it would essentially function as a global democratic government."
And I would definitely agree.
"As it currently exists, I'm simultaneously sad that dialogue is all it is capable of and philosophically of the opinion that dialogue is pretty much all the power it has any right to."
So it really must continue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan
"But do tell me, how much do you think it helped the USSR when Hitler started sending parts of his troops on the East front to the West Front"
Probably quite a lot. I'd have to look into it. It's just a question of what was deliberate and what wasn't. Zaloga goes into a lot of detail in his book "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of WWII", regarding numbers available on the Eastern Front. But there was always a distraction (Hitler should never have got involved in North Africa). It seemed that no sooner had one campaign finished than another one started. This is reflected in the experience of the Luftwaffe. Williamson Murray came to the same conclusion. The German forces were simply too widely spread from 1941 onwards.
One thing that needs to be considered, IMHO, is the general trend of what was going on in the East anyway. There were three major battles the Germans lost before Kursk: Moscow, Leningrad and most famously, Stalingrad. Once they were halted at the gates of Moscow, all their impetus was lost. Bernhard Kast (yes, I've mentioned him already) adds to this video with his contention that the Germans were defeated not by the Russian winter but outfought by the Red Army. He shows this with statistics. Can't remember off hand which video he did this in.
Once the German momentum had been halted, all they could really hope to do was cause murder and mayhem in the hope that the other side would give up. The longer things went on, the less chance there was of that happening.
"To help in France and later the Battle of the Bulge ????"
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@violetviolet7735
"Mountains of evidence have been presented in hearings with the state legislatures in all the battleground states."
None of it met the requisite standard of proof. That's why it lost in 61/62 court cases. Then there was the Trump team's star witness, Melissa Carone. LULZ!!
"In the courts, many of the cases have not been allowed to even begin to present evidence due to a technicality called laches, lack of standing."
Courts are under no obligation to listen to hearsay. A lot of this stuff never made it to court because: you guessed it, it didn't meet the requisite standard of proof.
That is not a technicality. I am the World Record holder for the men's 100 metres sprint. I'm either Usain Bolt or I'm a liar. Are you going to accept this or are going to ask for some pretty substantial evidence that my claim is true. If I say you'll just have to take my word for it, you're probably going to laugh me out of court.
That's how requisite standard of proof works.
"The fraud that has been perpetrated through the use of mail-in ballots is an unprecedented occurrence."
You really don't know how postal voting works, do you? I haven't met a Trumpster yet who does.
" It is difficult to present physical evidence without being allowed to analyze the physical ballots and verify signatures, however the statistical anomalies are astounding, there are hundreds of sworn witness affidavits, there are constitutional laws that were broken, and there are videos of ballots being taken out from under tables."
There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.
Signatures are verified when the envelope is opened by the electoral official. If the signature on the inner envelope matches the one on the ballot, it passes and the vote is counted. Once that happens the envelope is destroyed.
There have been no statistical anomalies. The recounts confirmed this.
Those sworn witness affidavits are basically useless. Once again they do not meet the requisite standard of proof.
There are no videos of votes being taken out from under the tables or trolleys being wheeled in full of fake ballot papers. That was debunked weeks ago. Here's the court statement submitted by Georgia’s chief election investigator:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.284055/gov.uscourts.gand.284055.72.1.pdf
"Massive corruption by democrats."
Then tell me a couple of things: with everyone carrying phones with cameras in them these days, why were there no videos or photographs submitted? All these people claimed to have seen stuff... Do you really expect people to believe that none of them videoed it or streamed it over Facebook or some other platform? Because they didn't.
Then there's the accusation against the Democrats. Do you really think all the volunteers were Democrats? In a Republican state? With a Republican governor and Republican electoral officials? Are you really telling me they don't know how to run an election?
Go home and take a cold shower. LULZ!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Izno Iznogoud
"Actually, F-22 was initially created as multirole as F/A-22 but soon was limited to air superiority due to sky-rocketing costs"
No. The F-22 came from the ATF proposal which was originally conceived around a Cold War mission scenario where the US would be attacked by Soviet bomber and attack jets like the Su-24. After the Cold War ended the mission basically no longer existed but the USAF pushed ahead with the plan, despite the questions from government budgetary circles about the need for it. The F/A-22 and the tailless FB-22 were proposals by Lockheed-Martin to build at least the same total of air frames, which was originally to have been around 750. The F/A-22 and FB-22 were both cancelled and the number of air frames was continually reduced until it stopped at 187. It was this reduction which pushed up the air frame costs on a unit basis because the R&D costs were no longer being spread across a large fleet.
"BTW, F-22 isn't even great at dogfight : it had its butt kicked by Rafale first, the T-38 Talon, Typhoon, Mirage-2000, F-16 and I'm ready to bet Flanker also beats it in dogfight since Indian Su-30MKI had serious edge over Typhoons, F-15 and F-16..."
Source? I know there were some German pilots who engaged it in their Typhoons a few years ago but they said afterwards that none of them expected to get that close in the first place. It depends entirely on who controls the electronic spectrum.
"As nowadays, everybody knows how to defeat US' 1st gen passive stealth, well, if US still can maintain air superiority, it's only by swarming effect, but surely not on technology..."
What is "swarming effect"? Air forces don't operate that way due to the possibility of fratricide and targets are usually designated by C3 types before they are in range anyway. Technology probably wouldn't be a factor as long as the C3 types remain on station.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheGoldenBoot-cz1do
"I misunderstood and felt like you were coming at me when I gave my genuine response and thought you just ignored it."
Okay. No harm done. I didn't see this response unti just now because I didn't get a notification for it.
Your question:
"I did give my example: Stalin starved Ukrainians to feed Russians."
was a reasonable one and had it not been for the misunderstanding, I was quite prepared to answer it.
If you Google an ethnic distribution map of the Soviet Union frrom 1974, it reveals an awful lot about the makeup of the republic. The USSR was made up of 15 republics, of which Russia was the biggest, and 100 nations. The distribution had changed a bit due to post war resettlements but it gives you some idea of the patchwork quilt that the USSR was. There was a phenomenal level of mixing and distribution. There were, for example, people who identified as being of German extraction living in the southern part of Russia.
Eastern Europe, in short, is and always will be a sea of ethnic rivalries and in some cases friction. You don't have to look very far. The outbreak of violence in the enclave of Nagorno Karabach after the breakup of the Soviet Union was just such an example. Ethnic nationalism has never been far from the surface but it was actually well handled during the Soviet era, with people being given internal passports. This was actually something the public objected to when the Soviet Union was broken up in 1991 and internal passports were abandoned. They did actually get that right.
But the point is that this has gone on for hundreds of years. Land claims, religious claims, water claims, mineral claims, etc.. Whenever I read someone from that part of the world saying, "We just want to live in peace on our land", I know I'm probably dealing with a nationalist. It's a question of presumption. That's not to say these claims are in any way trivial. They're not. They're just disputed. But after hundreds of years, the same ethnic hostilities have been passed down through the generations.
Specifically, there has long been ethnic tension between Ukraine and Russia. Both were republics in the former Soviet Union but it's no secret that the Ukrainians have never liked being ruled by Russia and with the cente of Soviet power in Moscow, that created problems. The Ukrainans had their own Soviet ('Soviet' means 'council') and there was still a level of hostility between Moscow and Kyiv, formerly 'Kiev", which I still use but I'm not in the business of offending people if I can avoid it. Therein is a simple illustration: one spelling is Ukrainian and the other is Russian.
All of this is the root cause of the current war, even though Kyiv hasn't answered to Moscow for over 30 years.
In the 1930s, the Ukrainians, whether rightly or wrongly, still held onto the idea of independence. Ukrainian nationalists were quite active within the republic and, while the actual cause is disputed, the effect is not. Millions starved. You have to be careful with the figures that are bandied about too. Independent assessments put the death toll at between 3 and 5 million. Ukrainian nationalists will tell you it was more like 15-20 million. For them, it's beyond dispute.
So why did it happen? Stalin did not want a nationalist uprising in the Ukraine. The Union couldn't afford it. It's believed that he engineered the famine to quell it. Whether that is completely true or not is uncertain but most people agree it was genocide. I think if he had been tried for genocide, there's little doubt he'd have been found guilty. Because it's been determined to be genocide, demographers are allowed to include unborn children from families where one or both parents died or where the mother became infertile due to starvation.
As you can see, there's pretty much no connection here with the communist system. Certainly the farming quotas played a role but they weren't the cause of the problem. That goes back hundreds of years. Yes, it was nationalism but it was an internal conflict that could have happened in any one of the Soviet republics. That sort of thing has been going on for a ong time and in many cases, the Soviet administration handled it quite well (see also Tito in the former Yugoslavia). It certainly happened among partisan groups in the Baltic states during and after WWII. It's said that the last death dirrectly attributable to WWII was when the Red Army shot dead one of the Forest Brothers in 1978.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are a couple of problems with the basic premise of this video.
First of all, there is a large assumption by many people that Germany would have been happy to be rid of Hitler, whereas, in fact, the truth was quite different. The vast majority of Germans felt that as long as they weren’t directly affected, things were okay. Once the victories of 1939 (Poland) and 1940 (the Low Countries and France), Hitler’s personal popularity was absolutely sky high. As far as most Germans were concerned, the defeat in WWI and the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty had been redressed. There might have been a lot of lone wolf attempts on his life but this would not have been unusual in a totalitarian dictatorship. For exactly the same reason, the vast bulk of Germans were behind Hitler. This is the cult of the Fuehrer. People don’t generally understand this. When media is totally controlled by people like Hitler and Goebbels, it is pretty easy to keep everyone on side and the greater mass of the population simply stops thinking.
Secondly, the attempts on Hitler’s life were no guarantee that things would have been any better. By the time of the July 20 Plot, the Allies had already agreed that Germany would only be given the opportunity of unconditional surrender. So there was little incentive to simply give up, even though a number of people thought they should.
Finally, even if Hitler had been killed, the situation would not have changed. The vast majority of German generals were still committed to the war. There’s no evidence that the nature of the war would have changed much and every reason to believe that it would have continued at a basically similar pace.
There’s a common belief that if Hitler had been killed, everything would have returned to normal and this is simply not true. For that reason, the emphasis people place on the number and nature of assassination attempts is overrated. It’s not that these things are irrelevant. They’re not. The problem is that, for the most part, they would likely not have changed very much as far as the course of the war was concerned and I think it distracts people from the true nature of what life in Nazi Germany was really like.
’An Honourable Defeat’, Anton Gill
’Plotting Hitler’s Death’, Joachim C. Fest
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How can anyone compete with Rupert Murdoch, Gina Reinhart, Clive Palmer, Anthony Pratt and Elon Musk? Those people have very deep pockets. And watch as the script is lifted straight from the Trump campaign, word for word. People actually secretly love authoritarians telling them what to do. It looks strong. Watch as the campaign degenerates into cheap shots over border security, trans people and flag waving nationalism. Polish your dog whistles, people.
Oh, and wait for the ruse about cars costing $20,000 more and how Australian families will be paying through the nose for their next car because of a mythical ‘new tax’. Watch Dutto propose a roll back of the bill that finally put us in line with the rest of the world on emissions standards. Until November, we were the only country that didn’t have it. This is why manufacturers were dumping huge, gas-guzzling American monstrosities - that they couldn’t even sell stateside - into the Australian market at unsustainably low prices. ‘The average Australian family won’t be able to buy a car’, with be Dutto’s refrain. It’s actually a cash grab by legacy manufacturers in a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy. That argument has already started in the billionaire-controlled motoring media.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If anyone wants a real picture of what this was like, I recommend reading, 'Darwin Spitfires', by Anthony Cooper. It was remarkable how ineffective the Spitfires were, in no small part due to spectacular levels of unreliability and wing adherence to the 'big wing' policies of the RAF. The Zeros attacked out of the sun more often than the Spitfires did and the Japanese used much more effective three aircraft formations. They were highly disciplined and gave the Spitfires a very hard time. Ultimately, while it was assumed that there would be no contest, the two types achieved close to parity.
Much has been made of things like dogfighting, turn radius, top speeds and all that other guff but in fact, most combats were decided in the usual way: the victims rarely saw their attackers.
On that basis, I'd say the Zero was every bit as good as the 109 in combat and there's no difference you can put a postage stamp on, much less live on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickhanlon9331
"I think you don't understand how democracies are undermined and destroyed from within."
I suggest to you that I understand it better than you do. Look at one of the more recent attempts to undermine democracy. Donald Trump. Plenty of popular support. Good at mobilising his supporters. Good at emotional speech making, identifying enemies and pointing them like a loaded gun at whomsoever he doesn't like.
Look at Viktor Orban and a few of the other Eastern European leaders. Look at Erdogan in Turkey. All these people are popular, all were democratically elected and all represent major existential threats to democracy. Their particular political stripe doesn't matter at all. In fact, they are all avowed anti-socialist.
It is this kind of political purity, regardless of which side it comes from, that is at the heart of the problem. A willingness to dispense with democratic process to further one person's ambitions (as it is the specific cases I mentioned).
"Outlandish promises are made, people vote for them, the country becomes ruined."
You talk like someone who can't stand it when your team loses an election. All politicians make promises they don't keep. All of them. Without exception. Seriously mate, when democracy speaks you man up and take it on the chin. You don't storm the Capitol Building because someone told you the result was rigged and because you didn't like it, you chose to believe it.
"My duty is to make people aware of this."
That's very noble of you. Do you intend to apply this even handedly?
"And yes it is pretty clearcut when it comes to socialism."
And yet the most egregious breaches of democratic process in recent times have been by avowed anti-socialists. Turkey, Hungary and Poland are all slowly moving to being one party states again. This kind of naïve political purity is far more dangerous than any election promises. This is the sort of thinking that says after an election loss that "this cannot be allowed to stand".
"It doesn't work no matter if it is wearing jackboots or wearing a Mao suit."
Sweden. Socialism has many forms. What you are talking about is communism. Learn the difference if you are going to start a crusade.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A few points I’d like to add if I may.
I’m Australian so I have no direct connection with any of this, though I have an American work colleague who is planning to return to the United States in the next year.
First of all, it seems to me that there is a historical context through which this could be viewed. During the period between the implementation of the constitution and the bill of rights, there was considerable debate about how the bill would work and there was a lot of horse trading between the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. Jefferson wanted a weak Union of strong states (so he and others could keep their slaves) and Madison wanted a strong Union of weak states (to maintain a stronger trade position).
In the end, the Jeffersonian Republicans won more than the Federalists did (ironically, the second amendment was one of the bargaining chips).
So the question becomes one of states rights. If Trump is going to impose these conditions on all Americans, at what point do blue states — who would presumably be opposed to such measures — start to resist? Where, for example, is the cutoff point between what ICE, a federal agency, can do and what a state can do to stop them?
Secondly, there is a nasty rumour afoot that Trump may impose martial law as early as this week. Whether or not that will actually happen or whether it even has any truth in it remains to be seen but at some point, there will be some kind of resistance from some blue states. That’s when federal troops come up against the state’s national guard. This would surely be a trigger for civil war and split the country into two major parts: the wealthy, blue, east and west coast states and the red states of the Midwest and the south.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomaszhang3101
"Mosquito, due to its wooden construction, is cutting down on everything to squeeze out the last bit of performance."
A good philosophy for any design.
"It cannot be used as a heavy or even medium bomber since its Bombay cannot be expanded to carry any bombs and its wing does not have the structural strength to carry any more ordinance.'
It could be used as a medium bomber and it was. The aircraft could - and did - carry a 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) bomb to Berlin, the same as a B-17 but using much lower resources. You won't find a Ju-88 carrying that. I don't know where you get this idea that it wasn't structurally strong. It certainly didn't have a reputation for any in-flight failures. Do you have any proof of that claim?
"It also cannot be a dive bomber due to similar structural reason while Ju88 is."
Dive bombing went out of fashion early in the war and while the Ju-88 was capable of it, I'm not sure it was ever used for dive bombing. Models later than the A4 mostly didn't even have dive brakes fitted.
"Also the Ju-88 will also have way more payload option for any particular configuration compared to Mosquito."
I don't see how. The FB versions of the Mosquito had 4 x 20mm, 4 x .303 and 8 rockets. It was said to have the firepower of a small cruiser. It could carry bombs internally too. The medium bomber version could carry a 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) bomb.
"For example for heavy fighter Ju-88 can carry 50mm, 75mm, 30mm, 20mm, and same for ground attack"
And these were almost never used. The night fighter variants used 20mm but the others were rare, as was the 57mm Molins-equipped Mosquito.
But you're missing the point. Waving the spec sheet doesn't actually prove anything. The internet and anoraks never get this. The most important role the Ju-88 performed was as a night fighter, in which capacity it was very good. Radar equipped Ju-88s took a huge toll on RAF heavy bombers over German and the low countries.
Mosquitoes were used for just about everything. It was the most productive PR aircraft of the war and performed exceptionally well in night fighter, medium bomber, interdiction, anti-shipping and even night bomber escort roles. There wasn't anything it couldn't do apart from maybe dogfighting. Dogfights were comparatively rare anyway. The Germans tried to copy it but couldn't do it.
The Mosquito raids on the Amiens prison, the Phillips factory, the Gestapo HQ in both Holland and Denmark really have no analogues. The raid to stop Goering from speaking was no only very successful, it had no analogue other than perhaps the Doolittle raid on Tokyo.
As the war went on the Mosquito just got better and better. The German fighter pilots used to prize 4-engine bombers - "Viermots", as they called them - above others but anyone who could shoot down a Mosquito had legend status. They were extremely hard to shoot down. By the end of the war the Mosquito's casualty figures had actually gone down, while everyone else's had gone up or stayed the same. As the aircraft got faster and flew higher it became increasingly difficult to shoot down. The Me-262 is known to have shot down three. That was the only hope the Germans had. The Allies didn't have anywhere near the same problems with the Ju-88. It ran nuisance raids for a few years but British interception limited their success. Even during the Battle of Britain, the RAF were still able to counter Ju-88s, fast as they were for their time.
As great as the Ju-88 was, the Mosquito achieved more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@duality5503
"The Nazis had a pact with the Soviet Union? the Molitov Rubbentrop pact it's well known in 1939?"
Yes, I knew you'd find out about that eventually. Naturally, you are deliberately misinterpreting. That pact was one of convenience, partly because the Soviet Union wanted to regain the territory lost after WWI (which is why they stopped when they did). The Nazis were acting entirely out of self-interest and the Soviet commanders knew the Germans would eventually attack them (even if Stalin didn't). So from that perspective, it's unsurprising that they entered into that pact but since the Germans attacked the Soviet Union less than two years later, it was clearly disingenuous at best and confers nothing on the claimed relationship of a belief model you are so desperate to convey.
So, wrong once again.
The Germans signed the Treaty of Rapallo with the Soviet Union in 1922, which made each the other's largest trading partner. The fledgling Soviet Union benefitted a lot from this agreement and so did the post WWI Germans. Hitler effectively repealed it in 1933 when he came to power. From then on, Hitler and the Nazis engaged in a propaganda war with the Soviet Union, decrying Bolshevism as Jewish and the Slavic people as sub-human, suitable only as slave labour or for extermination. The also used the secret police to spy on Soviet agencies and even individuals. Further to that, Mein Kampf talked about Lebensraum, which gave the Soviets a pretty good idea of his intentions.
If you had ever read anything of substance, you would know this.
"your should stop trying to cover up the historical crimes of Socialists and Communists"
Show me one place where I have done this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@prof_kaos9341
"Tactics, overwhelm with numbers, forget tactics like combined arms."
Red army tactics were 100% combined arms. The Sturmovik was intended o support the army the ISU-152 was intended as part of a combined arms strategy.
When Rommel used the 'Schwerpunkt' against the Allies it was genius and when the Red Army did it, it was 'overwhelm with numbers'.
The Red Army learnt its tactics from the Germans in the 1930s. In the end, they took the concept of Blitzkrieg and beat the Germans over the head with it. Yes, they suffered a lot of casualties - some would say too many - but the tactical situation decided a lot of that.
Unfortunately, all the post-WWII records about the Eastern Front came from the German generals for whom the Allies, especially the Americans, especially those at West Point, had a major woody. But even by the mid-1970s, even the Americans had started to lose interest. Part of the problem was that a lot of their stories didn't add up. More recent authors like Alexander Hill and Robert Forczyk have opened the door on the Soviet version of events (not the sanitised propaganda but the army audits, etc). There are definite differences in perspective and some of them are not that subtle.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Wrong. The German generals, Manstein, Guderian, Halder, etc., wrote their memoirs (from "memory", rather than from diaries) They all came up with the same excuses:
1) That fool Hitler,
2) General "Winter" and
3) Hordes of "Russian" troops.
Recent research shows they were wrong. The Allies wanted to believe them and they did. They fell for the German narrative like an egg from a tall chicken. They didn't cherry pick. They didn't have to. First of all, there was a need to rehabilitate the German identity, since the West was going to be a part of the front line against the Soviet Union and secondly, they believed it because they didn't want to believe the Red Army was any good.
They were wrong.
You want some detail or references on this?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@josecolon2717
”-don’t start shit for minor reasons.”
Code for: ‘you’re not allowed to disagree with me, no matter how important it is or I’ll get angry and threaten you’.
You don’t own the internet, sonny. You certainly don’t have a monopoly on righteous opinion.
If the coalition forces couldn’t get a result like this against a second-tier force, after all the money spent on them, then they weren’t worth it. It is an axiom of military education that we learn a lot more from our defeats than we do from our victories. We learnt nothing of value from this. In fact, we actually went backwards. Military strategists, like Col. Mike Pietrucha, have argued that Desert Storm was counter productive. The USAF, for example, has become too reliant on stealth at the expense of perishable pilot skills. It also produced what’s known as ‘Victory Disease’. This was perhaps the worst thing. It’s the belief that we won because we are perfect and nobody can do it better. It’s one of the things that ensured the defeat of France in 1940, the defeat of the Nazis on the eastern front and less spectacularly, the defeat in Afghanistan two years ago.
But hey, if you want to keep on kissing khaki and jizzing off over what you call ‘text book planning’ against a second-tier force that didn’t really test anything we didn’t already know, then be my guest.
But don’t pretend that everyone agrees with you and anyone who doesn’t is trolling or ‘starting shit’ or that it’s ‘minor’. You need to grow up and do some reading son. A lot of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@st-ex8506 Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to explain it but EVs are actually good for the economy.
First of all, lower pollution levels have a direct and provable impact on people’s health. That means less stress on the health system.
Secondly, they increase energy security, especially in respect of countries that import their fuel. If people can implement an EV and solar panels, they become almost entirely independent.
Not only that but they contribute massively to the grid economy. There are several aspects to this. First of all, they can be charged when demand on the power grid is low. Secondly, in V2X mode they can easily power your home when the grid is offline for some reason.
Finally, they can be charged overnight, at off peak rates, when demand is low and their trickle charging doesn’t place much load on the grid. This also benefits other users for some reason I have not been able to figure out. Apparently it helps reduce everyone’s electricity bill. I think it must be due to the way power distribution companies buy their bulk power. This didn’t come from a ‘aren’t EVs wonderful’ site either. I can’t actually remember where I got it.
Lastly, EVs massively reduce the impact of externalities, which has been described as the greatest market failure of the last century.
The amount of money governments are likely to save with EVs in ancillary costs absolutely dwarfs any income they would make from a ‘user pays’ tax.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Dan Cutler IMHO, the US invariably takes its collective eye off the ball when it comes to aircraft design. They look at the requirements for CAS and decide that, instead of building something for the specific purpose and at low cost, it needs more capability, thus incurring more cost because it requires a larger aircraft with a commensurately larger engine, etc., etc.. Then someone wants more capability and the cycle continues. Then Congress gets involved, politicians want the thing built in their electorate because it means local jobs, etc. angel you know what they say about camel (a horse designed by a committee). What you wanted was something like the A-29. What you ended up with is the F-16 or worse, the B-1B. Yeah, I know slight exaggeration but not actually that slight. But the cost of using fast jets for jobs that could be done by these things is more than just financial:
https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logistical-fratricide-the-cost-of-fast-jet-tacair-measured-in-purple-hearts/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richlopez4203
"You can get a full-auto. My dad has one, but it requires an FFL Class III license and a 6 month wait with an extensive background check and forming over $17,000 to buy it.""
Yes. Exactly my point. People can buy fully automatic weapons in the United States. Thanks.
"No American citizen has been killed with an assault rifle in the USA since the 1920’s.The AR-15 rifles sold in gun stores are just ordinary semi-auto rifles"
Forget about definitions of assault rifles. For a start, if you do some research, you will find that assault rifles didn't exist in the 1920s. The first assault rifle is usually regarded as the StG. 44 ("Sturm Gewehr” = "Assault Rifle"). The gun lobby loves to make definition games out of this in the face of the horrific damage these things do and ignore the fact that weapons like the AR-15 have been used as assault rifles (Vietnam). The definition the gun lobby clings so desperately to comes from a 1970s US Army manual. But that ignores both the history of such weapons and the changes in definitions and different definitions used by other countries. To all intents and purposes, the AR-15 is an assault rifle and has been used as such.
To cut through the silly semantics, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, former commander of Fort Benning and Chief of the Infantry had this to say:
“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,”
“It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy,”
"The AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ … Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too.”
Those are the General's capitals, not mine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamzk9083
"It can not take the 'lead' against a nuclear power like Russia that threatens nuclear annihilation on morning breakfast shows and super popular evening talk shows."
I wasn't talking about a military standpoint. There are other positions from which to bargain before anyone starts brandishing nuclear weapons.
And this is not a media matter.
"Nevertheless the German position was clear. Lets consult in private, come to a consensus and act together. That never happened."
Exactly. It should have but it didn't. That's my point.
"The US and UK kept Ukraine disarmed for 28 years from the Budapest agreement until only 6 months before. The US (Obama) and UK (Cameron) did nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine."
That would have been interpreted as a move by NATO and the likely outcome of that would have been nuclear war. The 2008 Budapest agreement was that Ukraine and Georgia would become provisional members only. They are not full members of NATO, though it now seems likely that Putin's own actions - invading Ukraine - will bring about the very thing he didn't want.
"The whole electrion was a shambles of pissgate (fake), transgender rights (irrelevant hype), pizza gate, chaz zones, hyped hate crimes, downplaying the China threat etc. There was absolutely no responsibility in the press like CNN or MSNBC. Likewise in the US with Brexit (partially funded by Russia who channelled money to anti EU parties like Nigel Farages)"
Care factor zero. Those are US domestic political issues that are of little relevance.
"Germany doesn't have oil, gas or even viable coal."
But they do have other things to offer, like technology products, etc., which Russia needs.
"The US has always tolerated atrocities if its in Saudi Arabia."
Once again, this is not about what the United States thinks. IDC what they think in this context because...
"Most of the criticism of Germany came from racially motivated trolling by the ultra nationalist Polish government that was trying to extort money The did not even apply for an export license of leopard tanks."
^This.^
That the United States exported tanks to Ukraine was not a big deal. Germany exporting tanks to Ukraine is a huge shift.
Unfortunately it seems to have been done without any attempt to get either side to the negotiation table and that is a Bad Thing. It is, in fact, a destabilising move.
Incidentally, Poland is just one of the countries that was pertly responsible for the eastward shift of NATO in the first place. NATO simply failed to bring hysterical nationalist chiefs in Eastern Europe under some sort of sensible control. Each NATO meeting saw another lunatic general screaming, ‘Russia is going to wipe us off the map. We need western missiles.’ With that kind of tone, it’s a wonder it’s not an all-enveloping European war already.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Weimerica8841
"All guns are dangerous, as is any kind of heavy machinery such as cars, chemistry equipment high schoolers use, and half of the things in your kitchen."
Let me know when someone wipes out a classroom full of children or a bar with cars, a chemistry set or half of the things in my kitchen.
"Like I said, the AR15 is not over represented in mass shootings, most mass shootings involve handguns and not rifles."
Maryland Circuit Court report from 2012. Take it up with them. They also pointed out that it is overrepresented in the murder of law enforcement officers. You might also notice that the AR-15 was involved in all the deadliest mass shootings in the last ten years.
"It shoots the smallest rifle bullet, it is popular because it is cheap, not because it is especially lethal."
Except that a person shot with an AR-15 round has less chance of survival than someone shot with a pistol round. And if you know how that works, it's pretty easy to understand why. Pistol rounds rarely produce hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock is what destroys internal organs like the liver, the kidneys and the bowel. Its high velocity round creates very large temporary cavities which rupture capillaries by the thousands, causing massive and - for the most part - irreversible haemorrhage and the person bleeds to death.
It is the ideal weapon for the mass shooter because it has relatively low recoil, has high capacity magazines and fires a round which does a lot more damage than a pistol round. It represents a whole new set of problems for any tactical police units to counter. Their ballistic vests stop pistol bullets but they don't stop AR-15 bullets.
"I'm glad you brought up the murder rate, because this is a much larger issue than the weapons used."
Except that 79% of murders are committed with guns.
"And regardless, disarming civilians does nothing to stop criminals from owning and using guns."
Jesus Christ... not a day goes by when I don't have to point this out to yet another gun nut. Emotive terms like "disarming citizens" is a ruse. Most Americans - something like 90% - want stricter gun laws. Secondly, you clearly don't know how the black market works. It's not like Walmart with "Black Market" over the door and "SAL!" signs everywhere. When you ban something, you back it up with penalties. That puts the seller at risk and as any 10 year-old knows, as risk goes up, price goes up. An AR-15 costs $1,200-1,200 in the US. The same gun in Australia - where it is banned - costs about $35,000. That's going to put a lot of prospective muggers and convenience store robbers out of the game. Mass shooters aren't even a part of it.
So by doing nothing all you are doing is making it easier for criminals to get guns. This is the stupidest argument the gun lobby trots out. If you want your criminals well-armed then keep doing nothing.
"None of the places you listed have anywhere near the gang problems we do. Sure, gangs exist everywhere. But gangs like MS13 do not."
Rubbish. You doesn't know what you're talking about. Besides, you're advocating doing nothing to stop them getting guns and that only makes the problems worse. But finally, the National Gang Center, using FBI figures, estimates that about 2,000 murders per year (all methods) are gang-related. That's about 10% at the moment. The majority of the rest are "law abiding gun owners".
"A man used a bulldozer to kill people and destroy a town because he felt local politics was working against him."
And this happened once. Meanwhile there have been over 400 mass shootings this year. Do you really think this is a valid reason to do nothing about guns? Really?
"People have created weapons out of sticks and rocks for thousands of years."
So?
"Getting rid of guns will accomplish nothing other than to force us to comply with a tyrannical government."
It always comes down to this, doesn't it? You idiots are so wedded to your own propaganda that you have no idea what gun control means. You only see two possibilities: everyone has guns or no one has guns. There be no road in between. Have a look at cars. We have car control in the form of licensing and registration. There's also the possibility of having both of those things cancelled for poor driver behaviour. Why not do the same with guns?
Because every time someone proposes this, the gun lobby claims it's unconstitutional or it's the thin edge of the wedge of government control or it will embolden criminals are guns aren't the problem, it's really people or strict gun laws only make the problem worse. Anything but a rational discussion. If you can't bring yourself to be rational then maybe you should had over the social policy platform to those who really know what they're talking about and want to do something to curb the violence.
The myth of tyrannical government is just fear mongering. But it's about to become a reality and it will be gun groups who cause it. It will be gun groups like the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers and the Boogaloo Boys who prosecute it. You already have tyranny by gun. And it's about to get much worse, believe me. All the historical precedents are there. It won't be a tyrannical government that strips away your rights. It will be gun groups who murder your family for being in the wrong place. Civil war is coming. The gun lobby will make sure it happens.
"Several multiples more people are killed by drunk drivers than by guns. There were 20k drunk driving fatalities in some individual states last year."
Lies. There were about 36,000 total fatalities last year, which is almost 8,000 less than the number of people killed with guns.
The gun lobby loves this idea that you can fix a problem by doing nothing about it. I don't know why I bother. As the old saying goes, "you lie down with dogs and you catch fleas."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What killed the Luftwaffe was the P-51.
By the end of 1943, the USAAF in Europe had shot down 451 German fighters. 'Operation Argument', also known as 'Big Week', was a tactic intended to draw the Luftwaffe into a battle it could not afford and everyone knew it. In February, 1944, the P-47s shot down 233 German fighters, the P-51 got 89.5 and the P-38 got 32.5. In March, the P-47 got 175, the P-51 got 251 and the P-38 got 25. In April, the P-51 shot down a massive 329 German aircraft. The P-47 got 82 and the P-38 got 23. And the Mustangs did it with half the number of squadrons the P-47 had. The figures remained that way for the rest of the war. The P-51 also destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47.
By mid year, Flak was more of a danger to US bombers than fighters were. It was only then that the fuel problem really started to bite but the Luftwaffe was already defeated. The P-51 ended the war with 4,950 German fighters shot down in 213,000 sorties. The P-47 shot down 3,082 in 423,000 sorties, so the hit rate of the P-51 was nearly three times as good and it did so without suffering exceptional casualties.
The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay, let's look at national data then. The CDC has covered this for as long time and there are some interesting results:
2010: 16,256 murders with 11,078 by gun
2020: 24,576 murders with 19,384 by gun
Look at the differences. In murder by other methods there were 5,178 in 2010 and 5,192 in 2020. That's a net difference of 14, which, accounting for a change in population, is statistically insignificant (unless you're one of the victims, of course).
Look then at the data on gun murders. The number of gun murders had grown by 8,306. That's an increase of about 75%.
If that doesn't prove that more guns equals more crime, then let's have a look at Chicago. Before the Supreme Court overturned it in 2010, Chicago had a law banning guns in the central city area. Over 30 years, the murder rate had slowly declined until in 2004 it went below 500 for the first time in half a century. Following the overturning of that law, the number of murders went up pronouncedly and soared to something like 770 and has remained above 700 ever since.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"But it drank alot of fuel at max boost."
The P-51 was 30% more fuel efficient than the P-47.
The P-47 could not have done the job in time. It was an older design and very much heavier, which had a direct impact on range performance. Until the arrival of the P-51, the USAAF couldn't raid Berlin. If you want to know more about this, read 'Big Week', by James Holland and 'Target Berlin', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The latter book outlines the entire escort plan from take off to landing. It makes for very interesting reading. The only aircraft that could support the bombers over Berlin was the P-51.
Its efficiency was the result of a number of factors, the much-vaunted 'laminar flow wing' being only one of them. The radiator used the so-called Meredith Effect which had a significant effect on thrust, probably worth a couple of hundred horsepower. But the one thing that always gets overlook is the wing profile. The P-47 was a much more conventional profile with the point of maximum thickness at 30% chord. The P-51 wing had the point of maximum thickness at 38.9% chord. This doesn't sound like much until you start considering compressibility.
The further aft the shockwave develops, the less effect it has on the controllability of the aircraft and the lower the drag. So even though the Mustang wing was 16%, compared to 11% for the P-47, it was much more efficient.
This was also one of the major reasons the P-47 had a lowish tactical Mach number and suffered high speed control problems. Yes, they were largely corrected with some kind of dive flap but that's hardly an ideal solution because it's aerodynamically inefficient and adds weight and complexity. The Mustang had its own set of handling problems, mostly related to fuel distribution but it was seen by most pilots on both sides as the better combat aircraft.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Especially with the opening statement that "Fascism is a very particular ideological structure""
That was actually one of the bits I didn't agree with. I read Stanley's book and reviewed it and my take on it is that its structural elements are simultaneously both its weakest and strongest points. Stanley is working from a sort of 'Ten steps to understanding Fascism' position. That's helpful for people who know nothing and want to understand something. On the other hand, if you read enough history - like that of Hitler or Mussolini - you will find that they weren't working from a solid ideology. Hitler might have planned to wipe out all the Jews and incorporate the slavic states as slaves in the greater German Reich but pretty much everything he did was reactionary. Yes, he wrote it down in 'Mein Kampf' but he never said how he was going to do what he advocated.
In short, Fascism is a reactionary movement, rather than an ideology. The fact that Fascist governments, both past and current, follow the same trend is what defines them, rather than a specific ideological recipe book.
Yes, Gentile wrote it down too. But Gentile was a puppet academic, coopted by Mussolini to give Fascism an air of respectability. Mussolini did virtually nothing that Gentile advocated.
"I think the word "Fascist" is over-used these days, especially by political commentators."
I have only heard it applied a couple of times by political commentators. Most recently, I heard it applied to the government of Narendra Modi in India. I was not surprised, since Modi's administration fits pretty much all of Stanley's points and rates a mention in his book. And recently, the Canadian government identified a political assassination which took place in Canada and was committed by agents of the Indian government. S, in that context, I can find little to disagree with. The problem is that most people won't understand it.
But yeah, you're right. Where Fascism is over used is in the vernacular. People use it as an insult without knowing the specifics. And this is the reason why most people have no idea what it is.
"This word belongs only in the context of reference to the Fascist Party in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s"
It's more generalised than that and can easily be used to cover Nazism as well as Francoism (though there is doubt about whether or not Franco was a Fascist). Thew point of the term is that, while it might have been established in Italy in the 1920s, it has lent its name to contemporary movements which are similar in nature.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The answer to this problem cannot be found on the internet or in traditional media (which gets more of the blame than it deserves while the internet gets less). The only way to fix this is for modern society to relearn the art of critical thinking, including reflective though. Very few people spend any active time reading these days. Most look for information in videos which require little or no effort to watch, while the message is drip fed into their brains. The choice of video usually depends on the degree of affirmation of pre-existing biases. While Winston Smith was getting information from his telescreen, most these days are getting their information from a computer, a tablet or a smart phone. Unlike Winston Smith, they are not being programmed into a single stream but into the stream of their choice.
This lack of personal effort to gain knowledge is inherently bad because it simply doesn’t teach people to make any effort to find out. It instills bad learning habits. It’s the reason people say that the younger generation doesn’t know anything. If this is true, it’s because they no longer have to. They can just Google it and that’s what most people do. Not a good way to encourage critical or reflective thought. And when people are no longer capable of reflective thought, they become easy prey for totalitarianism (which is more than just authoritarianism, it’s the cult of the leader: Big Brother, Napoleon, etc.). That is what we face today.
So the best defence against totalitarianism is education. That’s precisely why schools, universities and academics are usually the first target of a totalitarian regime.
Apathy is, of course, another problem. How many people here came to complain about totalitarianism but who never vote? Probably a lot. How many people here say things like, ‘all politicians are corrupt’? The fight against totalitarianism requires effort. Otherwise there will be few of us left standing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jrus690 Yeah, well, that's what they tell you! What is interesting is that in the first days of Barbarossa, the Germans outnumbered the Red Army in the West: 3.9 million to 2.8 million. The "human wave attacks" was another German excuse. Human wave assaults were used by almost all armies during WWII. Used judiciously, they can yield spectacular results. They can also be very costly so they're a gamble. But, as I'm sure you know already, the human wave assaults seen in things like "Enemy at the Gates" is grossly exaggerated for cinematic purposes. A human wave assault, as perceived by German generals, was probably just an ordinary frontal assault, using artillery, tanks and soldiers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@amerigovespucci3956 That’s only a small part. No fascist government has ever got into power without the support of conservatives. Hitler came to power after cutting a deal with von Papen, whose main aim was to stop the left and the moderate left from getting any traction. Hitler would only accept if he was made Chancellor.
Mussolini threatened to March on Rome and overthrow the government, claiming it was necessary to stop ‘left wing violence’ (which was being almost entirely caused by the right). The government could easily have stopped him but the conservatives did not object and the king did nothing to stop him.
Franco was simply anti-Republic, which, in the context of Spain in the 1930s, meant he was anti-democratic. It also meant he was in bed with the Carlists, the Falange and church, none of whom wanted any kind of representative democracy. While it’s arguable that Franco was not a fascist himself, the Falange were the Spanish Fascist party and everyone on that side was anti-democracy. While only two major governments openly supported Franco, virtually every government in Europe (not to mention the United States) lent support to him in one way or another because nobody was going to make a deal with Joe Stalin.
It’s the same with Trump. Having made it clear that he is anti-democracy, he has also made it clear that his nationalism is contingent upon oppressing minorities, from Muslims to trans people. He has also indicated that he will muzzle the media, turn the DOJ into a sham legal process and throw out any DA who dares try to uphold the law if it goes against him. He’s talking jail for anyone who opposes him, referred to immigrants as ‘vermin’, claimed they were ‘poisoning the blood’ of what he thinks of as America and advocated executing Michael Milley for doing what he was told.
Jan 6 was America’s Beer Hall Putsch. The warning has been clear. And conservatives have been happy to support him simply because he’s not a Democrat. They, like von Papen, would rather have a fascist like Trump than anyone from the other side. When you consider the potential consequences of that, it isn’t worth it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If I could add to this from a slightly less expert point of view, I have a couple of thousand hours in the back of a helicopter, as well as a few hours as a private pilot. In my city we have two airports quite close to each other. The airport we used was the secondary field, with runway lengths similar to DCA. If we had to cross the circuit of the main airport, we would usually cross over the centre of the field. We would contact the tower and make a request and they would either approve or reject it. However, we did not have a river so the procedure was quite different. If, for some reason, we couldn’t cross over the middle of the field, but still had to cross the runway centreline, we would be told to hold short (hover) while the traffic on final approach completed its landing. In any case, the tower would alert us to any traffic in the area and ask us to confirm that we had that traffic in sight.
Our helicopter was fitted with TCAS but only a very basic one. If it went off, you could not be sure what direction the other traffic was. At low altitudes it would alert you but the traffic could be 180 degrees from where it told you to look. Low to the ground it would sometimes pick up transponders that were actually on the ground, waiting to take off. Because I wasn’t involved in flying the machine, I used to spend a lot of time looking out the window for other traffic.
That said, nearly all my work was in daylight hours and I can’t imagine how much more complex it would be trying to do that at night.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Amongst all the world's military enthusiasts, scale modelers, and gamers, German mid-war tanks outstrip their contemporaries by a bewildering amount."
Rubbish. They were over built for their operational purpose because they were designed by and appealed to people who did not understand tank warfare. They were also not of a mind to listen to people like Guderian, who had to put them into combat They were nothing like what the Heer wanted in the first place. Even at the end of the war, there was still no replacement in sight for the PzKpfw IV. Warfare can never be reduced to impressiveness of specifications. These German behemoths were too demanding on support and supply chains for the results they achieved, They were a poor design for infantry support and too late for anything but the wide open plains of the Ukraine.
"Across every WWII medium, they are superlative."
In no way were they superlative. I would not be silly enough to call them useless but from a practical standpoint they were designed solely to destroy other tanks. That's all. That meant that the bulk of infantry support work had to be left to tanks which were simply out of date.
"Is this just tall poppy syndrome, boredom and the need to pick at a scab?"
Not a valid criticism and hardly a defence of your argument. Just personal attacks.
"It's time to stop beating up on the Panzerwaffe, Wehrmacht, etc, and just give them their dues. Unless you're an American, then this post will have made no sense to you, as chronic Egoism blinds you to anything outside your own world. You're excused."
If there's one thing I can't stand it's people who can't see reasonable criticism as anything other than an unwarranted attack. This kind of binary logic is not only inconsistent with your claim to be well-read but is arguably the greatest blight of the internet. It breeds a special kind of intolerance and invariably leads to arguments about blind faith rather than fact.
And before you tell me that I'm guilty of playing the same games, you might recognise that while I have attacked your argument, I have not and will not resort to petty name calling and accusation of some kind of agenda. I don't pretend to know what you think but I'm not going to make up my own version to suit the point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Greg is a lousy source for information on the P-47 and it is simply staggering that so many people have fallen for his conspiracy. ALL of Greg's figures are theoretical, many are estimates and all assume optimum altitude and throttle settings. This was almost never the case. Furthermore, all his assumptions are for the 200 gallon ferry tank which was unsuitable for combat since it was semi-conformal, unpressurised and could not be jettisoned in an emergency. The idea that this was some kind of conspiracy against the P-47 is ridiculous. Even by the time of Mission 250 - the first USAAF raid on Berlin - most P-47s could not go past the Dutch border. A small number could not go past Magdeburg.
By the end of 1943, the USAAF in Europe had shot down 451 German fighters, the vast bulk - 414 - went to the P-47. 'Operation Argument', also known as 'Big Week', was a tactic intended to draw the Luftwaffe into a battle it could not afford and everyone knew it. In February, 1944, the P-47s shot down 233 German fighters, the P-51 got 89.5 and the P-38 got 32.5. In March, the P-47 got 175, the P-51 got 251 and the P-38 got 25. In April, the P-51 shot down a massive 329 German aircraft. The P-47 got 82 and the P-38 got 23. And the Mustangs did it with half the number of squadrons the P-47 had. The figures remained that way for the rest of the war. The P-51 also destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47.
By mid year, Flak was more of a danger to US bombers than fighters were. It was only then that the fuel problem really started to bite but the Luftwaffe was already defeated. The P-51 ended the war with 4,950 German fighters shot down in 213,000 sorties. The P-47 shot down 3,082 in 423,000 sorties, so the hit rate of the P-51 was nearly three times as good and it did so without suffering exceptional casualties.
The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"1) There was never a time when Deutsche Reichsbahn was ever privately held."
That is not true. The system might have been administered by the Nazis but the assets were owned by price individuals. Read Germa Bel. When you're finished with him, read David de Jong's book, 'Nazi Billionaires.
None of this means the Nazis were socialists, any more than New York is socialist for owning its subway system. Calling it 'centrally controlled' doesn't change anything if someone else owns the assets.
And it was still a dramatic shift from th Weimar position when the Reichsbahn was the largest public enterprise in the world. It's a non-point. It's certainly not evidence of socialism. These are not even straw man arguments. They're bluffs.
"Asked and answered visa vis industries nationalized - this was the culmination of NSR: the German means of distribution and means of production"
WHAT INDUSTRIES? In what industry was government in charge of production? Name a specific company.
"6) Bel does not claim reprivatisierung affected nationalizations made by 3R but rather those bailouts of WR - private stocks which conveyed no control over operations, anyhow."
A swing and a miss. Bel is quite clear about what was privatised. So is de Jong.
"You don't understand Cartel as used by Lenin and 3R in order to effect command economics."
Irrelevant. Do you know what a cartel is? 'Command economics'... Jesus. I've already answered this. By that definition, that would make every country in the world a command economy. How else to you print money, collect taxes and set fiscal and monetary policy?
Don't even bother with this again.
"command economics is economic allocation - price, capital orders, raw materials... by government."
In this case, just an example of crony capitalism. Do you even know who the wealthy industrialists were?
"institution of command economy is anticapitalism and in Germany/Russia, it eliminated capitalism due to compulsory enrollment and a ban on private comex."
Irrelevant. What do you think you are achieving by this 'if not this, then that' pseudo logic? The Soviet Union - to give it its correct name - couldn't even ban capitalism during the civil war. Even Kremlin officials were buying food from farmer's markets a few blocks from Red Square.
"Private labor organization banned and the labor component of the means of production collectivized by Act Establishing Labor Front, 1933."
...which had no capacity to bargain collectively. How is that an example of collectivism? Why can't you at least be honest about this? This is the best example of how you have no idea what you're talking about. Once again, if you call a pig an aeroplane, it still can't fly.
"Means of production is comprised by land, labor and capital and the collectivization of these is socialist political economy. All of that was accomplished by July 15, 1933 because this was well understood theory on the part of 3R."
Give me five specific examples. Name the companies involved.
This insistence on planting the word 'socialist' in every second sentence doesn't make it so. In fact, it just makes you look silly. It's like you're saying that the Privitizierung program was socialist. I notice you haven't countered that one.
"Your characterization of 3R economics as commonplace to capitalism is unsupported by any scholars in history."
LOL!! Stop bluffing. Germa Bel is an economics don in Spain, for starters.
How do you account for the Nazi support for the Kaiser and the Reichswehr in the 1920s, including but not limited to brawling with socialists, smashing up union offices and overthrowing the Räterepublik.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw, another scholar with better credentials than yours.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@voicevitality7197
"If you look want to look at places like Chicago and Baltimore, yes gun violence is a problem, but the thing is, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation."
This is a gun lobby canard that doesn't take a lot of research to debunk. First of all, anyone who talks about Chicago having the "strictest gun laws in the country" seems incapable of outlining what they are. So let me give you a little potted history tour of Chicago's gun laws. About 1980, Chicago enacted a law that said you could not possess a handgun in the central city area. Over the following 30 years, the rate of gun crime slowly declined, with the exception of the crack epidemic in the early 90s which affected every major city. In 2008, the Supreme Court made their judgement in the famous "Heller v DC" case where the court ruled 5-4 that a person could possess a gun for self defence.
For more information on this, I suggest you read "The Opinion" by Judge Antonin Scalia (this refers to the court's opinion in this case). This was the case that reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment.
In 2010, there was another case called "McDonald v Chicago" which pursued the same thing - owning a gun for self defence - and used the same lawyer, Alan Gura, from "Heller v DC". The Chicago laws were ruled unconstitutional and the ban on guns in the inner city area of Chicago was scrapped.
Chicago's gun violence skyrocketed, peaking in 2016, six years after the lifting of the ban.
So no, Chicago does not have the strictest gun laws in the country (it never actually did) and is now seeing how bad things can be. Yet the gun lobby continues to talk as though it never happened.
" The gun laws aren't restricting the criminals, because criminals are just that, they'll break the law regardless."
This is a silly assumption that gets trotted out in the same sentence everywhere I look. "Criminals don't obey the law." No shit? Let me tell you how this works. When someone buys something illegal on the black market, they pay a very significant premium for it because of the risk to the seller and such. In Australia, where semi automatic weapons are illegal, an AR-15, which costs $1,000-1,200 in a department store in the US, costs $34,000. So yes, gun laws do place significant restrictions on things like the black market.
"When the majority law abiding populace has no way to defend themselves, that automatically gives power back to the criminals."
Then you tell me why crime rates, particularly gun violence, is so much lower in countries which have strict gun control laws. And don't give me the standard gun lobby drivel about America having a mental health problem or a drug problem or a violence problem. It's nothing like that simple. But what is clear is that gun laws have worked in every wealthy neo-liberal country where they have been tried.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cody Mcconnell
"He was able to beat the russians time AND time again when Germany was falling apart."
Haha! Manstein was really good at manoeuvre warfare in the early days - maybe 8 or 9 months in his stint on the Eastern Front (and of course, France) and then he got bogged down. While things were going well, yes, he was good. When things started to bog down, his weaknesses were revealed and Hitler - quite politely, in fact - moved him on.
As for Germany falling apart, Manstein's command was from mid-1942 to early 1944 and it was in the early part that he did the most - i.e.: when the Germans were still pretty strong.
Lots of generals are good in one sphere or another: attack, manoeuvre, defence, employment of ruses, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that Manstein was eventually withdrawn and when he wrote his memoirs he was still kvetching about being moved aside and pointing the finger at the usual alibis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trentinfield7903 Thanks for your considered reply. Few are so polite. Stalingrad is probably the one that gets the most attention and is certainly the sticking point and even the lever for many of the things said about Hitler’s level of control. For sure, it’s a good example and plays well into the hands of the generals. But there were lots of other examples where the generals managed to lose without any outside help or interference from Hitler. I’m thinking about things like the Battle of Moscow in 1941, which was actually lost three months earlier, when the Heer was slow in capturing Smolensk. After that it got harder (the Rasputitsa affected everyone) and if they couldn’t defeat the Red Army by the end of 1941, they probably wouldn’t get a better opportunity again.
Rostov on the Don was another early example where the Red Army actually got the better of the Heer. Once it got to actions like Kursk and later, Operation Bagration, where they were really starting to make tactical errors (Koniev’s feint which the Germans fell for), the die was well and truly cast. None of these really happened because of Hitler. He might have been pushing for results but it’s a rather different picture from Stalingrad. Fall Blau is another.
I don’t expect you to suddenly change your mind or anything. We’re all entitled to our opinions and having seen it from both sides, it’s not like I don’t get where you’re coming from either. You might read those books and think they’re junk. That’s up to you. For the record they are:
”The Red Army and the Second World War”, by Alexander Hill (often quoted on this channel) and
”When Titans Clashed”, by David Glantz and Jonathan House (ditto, usually just quoted as “Glantz”).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"The state the army was in was that it was around 5 times larger than the German army, plenty of fuel, plenty of everything."
Well, by that metric, Barbarossa should never have succeeded.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. The Red Army was far from ready in 1941. If you have a source that backs you up, I'll read it but In his book 'The Red Army and the Second World War', Alexander Hill describes just how unprepared the Soviets were when Germany attacked. Their tank strength, for example, looked impressive on paper but in reality, was far from. The oft-quoted 20,000 tanks ignores the fact that as many as 8,000 were out-of-date T-26s. Many were BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks. Very few were modern T-34 and KV-1 models. Furthermore, they had no fuel and the crews had no experience. Their air support aircraft were Polikarpovs from the Spanish Civil War. The Il2 wasn't in large scale production. Hill says this in Chapter 12 'The End of Typhoon'. Not even the German generals - who love a good excuse - claim the Red Army was ready for them.
What's more, the restructuring of the Red army and the re-equipping process was barely halfway. In the case of tanks and aircraft, it wasn't even close.
As an analogue to this, in the Western Desert in the winter of 1940-41, General Richard O'Connor over a period of a couple of months, took an army of 38,000 and defeated an Italian army almost ten times the size.
"They were just disorganized and caught off guard positioning for an invasion."
That is simply not true.
"You are obsessed with Germany and think they were superpowered boogiemen, when in reality they were a bunch of chumps compared to the Russians."
Is that what I think, is it? Really? I thought it was you saying the Soviets were a bunch of fanatical super soldiers or something... For a minute I thought you were going to call me a commie or something. Either way, if you can't back up what you're saying - and you can't - then it's just so much fluff.
"Hitler got played like a fiddle by Stalin."
The entire German army underestimated the effect of the invasion of the Soviet Union and they underestimated the time it would take to defeat them. That's why they didn't have any winter clothing (and no, General Winter didn't win the war).
But all this ignores a fundamental that you failed to address in your comment: having a big army is one thing. Being able to transport to where it's needed and supply it is a whole 'nother thing. The Soviets couldn't even supply it, even on home ground, much less somewhere else.
Incidentally - and Hill is a good source for this - the Wehrmacht that invaded in June 1941 was about twice the size of the Red Army in the West. Doesn’t sound like the Red Army was marshalling for an attack when they left half their troops in the east.
2
-
@GuyFierisShirt
" The T26 was designed in 1931, while the panzer 1 was designed in 1934, the T26 was hardly an outdated tank. In fact in many regards in outclassed the Panzer1, it had a better gun and armor for example. "
The T-26 was out-of-date by the end of the Spanish Civil War. This is not a matter of armour/range/penetration data or when it was built. The T-26 was no longer able to effectively fulfil its designated mission anymore. Comparing it to the PzKpfw I is pointless in exactly the same way as comparing a Panther to an M3 Stuart. They fulfilled different purposes. The T-26 was past its use-by date.
"Don't forget your "mighty evil black German army" was using horse and carriage while the Soviets were using cars."
What are you talking about? The Red Army had no fuel. Read a book FFS. Front line units in the west of the Soviet Union were basically without fuel and ammunition and few troops had ever fired their weapons.
If you're going to make these claims, you need to provide some solid evidence, like a reliable source.
"Barbarossa succeeded because Stalin sat in his bunker for 10 days giving the Red Army no orders, leaving them in dissaray."
Really? Are you completely serious? There are literally thousands of reasons why Barbarossa succeeded. Trying to pin it on mistakes by Stalin... wow, just wow. Nothing is ever that simply, much less an invasion by almost 5 million troops across a 1,000 km front.
"Their army was positioned in an offensive stance and was about to strike, when you are about to strike you put yourself in a vulnerable position, such as for example building an air base 800 meters from the enemy border, something that all good defensive strategists do, I guess........."
I don't know why you're even bothering with this nonsense. I've said it time and again: the Red Army had no fuel and little ammunition. They were in the process of re-equipping and many of the front line troops were simply untrained. Many had never fired their weapons. See Alexander Hill and 'When Titans Clashed', by David Glantz and Jonathan House.
" Just read Suvarov, it's mind opening."
I don't need to. I don't need to read a book on why the earth is flat to know it isn't.
"You people are so obsessed with Germany it's maddening."
You're the one who is talking about Germany, not me. You're not even reading what I say, are you?
You're having this argument with yourself.
"Germans also had plenty of winter clothing, you are parroting another myth designed to invoke a Napoleonic spirit."
No, I'm countering all the German myths but you're not even reading my replies. You're just assuming I'm saying things you want me to say. No wonder you don't read books.
"Soviets had plenty of fue, in fact in 1941 they had the largest fuel reserves on earth."
Source?
"Germans were not mighty or stronhg, they were smart and clever, that's why they got ahead, they used artillery to smash the Russian tanks, as they could never do so head on. The bombed airfield etc."
They outnumbered the Red Army in the West by almost 2:1 in June, 1941.
Fact.
_"They annihilated the Red Army while they were pretending nothing was happening for 10 days._"
This was limited to Stalin and some front commanders who failed to respond to the attacks. Stalin had them shot later, once he emerged from his dacha.
"This was mostly because Stalin did not want to believe Hitler would invade, as he was going to invade himself in only 1 month"
This is total nonsense. The Red Army could not have invaded because they had no means to do so and precious little supplies.
I don't normally say this but you are completely clueless.
2
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"You are completely clueless, this is like a Westerner commenting on African internal affairs, completely ignorant."
Come up with something original, FFS. No, I'm not clueless. I just didn't get sucked in by a fantasist.
"They did outnumber the Germans along the Soviet German border 2:1, that's nonsense, they had10 times the amount of tanks, and only 6/7 the amount of men."
That's wrong. At least half the standing army was in the east. The reservists hadn't been mobilised. See Alexander Hill. You'll also find it in 'When Titans Clashed' by David Glantz and Jonathan House.
We've already been over the numbers of tanks more than once. A tank without fuel is useless. A tank with an untrained crew isn't barely useful.
"My source for everything is Stalin's Missed Chance by Mikhael Meltyukov, it offers some of the most detailed analysis for Red Army deployments before BARBAROSSA."
You're quoting him out of context.
"f you're unwilling to read Suvarov, or Hoffman, or Solonin, or any of these historians, then you are practicing cognitive dissonance."
I'd suggest you take some of your own advice and read some credible sources like Alexander Hill, David Glantz, Jonathan House, Robert Forczyk or Steve Zaloga.
I don't need to read a book about the earth being flat to know it's fantasy. I'm disinterested in reading wasting my time on fantasists. That includes you.
"You refuse to believe in this because you refuse to believe that the allies were not the good guys in WW2, unlike the reality, which states that there were no good guys in WW22, just a bunch of bad guys oif varying degrees of evil."
One thing that's clear about this is that you don't know what I think. You've spent so much time deciding what you think I believe that you haven't registered any understanding at all.
"You want to choose to live in your fantasyland, it's sad, but once you actually choose to expand your mind, you will be in a much better place."
I'm quoting - or paraphrasing - credible, well-credentialed historians. You're the one quoting fantasists, so if anyone is living in fantasy land, it's clearly not me.
"The reason they were having fuel problems was because their vehicles were sitting their without any orders, with fuel depots far away.."
Makes no difference. If the Red Army was planning an invasion, the fuel would have been at the front. How do you not get this? No, never mind. I don't need to know.
"The fuel would have been 1-2 kilometers away, if not in the same depot, but because they had no orders, no direction, they were running like chickens with their heads cut off."
The depots are irrelevant. In an attack all the supplies with be with the forward units. That includes fuel and ammunition.
"T26 was not out of date, if it were the Germans would not have been so scared to engage in 1-1 battles with it, the T26 was better than the Panzer 1, the fact that they needed FLAK CANNONS just to penetrate it's hull just reinforces this notion."
Who says they were scared to engage it? It was an infantry tank that was extremely vulnerable to the PaK 36 ‘door knocker’, for a start. The T-26 was out of date by 1941. It was out of production and was being replaced with T-34 and KV-1 types. It was clear during the Winter War that its days were numbered and it suffered quite badly. The PzKpfw I was not ever intended for anti-tank work and therefore, not comparable to the T-34. It was what was known in some armies as a 'cavalry tank'. The Soviet Equivalent was the BT series. The Allies equivalent was the M3 Stuart. None of those tanks was ever intended for tank v tank.
I have no further interest in validating your existence or continuing in flat earth arguments with you. You're talking complete nonsense and calling me names for not agreeing with you is no incentive to do otherwise. Now shove off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thebardock6785
"note how at the end of the video they never discuss how many lives are saved by guns as well by defensive use"
I don't even know where to start with this. The gun lobby is still quoting the same discredited 500,000 - 2 million DGUs per year and most people who quote it claim that equals 500,000 to 2 million lives saved, which is a massive leap of faith to say the least. More recent and credible research puts the figure much lower. The NCVS, which examines every crime on a case-by-case basis reports around 65,000 per year. Even that does not equate to 65,000 lives saved because we simply don't have enough information to make that judgement..
"NRA probably doesn't care to speak anymore or they lied about trying to contact "
This is ridiculous. No credible outlet is ever going to do that. The first the NRA would do is call them out on it.
It seems that everyone here has the same problem: you simply can't tolerate balanced reporting. By balanced I mean showing both sides of the story. You regard that as bias, lies, agenda-driven, irresponsible...call it what you will. You only want your side covered. Anyone with a better than room-temperature IQ can see that the reporter here not only approached the gun range but the NRA as well, giving the gun lobby not one but two opportunities to speak. I would say that would have given the gun lobby well over half the air time, granting them a slightly unfair advantage. Journalism is reporting what some people don't want to hear. Everything else is salesmanship (Hearst).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Justin Cavinder
" if the party that pushed gun control in Australia called themselves conservative then they don't know what conservative is and they are so in NAME ONLY."
A definition of conservative that is based solely on gun laws would seem to be rather narrow. The Howard government was also big business, small government, anti-immigration, pro-small business, pro-religion, lower taxation, anti-gay, anti-climate change and anti abortion.
"To be Conservative among other things, is to be pro small federal government and pro gun."
Pro small government yes. Pro gun, no. Just because you are conservative, that doesn't prevent you from doing things that you deem to be in the public interest. That is the function of any government: the public interest.
"Conservative so no they weren't ever conservatives whether they called themselves conservative or you're just making it up."
The British government of John Major were also conservative. You might recall that they were the remnants of Maggie Thatcher's Tory government which was the power in Britain in the 1980s.
"Which is highly likely as I've seen footage of news networks interviewing many conservative Aussie citizens at the time of the gun buy back and they were ALL saying how tyrannical it was and that they didn't trust the government etc etc."
Let me tell you something you don't know about Australia. We are not and never have been a gun culture. Only about 5% of Australians own guns and that number is falling. The gun groups here made the mistake of talking about gun ownership as a right, which it is not. It is only a right in the United States and even then, that right is limited. The media, on the other hand, are required to show both sides of the story and that is why you saw a bunch of angry gun owners (about whom nobody gave two shits).
Also shooters in Australia don't necessarily identify as what you would call conservative. Many of them are fairly left wing.
"Youre a fool to believe real conservatives spear headed gun confiscation ANYWHERE in the world."
"Confiscation"... LOL!! That's just victim speak. Lots of things get outlawed because they are dangerous. I can think of no other example where the owners were compensated at market value for their loss. And, incidentally, many of the owners simply went out and bought new (legal) guns.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ssaraccoii
"At the time, Iraq had the third, yes third largest military in the world behind the USSR and the US."
How many times do you think I have heard this? It's basically meaningless - yes, meaningless. LOL!! The size of an army is not a pointer to performance.
"They were outfitted with all of the best equipment the USSR was supplying at the time."
Not true. The Iraqi defence forces were equipped with 1970's export edition aircraft and tanks and much of the good equipment they had was French. Read the 'Gulf Air War Debrief', by various authors in the Jane's Airpower Journal series and Anthony Thornborough's 'Airborne Weapons of the West'.
"Essentially, it was a proxy test to see how the soviets would hold up against a US onslaught."
Nothing of the sort. The Soviet armed forces had moved on from a lot of the old practices and were better equipped with more modern gear than what Iraq had.
"The completely unexpected rapid dismantling of Iraq’s military was the trigger of the complete end of the Cold War since it became obvious to the USSR’s political leadership that there was no way for them to win a military war against the US."
Total bulldust. The USSR was packing tens of thousands of nuclear warheads that could have obliterated the United States (as Russia arguably still could). Furthermore, Gorbachev was far less interested in what was going on in the Middle East than he was in his own internal political problems. That's why the USSR, in its final months of existence, made no comment.
"Iraq never recovered militarily after this due to the decimation of its military during the initial campaign, the Highway of Death destruction of anything headed back to Iraq, followed by continuing economic sanctions afterwards."
Iraq was completely overmatched. That its army was big has little to no bearing on the matter. It's hard to believe that people are so awed by something which was a fait accompli. The idea that the Soviet Union had been providing them with the latest weapons is not true. Saddam wasn't that friendly with them and bought whatever he could get, most of it bargain basement stuff. And the idea that this was a test case for a war with the Soviet Union is laughable, unless you think they were still using the same GCI model they had in the 1960s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Without experience of the MG-34 or -42, I couldn't make a meaningful comparison. From a personal perspective of the Bren, it was very well made and engineered and gave an excellent impression of sturdiness, reliability and, I suppose, a belief that it would be accurate. My experience on the range was that there was little point in firing more than three to five round bursts, which is what I was trained to do, because after that many rounds, the target usually became obscured by smoke (not much) and atmospheric disturbances anyway. For this reason I find the claims of "1,200 rounds per minute!" pretty pointless. On top of which, that's an awful lot of ammunition you have to carry to no great end. The other effect of such a high rate of fire is that it significantly shortens barrel life and time between changes.
I found things like stripping and cleaning to be extremely easy and I could strip it in about 20 seconds. "Piston, barrel, butt, body, bipod!" Magazine changes were extremely easy because all that was required was to hit the catch with the base of your right hand and grab the magazine at the same time, so that it came off in one easy motion. Replacing it was almost as simple and if you got it right, it went on with a satisfying click. It was speedy and didn't - so we were told - expose the gunner to enemy fire. The magazine was supposed to hold 30 rounds but in practice this was reduced to 27 to prevent jams. I suppose everybody knows this. The charging lever could be folded but it was easy to use and within easy reach. The gas operation was very simple but I can't remember much about it or any of the "Immediate Actions" in the event of stoppages. It was the first weapon I ever used with aperture sights, which I found less intuitive than the U-notch and blade of my .303 service rifle (this was school cadets in the 1970s, though we were trained by army gunnery sergeants).
By the time I used it, the Bren's reputation was extremely well-known and even I knew about it. Perhaps, as far as we Aussies were concerned, its most important contribution was in the jungles of New Guinea on the Kokoda Track and the Battle of Lae where it established a pretty formidable name. As you know, I'm not really interested in the minutiae of weapons; only their contribution.
If I could offer one opinion on the Bren it is that its role was more clearly and better defined than either of the two German weapons. Sure, they were all LMGs and they all performed that role extremely effectively, as far as I can tell. In WWII, there seem to have been very few bad LMGs. The Japanese Nambu, the Italian Breda and the Soviet DPM all seem to have been very good. But the only force that possessed a decent medium machine gun in any significant numbers was the British and Commonwealth forces, who used the Vickers for sustained indirect fire. The best example I can think of for this was the lead up to the British and Commonwealth attack on the Italian forces at Nebeiwa in December 1940, when dozens of Vickers guns poured thousands of rounds into the Italian camp throughout the night at a range of about 4 kilometres, which made sure that 1) the Italians could not move around the camp effectively, 2) that they got very little sleep and 3) that they knew an attack was imminent.
The Bren was never called upon to perform these duties and I very much doubt any of those other weapons could have sustained that kind of fire all night as the Vickers did (at about 300 rpm). I believe the gunners were from 11th Indian Brigade 4th Bn, 7 th Rajput Rifles under Maj Gen Noel Beresford-Pierce. The British and Commonwealth forces organised their units along those lines and had dedicated Vickers crews for just this purpose. The Bren was simply a squad LMG.
I have little or no attachment to guns of any kind so what you're getting here is the first hand impressions of a teenage boy who had no romantic illusions about the Bren. But since it was the only machine gun I have ever used in my life, it left a singular impression on me. Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
7:29 If I could make my own point here, I have almost the same reaction to you when the term "stealth" is used to describe the 229. I also have to same reaction when people use generalisations to blame what they call "the media". Mainstream media, such as the BBC or the Times or CNN or even the South China Morning Post have exactly zero interest in the stealth properties or otherwise of the 229. "The media" is made up of an almost infinite number of layers, from traditional media, through to social media and even bloggers (this last category, while media, are usually the least reliable because there is no requirement for accountability or transparency). Your own channel - which I like and enjoy because of its well researched content - is also media.
Unfortunately, all this does is to serve the interests of those less scrupulous than yourself because, in further debasing the major distrust towards mainstream media, it feeds the interests of conspiracy theorists and extremists. These days, it's becoming more and more difficult to give people the best available version of the truth. As a result, people have turned towards anything that fits with their comfortable world view. People hate traditional media because they have been told to by people like the one you quoted and will turn to literally anything else that is not mainstream. Anything which confirms their own personal prejudices is now more popular than realistic attempts to educate and the results have been catastrophic.
While I'm not about to get into a specific debate about the merits of one type of media over another - it would be pointless even to try - the attitude of that particular quote is at the heart of the problem and a reason why silly claims like the Ho-229's supposed stealth characteristics have become so widespread, not because of anything "the media" says but because of ignorance and prejudice.
Otherwise, this video is an absolute gem and I learnt a lot from it, so, thanks!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@merch_and_meme Okay, well, here’s some vital detail on that for you:
Australia’s murder rate is 1.13 per 100,000 and the gun murder rate is 0.18 per 100,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics).
The US murder rate is 7.5 per 100,000 and the gun murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (CDC statistics - look ‘em up).
In 2010 the number of people murdered was 16,256 and 11,078 were by gun.
In 2020 the number of people murdered was 24,576 and 19,384 were by gun.
Again, all CDC statistics.
The number of people murdered by gun in those two years differs by 8,306.
The number of people murdered by other methods differs by 14.
That anyone could conclude anything other than that the saturation levels of gun ownership in the United States is the problem defies credulity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steveperreira5850
"Air cooled engine aircraft had way higher survivability, hence the P 47 aces surviving the war, and many of the too P51 aces were killed!"
Impossible to sheet home to any single cause. Non-starter.
"Plenty easy for mustang pilot rack up high scores in the latter year of the war facing mostly inexperienced German pilots, by then the P 47‘s were not doing long range escort, and they didn’t get so much of the turkey shoot."
Most Germans in 1943 were not fighting in Europe. The Eastern and Mediterranean theatres kept a lot of top pilots busy until it became obvious that daylight bombing was becoming the primary threat from the air. That really only started when the P-51 made all of Germany reachable by an escorted force.
"Nobody, nobody wants to go to war in a liquid called engine aircraft yes they are going to get fired on my ground fire and they are going to fly low."
Nonsense. Read 'Typhoon Warfare,' by Tom Hall. There were so many other hazards in ground attack missions, a hit in the cooling system represented a relatively small risk. You'd be more worried about a 37mm than a single hit through the radiator. You'd be more worried about misjudging height than anything else.
"I’ll try to sum it up with on positive note … The P 51 Mustang is the greatest fighter plane ever as long as no one is shooting at you and nobody is sneak attacking you. Too bad that isn’t reality."
Reality, as you so presumptuously call it, can probably best be defined by the German perspective. The pilot reports, their memoirs, the RLM records and frankly, the combat records, all talk of two types that gave them the biggest headaches: the British Mosquito and the P-51. They say it over and over again. They don't talk much about the P-47. Read Galland's book, 'The First and the Last'. Despite losing his brother 'Wutz' to a P-47 flown by Walker 'Bud' Mahurin, Galland doesn't say much about the Thunderbolt. There was an interview with German Experte Werner Schroer (114 victories) on 'The World at War' in which he described the arrival of the P-51. 'We had nothing of the same effort', he said. 'They really frightened us quite a bit'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardmontana5864
"The P-47's combat loss per sortie was much lower than the P-51 and the P-38. Yet it flew more missions than both of those combined."
And the P-51 scored at more than twice the rate. It also scored 30% more ground kills when the Flak was thick enough you could walk on it.
Again, in literally half the number of missions. And its combat exchange rate was much better than the P-47.
P-47 Thunderbolt:
Sorties: 423,435
Combat Losses: 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange rate: 2.04
P-51 Mustang:
Sorties: 213,873
Combat losses: 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange rate: 3.60
The P-51 was a much better and more effective fighter than the P-47 and opened the way for complete strategic bombing coverage of Germany and, indeed, most of the Third Reich.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ksozey Greg overvalues his understanding of history and his followers even more so. Greg doesn’t read history. Any comments he makes about history or historical events are either highly generalised or just a passing mention.
His videos have their place but they belong in a very precise niche of what is ‘nice to know’, rather than what is essential to understand. His insistence on referring constantly and almost exclusively to charts and pilots’ notes has led him and his followers to believe they understand history because they can make deductions from the information they have. This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been told by a Greg’s fans that I don’t know what I’m talking about, despite providing sources like Calum Douglas, because what I say runs counter to their ‘logic’.
It’s logical so it must have happened that way (irony).
Chris, while occasionally dabbling in technical information, is a historian, first and foremost. The vast gulf that exists here is a product of his research into archives at all levels and collation of information that covers a wide field and is based not on what fits a narrative but what the record of history says.
In a marked contrast, virtually all of Greg’s recommendations are data related, while Chris is constantly recommending high quality books - some of which I have read myself, as a result.
Again, Greg has his place but it’s worth remembering that he is no more a historian than the Mosquito was a stealth aircraft.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jokervienna6433 Hi there. Not really my intention to change anyone's mind. We are all entitled to our opinions and even then, we can like whatever we want to like. I am no expert.
Among the claims on Wikipedia was the pointedly absurd claim that the P-47 could out-climb the Spitfire. This was based on some incredibly selective data that pitted a P-47 against a Spitfire Vc, a marque whose peak rate of climb was at a paltry 5,000 feet! It was nicknamed 'clipped, cropped and clapped' because of the clipped wings, the cropped supercharger impeller and the fact that they were clapped out. It was an emergency model intended for low altitude work and definitely one of the least effective marques of Spitfire.
Many of the other claims centred around the performance of the P-47N which, as far as I can ascertain, only saw service in the last couple of months of the war and only in the Pacific. It didn't stop people using it as a benchmark. Needless to say, it was more comparable with the Spitfire XIVe, which, other than top speed and range, was superior in virtually all other regards. This was the kind of nonsense I was dealing with. That and claims from people like Robert S. Johnson (top ranking P-47 ace quoted in Martin Caidin's book from the 1960s) that the new prop was 'worth 1,000 hp'. That's fine if you're talking about the way the pilots felt about it but it's not an accurate performance measurement.
'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles' has also put a lot of stuff out there which is starting to become part of the dialogue, yet I think is somewhat rose-tinted. Greg himself, is very knowledgeable about things like fuel fractions and aero - he's a professional pilot, I believe - but he has certainly based a lot of his opinions on hypothetical values that he doesn't grant to other types. I have taken him up on this. The P-47 is one of those aircraft that people love because it looks so tough (it was tough).
So while I consider the Thunderbolt to have been a very good aircraft - probably top ten - I think the lack of climb performance would have been a severe handicap in any theatre where the USAAF wasn't coming into the combat zone with a significant altitude advantage.
There are other types which have become bulwarks for those with a penchant for hyperbole, including the P-38 Lightning and - God forbid - the F2-A Buffalo! In short, you can find almost any US aircraft and start a flame war with its afficionadoes. While it's absolutely correct that 'good pilots have done amazing things in bad aircraft' - think Wg Cdr Adrian Warburton and his exploits in a beaten up Martin Maryland - there are some good aircraft that have not lived up to their potential because they were badly employed (Fw Ta-152H, a high altitude fighter that was used for low level airfield defence...) and some seriously out-of-date types that did extremely well (Hs-123, Fairey Swordfish and Douglas SBD Dauntless).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Never-mind1960
"We Ds just prefer a more inclusive approach in which people of different beliefs can find common ground. "
Well put.
"We don't think you are all fascist, but the trump wing of the R party totally is."
Fascism is the politics of division. It comes disguised as a party that will unite the country, kick out all the undesirables, defund social programs, rid universities of left wing academics (in other words, all of them), jail political opponents, load up all governing bodies with party hacks, stop immigration (except whites), take over the media oprganisations that dare criticise, teach things like 'stop the steal' and eugenics in schools, let the Proud Boys. Oath Keepers and the Ku Klux Klan run amok, stop people from voting, dissolve women's rights and make a king out of the president.
So yes, the Trump arm of the party totally is fascist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hakapeszimaki8369 There is no betrayal. Britain is an island nation. She is not part of continental Europe. She had a treaty with France and a treaty with Poland. Looking back on it, the treaty with Poland was a bad idea. It only meant that she suddenly had a toe in the water in a region which is, was and always will be riven by ethnic nationalism, hatred, blood feuds and territorial disputes. The land of ethnic paranoia. Absolutely the last place you’d want to be involved because, no matter what you do, someone will hate you. You will be blamed for their misery. Nobody in that part of the world is ever satisfied.
When Germany invaded, Britain (under Chamberlain) declared war. Ergo, she abided by her treaty obligations. Yet somehow, you see this as a betrayal. This is a staggeringly unreasonable point of view. As for your comments about British betrayal of Czechs and Austrians, she had no treaty with them and she had nothing to gain by going to war over them. Since when was it Britain’s responsibility to get involved in continental squabbles? Never. Once again there is no betrayal. She owed them exactly nothing.
A word to the wise: this is the real world. It’s not an Italian opera.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
”H2 can be used in combustion engines and that will be the future until cheap fuel cells are available.”
The ICE running on hydrogen is something of a hoax. It’s true that Toyota and Yamaha developed a hydrogen ICE (actually, I think they just adapted it) but it is an engineering dead end.
Coincidentally, a gallon of petrol contains about the same amount of energy as a kilo of hydrogen but since the current tank only holds about 2.2 kilos of hydrogen at 10,000 psi, that engine is only going to get about 50 miles/80 kilometres out of a tank, compared to say, 300 miles out of an equivalent volume of petrol. To get a target of 300 miles/500 kilometres from a tank of hydrogen, you’re going to need a tank which is, frankly, way too large to be practical (‘towing a zeppelin behind your car’).
Secondly, hydrogen and petrol burn differently. Hydrogen burns faster and that means hotter. Fixing things like timing and pre ignition are relatively straight forward but the heat generation is not. It also really only works properly in a narrow power band.
Storage is also a problem. In the noughties, BMW built an experimental hydrogen car but instructed drivers not to park the car in an enclosed garage. Turning on the light could be a problem…
The long and the short of it is that hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines is something of a myth. I even think the published picture of this Toyota-Yamaha V8 engine is a fake. Even if it wasn’t, no car is going to have room for an exhaust manifold like that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicks2581 France was pretty far from ‘pathetically weak’ in WWI. This is just re-engineering what happened in 1940, which, itself, is a poor assumption. Her army was of comparable size to Germany and was well equipped, particularly in artillery. France was also the leading power in aviation at the time, well ahead of Germany and, with a couple of exceptions, remained so for the rest of the war. So much so that she provided most of the aircraft used by American pilots, not to mention other equipment. The Americans were brought into the line to replace the Australians, who had, over a two or three year period, been decimated. They were really only a factor in the last couple of months of the war, by which time, Germany was facing certain defeat.
As for him saying that the French could have defeated the Germans without help, I don’t think it is much use taking as simplistic a view as that. Nothing is certain where hypotheticals are concerned.
2
-
@nicks2581
"France was pathetically weak compared to Germany if matched up one to one in WWI; technology not withstanding. With out the vast amount of assistance, France would have been over taken."
Once again, hypotheticals are of little use here. You're also ignoring the fact that 'pathetically weak' France stopped the Germans in 1914 with relatively little assistance. They didn't do it without cost because something like a million French had died. But by the end of that year, it was pretty clear that the Germans would not get to Paris in the short term, which is what they were relying on. Germany, in both wars, was on a short war strategy: if they couldn't achieve a quick and decisive victory, they would have to fight a drawn out action which they probably would not win. And they knew it. In the end, this was exactly what happened. Bernhard has made other videos where he comments on this.
"It should be noted that better tech means nothing if lack of extensive resources, poor leadership, and poor strategy exists. France, although technically more powerful than Germany, even in WWII, also failed due to poor leadership and poor strategy."
Please give some specific examples. Not isolated ones but ones which demonstrate a major systemic problem that was not overcome.
"And, just to reenforce what I have made clear, without significant assistance France would have been owned."
And I have made it clear that by the end of 1914, this was not going to happen. At great sacrifice and with relatively little assistance, France stopped the Germans.
"Or are we going to marginalize the sacrifice of the Irish, Canadians, ANZAC, Indian, North African, and Scottish forces?????"
Wow. Down to emotional blackmail already. Many of those forces were not even in northern France at the end of 1914, by which time, it was relatively clear that the German advance had been stopped. France was always the senior partner in WWI, something that riled a lot of people but it was the right decision.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@keithstudly6071
"Even after they were available for fighters it was 2 months before 8th AF started using the extended escort range in their mission plans. It appears that the 'bomber mafia' was intentionally limiting the use of fighter escorts in 1943 to prove that they could do the job alone. With the paper drop tanks that they did have in late 1943 the P-47 could escort bombers deep into Germany. They just weren't allowed to."
Please stop repeating this. It's incorrect. Greg, from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', has persuaded a lot of people that there was this conspiracy against the P-47 by the US high command who apparently wanted to kill as many US airmen as possible. In fact, Greg is quite wrong. The salient feature of his videos is charts and numbers. He quotes no historical/operational evidence whatsoever. So when Greg says a P-47 could fly to Schweinfurt, he's talking about a P-47D-25 flying at optimum altitude and throttle settings.
Escort work was anything but optimum. Even then, the chart he uses is calculated and subject to test flying.
Secondly, Eaker was constantly requesting new aircraft, including fighters and getting nowhere. So this was not about 'the bomber will always get through'. He couldn't even get the bombers he wanted, much less the fighters. In fact, Eaker was openly opposed to the Schweinfurt raid because he knew the 8th Air Force wasn't ready. But the fact was, it was a priority target and it had to be bombed. (Middlebrook) This wasn't because of ny 'Bomber Mafia'. It was because it took those back in the US a while to understand how serious the problem was. Communication was not like it is today and Hap Arnold spent quite a lot of 1943 travelling to theatre around the world. On top of that, he suffered two heart attacks that year. (Holland) By the time of the crisis in October, he directed his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles to find a solution in six months.
This can be found in James Holland's book, 'Big Week" and Martin Middlebrook's book, 'The Schweinfurt Regensburg Mission'.
The USAAF had ordered 1,350 P-51 Mustangs on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready. Given the distractions of 1943, it's understandable that Arnold didn't quite manage to put two and two together but Giles did and the first Mustangs arrived in England in December. (see: Holland) No 'Bomber Mafia' conspiracy.
Secondly, it would not have mattered what they did, drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's problems. It is an axiom that it takes half the fuel in a drop tank to get the other half there. What increases range is internal fuel and the P-47 simply did not have enough. The P-47C, which was still in widespread use during 'Big Week', had an internal fuel capacity of 256 gallons. The P-51 had 269 gallons and was about 50% more fuel efficient. The P-47D-25, which was the first model to exceed 300 US gallons internally, did not arrive until May of 1944, by which time it was largely too late.
The other problem was that the P-47C was only plumbed to carry a centreline tank. By the time of Mission 250, the first large-scale USAAF raid on Berlin, about 20% of the P-47 fleet had been modified to carry tanks under the wings. This was a very slow process, completed in the field and requiring cutting metal. On the mission, those fitted with a 108 gallon centreline tank got no further than the Dutch border. Those with the second tank could only get to a point just short of Magdeburg. The specifics of this mission are extremely well documented in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Australia does not need nuclear submarines.
I’m Australian and have a long standing interest in defence matters.
This was the product of one man: Andrew Shearer, an anti-China hawk, deeply embedded in the machinery of the former Australian government under Scott Morrison. Morrison was probably the most corrupt, toxic and incompetent Prime Minister in Australian history. Shearer was one of his senior advisors.
Between them, these two men ran a committee that met more than 500 times to talk about this. That committee consisted of just two people. And between those two people, they engineered to commit Australia to spend AU $368 Bn on nuclear submarines. They did this under the cover of darkness - always Morrison’s preferred modus operandi - and announced it as a fait accompli. No debate in parliament, no transparency. They also scuppered a deal with the French government to supply diesel electric submarines to the RAN.
The only thing this does is make us a branch office of the US Navy, something nobody with any understanding of Australian defence needs thinks is a good thing. Almost all of our submarine work is littoral, meaning nuclear submarines have no advantages as well as several significant disadvantages and cost vastly more. On top of that, the Virginia class submarine manufacturing program is under enough stress that the provision of these things is debatable. It’s unlikely they will even get here while the current global situation exists.
For his efforts, Shearer is now deeply embedded in the establishment as head of the Office of National Intelligence. As former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating once put it, this is what happens when you put the nutters in charge of foreign policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@benedictdunington602 Reagan missed the boat with that one. He also misquotes the original saying that is fascism ever came to America it will come in the name of liberalism. What it really says is that it would come cloaked in the stars and stripes (something like that, might have been red, white and blue). Jason Stanley makes some good points but there are too many people who are simply reacting to this without considering what he is and is not saying. So forget about Team Trump and Team Biden or Team Bernie or whatever.
So is Trump a fascist? By some measures, yes, he is. Does that mean he's Hitler reincarnated? No, it doesn't. He hasn't got around to murdering people by the thousands and even in my view, is unlikely to do so.
But his cult of personality, ultra-nationalism, paranoia built around disinformation and propaganda, reliance on faux history (particularly violent "struggle"), war on the intelligentsia and other "enemies of the state" like the media, nepotism, mob rule and lack of respect for political process mark him pretty clearly as basically fascist. But has he set up concentration camps? No. Has he set up gas chambers? No.
But we saw something the other day that was more dangerous than any other marker. Fascism is, by its nature, revolutionary. Those rioters at the Capitol building were claiming they were there to support the revolution. They said as much. Fascism ultimately requires the leveling of all existing social structures and that starts with a parliamentary system of democracy. There hasn't been a Reichstag fire yet but watch this space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ankushdutta5564
" if we evolved to live on Earth, then we are not surviving very long."
But that's precisely the point: there are so many things we could be doing here. You want to just write off the Earth and all the good things in it and say, "Oh well, let's just move." You don't have to think very hard to see that it's not that simple.
"The population is rising, the environment is collapsing, once the planet is on the edge and we give it one little push, humanity WILL GO EXTINCT."
Well, excuse me for not giving up on the planet yet.
I take it you're against any sensible - and far more cost-effective measures to improve this situation? Like becoming carbon negative...?
And who is going to decide what happens to those who can't afford to move? Oh, we just let them die... How did I miss it?
If Musk was genuinely concerned about the future of what he and his followers call "mankind", he'd be investing in technologies that can help us repair the damage we've done here.
"World leaders don't care, the environment is in a bad state and is getting worse day by day, and they know but they do nothing."
And I suppose you do know...?
"No one cares about reversing what damage the earlier generations have done."
A lot of people care but they get labelled "tree huggers", "hippies", even "communists". Pretty hard to make any impact when half the world hates you and the other half just doesn't fucking get it and believes what the vested interests tell them.
2
-
@ankushdutta5564 Bozhe moi! If what you’re saying is true then we will all be dead before the point is reached when this can happen anyway. Secondly, the intervening period is a time of great opportunity to fix the problems we have created, probably for less overall cost and greater overall benefit than attempting to colonise another planet. What you’re suggesting is an extremely high risk strategy, with the strong possibility - I’d suggest probability - of failure. My read on this is that, if you are looking at it from the point of view that we can no longer sustain life on Earth, then the money would be far, far better spent initiating programs to make us carbon neutral, at the very least, or carbon negative if possible and that we need to act now. And since we already have the means to do that then that is what we should be doing, instead of pursuing distant and extremely risky strategies and shiny penny technologies.
Technology is very seductive and frequently unequally applied. By that I mean that we over apply in one area and under apply in others. It also only benefits a small section of the global community, invariably rich, white people. What’s everyone else going to do? Die? Or are we going to take some kind of Noah’s Ark approach? This is starting to sound a lot like the end of Dr Strangelove.
https://youtu.be/ybSzoLCCX-Y
By the lights of perverted science...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JDMSwervo2001
"the market still wants them but government regulations have made it so that owning them has become expensive."
No, the market doesn't want them. Nothing to do with government. If the market still wanted them, they still be making them. Why, for example, did Jeep dump the last of its V8 Grand Cherokees on Australia?
"All these climate targets and CAFE standards have made it so that manufacturers are producing more complicated powertrains."
Those regulations you've been braying about don't come in until 2035. You know, don't you, that the lifespan of a car these days is considered to be eight years...? That means at least one more generation between now and then.
"I’ve noticed that a lot of people on this channel aren’t even from the U.S. so therefore they don’t understand the market"
The American market is just another market now. It's not even the biggest. And you can 'drill baby, drill' all you like. It's not going to turn the clock back to the 1950s glory days of Detroit iron. ICEs are finished. Or will be in five years. The market has decided. These are old oil industry talking points. You might want to pay to keep some oil industry robber baron on his yacht but don't expect everyone else to.
"correction, if the government wasn’t forcing EV mandates and stricter emission standards they’d still be making them. EVs aren’t profitable unless you’re Tesla. like I said 4Runners and tacomas sold in pretty large numbers"
Oil industry propaganda. Toyota dropped the V8 because of shrinking market share and rising global oil prices. Only the ICE holdouts want them now and that's the smallest of niche markets (and getting smaller).
EVs will be very profitable in about five years. China has built for global dominance and they knew it would take decades to get there, the kind of thinking western management doesn't understand (actually, that's not entirely true but I'm not giving anything away to you).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ed_Downunder No they didn’t. When Morrison leaked the text messages, he committed a cardinal sin of diplomacy: you never leak a personal conversation with another world leader, big or small, for domestic political capital. Never, as in, not ever. Morrison over the last couple of months, has managed to piss off Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia and the Philippines and now he’s pissed off France, which has significant influence in the Pacific and certainly more influence than any other European country. When we need them, he’s arguing with them. He can’t help himself. If it’s alright with Scotty, it must be alright for everyone else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joebenson528
"Are you trolling? Because ballistic gelatin does not represent the human body at all."
Well, perhaps you can explain this from Wikipedia then:
"Ballistic gelatin is a testing medium designed to simulate the effects of bullet wounds in animal muscle tissue."
It was developed by a man called Martin Fackler, who was an American wounds ballistics expert. You should look him up, along with his writings on the subject which are referenced in that article.
"Our muscles are a lot more dense than gelatin, this is common sense that CNN viewers lack and the politically biased network knows this."
Once again, I refer you to Martin Fackler. He actually was a trauma surgeon, ballistics and wounds expert. Political bias, my ass. You do know, don't you, that 90% of Americans want stricter gun laws?
"Why else would they show an illegal full auto M4 in the first clip and misrepresent it as a Semi Auto civilian legal AR15? Because they know the people that watch their channel daily do not do research on their own and do not have basic knowledge on this topic."
"Knowing a lot about guns" is not essential to making good public policy. It's a ruse that has been foisted on the American public before - the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban" is a perfect example. Because the government allowed the gun lobby too much of a voice, the law ended being so complicated and full of holes that it was unworkable and it was designed to be so.
So, no, government should not listen to the gun lobby. Fool me once...
Good laws are simple. They say things like "Section 1, all semi automatic firearms are prohibited." This is, of course, just an example. A brief definition is all that's needed. Simple, clear and uncomprimised by gun lobby bullshit. That's basically how they did it in Australia.
As for the fully auto vs semi-auto clip on CNN, one bit of sloppy editing doesn't make up for the years and years of lies, distortions and corruption perpetrated by the American gun lobby. CNN can't compete with that level of brainwashing.
So I'd say it's you who is trolling.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobh1208 I’d suggest there are two kinds of survivability metrics: primary and secondary. Primary survivability would be things about aircraft performance that give you a marked advantage over the enemy. Turn rate, flying characteristics, engine performance at a given altitude, ease of flying, level speed, dive speed and rate of climb.
Examples of secondary survivability might be ability to take hits, protection for the pilot, vulnerability to fire, crash worthiness, ease of escape and how long it stays up when ditched.
When I look at like that, I suspect some of the P-47’s less desirable characteristics - like rate of climb, or lack of it - have been underplayed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Jacob Damocles
"Su-57 is a 4++ with RAM slapped on. It's using shittier engines, shittier ram, shittier avionics, and is designed for WVR, which is quickly losing relevance."
The whole "Fifth Gen" thing is really unclear. In fact, it seems to apply only to American aircraft. It has stealth, it has networking and it has sensor fusion. 90% of stealth is in the shaping. From the views I have seen, I don't think the Su-57 has any RAM coatings at all. I wouldn't say it was designed for WVR any more than any other but given the missile types it is designed to carry, BVR seems to be its primary mission.
"They're also only buying about 12 from now until 2027, when they might put them on the budget."
This is all unclear at the moment. Last report I heard was LRIP to a total of about 60. The first 20 will have the older engine. After that production will depend on the availability of the next generation engine. The problem is that the program is well behind schedule. This same situation plagued initial Flanker production when their radars were not ready and dozens of them sat idle, waiting for their radars to be fitted.
"China's are a bit better, but Chinese engines are garbage."
The Chinese have real problems with their engines. None of their new engines have survived very long. They're a hell of a long way from first flight. But one thing the Chinese are not short of is engineers and in time, I believe they will solve it. Their problem is how long it will take. They actually know how to build an engine. They were quite successful with the Rolls Royce Spey and the Lyulka AL-31F but they can't seem to get their own designs to work.
2
-
2
-
+Jacob Damocles
"ROFAR seems interesting, but I'm not sure it'll be as useful as an AESA radar, because it's different enough all the neat tricks you can do with an AESA aren't going to be available, such as active jamming on ground radars, and I'm not sure about how fast it'll be able to scan at this point."
I'm not sure myself but it's an important development. Not only should it be able to detect stealth aircraft at BVR ranges, the fact that it uses laser beams should make it pretty much undetectable with current sensors. That's not to say that a warning system won't be developed but it definitely has the potential to close the capability gap. That's it as I understand it (which is not to say that I know much about it). They are different systems, designed to do much the same thing but in a very different way.
The biggest advantage of AESA is the scan rate. With no moving parts and beam steering capability, it can home in very quickly on a target and with a much higher scan rate than passive systems, can get a good picture very quickly. I don't know how this will be accomplished with ROFAR. The point is that if it increases the radar capability without changing the pilot's operating procedures, it will be well worth the effort.
Is it a game changer? Probably not but the Russians expect to have it in service in 2022. It's about half the weight of current systems - Russian radars are notoriously heavy and run very hot - and should be more efficient. As long as it's reliable, there's no reason not to go for it. And it's only a matter of time before the lessons learnt from the radar find their way into other programs, like missile seeker heads.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not true. You got this from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', didn't you?
At the end of 1943, the USAAF had shot down 451 German aircraft, with the P-47 getting the lion's share of 414.
But the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year, of which the RAF shot down 3,300 (all theatres). So <2% is basically Jack Shit. It certainly isn't 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe'. Greg claims they defeated the 'Abbeville Boys' on their own, yet JG26 was 30% bigger in early 1944 than it was in 1943.
When the Mustang arrived in December, 1943, there were eight fighter groups equipped with the P-47 nd one P-38 group. By March, the P-51s were outscoring the P-47s. In April, P-51 Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft to the P-47's 82. And they did this in half the number of sorties (there were only four Mustang groups, compared to eight P-47 groups). In other words, the P-51 was - for that month - eight times more effective than the P-47.
The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rascalferret Stealth is an entirely post-WWII concept in virtually every regard. For a start, it is designed to work against X-band radar, which is 7-11 GHz, whereas WWII vintage radar was 50-500 MHz. It sees things very differently. Secondly, while wood is not as reflective as metal, that doesn't make it automatically stealthy, otherwise I would expect to see it still in use, not for high performance aircraft but certainly for semi-expendable types like drones. Even the amount of carbon in wood or glue can provide a measure of radar reflectivity. But what kind of radar are we talking about? Finally, the Mosquito was full of metal, not for the basic structure but for everything else. The engines; the cowlings, the propellers, the undercarriage and the cockpit had lots of metal, not to mention the tens of thousands of metal fasteners holding it together. We haven't even started talking about shaping.
The only kind of countermeasures used in WWII were strips of aluminium foil, cut to a specific length - a primitive form of chaff - which was used by the RAF to spoof German radar. It was codenamed "Window".
The Mosquito was not a "stealth plane" as the internet would have you believe and it was never intended that way. If it had been, there would have been no need to fly those ridiculously dangerous rooftop missions the Mosquito squadrons were so famous for.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@petrsevcik8174 The Czechs and the French had a treaty which allowed France to operate aircraft from Czech bases. I’m not sure if it was reciprocal. This was part of a greater French plan in the 1930s that was little short of mad. It proposed signing treaties with all manner of Eastern European countries, with the greater aim to put a fence around the Soviet Union.
The treaty with Czechoslovakia meant that of Czechoslovakia was attacked, France would assist.
The British had no treaty with the Czechs at all and had one treaty with the French. It was the Treaty of Locarno, which basically said they would assist France if she were attacked. There were considerable questions about what this would mean if France was to be involved in an aggressive war against Germany. If France attacked Germany, wouldn’t that go against the Treaty of Locarno?
Following the May crisis in the Sudetenland, the French spent an inordinate amount of time courting the British government. Their choice of Foreign Minister was an unfortunate one .Georges Bonnet was not really trusted or particularly well-liked by anyone and it probably didn’t help that he was a member of the socialist party. He also made no promises to anyone and expected them from others. It’s hard to trust a man like that. Bonnet basically nagged at Chamberlain until he - Chamberlain - finally relented and agreed, in principle, to back France. There was still no mention of Britain having a treaty with Czechoslovakia and as far as I know, it never really came up, even if there were other unwritten implications.
Czech defence policy could never have been based solely on any expectation that assistance would arrive. No country develops its defence policy that way. Instead, the Czechs built fortifications in the Sudetenland and rapidly built up a modern defence force. As the country had only existed for about 20 years, their equipment was quite modern. Their leadership was not of the same quality. Most of the general staff had been officers in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in WWI and defected when it became clear that the war was lost.
The Czech Army, contrary to Churchill’s claim of ‘40 crack divisions’, could barely manage 30, including volunteers and fortress troops and only 15 were regular army.
But all Czech plans were thrown into disarray when the Anschluss happened. This immediately exposed the basically undefended south western border with Austria as an obvious place to commence any invasion. There were very few border defences and it was a flat plain, while the Sudetenland is quite hilly and has gorges with rivers running through them. Very difficult to attack through, even without fortifications.
In short, the Czech plans for self defence were chaotic. A French assessment (Gamelin) came to the conclusion that if Germany attacked, they could expect to last a few weeks, perhaps a couple of months. Meanwhile, it would take France at least two months to provide any assistance because troops would have to be mobilised. It’s also worth remembering that French defensive policy was geared almost entirely around the Maginot Line. So in reality, the Germans had little to fear because the borders for such a war had already been drawn in concrete. The French were simply not geared for the kind of war they might have been expected to undertake against Germany in the event of an attack on Czechoslovakia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kevinW826 That’s because you have no experience of them.
You know plenty of Goodyear tyres are made in China, right? Your thinking is 20 years behind. They’ve come a long way since.
I’ll tell you something from my own perspective. I do a bit of astronomy and astrophotography. I used to think like you. Ten years ago I bought a Chinese telescope, a GSO Optics 10” Dobsonian. Huge thing. Cheap as chips. It came with a cheap, Chinese-made widefield eyepiece. The first night I used it I was gobsmacked. The optical performance blew me away and the smoothness of the focuser was like nothing I’d ever experienced before. The quality was ridiculous. And I mean ridiculously good.
I sold that telescope a few years ago so I could get something more suitable for astrophotography. But if I could have one telescope back again it would be that 10” Dob. The stuff I have now is pretty much all Chinese made. I always wanted an American-made Losmandy mount because of their exceptional quality but these days, they’re out designed by mounts that cost less. They are still fantastic mounts but instead of being a grail mount, these days they are more a niche market. The Chinese mounts are just as reliable, just as accurate, just as serviceable and with next to no backlash (a bugbear of anyone doing long exposure deep sky work, like I do). I’d still happily do business with Scott Losmandy because he makes other good stuff that’s worth having. But my EQ mount is Chinese.
Is your phone made in America? No. Is your television made in America? No. Your refrigerator? Probably not. Your computer that you are madly hammering away on? No. Chances are that most of those things you use on a daily basis are made in China or, at the very least, have Chinese components.
Ever looked at high-end bikes? Chances are good that that ultra lightweight carbon frame came out of the mega factory in Shanghai. And the quality is fantastic. It might have an American brand name but it’s Chinese.
And speaking of Shanghai, you know, don’t you, that many Teslas are made there?
2
-
2
-
"Is it a "high powered" cartridge? No. It's a weak rifle cartridge that's not even suitable for deer hunting, relative to a 30-06 or even a .243."
Rubbish. Dr Roy Guerrero, the paediatrician from Uvalde who testified before the Congressional inquiry reported that two of the victims had been decapitated by bullets. That's powerful.
"Magazine limits are harmful to the law abiding, while doing nothing to stop criminal violence. Why?"
You're such a victim, aren't you, diddums? How are mag limits "harmful to the law abiding"? They're not. Either you can shoot or you can't.
"Handguns suck at quickly stopping people, but they're easy to carry. It's established defensive doctrine that because of this, you fire center mass and keep pressing the trigger until a threat stops being a threat. The more holes, the faster the threat bleeds and then passes out."
Oh, so there really is a difference. You said it was a weak rifle cartridge. People like you are a joke. Too bad you're not actually funny. This is the exact thinking that drives active shooters. Are you sure you're not one in the making?
"Limiting a law abiding citizen to an arbitrary 10 rounds, or 7... 8? Oh let's make it 10 for no reason whatsoever..."
More victim speak. As long as children keep getting murdered in school and gun nuts refuse to accept any compromises, you're going to have to live with that. Tough luck.
"well for starters, by definition criminals don't follow the law. If they have no problem breaking laws against murder, robbery, or rape... I don't think they'll suddenly obey a mag capacity law."
Salvador Ramos wasn't a criminal until he murdered 21 people. But hey, if laws don't work then why do we have them? Why did we bother to lock up Jeffery Epstein? Paedophiles are still going to commit heinous offences so let's get rid of those laws. They're a waste of time, according to your way of thinking.
"Actual murder by gun is extremely rare...especially if you are not involved with illegal drugs and gang violence."
Then you don't need to defend yourself, do you? All that crap about how to shoot someone and then you shoot yourself down. All you really need to do is stay away from drugs and crime. Simples.
And let's get one thing straight: 79% of murders in the United States are committed with guns. Your murder rate is 7.5 per 100,000 and your gun murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000. I don't think I need to point out that this is way out of line with any comparable nation.
"This presentation by cnn was slanted antigun propaganda and demonstrate why cnn is losing more credibility by the day."
Tell that to the trauma surgeons and people like Dr Guerrero.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
19:45 I strongly suggest you read Figes’ book on the Russian Revolution and the civil war which followed. Figes pulls no punches about things like “war communism”, a Trotskyist policy for confiscating harvested grain from peasants and the hated kulaks at gun point (and frequently worse). But he makes it pretty clear that this was less about ideology and more about the survival of the new state against the Whites, supported by a bunch of world powers, including Britain and the United States and that those armed gangs sent to fetch it from the unfortunate farmers were not so much ideologues as unemployed factory workers with a grudge and a gun.
Figes also makes it abundantly clear that the Whites were at least as brutal in their rear echelons as the Reds were accused of being. In the end, the Reds won, not because they were more brutal but because 1) they stopped shooting their deserters, resulting in more people returning to the line and 2) because the peasant farmers knew that they would not have to face the prospect of the land ceded to them after the liberation of the serfs in 1862 being returned to the hated nobility.
As brutal as the Reds were, waving a picture of Lenin doesn’t explain anything. It’s really just a dog whistle trick that gets people salivating and their economic system has nothing to do with the Russian Civil War or, indeed the start of WWII. That’s a hobby horse of yours which you are perfectly entitled to but is completely useless in an historical context.
That communism is internationalist is widely known and accepted. But at no stage did the new Soviet state attempt any kind of violent revolution in say, post-WWI Germany. As much as they hoped it would succeed, it was impossible for them to do anything other than offer moral support, yet it was Germany who made sure Lenin got to Russia. Furthermore, the new Soviet state was very different in 1924, when Lenin died from what it became 15 years later under Stalin. The difference was that the Bolsheviks were a group prepared to use violence to achieve their aims (apart from comrade Lenin himself, who preferred to remain in his apartment and leave the fighting to others...). Stalin used violence in a completely different and terrifying way.
But “murdering millions” when used in the context of Lenin is simply wrong. In the Russian Civil war an estimated 10 million died, mostly through starvation and disease but with approximately 1.3 million killed behind Red lines and 1.7 million killed behind White lines. The real killing came much later and was thus not a part of the Russian Revolution or the civil war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vandalcreed
"Sure the non fascist trade unions were crushed and the Fascist trade unions were nationalised."
The concept of 'nationalising' is meaningless in a one-party state, like Italy in the Fascist period. It is not the same as a state owned rail system where every tax payer has a stake in it. Hardly a shining example of socialism. In a one-party state, everything is controlled by the party. This was all a part of Mussolini's corporatist policy, which purported to serve the interests of both industry and workers, administered at a government level. In fact, all it ended up as was a rubber stamp for industrialists. Those fascist unions you speak of effectively had no power to negotiate and so, despite the claims to the contrary, could not be syndicalist, except in name only. In fact, during the Fascist period, wages declined by about 25% from pre-Fascist levels.
'Fascist trade unions' were not trade unions at all. In other words, whatever they were called, they were not trade unions. They had zero power. If you call a pig a bird it still can't fly. They were controlled by the government, which was not the same as the concept of 'the state' because the people had no say in it. Once again, hardly socialism. And when the Italian Fascist government collapsed in 1943, the 'Fascist trade unions' went with them, to be replaced by more traditional trade unions in the post war period.
Do enough reading and you can see through the semantics smokescreen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Macron is dragging his coat, which is the worst that can be said of him. I'm not surprised. Morrison's behaviour has been appalling. The is the worst behaviour I have ever seen by an Australian Prime Minister. Not only did he make a balls up of the announcement by telling Macron by text message, or sending a trade delegate or whatever it was, he ran a passive aggressive strategy by approaching Macron the way he did. Not content with that, he then did the one thing you never, ever do: he breached the trust of a friendly country by leaking messages between himself and Macron to make domestic policy capital out of it. There are several questions that need answering. First of all, on whose advice did the Australian nuclear policy change and what information was used to support it (I don't expect a direct answer to this)? Secondly, why was the contractor not simply advised that the current contract would no longer meet the need and that new tenders would be called and that Naval Group/DCNS could tender their design if they wanted to? This is critical because that is standard procedure and makes complete nonsense of Morrison's claim that Macron "should have known". That is not how you do business. Finally, the French have been long standing allies of Australia and - while very few Australians seem to understand this, are a powerful nation in the Pacific region. They are allies we simply cannot afford to sacrifice in a pathetic attempt to look like a major player. In fact, we'd have been far better off including them if possible. In short, probably the only thing Morrison could have done worse would have been to try something on Macron's wife. This is that bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IncogNito-gg6uh
"USAAF commander-in-chief General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold turned a deaf ear to not only the development of drop tanks for the P-47, but also to the reports of American Air-attaché Col. Tommy Hitchcock from England pleading the potential of a Merlin powered Mustang."
Simplistic nonsense from Greg Gordon again. The drop tank thing was a pre-war episode at a time when Materiel Command wanted manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity as this is a much more efficient way of increasing range than drop tanks. All manufacturers made an effort except Republic. Same thing happened when USAAF command directed manufacturers to increase internal capacity at the beginning of 1942. Everyone complied except Republic. They added two extra guns instead. I don't know what they were smoking but it didn't help.
Eaker, despite what has been claimed about him, was requesting more fighters from early on.
Greg also oversimplifies this process (mostly in the interest of a good conspiracy theory) and leaves out US Assistant Secretary of State for War, Robert A. Lovett. It was Lovett who recognised the range potential of the P-51 and urged Arnold to adopt it. The USAAF placed orders for 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by the summer of 1943, they were ready. This coincided with Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles, in August of '43, demanding a solution to the problem of a lack of escorts which could penetrate deep into Germany. But what also needs to be recognised is that Arnold actually suffered two heart attacks in 1943 and had forgotten about it. That might sound like a basic error but I'm not speaking from personal experience.
What also needs to be remembered is that there was lot more to the USAAF strategic bombing campaign than the bomber theory (which formed the basic philosophy of most of the world's major air forces anyway). Until the adoption of POINTBLANK, there wasn't a lot of need to penetrate deep into German territory. Once that had been adopted, the need to attack the German aircraft industry became the primary focus and the USAAF had to stop doing the easier, fully escorted, runs and start flying deep into Germany.
"It is noteworthy that both efforts proceeded without his blessing until the disastrous losses in the fall of 1943 threatened to end the daylight bombing campaign."
Much of the blame for this must go to Republic. USAAF command can be blamed for some missed opportunities but it was Republic that failed to respond to repeated requests for increased internal fuel capacity. Drop tanks were a distraction. That was a problem that could easily be fixed in theatre. Internal capacity could not.
"You are right that after the war efforts to minimize the Mustangs contribution were made in official USAAF analyses of the campaign."
Greg again. This guy has read no history and has a bee in his bonnet. He's pissed off that his favourite aircraft was not the greatest fighter of WWII and is making every effort to re-write history so he's no longer offended by reality. Unfortunately, what looks like good research has actually fooled a lot of people. Those of us who have taken the trouble to read about it know otherwise and we are a lot harder o fool. Even his debate with Bill Marshall was something of an anti-climax. Unfortunately, Marshall simply chose the wrong tactics and argued on Greg's strong points, rather than his own.
The historical missions of Schweinfurt and Regensburg and all hose other missions from 'Big Week', as well as the first raids on Berlin, make a nonsense of the whole thing. Marshall did not even attempt to use this material and got dragged down the alley of technical BS which is as much use as a hip pocket in a T-shirt when it comes to judging the effectiveness of the P-47 or P-51. They might as well be arguing about the colour of the camouflage or the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the internet. It's largely populated by nerds who assume that technology will always be the deciding factor and it just isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rezae342
"Dyatlov was not obliged to continue the test when he saw that it reached under 30 MW."
I agree. The point I was making was that he was under massive time pressure and I don't think anyone foresaw the possibility that the reactor might explode so catastrophically. While, with hindsight, I think everyone would say that he was wrong to continue with the test, I don't think he saw this as a likely outcome and thus - to him - it was worth the risk.
"clearly in the documents and also explained that in order to be on the safe side, a 24h period was needed to slowly augment the reactor power back to normal, not doing so in several minutes to a power of just 200 MW for the sake of doing the test."
Do you know what they were testing? Just asking.
"He put too much faith in the equipment and reactor not mentioning the heavy pressure all the night shift staff where in."
With the benefit of hindsight, that would be true, yes. Dyatalov knew the RBMK about as well as anyone and I suspect he knew a lot more about the safety margins that we don't know. I haven't seen any of the documents about the operating parameters of an RBMK1000.
The night shift staff were the wrong people and I think Dyatalov found himself under even more pressure to finish the test because he couldn't really rely on them. Some were party members on the way up (they both died), including the one who was working from reams of notes. Others just lacked enough experience.
On the explosions, which there were two, please allow me to correct you to the best of my knowledge."
Yes, I know. I just wanted to keep the discussion about Dyatalov, in part because there are a lot of crazy theories about the second one being a nuclear explosion (which was impossible with U238).
If you're interested, there's a really good book in English called "Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy" by Serhii Plokhii. I have been reading about Chernobyl for about 30 years and hope to visit one day.
Thanks for your remarks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mack626
"I don’t know why you want to claim that right wing ideologies support racism, sexism, etc. if that’s the perspective you want to take then we are having different conversations here."
What would you call the government of Greg Abbott in Texas? They may not have it as part of their ideology but they have it in practice. Voter laws that oppress African Americans, Hispanics, etc.. Abortion laws that oppress women. Sounds like paradise. Not.
"I use the definition presented by economics: Left meaning command/centralized/ state authorized/planned economics
Right meaning laissez faire/free market/invisible hand/natural economics'
I have already been over this. I don't care what definition you use, it is not appropriate to political science. If you want to see how this plays out, go and look at the Wikipedia page on fascism. Don't look at the article, go to the talk page. Now before you decry Wikipedia as rubbish, it is the reason I am directing you to the talk page. The battle to have fascism described as "left wing" has gone on for years. Read the header at the top of the page. Some time ago, there was a consensus reached and it overwhelmingly favoured the view that fascism was "right wing". The people who participated in that debate were not just punters on the internet. Many were teachers of political science and it was done with much referencing to works of other political scientists. Have a look at the page history. Then look at the specific FAQ section you will see that it does not infer that all conservative people are fascist.
"The Nazis were not evil from their own perspective, it would be dishonest for me to refer to the Nazis or Communist China or the USSR as “evil” left wing governments. They were left wing and they committed atrocities but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily evil."
Aaahhh. Subterfuge. A not-so-subtle attempt to put the Nazis and Stalinists in the same pot because they were totalitarian. This pot you name, "Left Wing: Exhibit A". Don't try that crap on me. Incidentally, "Communist China" doesn't exist anymore. As Prof. John Mearsheimer says, they replaced ideology with nationalism a long time ago.
And the Nazis were evil. We could go into that but it's not relevant.
"The US (especially before the civil war) utilized a more laissez faire approach and we all know of the atrocities it supported: Human slavery, removal of Native Americans, etc."
Yes, we have come a long way in the last 200 years, haven't we. Name one in the last 100 years.
"Neither left nor right governments are inherently “evil”, but I will never trust governments to have control over a nation’s economic production."
Fascists didn't control the means of production. In fascist economies, the means of production was still controlled by those who owned them in the first place. Under the Nazis, companies like I.G. Farben and Krupp prospered under their own original leadership. The means of production was never nationalised.
"The history of Fascism and Communism are both great examples of why a government’s eagerness to control the economics is to be questioned."
Have a look at the early fascist economic policies in Italy. Take this quote from Hayek himself:
"From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini’s regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders, and De Stefani was eventually forced to resign.”
Yet Mussolini was the original fascist and De Stefani had to resign under pressure from other businesses. Big business pressuring government? Doesn't sound very communist to me. Yet you continue to claim that fascism is left wing. Dear me.
"Both Communism and Fascism aimed to control their economies and it has literally never worked out well for its citizens, not once."
And yet modern day economies are planned and controlled, probably to a greater degree than ever. I supposed you'd call that communism. In that case, every government on the planet must be communist. There are plenty of examples of government-operated enterprises which have worked very well and fallen over when sold off or - even worse - handed over to the private sector, only to have to be re-nationalised later. Otherwise it's a conspiracy from left wing economists or something. :rolleyes: Have a look at what happened to Iceland when the government too their collective hands off the wheel in the noughties and how their economy collapsed and the government fell in 2008 because of a lack of government oversight.
Never once worked out well for its citizens?
How about the banking industry in the United States in the noughties, which blatantly disregarded all the rules to chase profits. Read Michael Lewis's book "The Big Short". Don't just watch the movie and assume you understand it. Read the book.
"You are free to look into Stanley’s funding from Marxist institutes or his vocal support for communist leaders."
At no stage has Stanley ever outed himself as a Marxist. Two things here: 1) you have not told me what a Marxist is and why I should imagine it's any more valid than calling him a communist and 2) this is just pandering to your own personal biases, about which you may have noticed, I couldn't care less.
Now, yet again, I ask you to address what I put to you before: every government on the planet is a planned economy with greater or lesser degrees of centralised control. According to you, this makes them communist.
"I personally do not think he is acting in good faith with his discussions on fascism, he blatantly ignores any discussion of economics in regards to fascism because he has his own ideology that he wants to promote, one that includes command economics."
Now that's a very definition of a bad faith argument: "I don't like him so he must be a communist."
He doesn't have to address economics. It's not an economic philosophy. It's just you clutching at straws to remain relevant. None of the other writers I've read on the subject discuss economics at all. According to you, they must have an agenda or some other naive judgement. All this, of course, assumes that you don't, which is rather self-centred.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Auklin The CDC was quoting an old study by Klerk and Gertz from the 1990s which was a random telephone survey of 5,000 respondents that asked one question: “Have you ever used a gun to prevent a crime.” It was debunked by Cook and Ludwig in a similar survey which had mechanisms it it to eliminate false positives. They came to the conclusion that that maximum number was of the order of 110,000. Even Gary Klerk, who did the original survey no longer quotes it, admitting that between 35 and 65 percent of these incidents were probably illegal.
Now let’s look at some other CDC figures. In 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States, with 11,078 by gun. That same year there were 617 justified homicides, 259 by civilians and the rest by police. Of those 259, there were 200 done with guns. That means that for every justified homicide with a gun, there were 55 gun murders. How would you like to explain that?
This is a debate America is incapable of having. The binary nature of politics in the United States is now so entrenched that most people are only able to see this in terms of all guns or no guns. The reality is that only a small percentage of gun control advocates believe that guns could or should be totally eliminated. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. Sensible gun laws have been successfully implemented all over the world without those countries turning to anarchy or totalitarianism. Grow up America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In short: close. Any more than a couple of hundred metres was too difficult to score critical hits. Cannons of that era couldn’t elevate much either. Later, in the time of Nelson, the tactic was often to attempt to ricochet the ball off the water by deliberately bouncing it at about two-thirds the distance.
Another thing that’s widely misunderstood about naval combat in this time is tactics, which rarely get a look in on these discussions anyway (you should read tank discussions sometime…). People never really think beyond two ships slugging it out, broadside to broadside and probably in very close company. A largely pointless exercise. But if you read about things like the Battle of Trafalgar, you will find that Nelson and Collingwood led their columns between the lined up French and Spanish ships so that they crossed them at right angles.
This allowed them to fire down the vulnerable stern galleries and along the gun decks, causing a great deal more consternation that they would have had they simply exchanged broadsides. This was, of course, conducted at near point blank range.
None of these things precluded fighting at close quarters and indeed, that was how Nelson was mortally wounded; shot at short range by a sniper in the fighting top of the French 74 Redoubtable, during a close in fight.
By and large, these old iron smoothbores were pretty inaccurate and short ranged. That changed to some extent with the introduction of carronades but as long as the bore was smooth, the tolerances very loose and the shot round, the options for any sort of range were limited to say the least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
"France has a different culture than we do they're not overrun with f** illegal drugs pumped in by Mexican drug cartels who are battling it out in our streets."
They're not overrun by morons waving guns around either. In any case, France has the tenth highest rate of gun ownership in the world.
By the way, did you even bother to click on the links I posted? Didn't think so.
"Gun laws do not stop gun crime end of story."
Didn't stop Charleston, didn't stop Sandy Hook, didn't stop Colorado, didn't stop Virginia Tech, didn't stop Columbine...Shall I go on?
"Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."
Rubbish. In 2010 there were 617 justified homicides, with 259 by civilians and the rest by police. The rest is a matter for the courts. Larry Bell...Jesus. Even I know about him.
"Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts."
And yet, as I pointed out before, 80% of murder victims knew their killer. The gun lobby wants to keep up this fantasy that it's all about criminals versus the rest of us in a pitched battle. The first sentence in that paragraph is his opinion and nothing more. He can't prove anything. There are examples but they are 1) rare and 2) not representative of what usually happens. The fact is that where guns are produced, the encounter is more likely to become deadly and that may include the original victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Mate, that list is so subjective it's frankly hilarious. You don't really expect me to go though it, point by point, and attempt to refute it, do you? I have better things to do. It wasn't even me who said it. And on top of that, you're quoting Glenn Beck. That pretty much sums it up. Your copy and paste is only someone else's work, not yours. Did you bother to read the references I posted? Didn't think so. As for hate speech, you're the one calling me names and not the other way around. You sound like a pretty good example of someone who should not be allowed to have a gun for two reasons 1) you lose your shit far too easily and 2) you use it to make you feel good about yourself. You may not ever shoot anyone but if, by chance, it ever does happen, I will not be the least bit surprised.
1
-
*****
"Most of you anti-gun types need to be f** medicated or should I say sedated. "
I'm not the one swearing and imagining false threats. That's you. I'm not calling you names either. It just gets better, doesn't it? I wonder what would happen if we all had this debate in a room together. I wonder how many of us on the other side would walk out alive.
"Lastly sweetheart I've passed all the background checks and had the mental evaluation and came up with better marks than any of your kind will. "
Precisely the problem. The checks are just a box ticking exercise. I doubt if you would have passed if your posts here had been submitted for examination. And since I'm a former shooter and gun owner, it's kind of irrelevant whether you think I would pass or not.
"And I'll repeat that your Messiah in the White House its got a full complement of armed guards around him 24 hours a day meaning he is exactly like I am."
I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were so important that people would want to kill you.
I don't know why you think Obama is my messiah. I am not American. I said it to you before but in your irrational state you obviously missed it. His guards are there to protect democracy and the office of President more than Barack Obama the man. The list of political assassinations you provided earlier make it pretty clear why that has become necessary.
" Intelligent enough to know that guns protect us from all that in violent crime out there that you are clearly oblivious to"
If you read the first few links in the post of references I put up earlier, you will see about a dozen examples why this is a Trojan Horse. As for you being intelligent, well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't. What you are is both angry and irrational. You haven't posted anything yet that makes me think you you have a rational point to make. Everything you've posted has related to political issues which cloud the realities. You have tried to blame socialism and liberalism for the world's problems. Kind of not really the point.
As long as the US remains a gun culture, you will be out of step with most of the developed world when it comes to violent death. As long as people like you feel like tough guys and practice lines in front of the mirror every day, with your Glock in the ready position, gun violence will remain a major problem for the US. You are part of the problem.
Now, if you don't mind, I have other things to do with my day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Jag engine was chosen because it was available but in the greater scheme of things, the choice of fuel pump was not that difficult compared with the other challenges they had to overcome. There is absolutely no reason why the fuel pump could not have been a gas turbine. A Pratt & Whitney PT-6 or similar would have been an excellent choice (very available, powerful and reliable) and it would have been considerably smaller and lighter than the Jag engine. The trouble would be the size of the reduction gearbox needed to get the RPM down to a manageable size. Extracting heat would have been harder too. On the upside, it could have shared the fuel type with the EJ-200, which would make things simpler and it would almost certainly be lighter overall.
But what are we talking about are? The fuel pump itself uses an extremely clever priming system which is only hinted at in this video and the hybrid rocket is actually throttleable, which is amazing by itself. That's not so hard with liquid fuel and/or hypergolic fuels but it's very difficult with a solid fuel component. All that is worthy of a video on its own. And really, the Jag engine is only 540 hp of non-motive power against 135,000 hp which will actually power it. It's chicken feed but it gives some idea of how much power this thing produces.
For the record, the Saturn F-1 engines from the Apollo Moon rockets used a 55,000 hp turbo pump, which was itself a gas turbine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cubious Blockus "Australia's gun ban = drop in gun related deaths, rise in stab wound related injuries and deaths."
Another misquoted statistic.
Firstly AUSTRALIA DID NOT BAN GUNS. We banned semi-automatic, military-style firearms, including pump-action weapons.
The only thing that went up was the percentage of murders committed with knives. When another method is reduced, of course you will see a percentage rise in another method. That is not a statistical anomaly. The total number of murders went down.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
"Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population."
That was in 2007, the figure everyone in this debate keeps quoting. There is more up-to-date information than that:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2012/2_profiles.html
The murder rate in Australia in 1989 was 1.9/100K population. It is currently down to 1.1/100K population. The gun murder rate has gone from 0.3/100K to 0.11/100K over the same period.
Yes, our overall murder rate has dropped but the biggest drop has been in gun murders, something I and the vast majority of Australians are grateful for.
I hated John Howard, the Prime Minister who introduced these reforms. However, this was easily the best thing he did for this country and at least 90% of Australians agree. I can walk around my neighbourhood at night without fear.
That is freedom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RagdollRalph "I can't believe that this is what you actually think happened."
Yep; sadly, it's what he really believes and it's his right to do so. See Ralph, this guy has a problem with complex issues - he wants one line answers (see his earlier post to me). This gives him unlimited licence to make sweeping motherhood statements and with them, condemnations. His seemingly endless chanting about being for liberty borders on the religious and I suspect that, for him, it is. It's certainly tribal.
He wants - no, he demands - liberty but he doesn't want it for anyone else. Look at his original post. He tries to marginalise someone with psycho-sexual association (something none of us saw ourselves) yet he blames you for being sexist!
That's what's at the heart of all of it. Blame.
In RadicalRCs world anything he determines as being against liberty would be banned. He'll deny it but it would be very difficult to see what else could be done. If I didn't want my world to be dominated by his view of what it should look like, I would invariably end up oppressed. I would be branded a "socialist", a name to which he gets to ascribe basically anything he doesn't like. In RadicalRCs world anything he likes which is opposed by me would end up being imposed on me on the ground that he is for liberty. That's his conundrum.
His other problem is that he thinks everyone is like him.
In all honesty Ralph, I say that if you want to continue this debate with him then be my guest but frankly, you can't change him. I recommend you don't bother. He's stuck in this simplistic world of his own making with simplistic answers and mantras. He's welcome to them and he'll never give up.
I can't be bothered with him because in the end, he's just another lemming from the extreme right and the internet is awash with them. Desperate for recognition and out of touch with the rest of the world or anything approaching reality.
I have other things to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+It_lolcat
"The US defeated the USSR without fighting it. We got them stuck in a war that bankrupted them."
+Serdiuk Paul
"USSR collapsed because its socialist economy was not sustainable, especially under the strain of the Cold War."
There were many reasons why the Soviet economy declined. In the end though, it actually survived for 70 years and contrary to popular belief, it did not collapse but it did go into serious decline. Of that there is no question. But to say it failed for such simple reasons doesn't explain it even a little bit. Forgive me for saying it but I can't understand how people still believe this but the internet is in love with the idea that there are simple answers to complex problems.
The inefficiencies in the Soviet economy are more than balanced out by the excesses of Western economies. Western economies are every bit as corrupt and inefficient. The difference is in their industrial base, their client base and their resource base. All of that is Grand Strategy.
The Cold War was not a battle of ideologies as much as it was a battle for spheres of influence. The Soviet Union could never number very many wealthy countries among its client states. Their ventures into Africa failed catastrophically, not because of socialist economics but because the Africans really did not speak the same economic language. They ended up giving away billions of Roubles in hardware of all kinds and getting nothing in return for it.
In Eastern Europe the situation was similar but with a slightly different flavour. Towards the end, the Eastern Europeans were still getting Soviet oil but kept defaulting in their payments. Part of this was because they were dealing both directly and indirectly with Western economies with which their currency was less competitive, creating local inflationary pressures and causing balance of payment problems which might not have happened had they elected to stay isolated. As a result, these Eastern European countries continually defaulted and the Soviet Union ended up indirectly lining the pockets of Western industrialists while getting nothing in return.
In the end, the West had a strong base of wealthy client states and always got their money. The USSR had a client base of economically weak states, who they hoped would grow with time but they never got their money back. Without a reliable revenue stream, maintaining a strong economy was much more difficult. Backing poorer countries was about the only point where it was ideologically based but there was an awful lot of enlightened self-interest involved too. This was a direct result of the end of the war when people started talking of "emerging economies". They were simply chasing business.
Add to that the inefficiencies of running the largest nation by land mass on the planet and you will find that the economic challenges for them were very complex indeed and go way beyond any issues of one system or another. The proof of this is in what happened when the Soviet Union broke up. The economy was not well in 1989/90 but was much worse by 1992/93. The transition to capitalism was a far greater failure for them and that is why modern Russians are so sceptical about it.
Furthermore, the Soviet Union did not collapse as such. It broke apart. There was no economic collapse, characterised by hyperinflation, etc. There was no social collapse, marked by civil unrest and there was no political collapse, though they only just dodged that one. The Soviet Union was actually broken up by Boris Yeltsin and a bunch of like-minded confederates from places like the Ukraine. Any collapse was in their international influence.
An excellent book to read on this is "A Failed Empire" by Vladislav Zubok. He explains all of this very well.
"Had there been no US imperialism and aggression USSR would have collapsed less then a decade afferent Stalin's death, during 50s or 60s."
Not at all.
The Soviet economy had to endure far more than the US economy. Remember that the USSR was invaded during WWII and lost about 15% of its population dead. No country or nation suffered more than they did. It was estimated that the war cost them seven years of growth. Yet in the Khrushchev era - a mere ten years later - the Soviet economy grew at a rate three times that of the United States (see "The Russian Revolution 1891-1991" by Orlando Figes). That is how they were able to afford their space program. The real problem with spending came in the Brezhnev era- the late 60's and early 70's - when defence spending absorbed about 40% of GDP. That was clearly unsustainable and it was curtailed around 1977. So the argument that the US "won" the Cold War by outspending the Soviet Union is fallacious at best. They had moved on by then and had other things to contend with (Afghanistan, falling trade revenues, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
REgamesplayer Breakthrough cannot be achieved by tanks alone. That is the point. It was a notable weakness in the British Army, for example, because they stuck to the armoured division model instead of the more effective combined arms strategy. The main point I was making was that the German tanks which attract so much attention are also the ones which were the most expensive and complicated to build, hardest to transport, least reliable, placed the greatest strain on the supply chain and were least suited to mobile warfare. This is because they were designed by people who did not have to deploy them in combat. A tank doesn’t exist in isolation. The PzKpfw IV was designed from the ground up to work in a mobile warfare scenario. It was designed to work in specific Panzer units which had very specific ratio of men and vehicles. When you build a weapon like that, you commit you army to a certain style of operation and certain demands on supply. To go from the IV to the Tiger, for example, turned all that on its head, not because the army wanted or needed to do it but because they had these behemoths foisted upon them. That committed them to a style of warfare they didn’t want or need. They were unreliable and difficult to field and supply, making the army, on the whole, less efficient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Kameraden
"When compared to the T-34 and KV-1 (KV-1 of which saw field action in 1939) the Panzer III was definitely obsolete, in some respects before it ever saw the field the Panzer III was obsolete."
This is all relative. At the time of Barbarossa, T-34's and KV-1's comprised only about 8% of Soviet tanks in the field. In fact, on June 1, 1941, the Red Army had at its disposal:
59 T-35s,
504 KV-1s,
436 T-28s,
891 T-34s,
7,433 BT-7s
9,792 T-26's and
3,587 other light types
for a grand total of 22,702 tanks. (source: Zaloga "Armored Champion" p. 88). Ergo: the likelihood of running into a heavy tank was pretty low. Perhaps the argument he's making about obsolescence is that the production methods were now inadequate to meet the demands of higher quotas. The PzKpfw III was not designed for high volume production in the same way as the Panther was.
This is the point of the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheReal Lifehacks By the way, you should pay special attention to the article by Col Jon Wilkinson. He knows shitloads more about the game than you do with your pathetic ramblings about software versions. Here's his bio:
"Col Jon C. Wilkinson, USAF
Colonel Wilkinson (BS, Utah State University; MS, Troy State University; Master of Stra- tegic Studies, US Army War College) is a faculty instructor and director of theater air operations at the US Army War College. He is responsible for instructing theater strategy and campaigning, as well as the Joint War Fighting Advanced Studies Program. The colonel’s most recent operational assignment was in 2014–15 as the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group commander at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, where he commanded more than 1,100 military and civilian personnel, executing A-10, F-16, MC-12, HH-60, EC-130, C-130J, and airfield management combat operations. A command pilot with more than 3,600 flying hours in the F-16, KC-135, C-130, C-27, and HH-60, Colonel Wilkinson conducted flying operations in Central and South America, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He previously served as the C-27 and C-130 current operations airlift coordinator, F-16 director of operations, operations support squadron commander, Seventh Air Force A3/A5 deputy director, and the US Pacific Command J54 Northeast Asia strategic plans branch chief."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's get a few things into their proper perspective.
1) This is not the return of ground effect. Ground effect never went away. It was just differently implemented. At the end of the 1982 season, the FISA mandated flat bottom cars and outlawed skirts. That meant the bottom of the car between the axles, had to be flat. It didn't mean the whole bottom of the car had to be flat but it had the effect of limiting the amount of downforce that could be applied by the under tray. It also moved the Centre of Pressure backwards. Prior to that, most teams were using wing sections for their under trays and the cars were frequently referred to as "wing cars". Eventually, with under tray profiling, the exit area resembled tunnels more than a wing In both cases - wing cars and "flat bottom cars" - the shape eventually evolved into venturis. Venturi tunnels never went away either.
2) The new rules dispense with the mandate for a flat bottom car. That means the teams can start messing around with the shape of the entry point. The object here is to compress the air as it goes under the car. There are two kinds of pressure: static pressure, which is basically the ambient air pressure acting on any object at any given time and dynamic pressure which is the pressure acting on a vehicle by virtue of its speed. In subsonic aerodynamics, as dynamic pressure is increased, static pressure goes down. That's how you create lift, or in this case, downforce. So by accelerating the air under the car, they can create more downforce than they would with a nominally flat-bottom car using a splitter plate.
Between the beginning of 1983 and the end of 2021, this was not allowed. Dr Harvey Postlethwaite, then with the Tyrrell team, instigated the use of the splitter plate which, while it couldn't accelerate the air under the car, at least ensured a clean airflow. That's how we got the high noses we have today.
3) A return to wing cars doesn't automatically mean more downforce. In this case it actually means less. I'm not 100% sure how this will play out. The new cars will definitely have a dramatically-improved Lift/Drag ratio which will almost certainly make them faster in a straight line but I expect the teams to offset this by running more wing to optimise laptimes. That said, without knowing more figures, it's hard to say. We won't be going back to 1982, when cars ran with 2,500 kgs of downforce from the under tray alone. Without the addition of skirts, this should be near impossible to repeat.
4) On the question of whether the cars will be more prone to flipping or not, it's hard to say. Certainly the movement forward of the centre of pressure suggests they should (CoP ahead of CoG = static instability and likely aerodynamic divergence). All F1 cars are statically and dynamically unstable (this is actually a bad thing so don't get me started). That won't improve this year. Will it cause more flips? I don't know what the stability margin is for the new car. It was about 5 degrees up for the old cars.
5) The forward movement of the CoP means the front wing can be smaller. In 1982, cars often ran with no front wing at all. Some even ran with the front wing at a negative angle, if you can believe that. While I don't expect this to be repeated in 2022 (it may even be illegal), it will likely make the cars better balanced (I've always believed the front wings were far too big and too convoluted).
6) Skirts are still banned. I believe they were considered for something like 13 seconds before they changed their minds. This doesn't mean teams won't seek alternative solutions. In the last days of the old cars, the gap under the side was usually sealed with a bit of aerodynamic trickery. The bargeboards - ridiculous things that should never have been allowed in the first place - generated an intense vortex that had the effect of partially sealing off the under tray, thus increasing ground effect. I'm sure they have other things in mind, rules permitting...
7) Diving over kerbs will probably have no more effect on the car than it did for last season's cars. People who are concerned about damaging the car's ground effect should not worry too much. It's unlikely to be much different from a purely aerodynamic point of view. In 1982, drivers had to be a lot more respectful of kerbs because they could damage the sliding skirts those cars used. There were several cases where skirts got stuck in the "up" position because they were bent and couldn't move within the sided. There were other cases where the skirt broke up. That will not be a factor this year because there won't be any skirts. The only caveat on this is the changes to the suspension and the lower profile tyres.
Anyhow, all this should contribute to some more global aerodynamics instead of the bitty design crap we've seen for so long, with vortex generators and flips here and there and all over the place. If anyone is wanting more detail on this, I strongly recommend looking at Peter Windsor's interview series with Craig "Scarbs" Scarborough. There are three parts and everything is explained pretty well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aleksseb5504 Alright boy, here are some facts for you. Musk decided to get involved but his participation was not at the behest of the Thai government or its agencies, such as the Navy. Throughout the rescue, Musk kept Tweeting about "good feedback" from the diving team but nobody from any part of that team ever confirmed that they had been dealing with him. The conversation was one he was having with himself and his 21 million followers. The longer it went on, the more disconnected it becomes.
At the beginning, the best information anyone had was from Vern Unsworth, a British ex-pat, living with his 40 year-old wife in Thailand. Unsworth knew that cave better than anyone but more importantly, had mapped it with a high degree of accuracy.
The divers - a mix mainly of British and Australians but including at least one American called Josh Morris, were led by a man called Rick Stanton. Stanton is regarded by many in that group as the greatest cave diver in the world. Between them, the divers had worked out a plan to get the kids out. They had considered all the main proposals from drilling to leaving them in there. None was cause for hope.
Stanton had proposed the idea of sedation to Richard Harris, and Australian anaesthetist and expert cave diver. The Thai Nave SEALs had remained largely unused because their expertise was in ocean dives. Caves were unknown to them but they appear to be the only divers Musk referenced.
All the support infrastructure some of it Thai, some American while most of the rescuers were British or Australian. The point is that the whole operation was focused around the rescue as it eventually happened and you can't just come blundering in at the last minute with an impractical, risky and untried idea and expect people to take you seriously. Nobody believed it would or could work, yet Musk had been claiming all along that he had support from the dive team!.
All of the intricate planning had done and the rescue rehearsed, even with unconscious volunteers. At that moment, Musk arrived at the site and dropped of his kiddie sub, at which point he was asked to leave. For that he blamed Vern Unsworth and directed his vitriol at him.
It needs to be stressed in the strongest possible terms that the Thai government had agreed to rescue by the method they used and no other. That meant that however well-intentioned the kiddie sub was, it would have been illegal to use it anyway.
After the rescue was concluded - with 100% success - Musk hired a con man called James Howard-Higgins to investigate Unsworth. Musk paid Higgins $50,000. Higgins simply told him what he wanted to hear. Musk went on the attack and called Unswoth "pedo guy". Challenged on it, Musk doubled down on his claim. Musk sought to publish his claims in the Australian newspapers among others. Unsworth consulted his lawyers and launched a law suit.
Now those are facts, Bubele. Research it yourself. Musk brought this entirely on himself. The mere fact that he claimed he was dealing with the divers showed that either he had no idea who he was dealing with or he was lying. You decide.
Either way, this is pretty clearly defamation and Unsworth has a very good case. Once he's finished in the US courts, he will drag Musk through the British courts, where he will have a much, much harder time trying to justify his actions. The case goes to trial on December 3rd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trespire ALL defence systems are inherently authoritarian. Some have greater degrees of freedom than others to make decisions but command structures exist for a reason.
To take the example of the Israeli-Syrian war of 1982, with particular reference to the Bekaa Valley, authoritarian politics had nothing to do with the outcome.
The Syrians were using late-60s/early 70s export MiG-21 and MiG-23 types which had zero capacity for network centric warfare. They had no C3 aircraft, like the Hawkeye, used by the Israelis and had very limited jamming capabilities.
Their GCI tactics were born not from authoritarianism but from cost. Most people decry GCI but used well, it can be extremely effective. However, in this case, the level of competence was simply not up to the task and the fighters could not be networked anyway.
The Israelis, on the other hand, were heavily supported by the United States and were using the latest F-15 and F-16 fighters, equipped with the new, all aspect, AIM-9L, which seems to have been the most effective weapon.
The Israelis had also trained for months in Southern Israel and were well prepared. The Hawkeyes were backed up with jammers which blinded the Syrian airborne radars and trashed their communications systems. So they were both blind and deaf, relying on the old Mark I eyeball. If their pilots had been better trained, the result might not have been so one-sided. But the Syrian Air Force tended to select its pilots based on influence rather than competence and their tactical thinking was not in the same class as their Israeli opponents. In one case they formed a Luftbery circle. The Israelis went in basically in the vectors provided by the Hawkeye and used sidewinders to shoot them down. As is common, the majority had no idea they were even being targeted.
The Syrian SAM systems were a joke. There was nothing wrong with them at all techno level but the operators put them in the valleys, rather than on top of the hills because they refused to dig latrines.
However, this is specific to one conflict and what applies in one case does not necessarily apply to all cases. Whatever else it is, it’s not simply authoritarian systems vs freedom and any suggestion that this is the defining factor is simplistic at best.
Israel has always enjoyed the maximum support the United States can provide and has had a number of other benefits, such as exchange programs and surveillance that were simply not available to their opponents.
But nobody should ever assume that their opponents can’t or won’t learn and sneering at them is never a safe option. Getting your information from f-16 dot net and the like means you rarely get a complete picture. The USAF and US State Department go to great lengths to ensure we get their version of events but it takes a certain amount of bloody mindedness - which is what I’m equipped with - to adequately research some of these stories. I know enough to know that I don’t know much.
1
-
1
-
@trespire Okay but without a blow-by-blow account, with perspectives from both sides, at all levels, our understanding of what happened will be necessarily limited. Factors like nationalism and perceived security, as well as the unavailability of first hand Soviet accounts, will always make the account incomplete.
I almost never trust the first thing I read on the internet on these things. Even when I read that the F-15 has a scorecard of 104-0 I retain a level of skepticism. I can’t prove absolutely that it isn’t true but by God, nobody can prove absolutely that it is. Of course, the same things apply as is the case with the Bekaa Valley: that the F-15 has pretty much always fought in a networked environment with C3 and jammer support and against second tier air forces.
Do I believe it? Possibly. But I retain an element of doubt. Again, nationalism, tribalism, machismo and even a perverse kind of ‘brand loyalty’ conspire to make it extremely difficult to get a reliable picture.
Question it publicly and you risk a flame war or being called a communist. I’m thick skinned enough for that not to worry me too much but I’m also aware that it means there is very limited interest in a reliable picture.
This is why I called the original post particularly partisan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@herpderpherpd
"It spent most of its time escorting bombers, until the P51-D series had the range to do so, and until the Luftwaffe couldn't put up a fight."
No, that isn't accurate. By the time of 'Big Week' in February, 1944, the P-47 hadn't made much of a dent in the Luftwaffe, mostly because it couldn't fly beyond the German-Dutch border. That meant that the Luftwaffe didn't have to engage it. In fact, once this was known, Goering instructed his fighter controllers not to attack the bomber formations until the escorts had gone home. The decision was changed in early 1944, once the Mustang arrived. Galland and Beppo Schmitt - who had become a decent officer after his embarrassing performance in the Battle of Britain - decided to attempt to force the escorts to get rid of their tanks by bouncing them early. This was in response to the realisation that the escorts - in this case, the P-51s - could go a lot further than before.
It was the P-51, more than any other fighter, that smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dukecraig2402
"P51B's had Merlin engines, not Allison engines."
That isn't true. The P-51Bs used by the USAAF from late 1943 had Merlins.
"The early P51A with the Allison engine wasn't used as a fighter by the RAF or anyone else, the RAF turned them over to Army Ground Command for reconnaissance and ground attack use, they never really flew against the Luftwaffe, only in a defensive role if jumped and that would be at low altitudes and hardly a way to compare them to anything else in the fighter role."_*
They still racked up plenty of kills.
"The fact of the matter is at the higher altitudes that aerial combat typically happened at over Europe the P47 could turn inside of just about every other fighter in the theater, not only could it turn inside of an FW190 it could gain altitude during it's tighter turn while the FW190 would be losing altitude in it's wider turn."
Rubbish.
"The problem with the age old narrative that P47's couldn't turn is that it's a comparison at lower levels and not at the altitudes where aerial warfare typically happened over Europe, the P47 could easily out turn a P51 at those altitudes, even the later P51D."
The P-51 could turn perfectly well if the speed was kept up. So the argument is not about which one turned better but which one turned better at a given speed.
"The P47 was designed to fight at medium/high altitudes, that's where it excelled and nothing could touch it in that environment, all these videos and books that say it couldn't turn are highly flawed in their information because they all compare the ratings at lower altitudes, but that's not where aerial combat happened typically in the ETO, so comparing them at 10,000 ft and less isn't realistic."
Turning fights were rare. Anyone who has read anything knows that. It's said that 80% of victims never saw their attacker.
"The fact is the P47 did most of the work and the P51 got most of the glory."
That is not a fact. It's total BS and easy to disprove. It's not even debatable. Good as the P-47 was, It wasn't in the same postcode as the P-51. Furthermore, it was responsible for the crisis in USAAF command in late 1943.
1
-
@dukecraig2402
"One thing that people don't take into consideration when thinking about the drag of a P51 is that large scoop on the bottom of the fuselage, and the Meredith Effect is a myth, NACA studies proved it, another myth is the "Laminar Flow Wing", tests showed that it didn't work as advertised, the problem with it was that any imperfections whether they be manufactured imperfections or even just bug strikes negated it's effect, that's something else that NACA tests proved."
The Meredith Effect is not a myth. It added about 70 lbs of thrust to the aircraft at speed, equivalent to about 150 hp.
People who don't understand laminar flow shouldn't just mindlessly repeat stuff they don't understand.
"If a P47 really did have as much drag as people assume it certainly wouldn't have the top speed that they had in level flight, those planes were real scorcher's in level flight as well as dives."
The P-47's drag problem - such as it had one - was due to its older wing. It might have been only 11% thick, compared to 16% for the P-51 but it created a poor shock pattern on the upper surface that resulted in Mach tuck. And because it was an older section, it was less efficient in cruise than the P-51, something that would come back to haunt it. This is why the P-51 had a lower drag wing: it had far better shock distribution. As a result, it also had a higher VNE.
"The only real advantage that the P51 had over the P47 was that for the money it cost to build a P47 you could build something like 1.8 P51's, in a wartime economy money=man hours, and man hours=production volume."
Lies. You're kidding yourself if you think you understand this.
Until the P-51 arrived, the USAAF could not carry out its strategic bombing campaign. After the arrival of the Mustang, the bombers could go anywhere in Germany with fighter escort and the casualty rates dropped to about 3% by mid-1944 and 1% after that. The P-51 shot down 60% more aircraft than the P-47 and in half the number of missions, while also destroying 30% more ground targets.
"That being said, the top 10 P47 aces survived the war, no other fighter on anyone's side can lay claim to that."
Luck played no small part in that.
1
-
@dukecraig2402
"The ranges of the P47 that everyone throws around are incorrect, as I pointed out in an earlier post they were doctored up in the late war report on fighter ranges to make it seem that P47's had a shorter range than variations already in theater actually had, that was done for the sake of the people in charge not having to face a Congressional inquiry after the war about those bombers being sent unescorted on the early missions. "
These are just lies. The mission plans show you to be wrong. Conspiracy theories are a poor way to view anything, especially if you want to understand history.
"There's plenty of pictures that are dated that were taken from pilots and ground crews that show P47's taking off on fighter sweep missions with "aquired" external drop tanks, that and the ranges and hours of flight time in the after action reports prove that some of the P47's in theater at the time could have escorted the bombers on those early unescorted missions into Germany, the fact is the high command wouldn't allow it because they wanted to prove their concept of the bombers being able to fight their way to the targets and back on their own, after those raids proved to be disastrous with heavy losses of life these same "powers that be" got busy trying to cover their asses over that fiasco by doctoring up reports to make it seem like it took the P51 to be able to do it, unwitting aviation writers and documentary makers have used those falsified reports as their reference material without actually fact checking them, and that false narrative has just been repeated from one generation to the next of writers."
Rubbish. Read 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeff Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. They make a total nonsense of your claims. The P-47C - which was the dominant model at the beginning of 1944 - couldn't get past the Dutch border when equipped with a 108 gallon tank on the centreline pylon. Very few others had been re-plumbed to carry tanks under the wings and they couldn't get beyond Magdeburg. Any claim that P-47s could have escorted the B-17s to Schweinfurt are simply lies told by people who don't read.
"Even though the drop tank solution could have been a quick fix to the issue of escort range Republic Aviation saw the need to extend the range of the P47 right away and got to work developing what eventually became the long range P47N on their own without a request from the USAAF, they saw the need and started to develop it early on but the USAAF stepped in and slowed them down to put the resources into other projects because of the development of the P51, had they not done that the N variant would have had a lower alphabetical variant designation and would have seen action in the ETO, but as a result of it's development being slowed it was the last variant developed and didn't see action until after the war in Europe was over, as a result aviation writers incorrectly state that the N variant was developed for long range missions escorting B29's in the Pacific when in fact Republic Aviation started development on it much earlier and had intended for the war in Europe. "
Total BS. The only way to increase range is to increase internal capacity. P-47 fanbois don't understand this.
Republic caused the problem. Even before the US entered the war, Materiel Command saw the need for increasing internal capacity and sent directives to all the major manufacturers. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded to this. At the beginning of 1942 another directive was sent out and again Republicfailed to respond. Gen. George Kenney, who was in charge of one of the Pacific commands, was known to be furious with Republic, who were more interested in putting guns in their aircraft than increasing capacity, in line with mission planning.
At the start of 1943, a P-47C could only carry 256 gallons of fuel internally, compared to 269 for the P-51, which drank 30% less fuel. Only after the introduction of the P-47D-25 - which did not reach the squadrons until May - did the P-47 have more than 300 gallons of internal fuel.
"Like I said aviation writers get a lot of it wrong because they just repeat incorrect information from one generation to the next without fact checking."
Again this is BS. It's also a bluff. All you're doing is parroting 'Greg's Airplanes and Auromobiles'. Aviation writers use a lot more than theoretical/technical sources. Greg is out of his depth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ I don't mind as long as sales are increasing and prices are coming down. But in fact, sales in places other than China are not flat. They are increasing. Have a search for an article called 'Tracking global data on electric vehicles'. There are some interesting graphs (2023).
EV Volumes had this to say in its article, 'Global EV Sales For 2023':
'EV shares still continued to increase in most markets. BEVs (11,1 %) and PHEVs (4,7 %) stood for 15,8 % of global light vehicle sales in 2023, compared to 13,0 % in 2022. Norway had the highest market share of EVs in 2023 (BEVs 72 % + PHEVs 7 %), followed by Hong Kong and the Nordic countries in Europe. China had 33,9 %, Europe 21,4 % and USA 9,4 %. The fastest growing markets were Turkey with 86 600 units, up +805 %, Brazil with 50 400 units, up +359 %, Thailand with 89 000 units, up +328 %, Malaysia with 10 400 BEV & PHEV units, +886 % and Australia with 93 00 units, up +141 %.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@finlaymcdiarmid5832
"nationalisation"
Of what?
"huge welfare programs"
This is far from a simply matter and you have to understand the answer to the first question to understand the answer to this one. It was nothing like a welfare state in the modern sense.
"huge infrastructure work programs very similar to Roosevelt"
See above.
"car ownership schemes"
Again, this was far from a simple matter. Hitler, a car nut, had been approached by Dr Ferdinand Porsche with an idea that simply allowed him to build a huge factory at Wolfsburg at the lowest possible cost. This had nothing to do with the government because there was no government money in it. But Hitler swung it so that the new factory was built on land previously owned by Jewish people. In the end, there were only about 600 cars made and that factory was turned over for war production - which did involve government money because there was a war on.
I suggest you look into the finance schemes.
"workplace cleanliness"
I give up. How was this 'socialist'?
"food stamps"
I think you underestimate how poorly Germany was doing during the Great Depression. After the hyper inflationary period between 1921 and 1923, the government adopted the Reichsmark to replace the worthless and out-of-date paper currency which had long been decoupled from the gold standard. Instead a system was worked out with American loans which helped to stabilise the economy.
However, as soon as the Great Depression hit, America - somewhat understandably - called in their loans.
The impact on the German economy was catastrophic and once again, starvation was a distinct possibility. There is a difference between a policy and an expedient and the Nazis had little option but to feed their people. But this didn't last.
Now, taken with the fact that the average German in 1932-3 was dirt poor because of the Depression, how did the Nazis afford both the work programs and rearmament? Because the answer covers most of the questions you have asked.
I've asked this question before of others and had some hysterically funny answers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carlireland5049
"Britain and France remained the world’s military superpowers and together were still much more militarily stronger than Nazi Germany in 1938."
They could still have done nothing about it. For a start, the French strategy was to remain within her border behind the Maginot Line. Secondly, Britain's advantages were her navy and air force, neither of which could have done anything to stop the Germans. Absolutely everybody knew this.
"Part of the reason why World War II began with a nine-month period without any fighting between the Western Allies and the Axis was that even at the beginning of the war Germany still needed time to rearm, while the Allied governments were still afraid to send their soldiers into major battles."
Nothing to o with fear. Everything to to do with practical reality. The RAF, for example, could have done virtually nothing, visa a vis bombing because their aircraft lacked any kind of decent payload/range performance. In 1939, when the RAF did attack, they were absolutely shot to bits by the Luftwaffe.
"The Nuremberg tribunals later revealed that the Wehrmacht soldiers reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936 were under orders to retreat with even the slightest Allied resistance."
That's just a tactical withdrawal. The Germans used this to great effect throughout the war. It doesn't mean they were going to lose if attacked. They also knew that France - who had the largest army they would encounter in the west - was configured to support the Maginot Line. To make any kind of attack would run counter to all their training and equipment.
"So I don’t find Britain and France’s defense cuts, even in the context of the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War I, a valid excuse to delay rearmament."
Yeah, history doesn't care about that. The state of Britain's economy in the early 1930s was so parlous that they had to abandon the gold standard. How the hell would they pay back their debts under those circumstances? How would they pay for rearmament? People think this is easy and it just isn't. Secondly, the biggest cuts to defence spending were carried out under the auspices of one W. Churchill when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s. His view was that a pilot in a fighter was no more use than a man on the ground with a rifle. Britain's rearmament program started under Chamberlain in 1937, while Churchill grumbled about 'the years the locusts ate'. Blame shifting if ever I saw it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey, Kevin, There's another aspect to this that you might want to look into. While to ficus has been on nuclear power in China, they have been installing renewables at a rate of 5 GW per week. Search for an article called "China to Achieve its 2030 Energy Target in July 2024" in Climate Energy Finance. This is coming at the expense of all othoer reseources, including nuclear. As it's a recent development, many of the nuclear reactors currently under construction probably began before this blitz of renewable energy. I expect there will be substantially fewer large power stations built in China in the coming year and the are some replacement coal-fired power stations which I suspect will never turn a turbine wheel. Decentralising it makes a lot of sense.
That AI is part of the reason is beyond doubt but there are few riders from my observation. First of all, China is seeking to gain energy independence from the Middle East (who can blame them?) and this is one of the things that's driving the boom in electic vehicles and solar panels. Secondly, Chinese AI seems to be much lighter and more efficient than OpenAI. DeepSeek has been shown to be so light that it can run on a Raspberry Pi and a decent graphics card. The point is that it should - on that basis - use less power, especially if it is distributed to nodes, rather than in one centralised place.Finally, China is very much an ageing population and the cheap the energy they can produce the better in the long term.
Frankly, Altman spends a lot of time beating his own drum. He was the first to accuse the Chinese of IP theft when DeepSeek dropped, until they released the code and it proved to exactly what they said it was.
Just my two cents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jett7499 This is Biden's proposed gun legislation. Thank you for encouraging me to familiarise myself with it:
*Hold gun manufacturers accountable.
*Get weapons of war off our streets.
*Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
*Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
*Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities.
*Reduce stockpiling of weapons.
*Keep guns out of dangerous hands.
*Require background checks for all gun sales.
*Close other loopholes in the federal background check system.
*Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed.
*Close the “hate crime loophole.”
*Close the “Charleston loophole.”
*Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration.
*End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions.
*Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons.
*Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws.
*Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs.
*Adequately fund the background check system.
*Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women.
*Expand the use of evidence-based lethality assessments by law enforcement in cases of domestic violence.
*Make sure firearm owners take on the responsibility of ensuring their weapons are used safely.
*Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns.
*Hold adults accountable for giving minors access to firearms.
*Require gun owners to safely store their weapons.
*Empower law enforcement to effectively enforce our gun laws.
*Prioritize prosecution of straw purchasers.
*Notify law enforcement when a potential firearms purchaser fails a background check.
*Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen.
*Stop “ghost guns.”
*Reform, fund, and empower the U.S. Justice Department to enforce our gun laws.
*Direct the ATF to issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.
*Dedicate the brightest scientific minds to solving the gun violence public health epidemic.
*Prohibit the use of federal funds to arm or train educators to discharge firearms.
*Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms.
*Make federal programs more trauma-informed.
*Create a network of trauma care centers.
*Train health care and other service providers in trauma-centered care.*Hold gun manufacturers accountable.
*Get weapons of war off our streets.
*Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
*Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
*Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities.
*Reduce stockpiling of weapons.
*Keep guns out of dangerous hands.
*Require background checks for all gun sales.
*Close other loopholes in the federal background check system.
*Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed.
*Close the “hate crime loophole.”
*Close the “Charleston loophole.”
*Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration.
*End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions.
*Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons.
*Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws.
*Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs.
*Adequately fund the background check system.
*Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women.
*Expand the use of evidence-based lethality assessments by law enforcement in cases of domestic violence.
*Make sure firearm owners take on the responsibility of ensuring their weapons are used safely.
*Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns.
*Hold adults accountable for giving minors access to firearms.
*Require gun owners to safely store their weapons.
*Empower law enforcement to effectively enforce our gun laws.
*Prioritize prosecution of straw purchasers.
*Notify law enforcement when a potential firearms purchaser fails a background check.
*Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen.
*Stop “ghost guns.”
*Reform, fund, and empower the U.S. Justice Department to enforce our gun laws.
*Direct the ATF to issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.
*Dedicate the brightest scientific minds to solving the gun violence public health epidemic.
*Prohibit the use of federal funds to arm or train educators to discharge firearms.
*Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms.
*Make federal programs more trauma-informed.
*Create a network of trauma care centers.
*Train health care and other service providers in trauma-centered care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
User Name Partly true. The soviet economy lost seven years' growth in WWII. On the other hand, the crash programs of the war had actually benefitted them in some ways. But their post war growth was not merely inflated by that. With industrialisation largely completed and about 95% of the population educated (up from about 25% at the start of WWI), they had undergone a transition which put them in a unique position. They grew because for the first time, they were able to grow. The reforms under Khrushchev meant that - for the first time really - consumer goods became available. By comparison, Britain, which had suffered less than the Soviet Union but was economically just as bad, did not grow. I think it actually shrank. Don't forget: the UK was still on rations until 1954.
The stagnation in the 1970s was caused by a lot of things. Excessive defence expenditure in the 1960s under Brezhnev, bad debts caused by client states not paying their bills, (particularly) for oil, Afghanistan, the list goes on. But that was later and the real focus was on the the 50's and 60's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Metoo3232-pu2wc
"Well Chuina stole the blueprints to the F22 and F35 to design their jets. Otherwise it would have taken another 20 years to be where they are now. China stole the blueprints not the guys who assemble them or the know how. That is why China suffered quality control problems which happen even to the US planes just not as ofter. State of the art and reliable are mutally exclusive."
No they didn't. That is a massive lie. Why don't you do some reading and look up the QinetiQ hack? That's the incident you're referring to and it had nothing to do with the F-22. Nor did it involve the entire F-35. If it had, they would simply have built an F-35. What they got was data on the diverterless intake. So, in fact, what you're talking is utter, unmitigated cr@p. You don't know what you're talking about.
Do you know what a "blueprint" is, sonny?
What's more, you seem to ignore the fact that 1) if the United States is so stupid as to allow a whole design to be stolen then why can't users of the F-35 hack into it and do their own work? Don't tell me it's because of US contractual agreements. 2) Why would they be that stupid?
You have no idea about China. In fact, in your own education-free idiom, "you don't know shit about China, dude" and that extends to quality control. The fact is that there are 64 critical technologies in the world. The United States leads in seven of them, the rest of the world none nd China 57. They are a helluva lot smarter than you give them credit for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DorianPaige00
"Hitler was a hedge to the Left which means he prevented the country from slipping into communism and unionism as he had some social programs for the Germans he saw fit."
"Hitler was never a socialist." - Prof. Sir Ian Kershaw.
Whatever else has been said about Hitler, he was not left wing. This is mainly the narrative of a kooky part of the American right who are trying to 'own the liberals'. I'm happy to expand on why Hitler was right wing and not left wing if you like. But let's address some other things first.
I'm not sure why you keep using the word 'hedge'.
"Let's not forget that Nazi stands for National Socialist"
Let's not also forget that it had that name before Hitler joined. Once he took control of it, the party was never again remotely socialist. There's plenty of evidence for this. Furthermore, I have never understood who so many people quote Hitler saying he had no further territorial claims in Europe after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, yet are happy to believe him when he said he was a socialist. It's like people actually trust politicians...
The point is that it doesn't matter what he said. It matters what he did.
"High tariffs are supported by unions and fascists also support it to keep the jobs on the homefront."
High tarrifs were a sop to the industrialists who got him into power: Fritz Thyssen, the Krupp family, I.G. Farben, the Quandts, Ferdinand Porsche, etc.. during the Great Depression. Germany was more affected by the Great Depression than a lot of other countries because when it hit, the American investors called in all their loans. Hitler also encouraged the major industialists to act as cartels in order to protect themselves against international competition. It's said that his encouragement of price fixing by industrialists was a left wing approach. This too, is wrong. Price fixing and cartel behaviour is where big companies go when the government isn't looking. It's uncompetitive and rightly outlawed in most capitalist countries but it's a natural capitalist tendency. Whatever else it is, it isn't socialism.
"In Italy under Mussolini, the state has the power to direct economic production and allocation of resources."
There are certain sections of almost any country where that is true.
"By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union, where the Italian state controlled over four-fifths of Italy's shipping and shipbuilding, three-quarters of its pig iron production and almost half that of steel."
Once again, that could have been said of almost any coutry up until the 1980s. Not proof of socialism.
But it leads me into a very neat segue. Hitler came to power when the German economy was very weak. The first thing he did was to try to ease the pressure on the economy through quantitative easing: printing money, on the advice of his banker, Hjalmar Schacht. It didn't work because it added inflation to Germany's list of woes. What is also not known is that the Nazi Party was broke (see: 'The Nazi Billionaires', by David de Jong) .
What they did next was remarkable: the Nazis started on the biggest program of privatisation and deregulation ever attempted, known as ‘Reprivatisierung’. It was only exceeded by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. They sold off a huge number of government assets, including all the major banks, the entire Reichsbahn, the major shipping lines, the entire national steel industry, government land and property and they even sold off charities like Winterhilfe, which ended up being little more than a Nazi party slush fund. This is how they afforded rearmament. (see 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany' by Germa Bel)
With the elimination of the unions, German workers also lost a lot of benefits they had enjoyed since the days of Bismarck.
These are not the actions of the left.
"These are all moves to the economic Left by paleo-conservatives that feel these moves are best to keep their country in line and the economy moving."
Just remember who backed the Nazis in the first place...
"Furthermore, communism and fascism are not direct 180 degree opposites but are at 90-120 angles on the political spectrum."
There is some measure of truth in this but only if you accept the Nolan chart as the ultimate arbiter. It's only as valid as the traditional left/right polemic. That is to say, not very.
"Fascists are social conservatives and economic moderates (not hard leftists, liberal-capitalists, or libertarians)."
I'll have to think about that but since we have mainly been talking about the Nazis, I don't think it applies.
"They want to preserve the economic system yet keep the population from starving."
They give them just enough bread that they don't. That's it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stuart Yules Excellent response. I’ve been saying this for years to those gun owners who are drunk on power because they believe that they get to decide at gunpoint who runs the country (in their dreams it’s always them). The fact is that most of them have no education about how democracy works and no idea how to use the system. Instead of engaging with their elected representatives to get something done, their first thought runs to armed insurrection. And we saw how that works out on Wednesday. The Constitution gives you all the tools you need to operate a free society. But democracy is as much a responsibility as a privilege. You have a responsibility to use it properly and a responsibility to ensure that it is not threatened, as it was the other day.
And the 2nd Amendment is not a get out of jail free card for overthrowing or attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government. It is not a badge of honour to show who really runs the country.
I don’t have a problem with people owning guns but the relentless vanity of gun groups who think they run the country needs to be called out for what it is. Their lack of a political education, their lack of respect for due process and the rights of others, their unshakeable belief that they have a right to overthrow governments, kidnap and potentially murder elected representatives and their general “fuck you” attitude to the rest of society means that I am 100% supportive of more restrictive gun laws and the sooner, the better. These people need to be put in their place. They have no more rights than anyone else just because they own a gun.
And for those power-crazed, arrogant, armed mobs in their “tactical” gear who have marched on Capitol buildings in Michigan, Oregon and now Washington and for that gang that plotted to kidnap and murder Gretchen Whitmer, may you all rot in hell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dynevor6327 From a purely aerodynamic standpoint, IAS is what dictates stall speed and control authority, but that doesn’t mean the aircraft is equally responsive in all phases of the loop.
If the aircraft is descending with a strong tailwind component, it may close with the ground faster than expected, and a sudden transition to a lower-wind environment near the surface can lead to an unanticipated lag in response.
A looping aircraft gains and loses energy based on true airspeed (TAS) and altitude, not just IAS.
If the aircraft had a headwind at the top of the loop and a tailwind at the bottom, its TAS at the bottom might be higher than the pilot anticipated, making the pull-out more difficult.
IAS is a useful measurement, but it doesn’t negate the fact that wind gradients, energy state, and control response all play a role in the real-world dynamics of an aircraft, especially in a critical low-altitude manoeuvre like a loop.
1
-
@dynevor6327 From a purely aerodynamic standpoint, IAS is what dictates stall speed and control authority, but that doesn’t mean the aircraft is equally responsive in all phases of the loop.
If the aircraft is descending with a strong tailwind component, it may close with the ground faster than expected, and a sudden transition to a lower-wind environment near the surface can lead to an unanticipated lag in response.
A looping aircraft gains and loses energy based on true airspeed (TAS) and altitude, not just IAS.
If the aircraft had a headwind at the top of the loop and a tailwind at the bottom, its TAS at the bottom might be higher than the pilot anticipated, making the pull-out more difficult.
IAS is a useful measurement, but it doesn’t negate the fact that wind gradients, energy state, and control response all play a role in the real-world dynamics of an aircraft, especially in a critical low-altitude manoeuvre like a loop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"P-51 cheaper, simpler ,easier to fly"
Actually, it was harder to fly because of the way it consumed its fuel. But the pilots and the commanders wanted it and the Germans feared it.
"Once pilots got used to stall characteristics of laminar flow wings."
There wasn't much to get used to. The wing was better than that of the P-47 in just about every way. The problem with the P-51 was the way it used its fuel.
The pilot had to start with the left hand tank. Once that was used up, he'd switch to the right. As if that wasn't hard enough, as soon as he dropped his empties, he was on the tank behind the pilot. In that configuration it needed a lot of forward trim and was not a good time to get bounced. That said, it was also cruising faster and much more efficiently - because of the wing - than any other type in the war.
The laminar flow thing has been over stated. The means of producing such a wing didn't really exist until after the war but it was a good try. Where the Mustang's wing excelled was in efficiency. The P-47 had its post of maximum thickness at 30%, same as the Spitfire. The P-51 wing had its maximum thickness at 38.9%, which is even further aft than the Sea Fury. That meant shockwave formation was offset, giving the Mustang a higher tactical and critical Mach number. This was about controllability.
The more you look, the more advanced the P-51 was but it was not without its drawbacks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertelder164
”Very low loss rates in total, sparky. P-47 got you home.”
Myth.
The P-47 spent a much lower percentage of its time in hostile airspace than the P-51 because of its range. If you only stick your toe in the water you’re not going to get as wet as if you jump in. In statistics it’s known as ‘survivor bias’.
Yes, it had low loss rates but they were only marginally better than the P-51 (0.73 v 1.18) for much lower time in enemy airspace.
This claim that ‘the P-47 got you home’ is also largely unfounded. If you weren’t in hostile airspace, then any aircraft stood a better chance of getting home. Of course there are anecdotes but the P-51 was more likely to engage in combat than the P-47, which usually has to turn for home before the Luftwaffe attacked the bomber stream.
In ground attack, the P-51 destroyed 30% more targets than the P-47 in half the number of missions. Yet according to P-47 fanbois, the P-51 couldn’t do ground attack because it was a liquid-cooled flying death trap that could be brought down by a cockeyed school kid with a slug gun.
In air-to-air, the P-51 scored 60% more victories than the P-47 in half the number of missions.
By every objective measure, the P-51 was the better aircraft. That’s why it was replacing the P-47 by the end of 1944. The more you look, the more obvious it is, no matter what the cool kids are saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InssiAjaton
"I have read various Finnish memoirs, most written by Joppe Karhunen, a lead pilot who himself flew Brewster Buffalo. While I don’t recall all the names of his books, I do recall the one “Ujeltavat Potkurit” — Whistling Propellers — that told about the Fighter Squadron 24 getting the Brewster Buffaloes in 1941."
I would never trust a source like that at face value when it came to trying to reliably assessing a K/D ratio. Critical thinking is essential here and you need to balance those claims with losses. And that doesn't mean I suddenly believe Soviet figures either. I've never seen any which is actually a bad thing.
My problem is Finnish nationalism. Finland fought a war against an invading army and while they ultimately lost, they acquitted themselves extremely well so they have plenty to be proud of.
But when nationalism is involved, the story can be muddied by all kinds of myth and legend. However, as with most of these things, they rarely stand up to close inspection when detailed audit figures are available. I'm not sure they are for this case.
It sort of reminds me of the claims made for the German army in the Soviet Union before the archives were opened. In the absence of any other information, most people simply didn't question what the Germans - particularly the German generals - claimed.
"The biggest ace, Ilmari Juutilainen got about half of his kills with the Buffalo and then the other half in the hectic last months flying a BF109."
My understanding is that he spent a lot more time in the Bf-109 and scored most of his victories in it too.
"By the way, the war time President Risto Ryti got a Russian/British peace commission pressed prison term for signing the contract with Germany for getting these BF109 planes, officially because he did sign the deal without an approval of the Parliament."
I'm not sure what the has to do with the subject but okay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arch3088 No, you don’t know what the “original framers” had in mind because the Federalist papers tell only one side of the story and even then, Madison, Hamilton and Jay disagreed on many things. The Federalist papers were little more than sales pitch to get all 13 colonies to ratify the constitution.
Secondly, I don’t care if you don’t care. The Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, is the law. If you don’t like how they do it then appeal. But for God’s sake learn something about how the law works.
There’s nothing in the second amendment that says gun law must be unrestricted. In fact, if you want to be literal about it, the government could quite legitimately pass a law that says you’re only allowed to have muzzle loaders. As long as you still have a right to own a gun then there’s no breach.
You are NOT duty bound to disobey laws you deem unconstitutional. Where does it say that in the constitution? It’s not your job to determine what is and is not constitutional. That’s the job of the Supreme Court. If you don’t like the law, the constitution provides for you to be heard before the Supreme Court. They just make no guarantee that your appeal will be upheld.
And by the way, freedom and responsibility are intertwined. You can’t have one without the other if you want a functional society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yes The Domino effect was a flawed concept of a slightly paranoid administration. It was not automatic that once one country becomes communist, the one next to it will and so on. Even the most cursory examination would make it fairly easy to predict which countries would potentially become communist and which would be less likely.
Communism is a revolutionary philosophy that, like all other revolutionary philosophies, requires the levelling of all existing social, legal and economic structures. This is invariably violent and manifests itself as civil war. In her book ’How Civil Wars Start’, US author Barbara F. Walter shows the parallels common to all civil wars. The slightly potty idea that a peaceful country with a stable government and stable society (it doesn’t matter if it’s a democracy or an autocracy as long as it’s stable) will be as likely as an anocracy with an unstable government to become communist doesn’t hold water. The vast majority of countries that went communist were already either unstable states where democracy was weak and social demographics were changing or they were already failed states. Such things are usually pretty obvious well beforehand.
So much for the Domino theory. It was largely for public consumption anyway. I doubt if serious policy makers thought much of it.
The major difference between Korea and Vietnam was where they were when the fighting started. Korea had been occupied by the Japanese and was administratively divided between the Soviet Union in the North and the United States in the south, divided at the 38th parallel. A situation not totally dissimilar to Germany post-1945. The Soviets left in 1948 and the US left in 1949. Although elections had been held in both the North and the South, democracy was far from well established and the society was not completely stable. Add to that the fact that both were led by fairly brutal dictators who had been elected by a flawed process and that the two sides didn’t like each other and you’ve got a recipe for trouble, especially when the North was much better equipped.
Vietnam was a different story. After centuries of French oppression, they’d had enough. The administration was weak and WWII had resulted in less effective local administration and the fighting between the local Vietnamese nationalist guerrillas and the French army broke out. The French navy shelled coastal towns. The rise of Ho Chi Minh - who was, in a broad sense, elected - caused some alarm in Washington. They and the corrupt Saigon administration refused to accept the result. Then the French were catastrophically defeated at Den Bien Phu. The US were already watching with interest and were running undercover and informal operations and arms supply in the late 1950s. They were supporting opposition forces and a corrupt and ineffectual leadership in Saigon and it was here that the seeds of defeat were sown. The fact was that the bulk of the Vietnamese people didn’t want the French or the Americans. They hated the Saigon governments - the Americans didn’t like them either - and no tears were shed when they were overthrown (which happened several times before 1975). They wanted self-determination first. Communist or democratic capitalist didn’t matter. The war ended with a decisive Vietnamese victory.
Finally, the fighting in Korea spanned the entire length and breadth of the country. The early Northern assaults pushed the entire ROK, US and UN forces all the way back to Pusan. After the US and British landed at Inchon, they also forced a breakout from Pusan and eventually went all the way to the Yalu River. When the North Korean and Chinese forces pushed back,they all ended up pretty well back where they started: the 38th parallel. After three years of fighting, a stalemate ended in a ceasefire but the war has never officially ended.
Unlike the war in Korea, which was a UN action supported by more than 20 countries, Vietnam was almost entirely fought by the French or the Americans, with some input from Australia and New Zealand. More than 80% of the fighting was in the south. The Korean War took place on Korean soil. The Vietnam war spilled into Cambodia and Laos. The Vietnam War ended with a decisive victory while the Korean War ended in a stalemate.
1
-
1
-
@yaimavol
Communism: anti-capitalist, Fascism: anti-socialist
Communism: war on class, Fascism: war on culture
Communism: equality, Fascism: attacking minorities
Communism: internationalist, Fascism: nationalist and usually irredentist
Communism: inclusive, Fascism: anti feminist
Communism: state ownership, Fascism: private ownership, party control
Communism: ideology, Fascism: reactionary movement
"And the modern interpretation is that it is a right-wing ideology. The only thing right-wing about fascism is nationalism. The rest of it is the worship of the collective that is anathema to the political right"
Anyone advocating the notion that Fascism is left wing needs to be reminded that no fascist government has ever got into power without the support of conservatives (Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kurowski wrote under many 'pen names'. Wikipedia provides this list:
Karl Alman,
Heinrich H. Bernig,
Hanns-Heinz Gatow,
Rüdiger Greif,
Franz K. Kaufmann,
Kurt Kollatz,
Volkmar Kühn,
Arturo Molinero,
Hrowe H. Saunders,
Johanna Schulz,
Joachim von Schaulen,
Heinrich Schulze-Dirschau
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noskateonme5671
"do you even know what the what the constitution says? 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Yes, I'm very familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.
"Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state laws."
That depends on a lot of things and they are never so clear cut. If you want to challenge the law, take it to the Supreme Court. That's their job.
"If the Constitution says something is legal then the states cannot say it is illegal."
Please explain this in black and white. If the states say that the AR-15 is illegal but you can still own a bolt action or a shotgun then the matter would need to be decided by the Supreme Court. It's still legal because you are not being deprived of your right to own a gun. According to "Heller v DC", (2008), the second amendment is not unlimited. They specifically said that the second amendment does not entitle you to own any gun your heart desires. For that very reason, it is well within the state's power to make whatever overlay laws it likes.
"One of those rights as stated in the second amendment is the right to keep a bear arms. A right that shall not be infringed."
You're arguing that, not me. I'm arguing that gun control does not infringe that right. Unless it outright prohibits all guns - and no state on the planet does - then your right is not infringed.
If you have a problem with that then take it to the Supreme Court.
1
-
@DovahKanye
""Democracy is the most vile form of government." -- James Madison, 4th President, Founding Father, and author of the Bill of Rights."
Madison was a federalist and like Hamilton, did not like the idea of common folk having the vote. In the words of Alan Taylor, "They wanted to redesign republican governments to weaken the many and empower the few."
In fact, they did everything they could to subvert the possibility of everyone having a say in the running of the country. The federalists were dominated by monied gentlemen; mostly merchants, bankers and large landowners. They reasoned that they could get better trade with a strong federal system. The anti-federalists were mostly the small land holders and farmers, who favoured a broader democracy. In the washout, the federalists won because they had more money and almost all the newspapers had owners who favoured federalism. That's why the Federalist Papers were serialised in newspapers.
So, in fact, the anti-federalists (who lost in the end) were in favour of strong states and a weak union while the federalists favoured a strong union with a central government. In short, the federalist papers are not the words of the founding fathers, merely the words of the federalists among them.
"Calling the United States a democracy is a perversion of the English language."
And yet the initial proposal was for elections every year. In the words of John Adams, "How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government...for themselves or their children."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It might be politically incorrect to say this but I actually disagree with one conclusion: that the western assessment of the Red Army was not biased. I think it was at least a bit coloured. You seemed to say both at various points. While there may have been good reasons to assume the Red army was not up to the task when it came to a war with Germany, the fact is that at the time of the start of the Spanish Civil War, the biggest fear in Europe was Stalin.
If we look at the Spanish Civil War as an example, the only backer for the Republic was the Soviet Union, itself less than 15 years old at the time. Everyone else, either through open cooperation or less-visible clandestine activities, supported Franco, a brutal dictator who the West saw as preferable to “Uncle Joe”. That put everyone else on the same side as Hitler and Mussolini.
The west had good reason to think this way. First of all, the communists had shown an extreme willingness to exact ultimate retribution from the previous regime and anyone else who opposed them. They had fought and won a bloody civil war in which an estimated ten million people died, against the might of fifteen other nations including the United States and The United Kingdom.
Secondly, there was the Stalin factor. The show trials of 1932 had shown both the kind of ruler he was and the extent to which he was prepared to go to achieve his aims. The rise of communism was not only evident in what became the Soviet Union but also in other European countries. France had a communist government under Leon Blum as late as 1938 but it lasted less than a month.
As such, the European and American establishments had plenty to fear (whether it had any rational foundation or not) from the Soviet Union and the threatened spread of communism. After all, when it came to a revolution, the establishment would likely be the first to be given a cigarette and a last request. Their reports were frequently pretty disparaging of Soviet methods, whether they worked or not. We frequently see the same things today. Much of this has led to simplistic conclusions like, “they only won because they had so many”, as though this was some kind of cheat.
Ultimately, Germany suffered from the same problem. They certainly allowed themselves to be seduced by the idea that an evil system could not stand up to a concerted attack. While it appears on the surface that they were almost proved right, I think there was a certain amount of self delusion mixed with a vested interest. In any case, it was not a simple matter and few could have predicted, based on previous experience, the extent to which the Soviet Union would recover from such a catastrophic blow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"it could be argued that by the time the P-51s came into widespread use over Europe, the P-47s had already done the heavy lifting and broken the back of the Luftwaffe."
This is simply not true. In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe, with the lion's share - 414 - going to the P-47. The rest went to P-38s and Spitfires from Eagle Squadrons.
The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. So 2% is hardly breaking the back of the Luftwaffe. And this is pretty easy to prove historically, so rather than relying on conjecture spread by 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', you're better off reading some history. For the record, the British shot down a similar number.
"Additionally, strategic bombing and naval warfare had begun to degrade the quality of things like fuel needed for the Luftwaffe planes to operate at their best when the P-51s came in."
This is rather too general to explain the situation. Germany was under industrial resources pressure for the entire war and the raids on Ploesti were simply one of a number of resources problems they had. It wasn't even the only fuel problem.
At the end of 1943, there were eight groups flying P-47s, totalling about 400 aircraft. There was one novice group of P-51s and another group of P-38s. At the time of 'Operation Argument' in February 1944, there was still only a small number of P-51s but they were starting to score. In March, the P-51s outscored the P-47s. In April, the P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft to 329 by the P-51s. And they did this with half the number of aircraft. The figures remained spectacularly lopsided for the rest of the war.
So it's not like the P-47s all went home when the first P-51s turned up.
At the end of the war, the P-51 groups had shot down 1.6 times as many aircraft as the P-47s. They had also destroyed 30% more ground targets. In half the total number of sorties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RonaldRaygun308 See, your problem here is that you’re pretending that CNN was conflating the AR-15 with an explosive bullet, which they did not. Basically, you’re hearing only what you want to hear. If you knew anything about hydrostatic shock, you’d know that shock waves, which are the part of an explosion which do the most damage, destroy capillaries and other delicate tissue, creating irreversible internal bleeding which eventually kills the victim. The bullet doesn’t explode but it creates an incredibly destructive shock wave. Hydrostatic shock, as illustrated in the gel block, creates much larger permanent cavities in the body, into which the blood pools. It also destroys delicate and essential organs like the liver, the kidneys and the bowel.
1
-
@RonaldRaygun308
"You can’t “ban” any weapon or ammo from legal gun owners."
You absolutely can. You can ban all kinds of consumer goods. Guns or ammunition are no exception. You should learn something about consumer law.
"for you to say ballistic vests won’t stop a 5.56 shows your intelligence right there, I know someone who has armor plates that can stop up to a 7.62."
Do you know what a ballistic vest is? Because most ballistic vests will stop most pistol bullets but a .223 or 5.56mm is a whole different story. And they’re not made of armour plate anymore.
"You’re fighting the wrong battle by trying to “ban” everything for legal responsible gun owners, cause I don’t know if you know or not, but criminals do not follow laws."
You have no idea what I want. But if you seriously think public policy laws are framed around stupid gun lobby boilerplate, you're wrong. Paedophiles don't obey the law either but that doesn't mean there is no point making laws against them "because they don't obey the laws". In fact, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people would be in favour of more and stonger laws against child sex offenders. And in the same vein, 90% of Americans want stronger gun laws.
Secondly, if you're seriously thinking that "Oh, criminals will just get their guns from the black market", then you probably don't understand how the black market works. It's not like it's this big place with a sign over the door saying, "Black Market". If something is made illegal, the risk to the black market seller goes up and as even a 10 year-old knows, as risk goes up, price goes up. An AR-15 costs $1,000-1,200 today but that same gun in Australia - where it's banned - costs about $35,000. That's going to put all but the most sophisticated and wealthy crooks out of the market. And in case you don't realise it, they're not the ones who are going to be breaking into your house.
Secondly, by doing nothing, all you're doing is making it easier for the wrong people to have guns, then blaming everyone else for getting it wrong.
"I will have an advantage just as every other criminal does."
So you're a criminal then?
"I’m not going to be slaughtered because the government limited me to 5 rounds a mag and I got sprayed by an automatic ar pistol with a 50 or even 100 round drum."
You're much more likely to kill a family member than a crook. Like the guy who shot and killed his five year-old daughter a while back. Statistics show that a gun in the home is between three and thirteen times more likely to be used on an intimate partner or family member than a crook. If you want to keep yourself safe, don't have lethal weapons in the house and lock your doors with serious locks.
"just because the police “have a hard time fighting 5.56” doesn’t mean anything other than police departments need to update their equipment (even tho they have more powerful weaponry then us already lol) but then again you have the “defund police” people."
I didn't understand a word of this. If you want to make yourself understood, it helps to observe the conventions of spelling, grammar and punctuation. I don't decode.
"I use a .22LR for target practice or just fun shooting, ain’t no way in hell am I going to use something that small for home defense, you’re absolutely out of your mind. If someone breaks into my house or I catch them stealing my stuff, I shoot to incapacitate, I don’t flesh wound. You may think “ah that’s brutal and inhumane” I tell you it is better to have stopped the threat than to piss it off and have it attack you IN YOUR OWN HOME. I wouldn’t doubt you’re a democrat considering all the effort you took to google all that and type it out to try and prove your narrative further, but nobody is going to ban 5.56 or 7.62 or 50bmg for that matter."
This is totally irrational. I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a casual reference to a .22 LR. I said nothing about "home defense". Where you thought you were going with that was so far removed from what we are talking about - including political parties! - only you know. None of it was relevant. In short, if you're going to comment on something I said, do us both a favour and read what I actually said before spilling your vomitus. I can only conclude three possible things from this:
1) you didn't read it,
2) your reading and comprehension skills are not even third grade or
3) you are suffering from a psychotic episode.
Which is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@acorgiwithacrown467
"Look, if it was as simple as you're claiming thats what they would be doing, clearly they know something thats convincing them attacking the entrances won't work."
Targeting an underground bunker is also difficult and missing one is not difficult. It is, after all, underground. The central point may be well away from the obvious entrance points and, like a long-legged spider, the total size may be much larger that the central part of the bunker.
This is the whole point: there's always this point-counterpoint that just ends up being a waste of resources to accomplish relatively little. The target becomes more important than the object of the exercise. Destroying it is only one way of putting it out of action. A war on coms is easier. It's almost like a deception operation that causes the other side to spend an inordinate amount of time on something that is basically meaningless and designed to do nothing more than waste time.
To function at all, a command bunker needs all kind of support systems, from power to water to sewage to fresh air. Not to mention the fact that senior commanders come and go. All this leaves a trail. During the 1991 Gulf War, communications was a major target of the Allied air campaign from day one. The famous raid on the communications building in Baghdad by the F-117 resulted in an absence of centralised command from the first night of the war. While there will never be any guarantee that the communications building you're targeting will be quite so obvious, no bunker is completely self sufficient. The Maginot Line had the same problems.
The Maginot Line was supposed to be basically self-supporting and not easy to attack by traditional methods. The Maginot Line was not destroyed by German artillery and tanks and was still almost entirely intact at the time of the French surrender. And like the Maginot Line, a modern, highly reinforced underground structure can be defeated by less straightforward or obvious means than an expensive weapon which is otherwise of very limited use. A classic example of overthinking the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sickbox.sickbox That’s almost entirely theoretical and doesn’t explain the widening gap between owners and workers. Without workers, the owner’s opportunity to profit would be very limited.
Furthermore, as time goes on, the concentration of ownership at the top means the raise is much lower. Meanwhile, as real wages decline, workers are actually at greater risk. Billionaires, particularly, are at no risk at all.
Maybe this is what you learnt in high school future enterprise but really these days it’s little more than an apology for rampant profiteering.
The fact is that the market no longer generates jobs and almost never at a rate that’s needed. It’s entirely possible to achieve full employment without adversely affecting profits. But in a buyer’s market, your business owner has far more leverage that was probably ever intended.
In the case of publicly listed companies, CEOs know that cutbacks are the ticket to higher personal profits because they are all on share packages. They also know that the market responds well to job cuts so that there is no incentive to expand a business. The more they cut, the higher their bonus and the higher their dividend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th0nky
"Curiously, I might push back on the bit that it was outdated! It certainly gave German Bf-109s a good thrashing in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and Ki-43 / A6Ms something similar in the Pacific. It was an incredibly versatile and very capable fighter at those lower altitudes seen in those respective theaters."
I don't think you could call it a thrashing.
As an Australian, I have a soft spot for the Kittyhawk because of RAAF 75 Sqn's defence of Port Moresby over 44 days in 1942. It was our 'Battle of Britain moment'.They did an amazing job, considering how little experience they had and how few there were and they were making things up as they went along. But someone had to hold the line until the Americans arrived (and yes, we were very grateful for that). But as well as they performed, I don't think you could call it a thrashing. By the time those 44 days were over, I think there was only one aircraft left.
For all the talk of the Flying Tigers, it's arguable that the Kittyhawk's finest achievements were with British and Commonwealth air forces. Wg Cdr Clive Caldwell, DSO, DFC and Bar, RAAF, was the highest scoring Kittyhawk pilot of the war. He finished with 28 1/2, most of them in Kittyhawks in the Western Desert. He later flew Spitfires against the Japanese.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The P-47 arguably broke the back of the Luftwaffe in '43 and early '44.”
Okay, let's look at a few things about that. First of all, the USAAF shot down 451 aircraft up to he end of 1943, with the P-47 accounting for 414 of them. Let's put that into perspective. That year the RAF shot down 3,300 German aircraft out of a total of 22,000 which the Luftwaffe lost. In other words, the P-47 accounted for about 2%. Hardly breaking the back of the Luftwaffe.
Furthermore, the Luftwaffe put up a pretty fair fight up to mid-October when most of the bombing was paused while an escort solution was found. Meanwhile the Allied forces were reorganised under Eisenhower in preparation for D-Day. But before that the USAAF was being pasted by the Luftwaffe on operations like Schweinfurt and Regensburg because the P-47s had to break off before the Luftwaffe attacked. Why would they do otherwise? Not bad for a force that had already been decimated.
"It should also be noted that with the introduction of the 'paddle bladed' airscrew, the climb disadvantage disappeared. Besides the water injection, the Allies also had the huge advantage of better, higher octane fuel which allowed pilots to wring the most power from their engines."
That's a bit of a distraction. All well and good, of course but not if it has no effect on the fight. The fact was that until the problem of lack of range was resolved by the Mustang, the USAAF could not carry out their goal of strategic bombing. So, whatever its attributes, the P-47's limited range makes its high altitude performance and the paddle prop (which was by no means universal in the P-47 fleet) something of an irrelevance.
The paddle prop wasn’t mainstream until mid-1944. The D-25 variant didn’t fly its first mission until May 1944, by which time the Mustang was scoring at a much higher rate. I’m happy to provide those figures with references.
Greg is dead wrong about this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was how it played out in Italy before Mussolini. Most of the violence was started by the Blackshirts, in a claimed bid to stop ‘left wing violence’. In fact, it was the other way around.
It was a similar situation in Germany, where the SA started most of the violence - not that the communists didn’t start any, they just didn’t start anywhere near as much.
Now AntiFa, who are not entirely without blame, are being blamed for everything, including Jan 6! And these clown groups, like the Proud Boys, The Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Boys and Patriot Prayer can get away with almost anything because they have the support of institutions like Fox.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@easyenetwork2023
"I would be more for some kind of gun legislation. But banning guns won’t work in a country as spread out and populated as America. Too many rural areas to hide guns too easily. Plus, we Americans love our guns. I think the mandatory conscription would make us appreciate guns more though."
So, in other words, having said you're in favour of some kind of gun legislation, you're actually opposed to all of it.
Let me take you up on a point or two here. First of all, nobody is calling for a blanket ban on all guns. This trope of 'banning guns' is not only misleading, it's a gross misrepresentation. No country in the world has a total ban on guns, what ever the gun lobby tells you. They are not even banned in North Korea. But hey, don't take my word for it. Look it up.
Secondly, the way gun control works is a matter of basic capitalism. Let's take the AR-15 as an example. In the United States, that gun costs around $1,200 in a shop. (I don't care what it costs online or to build it from spare parts. Not relevant.) In Australia, where it is illegal, it costs around $35,000. When a government introduces gun laws, they don't just specify a particular gun. They also include stiff penalties for trafficking and possession, up to and including jail time. As any junior school kid can tell you, basic capitalism says that as the risk to the seller goes up, so does the cost. At $35,000 for an AR-15, the market its going to be pretty small and it's going to exclude convenience store bandits and school shooters.
So it's a matter of how much risk you want to take to keep illegal guns. Can you afford the fine? Are you prepared to do the jail time?
Secondly, I suggest you read about James and Jennifer Crumbley. Their son Ethan shot up a school and killed four pupils and they have been sent to prison for at least ten years for their role in the tragedy. Despite all the red flags, James Crumbley kept a gun in the house and Jennifer Crumbley actually took her son to a shooting range days before the incident.
Some Americans love guns. Many do not. And it's not a simple matter of 'if you don't like them then leave' or 'if you don't like them, you don't have to own one'. That is no comfort to parents who have to send their kids to school wondering if that's where the next massacre is going to happen. It's also no comfort to those who have already lost family members and friends to gun violence.
Mandatory conscription just teaches delinquents how to be better killers. You know: the kind of people who would fail the entrance exam. Do you really want people like that being trained in how to be more effective criminals? They're already the best armed criminals in the world, thanks to a lack of federal government oversight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KrissowskiM
"You and your statements are ridiculous."
Well, when you can provide documented proof (as I did) that these claims are “ridiculous” we might have something to talk about. Until then I don’t care what you think. Into the early 2000s the Polish government was pursuing Ceslaw Gaborski, commandant of Lambinowice, until his death in 2006. They also pursued Salomon Morel, camp commandant of Swietochlowice on similar matters.
Show me where this is wrong, false, ridiculous or bs, or any other dismissive comment you have made. In other words. prove to me that Ceslaw Gaborski wasn't going to be tried a by a court in Poland (except that he died before he could take the stand). Show me Lambinowice wasn't a camp where atrocities took place. Same for Swietlowice. Show me how Salomon Morel wasn't under investigation by Polish authorities for atrocities committed there.
What would you say to the Polish officials who were pursuing these men? That they are "haters"? That they hate Poles? That they are flat earthers? Would you say they have "religion hate towards Poles"?
I don't hate Poles. I hate nationalists. For me to hate Poles that would mean they are all nationalists like you, which they are not. My point, which you have consistently ignored, is that no country is completely clean. Including Poland. Not even my own country is completely clean. Doesn't change my attitude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this has to be done but I also think that this is something that both Trump and Musk have been spoiling for.
A major component of fascism is that it is anti-labour. If you look at the histories of both Italian fascism and German Nazism, you will find a strong element of opposition to unions. In the early 1920s, it was Mussolini's Blackshirts - AKA: the Squadristi - who went around ransacking union offices and beating up union officials. The introduction of corporatism in Italy was absolutely intended from the start to be a loaded gun against trade unionism. Strikes were banned. Superficially, it looked like a good idea but in practice it was only to benefit very wealthy people. In Germany, the situation was slightly different. While Hitler's Brownshirts fought street battles with socialists, including unionists, Hitler was negotiating with the wealthiest families in Germany to get the party out of debt. The result was that he basically outlawed unions. Sure, the DAF was formed but it had very few rights. Strikes were banned and so many entitlements, many of which went back to the era of Bismarck, were swept away. The DAF was, to all intents and purposes, a gigantic labour pool.
Trump and Musk could try both of these measures and people have to be prepared for this. I think it's entirely possible that strikes could be banned, citing, I dunno, some kind of national emergency. That would probably be the first move. Anything after that would need to have a huge amount of grassroots support to work. Otherwise everyone just gets locked up. But there are still more measures that can be taken, like boycotts and lock outs.
Musk is doing what he's doing because he wants no government oversight on anything he does. He doesn't want unions on any of his sites, resulting in a workplace accident record that it six times worse than the national average. He wants to do what he did an Twitter and I think you can assume that it will be his model for industrial relations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s utterly ridiculous. Tell me something that’s a worse insult than being called a paedophile. If I call you a paedophile, that’s one thing. But when someone with Musk’s influence does it, it’s a completely different matter. Tell me how - with everyone supposedly being equal before the law - the richest human specimen in the world, who now owns 9.2%, a controlling interest in Twitter, can get away with this. Not only that but Musk can summon his 40 million rapturous followers who will believe every word he says and will now see it as proof of Musk’s disgusting and patently false allegations.
Musk summoned his own muscle and hired a dodgy private detective with a history of jail time to investigate Vern Unsworth and basically make up stories about him. So bad was the case that Musk withdrew his allegations in court (twice - once in the committal hearing and once in the trial) and openly apologised to Vern Unsworth in court.
In the end the jury actually got it wrong. Three questions had to be answered. Firstly, didn’t Musk say it? He did. Check ✅ Secondly, did he publish it? He did. Check ✅ Thirdly, did Musk refer to Vern Unsworth in the Tweet? He did but not by name. Had a reasonable person test been properly applied - basically, everyone knew who he was talking about - Musk would have been hung out to dry. I suspect the jury was ummm… encouraged.
Vern Unsworth is a good man. He has no criminal record and without him, the boys would have been much harder to rescue.
Elon Musk is a snivveling piece of human detritus. He lied about his input into the rescue and he lied about his contact with the rescuers. Neither he nor the people who developed that so-called rescue sub had the remotest idea. He went to the cave entrance and left acutely embarrassed. He couldn’t even look at the cameras on his way into court. May he rot in hell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexgeorgescu1843 My understanding is that, after the invasion, Stalin had some of the forward commanders shot for failing to take appropriate action but to the best of my knowledge, that was the last time he did it. It was, after all, partly his own fault. After his two week retreat to his Dacha, Stalin recovered and quickly appreciated that he needed all the commanders and all the motivation he could find. It is also true that later on, rather than holding them in an iron grip, he was increasingly flexible, in stark contrast to Hitler. Stalin gave Zhukov full authority for the planning at Kursk and Rokossovsky full authority for the planning of Operation Bagration. I have little doubt that the consequences of failure for both men would have been extreme but he trusted them just enough to let them do what they were good at. It is also significant to me, at least, that the Soviet hierarchy and its attitude to casualties is pretty poorly understood. Zhukov always regretted the numbers of casualties that the Red Army suffered and frequently excoriated junior commanders for rushing headlong into piecemeal attacks on heavily defended positions, suffering catastrophic losses in the process. It was certainly true that they were running to Stalin's timetable but the most obvious thing to do it rarely the best and fable of the tortoise and the hare springs to mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
azznbad1 Most people who find themselves on the receiving end of a murder charge have no previous criminal history. Ask Ted Wafer about it sometime. The point being that the old “criminals don’t obey the law” argument doesn’t hold water. And since there are criminals in every country, even those who have implemented strict gun control, the statement makes no sense.
Criminals don’t obey the law in America. They don’t obey it in Australia or Japan or Switzerland either, yet all of those places have much lower murder rates than the United States. As an argument for doing nothing, it’s useless.
Furthermore, the background checks laws are incredibly badly applied. You can buy and sell second hand guns on Facebook market place without background checks. So the problem is not the law itself but the fact that it is badly applied. And again, it’s no excuse for doing nothing.
Finally, the law pushes up the price of a gun dramatically. An AR-15 costs $1,000-1,200 in the United States and can be bought just about anywhere. The same gun in Australia costs about $34,000 on the black market. A pistol worth $300 in the United States costs about $10,000 in Australia, so nobody but the seriously rich criminals is going to be using them. They’re hardly likely to spend that kind of money buying a gun to hold up convenience stores or petrol stations where you might get a few hundred dollars out of the register.
Risk goes up, price goes up. That removes a lot of players from the market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
reddevilparatrooper For women, of course, it’s different. It has been shown many times that a woman with a gun is no safer than one without a gun. In fact, the presence of a firearm, no matter whose it is, makes it much more likely that the encounter will turn deadly:
https://wagv.org/about-gun-violence/women-and-guns/
Furthermore, the stereotype of the lone woman dragged off the street and raped is comparatively rare and that most rape victims know their attackers, which rather complicates the situation. If you can ignore the first part of this article, the NCVS statistics make for some rather confronting reading:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sexual-assault-victims/
As you can see, the gun lobby’s model for women protecting themselves with guns is a bit wide of the mark. Rather than empowerment, the intention of these programs is to sell more guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@epicZayd3n First of all, your founding fathers were not infallible so they could not have made sure the second amendment never went out of date. They were not so foresighted that they could imagine a society where every would be running around waving AR-15s. You’ve already conceded that.
And I’m quite sure that if the founding fathers knew that a group of self-interested zealots would do everything they could to prevent any reasonable measures of gun control, despite 14,000 citizens per year having their lives snuffed out in gun violence, they’d turn in their collective graves. I’m also sure that if they thought that was,e self-interested group would go around openly advocating overthrowing governments and disobeying laws while chanting invented and delusional slogan, like that of the OP, they would never have included the second amendment in the first place.
The founding fathers intended that the constitution would debate laws in a mature way and not in the irrational and hysterical tone employed by the gun lobby and its gang of accomplices. The gun lobby has been pissing on the constitution while claiming to be its sole custodians now for about four and a half decades. As a result, around 14,000 murders in the United States are committed with the guns their amendment protects. Frankly, if I was responsible for a law like that, I’d be ashamed of myself and I’d be doing everything I could to get it changed.
The second amendment has become an embarrassment to America’s good standing and the result is that you now have the highest rate of gun violence of any modern neo-liberal democracy. I’m sure that if your founding fathers were around today, they be doing everything they could to change that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidfryer9218 The second amendment was never intended so that you could rise against the government. The second amendment was never intended to be used to overthrow democratically elected government. Nobody has that right, least of all because they own a gun. Otherwise, what’s the point of government in the first place? And you can’t tell me that a bunch of guys with guns who don’t like the government are all going to have the exact same complaints and grievances. Nor are they going to have the same ideas about what they want to do if they do overthrow the government. All they are is an armed mob and armed mobs are, without doubt, the most oppressive and most brutal forms of administration on the planet. Summary justice by someone with a long standing grudge is the norm. Look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia when the paramilitaries took over areas. They were answerable to nobody and they conducted their reign of murder and terror against unarmed minorities.
That’s what your gun utopia looks like.
Owning guns does not give you more privileges than people who don’t own guns. The object of the US constitution was to make all people equal before the law. It was never designed to grant anyone the right - or in this case, privilege - to overthrow a democratically elected government. This kind of arrogant presumptuousness - that your voice is the same as everyone else’s - almost led America down a path of anarchy on Jan 6, 2020. That’s why insurrection is a federal offence. It’s regarded as an offence against democracy.
The Supreme Court decides what your rights are in this matter. It rolled back the prerequisite of belonging to a militia but it also supported the dangerous and unusual weapons laws. The second amendment was completely silent on what types of weapons were allowed. That is not the same as saying citizens could own cannons, machine guns or anything else your little heart desires. There is absolutely no reason why states can’t laws limiting the types of guns that can be owned as long as it doesn’t stop a qualified person from owning a gun. But second amendment absolutists, such as yourself, are trying to have laws reset so that violent criminals and psychotics can get their gun rights back again.
Sounds like a living, breathing definition of hell.
If you want a cannon, apply to the Supreme Court.
1
-
1
-
@davidfryer9218 Nah, don’t play “I never said” games with me. The gun lobby has made it abundantly clear that they believe they - and by association, you - believe that power lies with those who own guns. You don’t even mention the majority of people who don’t own guns.
And of course, it always comes down to Hitler, doesn’t it? Who gets to decide who is a tyrant and who isn’t? Because I’ll tell you this: Hitler didn’t seize power. He was elected by the will of the people. The gun lobby loves to pretend that Germans didn’t want Hitler and it was all a mistake that could have been fixed if some heroic righteous gun owner had shot him.
Wrong. Total fantasy from total fantasists.
Until the last year of WWII, Hitler remained popular with Germans. As long as you didn’t say too much, your life was good. The vast majority of Germans had no objections, not because they cowered but because they had no reason to object. For that reason, the Holocaust was inevitable. Citizens with guns would likely have made matters worse, not better.
Besides, Germans were never prohibited from owning guns, only Jews. But Jews were prohibited from just about everything else too so guns make no difference. That’s why so many of them left. Between the end of 1932 and September, 1939, Germans had plenty of opportunities to bump him off with guns and didn’t. Hitler was popular. Have a look at those rallies. Do you really think people were there under duress? Because they weren’t. Hitler gave them jobs and he gave them food. During the depression, that was a big deal and almost impossible for anyone your age to imagine. That’s why he was popular. The gun lobby pretence that he was an unpopular tyrant is fantasist nonsense.
So, on whose authority is it suddenly decided that say, Joe Biden is a tyrant and needs to be removed? I’ll tell you whose: the American people. And those people are not represented by gun owners. They represent themselves at the ballot box. It’s called democracy. You do your civic duty and you abide by the majority decision. You don’t March on Washington, armed to the teeth and try to kick the government out because you don’t like them.
Associating gun control with totalitarian regimes is an old gun lobby tactic. You should drop it because it makes you look hysterical, callous and stupid. Would you call Japan a totalitarian regime? I wouldn’t and private gun ownership there is minimal. UK? No. Western Europe? No. Australia? No. New Zealand? No. All are comparable countries which have successfully implemented gun control measures. None is totalitarian. Confiscation is another gun lobby shibboleth that has no basis in fact. Door-to-door searches is this sock puppet that pops up in all your claims about tyrants and subjugation.
If you bother to read your constitution, you will find that there are laws against what you are proposing. Look up the insurrection laws contained in Article 1.
If anyone is going to implement tyranny in the United States, it is the gun lobby.
1
-
@davidfryer9218
”the fact of the matter is that totalitarian regimes like to restrict the ownership of firearms.”
So what? Hitler liked dogs. That’s a remarkable leap of faith to then associate all forms of gun control with totalitarian regimes. And don’t bother denying that you’re saying this. You are saying it.
”Germany did restrict others from having firearms”
Again, so what? If things were the way you said they were then why didn’t some righteous gun owner shoot Hitler and be done with it?
”The people believe in firearms believe in elections.”
Then why do they need firearms? Oh, that’s right: just in case the government is one you don’t like and then you can throw them out at gun point. Election, huh? Who needs them? LOL!!
”Firearms would help resist a tyrannical regime.”
There are no historical examples of this. Not ever (forget the War of Independence: it doesn’t apply). There are literally hundreds of examples where armed gangs became the very tyrannical regimes you’re so eager to cite. Take the Hutus in Rwanda, the paramilitaries on the former Yugoslavia and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That’s what a takeover at gunpoint looks like.
”Japan and Second World War was a totalitarian regime”
This is really clutching at straws. You know damned well I was talking about the present day.
”Australia is employing rather tyrannical policies right now.”
Really? Would you like to tell me what they are? Let’s hear this. It should be good.
”Possession of firearms is a basic human right.”
Possession of people used to be a right when the second amendment was drawn up too.
”Just like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. If you’ll note all the countries just noted also restrict that considerably more than the US does.”
Care to cite specific examples of that? This is nebulous crap that you can’t back up.
”You can be arrested in many British Commonwealth countries the things you could not be arrested for in the United States because of our Bill of Rights.”
And there are things you can’t do in the United States either. Since you don’t know that many of those countries have all those rights you mentioned, like freedom of speech, etc., in their constitutions, I’m going to call you out on this. You tell me some examples.
And don’t post me gun lobby propaganda in the form of crappy YouTube videos whose creators have no form of accountability for the content they produce. I have yet to see a single gun lobby video on YouTube that wasn’t liberally laced with disinformation, false assumptions, lack of specific context and out and out lies.
It’s funny how guns appeal to some of the most gullible in the community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twolak1972 By the way, there are many things that make for a good fighter aircraft.
Mission availability is one factor nobody ever talks about. Overall exchange rate, AKA: K/D, is another. Handling qualities in respect of new pilots, making for ease of transition to new types. Transit speeds for escort work. Ability to climb away from your opponent. Stability as a gun platform. All those pointy headed things like roll rates, climb rates, top speeds, VNE, aerodynamic efficiency, fuel economy, cockpit visibility, control harmony, fuel and engine management systems, ease of egress in an emergency and even ability to absorb battle damage. All of those things in various combinations make or break a fighter.
There are grand strategy matters, like the skill base in your industrial system, i.e.: whether or not you can build an advanced fighter, there is the matter of building the infrastructure to support the specific aspects of that type. There is the matter of what it is made out of (in this case there was very little difference between the P-47 and the P-51). The training schemes that need to be set up not just for pilots but for ground crews. There are the operational considerations, ranging from how you get them into the appropriate theatre of operations. There is the mission planning and the aircraft's ability to complete the mission - given expected pilot performance - effectively.
Then there are the tactical considerations, ranging from group level to squadron level, to section level and finally to individual pilot level.
P-47
Enemy aircraft shot down in the ETO: 3082
Total losses (all causes): 3078
Air combat losses: 1043
Ground fire/Flak: 1356
Combat exchange rate (K/D): 2.04
Loss rate: 0.73
P-51
Enemy aircraft shot down in the ETO: 4950
Total losses (all causes): 2520
Combat losses: 1100-1200
Ground fire/Flak: 700-800
Combat exchange rate (K/D): 3.60
Loss rate: 1.18
The higher loss rate of the P-51 is reflected in its range. The P-51 spent a lot more mission time over hostile territory than the P-47. Figures show that it was almost twice as likely to engage with the enemy because of that. Survivor bias must therefore be taken into account.
My honest assessment after literally decades of reading about it is that the P-51 represented a substantial improvement in capability over the P-47 and that was largely the view of the pilots on both sides. Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Markov16 Are you talking about 'Deep Battle'? If so, I agree that the Nazis had no equivalent. I would say though that the West had an approach that was somewhere between the two. But the credit for that goes way beyond Stalin. While the underlying approach had to fit with Marxist-Leninist ideal, the actual execution of it was planned at multiple levels and Stalin, while remaining extremely influential, couldn't have overseen it all.
"the problem with Nazi Germany is they are already doomed from the start they dont have any Stalinist guys."
This is an argument that comes up often. Were the Nazis doomed from the beginning? Could they have just stopped after the defeat of France and been content to occupy the vast bulk of Europe and claim victory? It's not a simple question to answer, in my opinion. But remember too, that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian 'Fuehrer state'. What they didn't have was a modernised industrial complex. War, according to Clausewitz, is about competing economies. Ultimately, once they took on the Soviet Union, their chances were mathematical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boatman189 Wow. Where to start with this.
Nationalism starts wars.
Nationalism offers the illusion of protection but in fact, that protection is bought and paid for at the expense of minority groups. If you’re any kind of student of history, you will recognise that nationalism starts wars, either within countries or across borders, as one privileged group decides it has a greater claim to some piece of land than those presently occupying it. Case in point: Serbia in the 1980s. The trouble started in Kosovo, which was 90% ethnic Albanian but the tough-talking Milosevic wanted it as part of the Serbian nationalist ideal of a greater Serbia (‘greater Serbia’ means that Serbia is anywhere a Serb lives, which should give you some idea of how toxic it was). His inflammatory speech at Kosovo Polje in 1987 - ‘Nobody should dare beat you’ - roused Serbian anger and the crowd turned on the police, who were mostly Albanian. Truck loads of rocks were brought in. Eventually, on the pretext of maintaining order, the army was brought in. Milosevic tried the same thing in Croatia but was met with resistance.
The result was a civil war that lasted until the late 1990s and is still simmering today.
Hitler’s nationalism was evident in similar ways in the manufactured conflict with Poland. Claiming through newsreels that local Poles were mistreating the German population in the border areas, it eventually became the pretext for a full scale invasion of Poland. But since Hitler believed that greater Germany extended to the ethnic German population of southern Russia, he clearly wasn’t going to stop there.
The result was WWII.
The current war in Ukraine is a nationalist war.
Nationalist governments are always what you call ‘top down’, since they invariably centre on a strong leader and a muzzled or cooperative media. They rely on manufactured crises to create the illusion that the big man at the top has the public’s best interests in mind. In fact, the reverse is true. The protection and benefits you cite are usually swallowed up in wars where people who had lived side by side for generations are riven by manufactured hostility. Invariably, nationalism points to the very groups you conveniently cited, whether they exist or not, as being responsible. Nationalists are usually anti democratic so whatever else they are, they are by their very nature, ‘top down’.
I suggest you read some history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@humptydumpy8029
"I would argue that technology will definitely win fights and that having numerous examples of very advanced fighters is the way to do it."
I would disagree. Historically, there are no examples of a war winning weapon, with the possible exception of the atomic bomb. That is the basic tenet behind the article I referred you to. One of the problems that Pietrucha doesn't go into is the way funds are distributed. Higher technology levels cost so much money that there needs to be a balance achieved between what a country can afford and what it needs, based on its strategic situation. No aircraft can be in two places at once.
The problem with the F-35 is that too much of the project was handed over to the contractor, who kept stuffing new features (which weren't necessarily asked for) into the system, without getting the initial bugs of of the basic aircraft. This is why we ended up with 20 million lines of code. The laws of bug propagation say that the more complex the software, the more bugs it has and the more bugs will propagate. At the moment it is running at less than 50% dispatch reliability with no expectation that it will improve.
Geeks have to be kept on a tight leash.
Conversely, instead of turning the geeks loose, the money would be better spent on training. In the incident I referred to earlier - the hull loss at Eglin last year - the MP ("Mishap Pilot"...) had flown four hops in the last month for a total of 5.9 hours. His requirement to remain current is 30 hours per month. This is true t a greater or lesser degree right across the F-35 fleet and governments have gone very quiet on the specifics of sortie rates.
Technology is only useful if it assists. It can't be allowed to take control and it must never get in the way of operational reliability.
Finally, technology is almost never the deciding factor - at least, not in the case of individual aircraft. Historically, when technology was allowed to decide the strategy, things did not turn out well. The case of the F-4 Phantom II relying solely on missiles finding itself in turn-and-burn fights with North Vietnamese MiG-17's is a classic example. The Maginot Line is another.
"So while yes the f35 is still quite expensive and an f16 or something like would be much cheaper an f16 is not useful enough to make that trade off worth it when considering the capabilities the f35 brings."
And yet it continues to sell well, even to more advanced air forces. It remains an extremely useful aircraft.
"And it should be kept in mind up to the Korean War the strategy for dealing with the soviets was also not developed and here today we are in the early stages of escalation where the us are still firmly on top and don’t need to be rushing into a new war with a defined goal against a defined enemy."
That doesn't mean you don't plan. Relying on technology is a really bad idea when you fail to examine the strategic scenarios you are likely to find yourself in. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
I would also seriously question your comment that US is certainly on top at the moment. In what regard? In which theatre? I can tell you now that if war broke out over the South China Sea, the US would seriously struggle. They are simply not configured for a conflict like that.
While an out of date aircraft can't be expected to compete in 1 v 1 competition with the latest types, that doesn't mean they can't do it under any circumstances or should not do it at all. There are times when you can use almost anything you can strap a missile onto. Nor does it mean that pilots don't need to continually hone their skills - which is exactly what has been assumed by the designers and builders of the F-35. They just assumed technology would take up the slack.
Strategy should decide the technological research path, not the other way around.
War winning weapons are the stuff of fantasy. They attract all the attention but are rarely a factor. Take some of the German "Big Cats" of WWII. People will always say, "If the Germans had had more of these, they would have won the war!" I see that all the time. Same for things like the Me-262.
"Only the spirit of attack, borne in a brave heart, can bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." -Adolf Galland.
1
-
@humptydumpy8029
"no you just have no idea what your talking about the usaf buying turboprops?!"
Sure. they certainly looked at it. It makes an awful lot of sense for CAS and COIN conflicts. The Pentagon ran a program to identify a smaller and simpler CAS aircraft than say, the A-10 and at a lower cost. They looked at a number of different types, including the A-29 (Super Tucano) and AT-6 (Beechcraft). They did look at the jet-powered Scorpion but it was eliminated early on.
The problem they ran into was the "all fast jet" mentality of the USAF top brass.
"If you were smarter you would know anything that isn’t stealthy is not survivable in a modern conflict"
You should read the reports on how well they fared. Turboprops were very survivable in the CAS environment, certainly more so than fast jets at at about a tenth of the cost.
"You lock your self in to buying lower cost models and your left with something that is near useless in a real fight and would have to be left behind."
The best aircraft is the one which can be there when it's needed. Right now, the F-35, in particular, has a dispatch reliability rate that is so low that it can fly only a few missions per week. From first class facilities. Maintained by specialists. In air conditioned hangars. If you don't have that, you're going to struggle.
Interestingly, the current thinking in the Pentagon is that the F-35 is not a success and they are already looking at what the next project should be. Stealth is taking a back seat. It probably won't be removed altogether but the compromises for stealth - an idea that was really intended to defeat a Cold War adversary - are really too great. The other thing they have made very clear is that they will never use the same purchasing model again.
I would rather have a well-balanced force which is both flexible and reliable in austere environments and which can be relied upon to fly more than one sortie in a week. Preferably several per day. I want technology that is relevant and works. I don't want a wonder weapon.
"What would be expensive is developing and maintaining an entirely new fighter for the sole niche of doing things the f35 is to good for which wouldn’t be much of anything in an actual fight."
The whole F-35 project should really be abandoned. The US government has already reduced the fleet buy from about 4,000 to about 2,400. Let's look at that figure carefully because it's not what it seems. A third - say 800 aircraft - will be mothballed, which is perfectly normal practice. That leaves about 1,600 and with a dispatch reliability rate of (optimistically) 50%, that leaves about 800 across all three services. I seriously doubt the US will ever need to field more than 1,000 F-35 pilots. That's nowhere near enough.
But that's what happens when you spend too much on one type. It's called "putting all your eggs in one basket".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PNF1922
"Authoritarianism ,Statism ,Nationalism ,Corporatist-Sydicalist ,anti-liberalism
Anti-communism ,anti-democracy & not capitalistic. It was created primarily by Giovanni Gentile."
Okay, this was a rather better response than I expected. Sorry.
But there is one thing political scientists pretty much always agree on: Fascism is not so much an ideology as a reactionary movement. Giovanni Gentile was hired by Mussolini to give Fascism an air of academic respectability. That can be found in Alan Cassells' book 'Fascist Italy' and Christopher Hibbert's book 'Mussolini'. Gentile revised his manifesto constantly until his murder. Every time mussolini did something different, Gentile modified the manifesto.
So let's go to your er... remarks.
"Authoritarianism"
Certainly.
"Statism"
Yes but based on national identity rather than ideology.
"Nationalism"
Probably the most important single value.
"Corporatist-Sydicalist"
In form, yes but not in function.
The original corporate/syndicalist model proposed by Georges Sorell was that the people, as a united front, would hold government to ransom. In Fascist Italy the original plan, sold to the unions, was that the government would act as a sort of court that would work out any questions of industrial relations. In practice, the union 'representatives' were Fascist stooges on the party payroll and in the pockets of the industrialists.
As you would expect, the unions eventually lost all their power.
"anti-liberalism"
Yep.
"Anti-communism"
Yep and the reason that no Fascist government has ever come to power without the support of conservatives. Italy, Germany, Spain... But the Fascists and the Nazis, who were causing most of the violence they claimed to be able to stop, were seen by the establishment - who were terrified of a repeat of the Russian Revolution - as being able to stop the threat of socialism so the establishment let the Brown shirts and Black shirts do their thing.
"not capitalistic"
This is poorly understood by nearly everyone. For example, Hitler's 'anti-capitalism' was expressed in his opposition to money lending rates and war profiteering. That's it. He wasn't concerned about private businesses. Mussolini - also a soldier of WWI - had the same grievances. But in the end, both supported mega rich industrialists and were, in turn, supported by those people. This was a major component of the corporate/syndicalist practices in Italy. In Germany, it led to the effective abolition of unions and the conversion of the German workforce into a simple labour pool.
Both, in their own way, were crony capitalist governments.
So, all in all, you did a much better job than I expected. Sorry about that but that's the internet for you.
1
-
@rossigrace5031 Fascism is not an ideology. It’s a reactionary movement. It doesn’t matter what Gentile wrote. It matters what Mussolini did.
Secondly, Fascism has never been left wing, despite what leaders like Hitler and Mussolini might have said. People in the United States seem to find it very difficult to associate the MAGA movement with Fascism because many claim that Fascism is left wing, ergo, ‘couldn’t be us guys’. In fact, no Fascist government has ever come to power without the support of conservatives. Not all conservatives, it’s true but many. Hitler came to power in Germany through a power deal brokered with von Papen, who later claimed, ‘We are hiring him.’ Italy was different. The Fascists threatened to March on Rome and overthrow the government in order to stop the fear of political violence, which they were undoubtedly doing the most to perpetrate. The upper class, the political establishment and even Vittorio Emmanuele II, eventually allowed this to happen. Seen on the context of the time, 1922 was in the middle of the Russian Civil War, which the Reds won.
So, in fact, Fascism was never ‘a socialist movement that became conservative.’ In practice it has always enjoyed the support of conservatives, even if not all.
1
-
Sorry but this is starting to wear thin. It's not that I disagree. I'm just bored with idealism and dogma. I don't want to hear any more of it. If you've got something to say then say it but please leave the political purity out of it. Sorry Lewis but it's boring. And from a historical perspective, these "everybody knows it doesn't work" arguments are pointless. History doesn't care about economic theory and hypothesis. History cares about what happened. Please, just drop it. And for pity's sake, stop quoting Mises.
That's that unpleasantness out of the way.
The Soviet Union lost seven years of economic growth out of WWII, not to mention 27 million people. But by the mid-1950s, the Soviet economy was growing at three times the rate of the US economy, which was, itself, pretty prosperous. That's how the Soviet Union could afford its space program. I'm not going to argue that figures weren't fudged or that growth of this magnitude is easy to contain. But a country that had been through what it had and was doing what it was doing was actually travelling pretty well.
Almost certainly, a major part of this was to do with the numbers of people who were now literate. At the end of the Czarist era, only about 25% of the population was literate. This had pretty serious implications for Stalin's crash industrialisation program. It also had implications for the Red Army, particularly the officer corps and particularly after the Purges (see Alexander Hill, "The Red Army and the Second World War")..
But by the mid-1950s, 30 years after the formation of the Soviet Union, a lot of children of the 1920s were old enough to be managing factories, etc. This was the flow on effect of universal education. Another book to read is Vladislav Zubok's book "A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RogueElementMkII
"Building 6 times more coal fired power stations than the rest of the world combined, might have something to do with that.🤔"
Hah, no. You’re ten years behind again, though Fox and Sky News Australia are still reporting it.
It’s been a while since China approved the construction of a coal fired power station and most of the ones they were building ten years ago were to replace old ones that were no longer viable. Their reliance on coal has tailed off considerably. Some they are building may never be used. Some of their nuclear plants are running at 60%, making them barely viable.
In the last 12 months, more than 50% of the world’s solar panels have been installed in China. They are currently installing the equivalent of five power stations a week in renewables. That’s not Chinese propaganda either, though I’m sure you want to believe it is. There are several western media outlets, including 'The Economist' that have reported it. If you bother to read oil industry and coal industry annual reports, you will find that their forecasts are for a decline and the reason is that China no longer needs it.
It’s beginning to look like peak oil use was in 2023. For the first time, other than during the pandemic, oil use did not go up. It’s now expected to fall. But don’t believe me. You can find that in the industry reports I referred you to. This is going to be a big problem for Australia because we rely heavily on coal exports to a China. The uptake of EVs has also been a major factor. Shanghai used to be the most polluted city on the planet. It’s not anymore.
While correlation doesn’t equal causation, it’s got to be a bit more than a coincidence that these two things have happened more or less simultaneously. You can look the rest up for yourself. In your own idiom, you don't know s... about China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrCougar214
" know all about the "bet" and you're reading too much into it. "
No I'm not. In fact, I doubt if you know much about that bet. I said what I said because you said this:
"Try watching the video he did on the Australian electrical problem, he was almost in tears that people were forced to live this way and wants to help them."
It was a commercial decision, not a gift. South Australia had an electricity grid problem. It is not a third world country.
"If you're that disillusioned with the human race, that's fine too."
For not putting Elon Musk on a pedestal? You seem to be drawing a lot of extreme views of what I think, like this:
"maybe you have been hiding for the last 50 years or so and don't know about EV technology?"
Whatever gave you that idea? Or is this just how Americans debate things: by making wild presumptions about what someone believes when they don't agree with you?
"But I have faith in SOME people"
So di I. Musk isn't one of them. Starlink - the subject of this video - is a great example of how someone can royally fuck everything up for a lot of other people and then claim to be helping people, when, in fact, he's just trying to pay for Starship and trips to Mars.
"He believes in helping mankind, not just becoming the wealthiest man in the world."
Did he tell you this? Nice piece of PR spin, that is. The 3.5 billion people who he says have no access to the internet probably also have no access to clean drinking water either. But hey, let's not let that stop us. They probably don't have the means to access the internet anyway - not computers or computer skills either - but hey, don't let that stop us. We're going to help mankind.
What a load of rubbish (him, that is. You are just relaying his PR spin). In doing this, he is completely fucking up "mankind's" efforts to discover more. These satellites have made dark energy research all but impossible. Tracking rogue asteroids will now be extremely difficult. Wide field observing will be impossible. With one percent of the total number he has already reduced billions of dollars' worth of terrestrial equipment to junk.
https://www.sciencealert.com/starlink-is-being-an-absolute-nuisance-to-astronomers
"Everyone laughed at him back in 2008, not many people laughing at him now is there?"
Really? Who laughed at him in 2008? I suppose it's one of those "they all said it couldn't be done" stories.
And if you want to know about Musk's charitable donations, you can read about them:
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/musk-foundation/
Musk continues to be a major beneficiary of most of his charitable donations.
1
-
@MrCougar214
"the entire auto industry laughed at him and mocked him saying his cars would never come."
I don't know why. The developments in the electric vehicle industry have been pretty constant since the 1980s. My brother-in-law was extensively involved in the World Solar Challenge - a race from Darwin to Adelaide - as far back as the 1980s, when General Motors cleaned up in the first event. They later went on the produce the EV-1, which was a success as far as customers were concerned but a bit of a PR disaster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
An electric car was always going to happen, it was a matter of when. But in any case, Musk did not start Tesla. The company already had a 2-seat roadster in production from the min-noughties.
"And now the big automakers are scrambling to put out EV cars of their own."
A lot of that engineering has been around for quite a while now. Toyota have been producing hybrid cars for over 20 years now. The limiting factor is not the performance of the electric motor or any of the fancy gadgetry you find in a Tesla. It's the range (and the predatory tactics of the petrochemical industry). This has improved but it has improved globally. A rising tide lifts all ships. Teslas will always be the luxury EVs. Hyundai, meanwhile, are producing a car that covers all - all petrol, hybrid and all-electric. In other words, manufacturers are simply carving out their own niches.
But any thoughts that they are all copying Tesla are simply wrong.
+But it does take people with vision to begin changing the world for the better."
Well, while I applaud Musk for getting involved, that was a simple commercial decision. He identified a growing market but rather than start the company himself, he injected money into a fledgling one that was doing quite well. That's where the vision was.
"The firs thing I thought of was what's this going to do to the ISS? Are they gonna have to be dodging satellites on a constant basis now?"
I don't believe so. They are in different orbits and I don't think Starlink satellites go that high. However, there is no doubt they will be the cause of major headaches for any terrestrially-based observation until something is done about it:
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3702/1?fbclid=IwAR2_b-w4R44EJtr3MgNh1bZzE4CWkDIHCwo4VQ5Ws6BblE4vcFY07cPYHKU
This is basically due to sloppy design. Harmonics and side lobe emissions are a major problem for passive sensors. That's only the beginning. Wide field astronomy is about to become a thing of the past. Billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and decades of research - both current and future - up in smoke. Sorry but I find that unconscionable, no matter if it's Musk or Jeff Bezos or Iridium.
"You speak of us going to the stars and becoming a multi planet species as if it were a bad thing. How is it a bad thing?"
I didn't say it. That was probably someone else. For the record, I believe there will eventually be a crewed mission to Mars but we are so far away from moving to other planets and there will be so few doing it that it's a near irrelevance, IMHO. The maths don't stack up.
Personally, I don't think it will happen. We evolved to live in this atmosphere - which is very specific when you look at the choices available to us - and that's about it. I for one, have no desire to live in a space suit or a geodesic dome on another planet.
But for others, no there's no harm in trying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomaszhang3101
"Mosquito was structurally sound enough for its mission, but not extra strong like the Ju-88, so to modify it for other functions require structural strengthening"
All that tells me is that it was overbuilt. If it was designed for dive bombing then it was carrying around structural strength it didn't need. That's fuel or ordnance it could be carrying instead.
"this means the Mosquito never had the same modification potential of the Ju-88, which I will get to later."
Doesn't matter. The Mosquito was built in a multitude of marques and was modified to carry heavy bombs, like the cookie and even torpedoes. I don't know why this even matters. The performance and the strategic value of the Mosquito actually increased throughout the war. Meanwhile, the casualty figures went down. That's an incredible factoid.
"this also means the Mosquito cannot dive as well as Ju-88, hence cannot be a dive bomber."
There are two answers to this: wrong and so what? The Mosquito was never designed as a dive bomber. You might as well be criticising the Focke-Wulf 190 for all the relevance it has. The Mosquito was fully aerobatic, except when carrying a heavy bomb. But the same was probably true for any other twin.
"bottom line is that Ju-88 can perform this function while Mosquito cannot"
So what? It was never designed to be a dive bomber. Neither was the P-51.
"second thing is that dedicated dive bomber is not obsolete at the time Mosquito and Ju-88 were produced, 1941-1943. Bombsight have not matured to the point of rendering dedicated dive bomber obsolete. "
The Luftwaffe only used the JU-87 and Hs-123 as dive bombers in any numbers. Dive bombing in a large aircraft like the Ju-88 didn't work. They even tried it with the He-177. By 1943, only the Stuka was left. I can only think of two other dive bombers that came off the drawing boards and made it into service after about 1940 and they were the Curtiss Helldiver and the Vultee Vengeance. Dive bombing was over by then. Even the Helldiver didn't see a lot of service as a dive bomber.
"Bombsight have not matured to the point of rendering dedicated dive bomber obsolete."
They never did. But by this logic, the B-17, Lancaster, B-24, Halifax and Stirling should all have been dive bombers. The Mosquito did its pin point bombing by flying very low.
Done with dive bombing. The Mosquito was not designed to do it and applications for it in the Ju-88 were extremely limited.
"My point stands that Ju-88 can be configured for much more load outs than the one single load out you listed."
This is another "so what?" point. And I listed a number of options for weapons, not just one. It could carry those or any combination, including a 57mm cannon.
"No, it cannot. Not effectively at least."
Total rubbish. It was. It flew a 4,000 lb bomb to Berlin and did it in half the time of a B-17 with the same load. The B-17 was nominally a heavy bomber, yet this aircraft you say is not even a medium bomber carried the same load over the same range... Sounds like either the B-17 was a medium bomber or the Mosquito was a heavy bomber.
"Regarding the point that Mosquito Bombay can carry 1800 kg of bombs. Yeah, it can carry a single 1800 kg bomb... where is the versatility in that? Carry smaller 250kg bombs like B-17 did and Mosquito bomb load is reduced to that of a Pe-2 - a fast frontline support plane of similar design philosophy and role."
Once again, so what? How many 1,800 kg bombs could the Ju-88 carry? None. The Mosquito was a tactical aircraft that found a strategic role.
"And let’s say even if none of these were used and they were just spec sheet data, it still proved the versatility of the Ju-88 air frame."
Well, the Mosquito in one form could carry a 1,800 kg bomb and a 57mm rapid fire cannon in another role and they were built. Experimental types don't count.
"Ju-88 s-2 specifically carried internal Bombay with 3000kg internal load composed of not just 1-2 big bombs, but a lot more option compared to Mosquito."
Really? What options did they have that could not be carried by the Mosquito?
"But since the G series with MW 50, Bf 109 can catch a Mosquito."
This is why you should stop reading everything from the spec sheet and start reading history. You're telling me what was theoretically possible and I'm telling you what happened. Late version 109s had next to no chance of catching a Mosquito and there were very few of them and even fewer pilots capable of extracting the performance needed to do so..
"this just further proves the adaptability of the Ju-88 airframe. It can be anything Mosquito is and be a lot more other things the Mosquito never was."
The Mosquito didn't need to change in the way you are advocating. You are calling this a weakness, where in fact, it was a strength. The airframe was very adaptable and didn't need a lot of external modification to do everything that was required of it. I'd call that a very significant advantage. As the war went on, the Mosquito got faster and more capable and the casualty rates went down, despite the numbers going up.
Watch this video. It was made by an American and comes to similar conclusions. I didn't need to know much of this because the Mosquito's record is already well know. What is interesting is that he counters basically everything you said about technical aspects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3B2S6Rn36w&t=1077s
1
-
1
-
@thomaszhang3101 The maximum bomb load I can find for a Ju-88 is 10 x 50 kg internally + 4 x 250 kg bombs or 2 x 500 kg bombs externally. Grand total = 1,500 kg (source: William Green “Warplanes of the Third Reich” p. 455).
Now, I’m not remotely interested in getting into an anal argument about spec sheets and brochure figures. That’s for anoraks. I have the information if I want it but it can’t make up for matters of historical record. I judge the aircraft on its historical record, not brochure figures and the Ju-88, fantastic as it undoubtedly was, was not quite as good as the Mosquito.
You cannot learn anything about history from spec sheets. People do it all the time. There is an idiot out there called “soaringtractor” or “Wilbur Finnigan” - it’s the same person - who talks about the B-17 being able to carry a 17,000 lb bomb load but what he doesn’t tell you is that this was theoretical. When loaded up with fuel, crew and defensive ammunition for a mission to Berlin, its maximum bomb load was only 4,000. Same as a Mosquito. That’s why you should not use brochure figures to draw historical conclusions. You will invariably be wrong.
BTW, I’m not interested in dive bombing. The Mosquito wasn’t designed for it and the Ju-88 didn’t use it. It’s an irrelevance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomaszhang3101 “There is one adage I have always considered singularly apposite in relation to combat aircraft: “Jack of all trades...master of none!” Even the most traditional of such maxims have their exceptions, however, and in so far as World War II was concerned, there were two supreme examples of exceptions to that quoted: de Havilland’s superlative Mosquito and Junkers’ equally outstanding “eighty eight”. Here were two aircraft that fulfilled multifarious roles and excelled in all of them.”
“Both displayed supreme amenability to the process of adaptation and modification to which they were subjected and both were to achieve extraordinary ubiquity. In fact, it was to be said of the German warplane that it was the very backbone of the Luftwaffe for much of WWII.”
“Assessing the Ju 88 is not in the least difficult because it’s record speaks for itself. It was, in terms of operational effectiveness, the outstanding bomber, long range heavy fighter and night fighter of WWII; it performed all three roles with remarkable efficiency and added to its startlingly broad repertoire the tasks of anti-shipping strike and torpedo aircraft, reconnaissance and tank busting. It was a pilot’s aeroplane first and last; it demanded a reasonable degree of skill in handling and it responded splendidly to such skill when it was applied. There was a number of very good German aircraft but, with the exception of the Fw 190, none aroused my profound admiration as did Junkers’ ‘eighty eight’.”
— Capt. Eric “Winkle” Brown, RN, ”Wings of the Luftwaffe”
Brown flew both the A4 bomber and two examples of the G6 night fighter. He flew both the Mosquito (which he landed on the deck of HMS Indefatigable) and the Focke Wulf as well.
So I have been aware of the 88s qualities for a long time, having owned this book since its re-release in the late 1980s.
The difference lies in the strategic value of the Mosquito. There is no doubt the the 88 was a brilliant tactical bomber but its range, which was quite normal for any other bomber of its category, was not enough to perform the kinds of strategic bombing duties the Mosquito was tasked with. Not in the bombing role, anyway. There were never as many Ju 88s as there were Mosquitoes either - 3,500 v 7,700. It was said that even 7,700 wasn’t enough. The 88 didn’t have the survival rate of the Mossie either. By the end of the war, the Mosquito was flying 100 missions for every one lost, a remarkable statistic. No other combat aircraft achieved that sort of record, not even the 88.
Perhaps the greatest salutation to effectiveness of the Mosquito was the German attempt to emulate it with the Focke Wulf Ta 154.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Warren_Peace
"So if a person wishes to commit suicide we should let him do so?"
I don't know what I could have said to give you that idea.
"A child cannot tell the difference between right or wrong or know what he really wants. He is a child, he simply cannot know any better. That is why even going to school trips requires them to have parent's consent ( or would you consider that a violation of their rights too? )...."
This is incredibly generalised and not a little presumptuous and I'm not sure what the relevance is to trans laws. Parents will always have responsibility for their children but, as you will soon see, that is not as simple as Republicans like to think.
"Also, rights are only given to you when you at least have the capacity to carry the burden of consequence in practicing said rights... That is why the right to vote, for example, is not given to 12 year olds..."
And consequently, the right to actually undergo gender reassignment surgery is not open to children. Trans children (under the age of 18) are merely socially transitioning. I have a friend whose son, now five, has insisted since he was two that he is a girl. Nobody put this idea into his head. His parents have told him no, that's not right and you're a boy but he's having none of it. Now, maybe he will change and maybe he won't but my friend's biggest concern is the future for a child like that., especially once puberty (can't talk about that in Kentucky) sets in. The problems with substance addiction and suicide both become a terrifying reality for a parent. Trans people have a 15 times higher incidence of suicide than that of the mainstream
What do you suggest they do about it? What kind of reasonable approach can they take and why? What do they do when it becomes apparent that their child is not going to change. Are you proposing that these ridiculous laws are going to improve the situation? Trans kids already comprise one of the most sedentary groups in any community because they are isolated socially and now legally. Why would anyone chose that? They wouldn't.
How do you fix that by making it harder? By just pretending these people don't exist? Who benefits from that? Nobody. But it sure makes you feel good, doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AileDiablo
"At the time radar just came out. There is no way a 1945 radar can see it"
No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry but this is reverse-engineered nonsense, made up by Reimar Horten to big note himself. Not even his brother Walter made any claim that their design was stealthy. I don't know where you got it from but it's wrong, Take it back and ask for a refund. Stealth is a modern concept that was unknown in WWII. There were only two ways to avoid radar in WWII: terrain masking - i.e.: low flying - or a British invention called window which was a primitive version of chaff.
Just being made of wood is no guarantee of anything. Even if it had been made out of non-strategic materials, there was still a lot of metal in the Go-229A, including but not limited to the two jet engines, the internal bracing, the primary centre section, the landing gear and the cockpit. There was no provision for an internal bomb bay.
The other thing is that stealth is designed to defeat modern X-band fighter radars in the 8-11GHz band. WWII radar was almost entirely in the 50-500 MHz range - mostly just VHF. It saw things completely differently.
That history Channel documentary has a lot to answer for. Thanks to them, there is now and entire generation of people who thing the Germans developed stealth in WWII. There are even people who think the de Havilland Mosquito was stealthy.
"If some each makes 4+ attacks a day against the Soviet or UK or North Africa they would definitely win or at least drives the war to talks."
History shows that there is no such thing as a war-winning weapon. Even the atomic bomb was only the final nail in the coffin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisk3 Can't you see the quote and the date it was posted? I don't know if YouTube will allow it but here's the full text of what he posted:
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great video, Chris and one of your best. I have to admit, I found myself agreeing with you very early on because I have always held a hypothesis of my own which fits in with your message here. People tend to think of aircraft in isolation. I've done it too. Even fighter aircraft are thought of in terms of which one was notionally 'better' because of one technical detail or another. A lot of people who regard themselves as being interested in military history are really more interested in the history of military equipment. That's okay - as far as it goes.
But to understand it is necessary to look more closely. The commitment to the design of the B-17 - what its requirements were, as defined by the envisioned mission - had its genesis in Billy Mitchell's theories about strategic bombing. That meant designing and building that aircraft, expanding on the strategy through operational procedures, training the crew to fly it and another crew to service it and then putting it into service. When the USAAF entered the European war in 1942, this theory had still to be tested properly in offensive operations. The focus of the squadrons was operating the B-17 with all the skills they had been taught and all the supplies they had.
Changing course at this point was going to be extremely difficult - like doing a U-turn in a supertanker. In the Solent. In the dark.
The Americans believed wholly in the value of daylight precision bombing. The fact that the theory and the practice were quite different made for a period of intense head scratching. Daylight precision bombing was an article of faith and that was how the USAAF was configured. It became a self-sustaining system. As we now know, the Americans basically made the same mistake as the British in underestimating Germany's ability to defend herself. While the British changed direction and turned - unsuccessfully - to night bombing early on, the Americans were determined to push ahead because that's how their force was designed to operate. This wasn't arrogance. It was a practical reality.
This early example of over-commitment to one strategy was only really resolved with the arrival of the Mustang. The Americans couldn't change course, so they needed a good fighter escort to help them. Once this happened, they started to achieve a lot more of their aims.
The only other decent video on this is on 'The Operations Room'. That video focuses solely on the mechanics of the raids from the start to the finish. It's an excellent video, as far as it goes but this fills in all the gaps. Well done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"The Soviet Union before Barbarossa had around 5 times the amount of planes, 7 times the amount of tanks,6 times more divisions, 3 times the amount of cars etc as the Germans, they put all of their stuff on the frontlines ready for an invasion"
The numbers hardly tell the story. Very few of these aircraft, tanks etc were modern: Polkarpovs, T-26s, etc. Furthemore, they had almost no fuel and almost no ammunition (See "The Red Army and the Second World War", Alexander Hill, Cambridge University Press, 2017 pp. 189- 191).
"Worse however in many ways than for many munitions was the situation with fuels and lubricants that could prevent functioning tanks - even with inadequate munitions - from actually engaging the enemy. The 33rd Tank Division of the Western Special Military District reported for example that for 18 June it had only 15 per cent supply for 1st grade petrol and 4 per cent for automobile fuel, and for Diesel fuel it had 0 per cent. The situation for 33rd Tank Division was not as bad as it got - 31st Tank Division of the Pribaltic Military Division had it even worse with only 2 per cent of required automobile fuel and no Diesel." Ibid.
Now please show me where you got this claim that the Germans had no fuel because my recollection is that, while fuel was always a critical factor for both sides, it was not as critical for the Germans until after the raids on Ploesti.. Using hoses to pull wagons, artillery, etc, is not an indication that they were short of fuel. The fact is that the vast majority of references on German Army logistics say that they simply had not transitioned, despite the propaganda movies showing highly mechanised forces.
Incidentally, controlling the Baku oil fields, while useful, clearly did not solve the problem any more than having an expensive car makes you a better driver.
"Explain why the entire Soviet economy in June 1941 was FOCUSED on bringing goods to the border."
I can find zero evidence that this claim is anything more than a bluff - whether it's your bluff or Keitel's or Suvorov's doesn't matter.
1
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"I found the exact numbes. Red Army and NKVD on the 22th of July 1941:"
That's nice. What's the source for this? What about the lack of fuel and ammunition? Having "25 784 tank and tankettes" is all very well but first of all, most were outdated T-26s or light cavalry tanks (the Red Army still used that term, as did the French) like the BT-5 and BT-7, which were not intended for troop support. Without fuel and ammunition, they weren't much use.
"6 114 700 personnel before general mobilization"
No, that was the 1937 plan which envisaged that number (actually 6,826,642) after full mobilisation. That doesn't mean there were that many in uniform. MP-41 envisaged 8,682,827 after full mobilisation. (See Alexander Hill, pp. 192-93) At no stage were these numbers ever actually reached
On 22 June, 1941, Red Army strength stood at about 2.8 million in the West, facing a force of 3.9 million.
1
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"Explain why you would mobilize your entire air force at the border of another country if you don't plan on invading said country."
Where did the last invasion come from?
Hill, in particular, goes into quite a bit of detail on this. Stalin was very concerned about mobilisation and sending a signal to the Germans before the Red army was ready for them.
"Explain why Stalin in 1941 said in a speech to cadets about how he was going to invade."
Source?
"Explain why Stalin himself in secret communications said talked about stuff like ''the plan is set in motion'',"
Which "plan"? What's the source for this claim?
"Explain why..."
"Explain why..."
"Explain why..."
This is like arguing with a creationist. They have a simple explanation - the the Earth is the centre of the universe and that the firmaments were created in seven days by a supreme being (let's call that being God) and that's all you need to know. People were burnt at the stake for daring to question that belief. Atheists waste inordinate amounts of time trying to regurgitate hundreds of years of scientific research to counter a simplistic faith-based claim. Any fool can ask a question that the wisest can't answer but you don't build a cohesive argument that way, any more than you can win a war with a purely defensive strategy.
Well, I can be the fool too.
Explain why the Soviet Union planned early to move a huge number of factories east of the Urals. Explain why they already had plans to move the government to Samara in the event that Moscow fell.
Then explain how an army with almost no experienced officers (after the purge), a poor combat record against both Finland and Poland, no access to rail transport (the Soviet Union still used the old Russian broad gauge while everywhere else in eastern Europe was standard gauge) and led by commanders who were unable to make a decision for fear of being shot, could mount an invasion on eastern Europe and Germany after seeing what the Wehrmacht had done in Poland, France, and the low countries.
Then explain to me how Stalin was taken by surprise. He allowed German military units to cross the border on the pretext of trying to find graves from the First World War - they were doing surveys - and did not trust the advice from his top spy in Tokyo (Richard Sorge) or British intelligence, preferring to believe in a perfidious Albion instead.
Explain how Stalin allowed a Tripartite pact to be signed, which potentially committed the Soviet Union to war on two fronts if he was planning to go westwards.
In the end, Stalin did not trust any of his advisors. According to Norman Stone, the only person Stalin trusted was Adolf Hitler. When the attack came, Molotov asked the German Ambassador, "What have we done to deserve this?" The answer was simple: Hitler had made it clear in Mein Kampf that "the threat of Jewish Bolshevism" would be destroyed and the Slavic people would be enslaved to the needs of a pan-German state, with emphasis on Lebensraum and the food supply from the Ukraine.
The claim of a pre-emptive strike has, in the words of this very video (did you watch it?), become the bulwark for Hitler apologists and neo-Nazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"The red army's officer base became competent towards the end of the winter war after Stalin saw what kind of a disaster was brewing because of their incompetence, that's how they were able to quickly win it towards the end but were terribly stalled at the beginning."
This sounds like a post hoc ergo, propter hoc argument. Either way, it's no proof either way that there was any intent to invade eastern Europe.
"Nobody is saying that Hitler's strike was preemptive, the Nazis had planned for some time to attack the USSR, just like the USSR had for some time planned to attack the world."
That's absolutely what you ard everyone else is saying. Now you want to make it a post hoc ergo, propter hoc argument, I'm not the slightest bit surprised. The list of conspiracy theories today is almost completely limitless: claims of engineered pandemics, fake Covid cures, Moon landing conspiracies, flat-earthers, the list is almost endless. I can't believe that a society so spoilt by the almost limitless availability of information today can so easily and willingly fall for such rubbish.
All of this against a welter of scientific or historical research done by people like David Glantz, who has made it his life's work is beyond comprehension.
That it's now so common for people to fall for Soviet invasion theories for an army that was incapable of efficiently invading Finland and Poland, lacking in all necessary supplies and without competent and experienced leaders, could even consider such an operation is beyond my comprehension.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GuyFierisShirt
"These things happen because of an insane ideology and unhinged leaders who thought that what they were doing was for the greater good, and to preserve their own hides/enrich themselves."
Try telling that to those who followed it and those who even today, still believe in it. Russia has enough trouble today with communists and neo-Stalinists.
What most people have is the stories of those who left. Nobody leaves their homeland without good reason. Who today really knows what Soviet citizens who stayed thought? Very few. And nobody wants to know. Ukrainians hate Russians, not just today but for centuries. During the Soviet era and particularly the Stalin era, that hatred was multiplied many fold by things like the Holodomor - a piece of deadly spite, costing several million lives, against Ukrainian nationalists who hated being ruled by Moscow.
Then do a Google search for an ethnic distribution map of the former Soviet Union. It looks like a patchwork quilt and with each border, friction, always friction. And so it has been since the break up. Clashes over Nagorno Karabakh, the ongoing conflict over the Donbass region and the dispute between Russia and Georgia for starters.
That is why Stalin clamped down on nationalism. I think we agree on that. But don't think for a minute the grudges went away. Things took a turn for the worse during the war when Soviet troops defected to the Nazis. In places recently absorbed, like the Baltic states, it was easy to understand. In other places, less so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randymagnum143 You’re not getting this. The Red Army went through several phases during the war. In 1941, it was all retreat to Moscow. In 1942 it was stalemate. In 1943, they started to win and in 1944, they went over to the offensive that took them all the way to Berlin. Most of the Red Army’s success was built on the T-34. Its reliability improved substantially throughout the war and the changes made to it either built on that reliability or increased production efficiency.
Whether or not it used the latest and greatest is of no importance. The T-34 was produced under conditions that were not replicated in any other combat nation in WWII or, arguably, any other nation in history. It was designed to be produced quickly by only semi-skilled labour. If there were faults in it, too bad. If it wasn’t the latest design, too bad.
Most of the time it operated under circumstances that overrode pretty much all the technical points the internet places so much faith in. Those conditions, tactical or strategic, included weather, fuel availability, terrain, crew training and tactical or strategic position. All of those things are more important than whether or not some American had made a better clutch system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prof_kaos9341
"I am aware of the Soviet pre-war Deep Battle strategy."
Fwoar... Deep Battle... That's a subject I know very little about but I'm not convinced many others know much about it either. It wasn't just pre-war either. It actually survived the war. It was supposed to link the farmer or factory worker with the soldier in the field. Along the way it had to demonstrate political purity as well.
"Prior to 1943, buying time with human waves was the norm. Consider the huge encirclements & losses in the 1st 6 months, millions captured, 38,000 mostly inter-war AFVs lost, the result of poor strategy & tactics."
No, that's not it. Human waves were not a factor in the first six months and it's arguable they never were. In fact, the first significant counterattack by the Red Army was the Siberians outside Moscow and that was quite successful. But that wasn't a human wave assault. There were plenty of tanks. The first six months was the Red Army recoiling from the shock and suddenness of the German attack. Their preparation was awful. Read Hill on this. He's very thorough and looks at a bazillion reasons why the Germans were so successful in 1941. The front line units were almost immobile because they had no fuel. That ranged from aircraft to tanks. The frontline airfields were the first things the Germans bombed and a huge number of Soviet aircraft were simply destroyed on the ground. By the time the Germans overran some of the factories, they were able to capture hundreds of pristine new T-34 and KV-1 tanks which had been abandoned due to lack of transport and lack of fuel. Fortunately by this stage the Soviet leadership had moved the factories beyond the Urals.
The point is though that the first six months were decided on the first day.
Combined arms strategy is unavoidably linked with the rearming of the Red Army. You kind of eluded to this when you said it took 2-3 years to change the situation. But that doesn't mean that they didn't rely on co-dependent forces, which they did.
But the Germans caught the Red Army and the Soviet leadership - particularly Stalin - at their weakest moment. A decapitated army leadership which resulted in people being necessarily promoted beyond their experience and under threat of death if they screwed up, a whole system that was rearming, Stalin deluding himself that their was no threat, despite the reports from forward areas (he dismissed these as British subterfuge) and a lack of sufficient resources and training. But you can't draw too much from any of this. Yes, 1942 was a bad year for the Red Army but they had been in a worse position when they were defending Moscow. Stalingrad showed how their fortunes could be reversed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis
"I understand most however the P51 did not do most of the work against the Luftwaffe by the USAAF That was the P47"
I don't know on what basis that would be.
If you're talking purely in number of missions, well, yes, the P-47 flew 423,000 missions in the ETO, while the P-51 flew 213,000.
On the basis of numbers shot down, the P-47 shot down 3,082, versus 4,950 for the P-51. Even allowing for over claiming - and I'm assuming that it will be approximately the same across the board - the P-51 likely did shoot down approximately 60% more than the P-47. So the Mustang had almost three times the likelihood of engaging with the enemy.
The P-47 had an exchange rate of 2.04 vs the P-51 3.60.
Remember that, also long as the USAAF relied on P-47s for escort, all the Luftwaffe had to do was wait until the escorts turned for home before attacking. Goering actually told his controllers to direct fighters only to attack after the P-47s had turned for home.
With the Mustang, the Luftwaffe had no opportunity to ignore them. The P-51 simply forced the Luftwaffe to fight, something they simply could not afford.
It wouldn't matter if the P-51 shot down fewer German aircraft. The fact is that it was the one aircraft that made it impossible for the Luftwaffe to avoid combat.
In effect, the P-51 achieved what the Bf-109 could not achieve over England and the rest of the UK. If you recall, Luftflotte 5 attempted to fly raids from Norway and got seven colours of shit shot out of them. The only missions the 109 could fly in escort went about as far as London. If you want to put it into context, it would be like the Bf-109 being able to fly to John O'Groats in Scotland.
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Until the P-51 arrived, the Allies could not take the fight to the Germans. Most P-47s could barely penetrate German airspace and Goering instructed the fighter controllers not to attack bomber formations until the P-47s had turned for home. By the end of 1943, P-47s, P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires had accounted for a total of 451 German aircraft since their debut in April. The P-47 accounted for the lion’s share with 414.
The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year, so without wishing to denigrate the performance of anyone, their impact was <2% of the total.
After 14 October, 1943, long range bomber operations were suspended until the P-51 arrived. Even then, until it was available in significant numbers, its effects could not be fully appreciated.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was out scoring the P-47 by a factor of eight. The reason is relatively simple: the Luftwaffe no longer had a choice. They had to engage and they got soundly beaten.
The P-51 was involved in the war for approximately 17 months but its involvement was decisive. The P-47’s role was not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Jack, I'm not doing this for any other reason than to find the best available version of the truth.
The internet being what it is, you get accused of playing favourites or being a hater or a fanboi. All I did was read. When I first started, I was of the opinion that the P-47 had not been widely enough appreciated for its work. After reading - mostly history of missions or campaigns - I find that, not only was the gap between the two was wider than I previously thought but the P-51 was actually more decisive than most people today even accept.
But what is needed here is reading. Among the books I have read over time which have made this clear are:
''The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', by Martin Middlebrook,
'Big Week', by James Holland,
'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price,
'The First and the Last', by Adolph Galland
'Big Friend, Little Friend', by Lt Col Richard E. Turner,
'I Flew for the Fuhrer', by Heinz Knoke
My numbers come from Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand' and 'P-51B Mustang: North American’s Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force', by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford.
I'm not saying you have to read all these books. The reason I posted it is to show you why I believe what I do. That's it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"The same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men."
So, would you say that getting 100,000 killed was part of their agenda? Would you say that they wouldn't have done anything until that happened? Was this their benchmark, their one Pomeranian Grnadier?
Let's look at the history. On 9 October, 1942, Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s and they were ready by mid-1943. But ready, as in built, and operationally ready, are two different things. Introducing a new fighter type is not a simple matter.
Apart from thatchy had to modify it by fitting the 85 gallon tank behind the pilot to increase the internal fuel capacity before they could be deemed ready for service. hen, of course, there were pilots to train and support equipment to source..
The letter from Arnold was in August and the Mustangs started arriving in England in December.
So, in fact, they acted very quickly but if Republic had responded to earlier directives to increase fuel capacity, the situation might not have been as serious as it was. Unfortunately they did not.
So I fail to see how the USAAF can be blamed - least of all the way you are doing it - for one manufacturer failing to respond when everyone else did. Is this a bomber mafia conspiracy? No, it's not.
I'm not sure what you think you're proving with this.
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"he same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men."
So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000?
Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready.
But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen.
So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity.
I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this.
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS "he same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men."
So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000?
Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready.
But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen.
So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity.
I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this.
1
-
"The same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men."
So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000?
Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready.
But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen.
So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity.
I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
”The loss rate was 40% higher….take all the time you need to actually wrap your head around that…”
I have already addressed this. The P-51 - because of its range - spent a lot more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. This is also reflected in the numbers of aircraft shot down. The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO, while the P-51 shot down 4,950. The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04, compared to 3.60 for the P-51.
I also gave you an example of survivor bias, which is something the P-51’s critics never address.
As for comparisons with the Typhoon… CAS is a dangerous mission, even today. Yet the units that transitioned to the P-51, on the whole, did better than when they were flying the P-47. The point is that the ‘one bullet in the cooling system and it’s all over’ argument has nothing going for it. Yet we are expected to believe that those P-51s did not come home because they were flimsy and had liquid cooled engines…
A CAS pilot was vulnerable to three things: enemy aircraft, Flak and collision, either with another aircraft or flying into the ground. No pilot is going to be sweating a bullet in the radiator when he might be vaporised by a 37 mm in the next three seconds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry to say this but this is one of your less impressive videos. While the initial part of this is largely correct, the proposals for SDI did not hinge on any one single factor. The Soviet economy had been heavily strained by the crash program initiated under Brezhnev in the 1960s. By the late 70's CIA reports showed that the USSR was already reducing its spending on defence. Secondly, while Reagan's speech to initiate the SDI program in May 1983 was met with (understandable) outrage by the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, shown here in this video, was not the General Secretary. This is extremely important because his predecessors were not of the same mind. The General Secretary in 1983 was Yuri Andropov, former head of the KGB and a divisive figure in Soviet politics. By the end of 1983, the concepts of MAD and SDI were being seriously challenged and their proponents isolated. This was due to and incident called Operation Able Archer 1983, which almost descended into Armageddon. Back channel communications between Reagan and the Soviet leadership established beyond doubt the Soviet distrust and fear of the USA. While the US always protested that they would never have adopted a first strike posture, 1983 was a very difficult year, with the shooting down of KAL 007 and the Stanislav Petrov incident putting relations between the superpowers at an all-time low. Suggest you read Nate Jones' book "Able Archer 83: The Secret History of the NATO Exercise That Almost Triggered Nuclear War", which covers this whole scenario in all the detail which is currently available. Jones is a Cold War specialist at the US National Archives.
Gorbachev's motives for revamping the Soviet economy had little to do with SDI. The American claim that "We won the Cold War by outspending the Russians (sic)_" was pure propaganda from George Bush'2 1992 Presidential campaign. Nobody who has studied the Cold War in any depth believes it. Recommended reading is _"A Failed Empire" by Vladislav Zubok and "The Cold War" by Robert J. McMahon. These references make it abundantly clear that among the USSR's biggest problems related to their ability to recoup debts from their client states. Looking at the two superpowers and the empires they oversaw, it's obvious that the American client states were wealthy and largely solvent while the Soviet Union tended to back emerging economies and the odd failed state which looked like it might turn to communism. They had serious problems with their Eastern European allies towards the end because they simply did not pay their oil debts, despite Moscow cutting them considerable amounts of slack.
The changes in the 1980s had almost nothing to do with SDI and a lot more to do with late stage Soviet aims which centred around reforming the economy from the remnants of the revolution/industrialisation economy to a modern and internationally competitive one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobmalack481
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
1
-
@bobmalack481
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean @bobmalack481
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
@bobmalack481 YouTube is deleting my replies again.
"The late war varient bubble canopy P47 'D trim with the upgraded 'paddle' bladed propellers improved climb rate comparable to the ME109 and the Focke Wolf much to the surprise of German pilots. You need to do better research before commenting millinial. Robert at 69."
Well, well... Gen X here. I've been reading about this for almost half a century so I won't be needing or taking any advice on research, thank you.
Your claim that this came as a surprise to German pilots needs qualification, certainly before I take it seriously. Can you cite a source for it? Who said it? (I actually have German pilots views on the P-47 so I already know what they thought). What we have here is spec sheet warfare again: it looks good on paper, erg, it must have happened. That's what's known as conjecture and it doesn't count.
I'm happy to indulge you but it's a distraction. People get so bound up in silly arguments about techno blather that they miss the important bits.
The fact is that by the time the bubble top P-47D-25 came into service int May, 1944, it was no longer needed. It was consigned to the 9th Air Force for ground missions, in which it performed admirably. It did actually end the war with 3,082 German aircraft shot down*. By the end of 1944, there was only one 8th AF group still operating the P-47.
So whatever the spec sheets, it makes no difference, especially if you can't provide a reference.
*'Americas Hundred Thousand', Francis Dean
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troubledcat
"Yes, Australia where people were detained in concentration camps "
Really? Where? Oh and by the way, the US has FEMA camps too.
And it's a bit of a stretch linking that with gun laws.
"New Zealand where a country goes into full lockdown over a case of Winnie-The-Flu."
Haha! See, the trouble with that is that I have to believe not one but two conspiracies, which is asking rather a lot.
"All the places you mentioned, aside from Japan, have massive issues when it comes to authoritarianism because they opposes people's rights to freedom, liberty, etc over nonsensical reasons."
You can't prove any of that, much less that it's related to gun ownership. Excessively generalised claims like that are really difficult to argue rationally so if you're expecting me to counter it, don't bother.
"Also, I'm from South Africa and we have gun control here that leads to applicants waiting months to a year, yet we have 67 murders daily. I even know of someone that took their son out to a restaurant for his birthday. As they were leaving a shootout brokeout as criminals decided to rob the place and if it wasn't for a armed citizen being at the restaurant things would've been worse."
Sounds like yet another spectacular leap of faith. One of my ex-girlfriends was South African and she kept a gun under her pillow when she lived in Jo'burg. But take Oscar Pistorius as an example. Rich White guy gets sentenced to just five years for the (gun) murder of Reeva Steenkamp. After a year, he was released to serve his sentence at home. On appeal, his sentenced was further increased to six years and then 15 years. I'd say you've got a lot more problems than guns and gun control.
"Ultimately, you want to deny people their freedoms because rather than treating the cause of the mass shootings you want to tackle the symptom."
Life is a freedom that greatly exceeds the presumed freedom to wave guns around.
"And that's a waste of time and effort that I really can't afford to entertain."
Hasn't stopped you running some elaborate and generalised conspiracies and expecting me to take them as some sort of evidence to support gun ownership.
"Another thing, governments being overthrown by armed gangs tend to happen in countries with high gun control and high crime, so it would seem your position on the matter creates the problems I supposedly haven't thought about."
For example?
You're really trying it on, aren't you? There's no connection between gun control and armed gangs overthrowing governments. If it was ever true then it happens in countries where the rule of law is marginal and corruption is high. Unless you can make a case that this applies in places like the United States - which is what this is about, regardless - then you're making yet another gigantic leap of faith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@infantjones Gun murders in Australia declined at a greater rate than did murder by other methods. The total murder rate declined by 45% over 20 years, while the gun murder rate declined by more than 65% over the same time.
Australia is not a gun culture and never has been.
But any criticism from the American gun lobby has to be taken with a major dose of salt. The Australian murder rate is currently 1.13 per 100,000 (up from the more normal 0.9) while yours is a whopping 7.5 and your gun murder rate is a staggering 5.9 per 100,000.
In 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States, with 11,078 by gun. In 2020 there were 24,576 people murdered, with 19,384 by gun.
A brief calculation shows that the difference between the gun murder figures is 8,306 while the difference in murder by other methods is just 14.
That catastrophic rise is 100% driven by guns. Liberalisation of concealed carry, open carry and ‘stand your ground’ laws, not to mention the hysterical language used by the gun lobby are totally to blame for this.
So I won’t be taking dictation on how to run social policy from American gun owners, thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS
”They’re not assumptions, they’re observations of what NSDAP economic policy looks like in practice.”
And I have already shown you that you have no idea what NSDAP economic policy was. I have also pointed out that the NSDAP didn’t exist in the 1930s. Everything else you have said about this is basically lies. You couldn’t possibly know without having read the sources I quoted or paraphrased. This is laughable. Let me ask you again:
How did the Nazis fund major projects like the Autobahnen and rearmament? How?
When you can explain this, then you can claim some knowledge of Nazi economic policy. Until then all you’re doing is trying to impress the guy in the shaving mirror.
”Most industrialists made less profit during the NSDAP years than before.”
Lies. Read David de Jong’s book, ’Nazi Billionaires’.
In fact, don’t even bother posting this rubbish again until you have. You have no idea how much you’re embarrassing yourself. 😂😂😂
”As for the workers, all labor unions were folded into a single, national labor union: the German Labor Front.”
Tell the whole story: they were not allowed to strike and so they had no power. They were effectively reduced to a single labour pool with vastly reduced entitlements, the principal beneficiaries of which were the wealthy industrialists.
”Interestingly, the Soviet Union and other Socialist states also followed this model of nationalising unions.”
Source? I don’t even know why you think this is important. All it shows is that those countries were not socialist, since socialism advocates collective bargaining.
”In a one party system, the government is the state.”
Wrong. The people are the state.
”This is self-evident, and your attempts to dispute what amounts amounts to common sense is laughable.”
No, what is laughable is your total lack of background reading beyond a few interesting factoids you’ve cherry picked to attempt to justify a ludicrous position. The more you argue about this - especially when you haven’t cited a single source, much less a reliable one - the less supportable and sillier your position is. You quite simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Don’t even bother posting again until you’ve actually read a couple of the many references I’ve cited. You’ll save yourself even further embarrassment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crusader5989
"It looks that my comment has hurt a lot of P-51 hearts."
I think you overvalue your knowledge of this subject. You also overvalue your opinion of who might be 'butthurt'. I'm interested in one thing only: the best available version of the truth.
"So i am supposed to believe you right? Do yourself a 45 minute long video with graphs and charts etc and then we talk."
Get stuffed.
"Extensive evaluation of P-51B by R.A.F.'s AFDU against Me-109 and FW-190 says otherwise. This was done because having range doesn't mean much if you can't successfully combat the fighters going after the bombers you're escorting."
They could and they did.
Let's ignore the technical baloney and look at some data analysis because the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. This is from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand':
P-47 Thunderbolt
Sorties: 423,435
Combat Losses: 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange: 2.04
P-51 Mustang
Sorties: 213,873
Combat losses: 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange: 3.60
So in other words, the P-51 shot down 60% more aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in half the number of sorties. So, in fact, the P-51 was very good at combating the fighters who were attacking the bombers they were escorting.
In April, 1944, P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft while the P-51s scored 328. In half the number of sorties.
You can find this is the Luftwafffe records and the memoirs and interviews with German pilots.
So you digest that then get back to me. I'm happy to discuss whatever topic you like.
I started this with an open mind and the more I have read about the P-51, the P-47 and the missions they flew - yes, I read books and don't care much about YouTube videos - the more obvious it becomes.
It was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@crusader5989 No butthurt here. I started this with an open mind with, if anything, a leaning towards the P-47, which I thought was something of a quiet achiever. But the more I have read, the clearer it is that the P-51 thoroughly deserves its stellar reputation.
I have only one interest in this topic and that is the best available version of the truth.
There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So let’s dispense with the technical blather and look at the P-51 v the P-47 in terms of statistics.
The P-51 arrived in England in December, 1943. At that time there were eight fighter groups operating the P-47 and two operating the P-38. At this stage, the P-47 had shot down a total of 414 German fighters in the ETO since its combat debut in April.
In February, 1944, the P-47 shot down about 250 German fighters, while the P-51 got about 50 (from memory). In March, the P-51 got around 250, compared to around 150 for the P-47. In April, the P-47 got 82. The P-51 got 329 with half the number of aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was - in that month - eight times more effective than the P-47.
The figures remained this way for the rest of the war. By the end of the war, the P-47 had shot down 3,082 German fighters, while the P-51 accounted for 4,950. It had shot down 60% more in air to air and destroyed 30% more ground targets. It was, in fact, the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
And strategic bombing could not be carried out effectively without the P-51. The P-47 could not do it, despite the revisionist claims.
1
-
@twolak1972
”The P51 really was average.”
Can you cite a reference for this that isn’t a YouTube video (i.e.: not Greg)?
”Its biggest claim to fame wss its range.”
Which enabled the USAAF to carry out its strategic bombing campaign without sustaining undue or excessive losses. No P-47 variant did that. This is child’s play to prove.
”It did NOT defeat the Luftwaffe. THE P-47 DID.”
The numbers don’t back this up at all. When the P-51 arrived in England in December, 1943, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft, from its combat debut in May. The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. Ironically, the P-47’s best month was February, 1944, when it bagged around 250. Much of that happened during ’Big Week’.
By April, 1944, the P-51, with half the force size, shot down 329 German fighters, compared to 82 for the P-47. The figures remained lopsided for the rest of the war.
In the end, the P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO. The P-51 got 4,950 and destroyed 30% more ground targets.
So, yes, the P-51 defeated the Luftwaffe. It didn’t do it on its own but its arrival sounded the death knell.
1
-
@twolak1972
”What you fail to realize is that by the time the 51 came up the war for Germany was lost. The 47 pulled the weight at every situation and the 47,a stayed with the bombers where the glory hound 51 pilots deserted them to mix it up one on 1 with the enemy.”
This is fantasy. My bet is that you can provide no specific evidence to back any of this up.
By the time the P-47 had its combat debut in April, 1943, the war was already lost and the situation was not changed appreciably by the P-47. In 1943, the USAAF destroyed 451 German aircraft on the western front, with the P-47 getting 414 and the rest split between P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires.
But Germany lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. How is shooting down less than 2% ‘pulling the weight at every situation’?
The facts is that the P-47 was only a useful escort as long as the bombers didn’t need to go deep into Germany. Even equipped with a 108 gallon tank on the centreline pylon, the P-47 could not get past the Dutch border. This is very well documented and easy to prove. I would recommend you read ’Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1044’, by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. They describe in detail the fueling and mission allocation for each type.
Secondly, the Luftwaffe had suffered badly from over commitment and losses had become unsustainable from N about late 1942. Williamson Murray goes into this. By 1943, the average new pilot had 110-120 hours, with 10-15 on type. The average American pilot had about ten times that. You can find this in Martin Middlebrook’s book on the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids. This imbalance remained similarly proportioned for the remainder of the war. So any claim that the P-47 did all the heavy lifting is rubbish and easy to disprove.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. As good as the P-47 was - it did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
1
-
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. Drop tanks are wasteful because of drag. They say it takes about half the amount of fuel in the tank to get the other half there. That's for one tank. Eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon and those aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s, equipped with two 108 gallon tanks, could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry out its policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, wrecked the Luftwaffe. @twolak1972
1
-
@twolak1972
"BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back."
No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role..
For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg.
See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27.
This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal.
By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed.
If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like.
"Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe."
Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not.
As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this?
The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
"THE UNBREAKABLE."
The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
1
-
@twolak1972 This comes from Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
P-47 Thunderbolt
Sorties: 423,435
Losses (all causes): 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange: 2.04
P-51 Mustang
Sorties: 213,873
Losses (all causes): 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange: 3.60
The Mustang wrecked the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josecolon2717
”I just dislike people falsely discrediting due praise.”
Your problem.
The only ‘miracle’ of 1991 was that the coalition held together. That was political, not military. The coalition forces had wargamed and planned for this type of war for literally decades. But they planned for a war with the Soviet Union and Warpac forces, who were a much, much tougher opponent than Iraq.
Anyone who understands how modern air combat is conducted knows that in a conflict like that, C3 and the dominance of the electronic battlespace is crucial and that was achieved in the first ten minutes of the campaign, exactly in line with NATO planning for a war with the eastern bloc. The difference was that with the eastern bloc, such dominance would have been much harder to achieve, in no small part because there was more than one communications centre and they were more heavily and effectively defended.
If you don’t know how modern air combat works, I recommend you read ’The Bekaa Valley Air Battle; June, 1982, Lessons Mislearned?’ by CIC Matthew Hurley. This is the basic handbook for how to run an air campaign. This is what was applied in 1991 in greater size that what Israel did in 1982 but remains fundamentally unchanged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samsaasen4922
"Any firearm chambered for 5.56x45mm will also safety fire .223."
No kidding? You know, don't you, that while a .223 can be fired in a 5.56 gun, the reverse doesn't apply for headspacing reasons?
"Just because .22lr exists doesn’t mean it’s the one and only .22 caliber cartridge."
The point is that people here keep saying, "It's just a .22 and it's a weak rifle cartridge" while ignoring the fact that two of the children at Uvalde were decapitated by AR-15 bullets. I don't know why anyone would say on that basis that it's a weak round. What I'm highlighting is that a .223 or 5.56mm has about ten times the kinetic energy of a .22 LR. So comparing them, the calibre is the only similarity.
Secondly, the velocity of an AR-15 round is high enough that it causes hydrostatic shock, which doesn't happen with a .22 LR. That's what this video is about. When a subsonic round penetrates, it creates relatively small cavities, both temprary and permanent. When a high velocity round penetrates, hydrostatic shock causes a largish permanent cavity but a trul massive temporary cavity which does massive amounts of damage to delicate internal organs like the kidneys, the liver and the bowel.
1
-
@redshrimp6206
"a majority of those shootings are gang related where the assailants knew each other"
Links please.
"The statistics where the media get those from is massshootertracker, a website that was originally a subreddit that tracked the data of mass shootings, there’s a reason why Chicago had the most mass shootings in 2020."
Oh haha! Good old Chicago again. That hoary old chestnut. I find most gun nuts who talk about Chicago have no idea what's going on there. It's usually just a ruse to try to prove that "strict gun laws cause more shootings". Which they don't.
"As for the Ar-15, for the most part, the only similarities between the militaries and civilian variants is the cosmetics, soldiers aren’t using target grade ammunition, they also aren’t using barrels that have the same twist rate as a civilian variant. If they were, then the infantry would be put at a disadvantage."
Not relevant to this.
"You do realize that the most deadly school shooting wasn’t even committed with a rifle right, it was committed with two handguns, one of them was a 22."
That was 15 years ago. ALL the deadliest shootings in America in the last 10 years have involved the AR-15. All of them.
"Doesn’t matter what caliber it is, it’ll kill you just as dead."
Yes. Tell that to the gun nuts here who say, "The .223 is just a weak rifle caliber that isn't even allowed for deer hunting in most states" (wrong, by the way). They ignore the fact that two of the Uvalde children were decapitated by bullets. The problem is that, compared to pistols and .22s, the AR-15 is much more difficult for the police to counter.
"Long guns don’t even account for a majority of firearm deaths, it’s handguns."
See my earlier comment about the deadliest mass shootings. Also bear in mind that in 25% of cases, no weapon is recorded.
"Statistically speaking, you’re more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with an Ar-15."
Useless trivia.
"I also saw in another comment of yours that the Ar-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters, which is also incorrect, pistols account for more than half of mass shootings annually."
Once again, see my comment about the deadliest mass shootings.
"These massacres are horrible and I pray that they end, but it’s clear that stripping away millions of responsible civilians right to self preservation isn’t the right way to go about fixing it."
DGU is a total myth designed foir one purpose: to sell more guns.
That's it.
This isn't even about rights. America should be the safest country on the planet, given that there are more guns than people, but it's not. The murder rate is at least 7 times higher than peer nations (Western Europe, UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand). They all have problems with criminal gangs and mental health. What they don't have is a populace which is armed to the teeth.
1
-
@fireemblemistrash75
"You’re a hypocrite if you forget we own powerful weapons accessible to everyone, cars trucks and vans (look at sweden and Europes terrorist attacks from vans)."
When cars, trucks and vans become the weapons of choice for mass killers, then we can look at it. But they're not. Not in the United States and not in any peer nation (Western Europe, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). It's to that they never happen but they're so rare that they attract attention when they do. By comparison, there have been more than 400 mass shootings in the US this year alone. But you raise an interesting point. We have far more options with cars and trucks because they require both licensing and registration, meaning that people must be trained and the vehicles are traceable. But if anyone proposes licensing and registration for guns they're accused of being in breach of the second amendment and depriving people of their rights.
"A criminal does something illegal and without regard for human lives, a law abiding gun owner ensures he follows the law but points out when the government in their infinite “wisdom” impedes rights of us Americans."
I disagree. A person is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. Take Ted Wafer as a case in point. He was a law abiding citizen until he all but blew Renisha McBride's head off with a shotgun one dark night when she knocked on his door seeking help. Take a look at the FBI report on active shooters between 2000 and 2013. Most are just maladjusted young men who have a grudge against society and a lust for guns. They are far from the simple case you find the NRA talking about. The gun lobby has this incredibly naive view of criminality. It's far from a simple subject, to the point that it's available as a university course of study.
But where do you think the rights of people not to be shot dead while going about their business fit into this? Because most people I've come across think that their right to own a gun exceeds the of people to live. That's not an exaggeration either. Someone said it to me on this very page today. "It's in the constitution so it must be right but the constitution doesn't guarantee anyone a right to live"... Can you believe that? Someone actually did say it and nobody here objected except me. On top of that nobody here as expressed so much as a grain of remorse, regret or sorrow that 19 children and two teachers were murdered, including two who were decapitated by bullets.
But there are lots of things that can be done before we start banning guns. The problem is that the gun lobby sees only gun bans and refuses to acknowledge any attempts to introduce other measures that might prevent at least some of these things from happening. Licensing and registration would be a good start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathanscott846
"why not start the conversation with if ?"
When the gun lobby starts talking about "if" what they do is beg the question. What that means is that they propose policy based on what they think will happen, despite the welter of evidence against their claims. So you'll have to excuse me for being cynical abut sentences or propositions starting with "if".
"I also don't think I identify as the gun lobby just a 19 year old trying to better understand the world we live in and see things from different view points."
Okay, let's start there - in good faith.
"But removing one weapon from a selection of many isn't going to stop criminals and the mentally ill."
This has already been used many, many times as a counter to what I'm saying. Again, this is an assumption that really doesn't have a lot going for it. Prior to 2012, the deadliest mass shooting in America had been the Virginia Tech shooting, which, as everyone keeps saying, was carried out with pistols. There are other factors but let's leave it there for the moment because there are other points to cover. Sandy Hook didn't exceed the number of deaths (26 compared with 35) but it was the first big massacre carried out with an AR-15 and there have been other factors about that which are relevant but which won't really help explain.
After that, the number of shootings with AR-15s went only up. Las Vegas, of course, involved a number of weapons but the AR-15 was certainly one of them. And the problem with this is that the AR-15 is a much, much harder weapon to counter than pistols. Statistically, you're also more likely to die from an AR-15 wound than a pistol round. Despite what people are saying here, the AR-15 round is much more destructive to internal tissue than a pistol round. People here seem to be obsessed with trying to discredit the demonstration here rather than acknowledging the fact of the matter. The high velocity round causes much more cavitation and on top of that, it causes hydrostatic shock, which ruptures capillaries by the thousands and results in irreversible internal bleeding and ultimately death. It's not that pistol rounds can't do this but it's a lot less common.
And as I said earlier, the AR-15 has been involved in all the deadliest mass shootings since 2012.
As for criminals and mentally ill obtaining other weapons instead, that really hasn't been the case. Many people have suggested that the same could be achieved with the Mini-14 but it hasn't. The marketing of the AR-15 has something to do with this. As I said, there are other factors but they complicate the matter, rather than simplifying it.
"This can cause to a never ending cycle of what the so called gun lobby calls "government abuse of power"."
I'm not sure how or why. The government has been able to ban any number of weapons under the "Dangerous and Unusual Weapons" law for a long time. The Thompson submachine gun has been outlawed for civilian use since the 1930s, for example (with the support of the NRA, by the way). That law was upheld in the 2008 "Heller v DC" case in the Supreme Court.
"Nothing ever will be enough until we start to acknowledge other problems like you said better licensing and registration, as well as mental health being a big one hear in the US that doesn't get enough coverage."
The mental health problems in the US are not really any different than in any peer nation. The difference is that mentally ill people in those countries don't have access to firearms like the AR-15.
"It doesn't have to be, but the outcomes will never change until we make a better system or some big change not just the ban on ar15s."
Well, herein lies the problem. There are lots of things that can be done before banning anything. The trouble is that the gun lobby has done everything it can to block any initiatives that might reduce the incidences of massacres. It's a side issue but to give you some idea of what I'm talking about, Ted Cruz got paid $442,000 last year to block any and all gun legislation that came his way. Between him, Steve Scalise and John Cornyn, they pocketed over a million in gun lobby payments. In most other places, that would be illegal but so protected is the gun industry that they can get away with it.
The gun lobby will tell you that licensing and registration are the thin edge of the wedge for government coercion and control, that it doesn't work and that the constitution doesn't say anything about it so it shouldn't be allowed. In fact, the constitution doesn't actually say very much at all, other than that you have a right to keep and bear arms. It makes no difference, gun control can be managed in much the same way as cars are managed: licensing and registration. Maybe with the revenue collected for such things, the gun lobby can put its money where its collective mouth is and support mental health, even if indirectly. But they can only imagine house-to-house collections and armed stand offs between themselves and public officials.
Sorry for the rant. I have a lot more I could add but I left it out in the interests of brevity, believe it or not!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smangosmooly9538
"You didn’t even understand my total point which is that, after the ar has “broken the seal” so to speak for the marketing of a civilian weapon with combat ergonomics and features, nobody is going to revert to anything lesser than that unless you restrict."
I understood you exactly. It's a matter of a competitive market. No problem there. The problem in the Remington example was that the company was sued for irresponsible advertising. You mentioned marketing weapons as a kind of 'combat standard' and that was the Remington advertising model. They hadn't sold a lot of AR-15s in the time they'd been making them (pretty much since the patents expired) until someone hit on the idea of the 'tactical' market. I'm sure you can see where this is going.
And yes, advertising is already restricted.
"ARs are easy to mass produce and are modular, effective combat weapons. This is not a hard thing to replicate, and when you throw the entirety of the US gun owning civilians wallets at the issue, you’ll get a quick solution."
I get that. People say to me 'why not just use an AR-10?' The answer is that an AR-10 isn't really a substitute for an AR-15. It requires a lot more experience to shoot it and even more to shoot it well. The mags are a lot heavier when loaded and the recoil is a lot heavier. A tyro could use it but they would struggle. People say to me 'mass shooters will just gravitate to the Mini 14 but I don't see that happening unless there's a substantial increase in numbers.
But in any case, doing nothing because someone will come up with an alternative isn't an excuse for doing nothing about guns and particularly, the AR-15.
"The 2nd amendment as it stands legally protects our rights to own rifles, just because they’re high output semi autos with modern cartridges and magazines* doesn’t mean they can be restricted."*
The 'Heller v DC' judgement from 2008 says they can. Most people missed this. In 'The Opinion', Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted in favour of the motion, said that the second amendment was not unlimited. Heller v DC is the current legal interpretation of the second amendment.
In the years that followed, the Supreme Court hear something like 500 applications and only one was upheld and that was 'McDonald v Chicago'. I think you can be pretty sure the limits of gun laws were tested and probably many times. I'd suggest every state had its laws tested.
So, in fact, what this means is that governments can make whatever overlay laws they like as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not eliminated. That means they can limit who is allowed to have them (convicted criminals, anyone on a terrorism watchlist and those with serious mental health problems would not qualify) and the types of weapons allowed. That can mean restrictions that limit anything beyond a muzzle loading musket if that's what the law says. I think we both know that isn't going to happen (and it isn't necessary) but the point is that there most certainly can.
"you’ll find legally it’s going to be harder to overstep much more than they already have."
Not from a legal point of view as much as a legislative one. I have no serious expectations that the laws will change in my lifetime. I do expect that the argument will continue and that the murder rate in the US will remain a sore point, especially when it comes to things like school shootings.
We're not going to agree on this but it's nice to at least have a respectful discussion. It's been a very long time since I was able to do that with anyone from the gun fraternity. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@milesdavidson3465
”For example, it is my opinion that every school in America should have at least on school resource officer at the ready to guard the school. Having somebody available at a moments notice to stop the killing of children is so much more effective than waiting for law enforcement to show up or creating laws which only oppress those who follow the law.”
Bullshit, Miles. 22 carat, gold-plated bullshit. In case you haven’t noticed, those things don’t work. Uvalde had its own dedicated school police to defend against such events and it failed miserably. No good blaming them. Not many people are going to step in front of a shooter with an AR. What happened at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas? There was a school security officer who couldn’t even tell where the shooting was coming from so had absolutely no effect on the total casualty figures.
You can keep putting this up but the fact is that it doesn’t work and shows no signs that it ever will.
As for laws that oppress people, Jesus Christ on a bike, Miles. Did you even think before you posted that? What about the rights of people to go about their daily business without getting shot dead? Don’t they matter or are human lives less important than guns? The gun lobby has shown absolutely no reason why anyone should take their claims seriously, you included. The great American social experiment to outsource personal security to a bunch of low information, low intelligence, gun wavin’ johnnies has been a deplorable failure. And the proof lies in the dramatic 90% increase in gun murders since 2010 and a spectacular trail of blood and bodies. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself. All because the gun lobby has duped people and paid legislators in primarily red states to allow for liberalisation of concealed carry, open carry and ‘stand your ground’ laws.
Helpless targets…OMG…🙄
Speaking of which, Miles, if you’re carrying in an area that prohibits weapons, then you are not a law abiding citizen. You are in breach of the law, no matter how you justify it. So anything you have to say is necessarily covered by bad faith. How can you then talk of disarming law abiding citizens?
I’ve made it pretty clear that the AR-15 is the weapon I would propose to ban. Given the phenomenal array of weapons available to American gun nuts, that’s a drop in the bucket. You sure know how to play the victim, don’t you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@milesdavidson3465
"then back it up. Provide me an academic journal which solidifies what you are saying."
Which bit?
"It is really silly of you to say that because I support the right of people to defend themselves adequately does not mean I endorse or support the killing of innocent people."
You do by your words and your actions. Gun control has worked in every peer nation where it's been tried but you and your gun nut acolytes refuse any and all legislation that might prevent further massacres, despite reams of evidence that these laws work. You have blood on your hands.
"I am merely stating the fact that disarming American people in any way will not solve any of the issues you are addressing."
This is more BS, Miles and you know it. I have already said that the only weapon I think should be banned outright is the AR-15. That's hardly 'disarming the American public'. 'Disarming' is a concept unique to the American gun lobby. But if you clowns are so selfish that you won't come to the party on this, then you probably deserve to be disarmed.
"Now if you want proof of that, we can look at NY, Chicago, and other big cities which have the strictest gun policies yet suffer from the most violent crimes."
Lies. Absolute BS. Easily disproved. Where do you want to start?
Jim Jordan tried that in NYC this week and was hoist on his own petard. Columbus has much worse gun crime than NYC.
"The majority of violent crimes in this country take place in these big cities which strip people of their constitutional rights."
Lies. Those cities, with few exception, have a per capita crime rate which is much lower than those in red states. Again, this is easy to disprove. I've done the research. In fact, I've spent about ten years researching this and I know a hell of a lot more than you do.
Gun laws don't strip anyone of their constitutional rights. The current interpretation of the second amendment is "The Opinion' by Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 2008 'Heller v DC" case. The second amendment was upheld but so was the dangerous and unusual weapons law. Scalia, who voted in favour of the motion, made it perfectly clear that the second amendment does not entitle you to any gun your little heart desires. That means that states can make whatever overlay laws they like as long as they don't ban guns outright.
Cope.
"If you ask the victims of violent gun crimes, a lot of them state that they wish above all they had had a way to protect themselves. (The ones who survive)."
BS Miles. The vast majority want the government to tighten gun laws. Listen to the Parkland shooting survivors. They are overwhelmingly typical of shooting survivors.
"Not I wish congress had enacted a law to stop this CRIMINAL from committing a crime."
Then stop moaning about your pathetic rights and support universal gun laws.
Cope.
"Police cannot always get to people in time or in a timely manner at all in a lot of cases and yet you want to take away people right to defend the most valuable thing they have from these senseless monsters. Their LIFE."
Not an excuse for doing nothing about guns.
Calling mass shooters 'monsters' isn't very smart. If you want to know what goes on in the mind of an active shooter, then stop listening to Fox and Trump and the NRA and start reading academic research papers into what motivates people to do these things. The FBI did a study called 'A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013'. One of the authors, J. Pete Blair runs a training school for security staff called ALERRT. Dr Blair points out that only 3% of active shooter incidents are stopped by gun wielding civilians. Approximately 20% are stopped by civilians in total. There is no case to be made in favour of a 3% return, especially when the cost of gun violence to the community is so high. There are already 393 million guns in America. How many more do you think are needed to make America safe?
1
-
@milesdavidson3465 Let's look at Chicago for a second. The vast majority of people who talk about Chicago have no idea what they're talking about and that includes you.
In 1980, Chicago introduced a law banning all guns in the central city area. Over the next 30 years, gun crime slowly declined (except during the crack epidemic but all major cities suffered from that). In 2004, murders went below 500 for the first time in half a century. Following on from 'Heller v DC", another case, 'McDonald v Chicago', went before the Supreme Court in 2010. The result was that the Chicago ban was ruled unconstitutional.
Guess what happened next?
Gun crime soared. By 2016, the murder rate had reached 770 and actually clocked up 800 in 2021. This was all due to the liberalisation of gun laws: open carry, concealed carry and 'stand your ground'. This was supposed to be about citizens defending themselves from criminals but, in fact, criminals were among the biggest beneficiaries. No longer could they be pulled in by police for packing heat. They could just go about their nefarious business without fear of being apprehended.
So Chicago, long the Aunt Sally for the gun lobby, is a great example of how gun laws worked and liberalisation of gun laws has been an abject failure.
This has been reflected across the country. In 2010, there were 11,078 gun murders out of a total of 16,259. In 2020 that figure had shot up to 19,384 out 24,356. Gun murders now account for 80% of all murders in the United States (there were 20,956 in 2021). The net increase in murder by other methods is negligible. The net increase in murder by gun is 90% since 2010. This is the largest increase since 1905. You can find all of this on the CDC website.
1
-
1
-
@milesdavidson3465
"Between 1980 and now, Illinois has gained almost 2,000,000 new residents."
And yet between 1980 and 2010, the rate of gun crime was steadily declining. What is it about this that you don't get, Miles?
"You will see inaccurate data and information. Your numbers are correct, your logic is not."
Wrong again, Miles. The data doesn't lie. Are you telling me this is a coincidence and the dramatic rise in the murder rate is not related to guns? Seriously? Because it only started after the law was changed.
"There is a reason that in all these cases you’re naming, the United States constitution has been and will continue to be upheld."
Miles, spare me the f***ing platitudes. All this shows is that the only person you care about is you. When are you going to recognise the right of every American to go about their daily business without being shot?
If you don't care about other people - and you so obviously don't - why should anyone give a rat's ass about your stupid gun rights? Why?
You are the very people responsible for all of this. The blame is totally with you. You're strutting around packing heat in areas where guns are banned (done it in a court building yet?) and pretending like this is a good thing, while the murder rate - especially the gun murder rate - continues to skyrocket.
A ban on the AR-15 would not be unconstitutional and would be entirely justified. It is not only necessary for public safety, it's high time governments recognised that people have more rights than guns.
And if you can't recognise this then have the decency to pass it on to people who are actually committed to reducing gun crime and are well educated in the field.
1
-
@milesdavidson3465
"also, one more thing, the numbers you are providing count every gun death… not every gun murder… this accounts for children mishandling weapons, suicide, defensive gun uses, and any other way that an individual has been killed with a firearm."
Rubbish. I've already told you it's all on the CDC website. I have not included suicides so you can stick that idea up your self-interested ass. It doesn't include accidents (they're monitored separately). It doesn't include DGUs either.
"So I guess in reality, while your numbers are real, they are quite misleading to someone who does not see through manipulative data."
Jesus, you really are desperate, aren't you? You're inventing this. I'll tell you something Miles: data doesn't care about your feelings. And all that data is available on the CDC website.
So you go there and look at it and see for yourself. Notice that of the top 20 states with the worst gun crime, 15 are red states with loose gun laws and that includes all of the top 7.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moshet842 As one who owns a hybrid, I can promise you they don’t ‘suck’.
And my reasons for dismissing hydrogen are perfectly simple. If we are talking about a hydrogen fuel cell, like in the Toyota Mirai, it seems a lot of trouble and inconvenience to go to to achieve the same result: an EV. If we are going to use it in an ICE, the results are worse. This engine, on a standard sized tank pressurised at 10,000 psi, would have a range of 80 kms. For details on this see the ‘Engineering Explained’ YouTube channel episode about it and watch Jason literally ‘do the math’.
In either case, the amount of energy required to produce hydrogen is far greater than what it can output, making it one of the least efficient fuels. It has been estimated that if Germany were to go to electric vehicles, it would need to increase its total power production by 20-25%. Not easy but possible. If it were to go to hydrogen, it would need to increase its power production by 125% to achieve the same result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gustaaf1892
"The judge unequivocally found that the media outlets that were sued for defamation for saying that BRS had perpetrated all the crimes had in fact told the truth and he was therefore effectively saying that BRS is a murderer and a war criminal. It is is the equivalent of a guilty verdict, albeit in a civil suit that backfired badly on BRS."
It could be viewed as a test case but the standard of proof required in a criminal case is higher. I think he's in deep doodoo but there are no guarantees.
"It'll be the platform on which the criminal prosecution will be based, except that it will be an even stronger case because the prosecution will have far greater legal investigative powers with which to gather further evidence and to coerce additional witnesses to provide key evidence."
Most of the substance of the case will come from the Brereton Report. The people who spoke to reporters Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters and David Wroe can be subpoenaed and cross examined.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he is also charged with witness interference for what occurred in the lead up to this defamation suit."
Yeah, totally.
"I also suspect Kerry Stokes might withdraw his support, including personally funding the BRS legal costs because he has been embarrassed by this verdict after strongly going into bat for him. BRS now no longer works for Channel 7, which might be very telling on that front."
Hard to say. You wouldn't expect it but if this thread tells you anything, it's that BRS supporters are prepared to go down with the ship. Whether Stokes is one of them... well, who knows. We'll have to wait and see.
"Without Stokes' financial support BRS won't be able to fund an appeal against this verdict because every lawyer would know that he has no way of paying for those costs out of his own pocket if he is already in the hole for approximately $35m for Nine's legal costs, so who would take him on as a client when they know an appeal has extremely little chance of success"
The Australian criminal courts work on a cab rank system. You could get one of the best legal minds in the business, like say, Robert Richter if you're Victorian. Or you could get someone largely unknown. Either way, the court will provide legal representation.
"BRS is cooked, it is just a matter of when that is legally formalised."
Very likely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steriskyline4470
"anyone who things negatively about this aircraft simply hasnt done any research into it, the thing was absolutely incredible and without them, the Americans would have had far worse bomber losses."
No, the P-47 was responsible for a lot of the problems faced by the 8th Air Force in 1943.
Anyone who has actually done real research - like reading books, rather than being spoon fed hyperbole by YouTubers with an axe to grind* - knows that the P-47 was actually a problem for the USAAF. As long as it was the primary fighter, the 8th Air Force could not carry out its agenda of strategic bombing without suffering unacceptable losses. Despite current fashionable opinion, drop tanks could not fix this. Anyone who knows anything about range performance knows why.
Prior to WWII, USAAC Materiel Command sent a letter to all manufacturers imploring them to increase internal fuel capacity. North American, Lockheed, Curtiss and even Bell all complied. Republic did not. In 1942, just prior to the beginning of the 8th Air Force's first bombing raids in Europe, the USAAF called again for manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity. Again, North American, Lockheed, Curtiss and Bell all complied. Republic's response was to add two more guns instead.
Gen. George Kenney, commander of the 5th AF in the South West Pacific, was known to be furious with Republic and Kartaveli for doing nothing about it. In fact, the P-47 did not have sufficient internal fuel until the arrival of the P-47D-25 RE in the autumn of 1944.
In short, if the USAAF had relied on the P-47, they could not have undertaken D-Day for another year. Not if they wanted the skies cleared of the Luftwaffe anyway. Nobody had that amount of time to spare. If the USAAF had decided to persist with the P-47 the losses would only have continued to mount. Drop tanks were NOT the answer.
So while the P-47 was a good aircraft - it did actually shoot down 3,082 German aircraft in Europe - the USAAF could not rely on it. Poor decisions made by Republic actually cost the lives of too many American aircrew.
*Like 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', a fantasist disinformation channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@datboi9648 "bro you’re a year late to this comment section and I’m not going through all this again cuz someone like you will never change your mind."
Running away, hey? Bro.
"They stand on emotion and policies that only work in a perfect universe and they refuse to compensate for reality."
Who is 'they'? People you don't agree with?
"Socialism is a stepping to stone to Marxism and communism and time and time again they all over reach, fail and end in the starving, killing and oppression of people after the destruction of liberty and freedoms."
Socialism has been very successfully applied in a lot of European countries. Public health, public education and public transportation standards are all generally higher than the United States of, indeed, many peer nations. Socialism is actually a better guarantee of freedoms because it ensures that everyone is equal before the law. Would you like to quote some concrete examples? Because all this general stuff is just fluff.
As far as being 'a stepping stone to Marxism and communism' is concerned, there's zero evidence to support this. Europe, in particular, has been managing socialist systems for decades and even survived communist parties and the Eastern Bloc. If they were going to go communist they would have done it by now.
"But the ideology as a whole is a stepping stone to the collapse of a free society and communism as history has showed us is a stepping stone to the collapse of a free society and communism as history has showed us is a body stacking cancer."
Drivel. Probably sounds good to you but meaningless in any rational or anecdotal discussion of socialism.
But you've missed the point here. This is not about socialism. It's about fascism. And fascism isn't an ideology. It's a reactionary movement.
You need to pay attention. Bro.
"Or comments, like good lord bro consolidate."
What?
"I’m not going to do the research for you, if you look at that track record and go “yeah that regime and those type of people are the solution” you’re the problem with why the western world is as weak as it is today."
Scared? You should be. I've been reading about fascism for 20 years. I know a lot more about it than you. Bro.
Did you know, for example, that no fascist government has ever come to power without the cooperation or connivance of conservatives? How, for example, did Hitler come to power? How did Mussolini come to power? What about Franco?
This is the research YOU need to do.
Bro.
No wonder you're running away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronseet2738 Shooting skills were, according to Mike Spick, overrated. When Bob Doe (who would eventually score 14 and two shared) went to 234 Squadron at RAF Westhampnett Leaconfield in 1940, the acting CO was none other than Flt Lt Pat Hughes. Doe asked for advice on the best way to shoot down enemy aircraft. Hughes replied, 'Get in so close that you can't miss.' That was the philosophy of a remarkable number of pilots. Stories of people like Marseilles having up to five rings of deflection are not only extremely rare but probably exaggerated. Long range shooting was eventually discarded. At the start of the war, the British harmonised their machine guns to 400 yards but eventually changed them to 100 because few people could hit anything at that range it rarely caused critical hits.
Those who stalked their prey, like von Richthofen in WWI, simply appeared from out of the sun or underneath where they were hard to see. But they still waited until they could get very close. As Spick says, there were plenty of crack shots who fell to someone else's guns because they lacked situational awareness. There were plenty of highly skilled pilots who went the same way, along with good leaders and university graduates. But those who could had a sixth sense for knowing where their opponent was, even - or especially - during high G manoeuvres, would more often than not come out best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV
”You’re resorting to opinions now”
Let me remind you of something you said:
”I agree their is no comparison because the p47 is by far the better plane”
The difference is that your opinion was not shared by anyone else at the time. Yours is an opinion based on butthurt that’s been exploited by clowns like Greg for clicks. In fact, this is not really my opinion at all. You read what the Germans said. Galland talks about the Mustang, not the P-47, in his memoirs. RLM reports talk about the P-51, not the P-47. Luftwaffe pilots talk about the P-51 when assessing their own aircraft see: William Green, ’Warplanes of the Third Reich’, p. 214). In and interview for ’The World at War’ in 1973, Werner Schroer (114 victories) said of the P-51, ’We had nothing of the same effort. I think they really frightened us quite a bit.’
So it seems you’re allowing yourself an unsupported opinion while holding me to a higher standard, one which, I’m happy to say, I’m well capable of meeting. I actually came into this debate believing the P-47 was slightly underrated but after several years of reading and contact with historians and authors, I can say without a doubt that it is now severely overrated and the P-51 almost completely dismissed by the majority, basically because they (that’s you) don’t read and don’t research.
Where, for example, are the photographs of P-47s with missing cylinders? I’ve found lots of pictures of extensively damaged P-47s but according to you in another post, it was basically a daily occurrence and ‘no big deal’. Yet there are no pictures.
That’s the difference between you and me: I actually do my own research, rather than just agreeing with anyone who agrees with me. That’s called living in a bubble. When the facts change, my opinion changes. And my original opinion that the P-47 was underrated is now very different. It was reversed by the weight of evidence. Data block figures and impressive factoids are of extremely limited value. Operational history is what matters.
You go back and look at how missions were planned and ask yourself why planners didn’t send P-47s to Berlin in 1943. Why didn’t the planners send P-47s to Schweinfurt and Regensburg? Why? Don’t tell me it was a doctrinal matter because that’s just too easy to disprove by anyone who has read about it.
1
-
@ScoopsTV
”Did you just say “ shared by no one at the time “ lol
Except the entire wolfpack who refused to switch to the 51 , the 9th Airfoce who operated 80% 47 .Galland was shot down by a p47 , haha .”
I was referring to those in charge. You know: the ones who make the big decisions, like moving the P-47s to the Ninth Air Force.
Secondly, this ‘refusal’ you refer to in reference to the 56th is selective in its appraisal. If you bother to read Zemke’s comments, you will know that this is BS. Zemke, with Don Blakeslee, campaigned long and hard to get the P-51 because, in their words and having each flown all three US types, both knew it was the best aircraft for the job. Shortly after high command agreed to it, Zemke was called away and his stand in was persuaded by someone else to keep the P-47s. This was as much a supply matter as anything else. P-51s were so urgently required that Blakeslee trained his pilots en route to the target. This was widely known.
Finally, the 9th Air Force was handed P-47s by the 8th in what historian and author James William Marshall describes as a ‘wholesale’ dump. They were of little use to the Eighth once the P-51 arrived in numbers - and it was out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one anyway - so they were simply moved to what was effectively second line duties, just as the British did with the Hurricane. In this capacity, they did very well.
Galland’s brother was shot down by a P-47. So what? The P-47 shot down 3,082 aircraft in the ETO. Your link to Galland doesn’t prove anything and it’s certainly no laughing matter.
By the way, how old are you? Your spelling, sentence structure and grammar are appalling and I get sick of decoding your rambling posts. If you want to be understood, at least make some effort or have the sense to use a spell checker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knightblade0188
”Most gun control laws don’t help people they do the opposite.”
Only in America foes anyone believe this. Gun control has worked in every modern neo-liberal democracy it’s been tried in: Western Europe and the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The murder rates in those countries average 1.0/100K, compared with the US at 6.0/100K. In the United States, 69% of murders are committed with guns. Clearly, gun control works.
”The criminal is armed no matter what they have black markets and other avenues to get guns.”
Do you know how the black market works? A pistol costing say $300 in the United States costs about $10,000 in say, Australia. Where’s a hopped up 17 year-old ice addict going to get $10,000 for a gun? Not to mention the fact that just to buy it, you are engaging with people you really don’t want to know. The point is that the black market can charge whatever it likes. A seller has to cover his risks and the risks are high because the penalties are high.
The rest is just gun lobby drivel, not even worth addressing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chill Will
”I didn’t say we should isolate them, I just said we shouldn’t do business with them.”
Which amounts to the same thing. In any case, you’re not in a position to tell US companies where they can and can’t manufacture their goods. You’re also in no position to tell US consumers where they can and can’t buy their goods.
”So tell me again, who here is more worried about China aggression? Do you think appeasing them and propping up their economy has worked out well for anyone besides them?”
Wow. Where to start with this. So many assumptions.
Nobody here is more worried about Chinese aggression than me because even a cursory examination of the facts shows that China is well capable of making good on her threats. Which threats? Basically, all of them.
Let’s start with appeasement. I knew that word would be dragged up early in the game but I didn’t think it would be quite so soon. If you’re ever going to repeat the lessons of history, it’s right here. I recently read a book on the 1938 Munich Crisis and my conclusion is that it is the worst understood, most politically exploited piece of political history of all time. Everyone thinks they know what happened. Nobody does.
It’s become a political swear word. Want to really denigrate your opponent, accuse them of having no balls? Call them an appeaser.
But every time a country, particularly the United States, wants to flex its muscles, people like you drag up appeasement as a reason why the world should start brandishing swords in a war that potentially nobody can win. The word has come to mean cowardice. But the difference is that we’re not talking about 1938 here.
We’re talking more like 1914 but with nuclear weapons. About ten years ago, an Australian historian called Christopher Clark wrote a book called ‘The Sleepwalkers’, which challenged a lot of the widely held beliefs about the start of WWI. For most people this was virtually meaningless because the average Joe believes it started because a Serbian terrorist shot and killed an Austrian crown prince and his wife in Sarajevo.
Clark’s thesis was that a series of miscalculations, false assumptions and sword brandishing machismo had as much to do with the outbreak of the First World War as the litany of treaties that have so long been blamed. In short, the continuous repetition of widely accepted rhetoric and chest beating made war inevitable. The world just casually walked into the war with its collective eyes wide shut and no thought for the consequences. It would all be over by Christmas anyway. Sleepwalking, in fact.
And this is exactly what you’re doing: quoting maxims that no longer apply about appeasement and bringing China to heel. Except that China won’t come to heel and literally all the modelling shows that a virtually-inevitable confrontation between China and the rest of the world would go China’s way and not ours.
And that’s before we start talking about nuclear weapons.
Since the end of the Cold War, we in the West have become drunk on self-indulgence and over-confidence to the point that many people look at a potential war with China and dismiss it as, ‘Yeah, well, we knocked off Iraq in 1991 and barely got our hair mussed. China will be no problem.’ Anyone who hasn’t considered this is kidding themselves.
The problem is no longer one of containment because China can make good on her threats.
So, a smart person would be trying to think of another way. And if you think there isn’t another way it’s because you haven’t thought of it yet.
The United States is not propping up the Chinese economy either. More accurate the other way around. China has bought up so much US currency that it practically owns the US economy. This was something we, in the post Cold War west, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods, have brought upon ourselves. And we have to fix it before it’s too late.
This is a high stakes game. It’s as high as it gets. Get it wrong and the consequences will be horrific. Glib comments about appeasement have no place here, especially when they have a history of not working. Just because one policy didn’t work, that doesn’t mean the opposite policy will.
1
-
Chill Will
"Yeah I literally wrote how I think the USA should resolve the problems, never mentioned starting a war with China, but by all means we must be ready to end one by any means necessary."
That's routine talk. This is not a routine situation.
"China has been offered many carrots to change direction with regard to competing fairly with others and being a good neighbor, they have chosen the stick instead."
Except that China is only doing what America did. She just isn't going to do it on American terms anymore. That's the problem you're facing.
"I don't believe that we should just ignore China's increasing belligerence and long record of aggression against its neighbors and us anymore."
Well, that's become an impossibility anyway. But beyond Tibet and the odd border stows with India, China's record is pretty unspectacular and they have more of a history of being invaded than invading.
"We don't need China, we can buy our junk from their neighbors where it's actually made."
A lot of what China produces today is far from junk. That's the problem: if a consumer can buy something that's 95% as good for 25% of the price then you can guess what they're going to do with their money. And that's been China's aim all along. The stereotype that China only makes junk is very 40 years ago.
"Unfortunately it's our own weak and feckless government that has allowed China to grow into a bully, but even they can't hide the truth anymore."
This is quite wrong. Blaming the government for people's own retail choices - which is what this comes down to - is counter-capitalism. At some point we all have to take responsibility for this. When you buy something like an iPhone, it might be designed in America but it's made in China. Buy a carbon fibre bike, even an American branded one, the chances are, it comes out of a factory in Guangzhou. You might not even know it but you're still buying Chinese made, even if it was done under American supervision.
Those are your choices.
I avoid buying Chinese made goods by choice but I'm also realistic enough to know that in some areas, it's unavoidable. American companies have outsourced so much that it's no longer a matter of 'if' but 'how much'.
"Like the mighty Soviet Union, feared for decades, like the Nazis who were going to take over the world; piss off enough people and dreams of domination turn to dust. When China loses their main trading partners and has no money, I doubt very many nations will be so friendly toward them."
And herein lies the biggest problem with your comments. You can't afford to be that dismissive. America expects that everything will just continue as normal and that American good will triumph over Chinese evil, like a Hollywood script. The Cold War never turned into a hot war but we came close. The reason it didn't happen is because there were only one or two occasions when the US-NATO coalition and Warsaw Pact forces stared each other down. In those cases there wasn't enough incentive to have a proper war. The China-Taiwan situation is quite different. Unlike Cuba, China has a far greater determination to prevail than the Soviet Union did. When Khrushchev looked at Cuba, he was prepared to defend it but not to go to nuclear war over it. And this was a man who believed in 'all or nothing'. Xi Jinping is not Khrushchev. He's not as intelligent for a start and he doesn't care if things get rough as long as he gets Taiwan. And he's made it the cornerstone of his rule.
If the world hasn't noticed that, then it's probably too late already.
"China is a nation of parasites, incapable of original thought, it is indeed time for them to get a taste of reality, they have been drunk on a fantasy that they somehow raised themselves to their status when in reality it is other nations that handed them everything they have."
Racism is not a valid argument here. Hate them all you like but it's clouding your judgement severely. I repeat what I said earlier: ALL the modelling shows that the United States cannot defeat China in a war over Taiwan. Expect at least WWII level casualties.
"Anyone who read history books knows the problems that led to them, and that in the end it was deluded governments that started them."
Really? Which 'history books' have you read recently? I just pointed out two - 'The Sleepwalkers' and 'The Greatest Treason' - which run counter to this simplistic version of events. "Deluded governments'? Really? Do you really think that's how the world turns? There are several steps before a war happens. We can prevent it now or we can wear the consequences. But if it starts, there is only one step to annihilation. Think about it.
"Again, China would do well to learn something for themselves instead of trying to copy it, before it gets taught to them like so many others have learned before; the hard way."
And again, the modelling shows that America would not win a war with China over Taiwan. Waving simplistic versions of history as examples of what you think (hope) will happen in the future won't change that fact.
We have to think of another way out of this before someone in government who thinks like you lets events spiral out of control and we sleepwalk into a major war. Wake up.
1
-
Chill Will You said this earlier and I didn’t address it properly:
”If the USA and it’s allies cut off trade with China they would have no choice except to conform to standards.”
First of all, China has made it abundantly clear that they are not going to conform, least of all to western - and particularly American - ’standards’. That is part of the basis of Xi’s nationalism. Think I’m kidding? ‘Foreign Affairs’, a top notch American magazine, ran an extensive article recently on what his aims were and they are pretty clear. To establish Chinese pre-eminence, not just in the Asia-Pacific region but globally and to ‘incorporate’ Taiwan. And he wants all this in a time frame, generally thought to be about ten years.
Secondly, cutting off trade with China completely is impossible. For a start, even parts of your top military products have Chinese components in them. The F-35 fighter is but one example. Secondly, trade with China is a two way street. You benefit from things you sell in China, as much as you benefit from what you buy. This isn’t the 1940s anymore.
Finally, the United States is not in a position to force China into anything, much less come to heel, so such an assumption - that they would have no choice - is simply wrong. China still has extensive trade with big countries like India and Russia that will not replace what they lose but will limit the damage. So your boycott plan is not likely to succeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This comes from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
P-47 Thunderbolt
Sorties: 423,435
Combat Losses: 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange: 2.04
P-51 Mustang
Sorties: 213,873
Combat losses: 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange: 3.60
The Mustang wrecked the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
@mghegotagun
"I love how you want to play emotional manipulation, and glossing over relevant facts integral to policy decisions to strip people of rights."
I love how you think this is all about you. If you even had a moral compass, you'd feel as guilty as hell. Do you really think I'm going to take you seriously? Why don't you try me on specifics?
"Positions like yours also serve to ignore the fact rifles of any kind make up less than 5% of all shootings, but you spend time doing the "but dead children!" angle."
Again, you are ignoring the facts here yourself. Frst of all, in something like 25% of shootings, no weapon is recorded. On that basis, it's pretty hard to say what the actual number is.
Secondly, you might have missed the point but this is specifically about the AR-15, not your Remington Model 700. The AR-15 is highlighted because it is overrepresented in mass shootings and the murder of law enforcement officers. The AR-15 has been used in all the deadliest mass shootings in America in the last 10 years.
And yes, it absolutely is about the dead children and teachers from Uvalde. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a moral vacuum. But then, this has always been about you, hasn't it? You want to pretend it doesn't exist when in fact you, should hang your head in shame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mark___Zuckerberg
"Using only reported cases is an issue, not all DGU cases are reported in the first place. If you brandish a firearm at an aggressor and the aggressor goes away, that’s the end of the story."
If it's not reported then it's not a legitimate DGU. If a person is in fear of their life enough to report it then it's legitimate. Do you really think any serious statistician would accept the gun lobby idea that millions of DGUs go unreported? What sort of standard of proof is that? It's fantasy.
If they don't report it you can't count it.
If they don't report it, as far as the statistics are concerned, it didn't happen.
"I wouldn’t clog up our shitty police system with “someone was threatening me so I showed my gun and they left me alone”."
Now you're trying to make a virtue out of it. If you don't report it, it can't be included.
"As of recently, we’ve seen several cases of Mainstream defensive gun uses."
All of which have been included in the Gun Violence Archive total. Doesn't change anything.
"If a 22 year old with a sense of self-preservation can put down an active shooter, why couldn’t the Uvalde police do anything about their active shooter with a multitude cops on the scene."
And like ALL gun lobby scenarios, it includes that word "if"... If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
"Armed Citizenry are always the first line of defense against most mass shooters, especially when Government agencies know about a possible mass shooter and do nothing to intervene, like with the Buffalo shooter, Parkland shooter, or the Texas church shooter."
Only the American gun lobby is even capable of this moronic thinking. You need more guns to cope with too many guns. Christ on a bike, that's dumb. Funny how this doesn't happen anywhere else. A bunch of uneducated johnnies with guns cannot be relied upon to prevent mass shootings. You're running away from the facts here.
"I’m sure you’ve heard the adage “banning firearms only gets rid of them amongst the law abiding citizens”. It’s true."
Can't you read?
"Look at Japan this year, someone was able to assassinate Shinzo Abe with a homemade firearm."
So what? Not an excuse for doing nothing about guns.
"Australia with it’s strict gun control and gun buyback, still has people being murdered by guns, sure there’s less of it, but it still happens."
So what? Australia's murder rate is 1.13 per 100,000. America is 7.5 per 100,000. Australia's gun murder rate is 0.18 per 100,000. America is 5.9 per 100,000. Thanks for making my point for me. You're trying to make a disaster sound like a triumph.
"Banning guns doesn’t solve the issue of guns killing people."
Can't you fucking read?
I have already said that nobody except the gun lobby is talking about total gun bans. In this conversation, the only person saying "if we ban guns" is you.
I'm not saying it. The Democrats aren't saying it. Nobody is saying it. All anyone is proposing is reasonable gun laws.
"It just makes people in vulnerable places, like me, more susceptible to being taken advantage of with little to no way of fighting back on a equal or greater playing field."
There is no evidence that owning a gun makes you any less susceptible to crime. There is a welter of evidence from any number of sources that shows the gun lobby fantasy about showing some cheap crook who is boss is only slightly more likely than being struck by lightning.
And incidentally, by doing nothing, all you’re doing is making it easier for crooks to get guns. In fact, all you’re doing is making sure American crooks are the best and most heavily armed criminals in the world.
1
-
1
-
@nicholaspreston9586
"If there's a 'gun lobby' and they're so powerful, how is it the ATF can still knock on people's doors demanding solvent traps and braces from NON-VIOLENT, LAW ABIDING PEOPLE for confiscation AND DESTRUCTION, UNDER THREAT OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION, without much, if ANY resistance?"
The gun lobby in America is the most powerful lobby group, probably on the planet. It has successfully dismantled or stymied every single attempt to introduce reasonable gun laws. Your personal views on the ATF are seriously clouded. I'm old enough to remember Waco and if you think that was a token or minimal resistance then you are dreaming.
"How is it that Chicago is a bloody war zone full of murders BY STOLEN HANDGUNS, NOT AR-15's?"
This is so simple it's child's play to explain but yet the colective intelligence of the gun lobby is too low to understand it.
In the 1980s, Chicago introduced a law banning guns in the central city area. OVer the following 30 years, gun crime declined slowly and in 2004, the city went below 500 murders a year for the first time in half a century. After the 2008 "Heller v DC" case, another case - "McDonald v Chicago", was brought to the Supreme Court and the law was struck down.
Guess what happened next?
Gun crime spiked and by 2016 was up to 770 murders per year, where it has remained ever since.
And Chicago is ringfenced by states with very loose gun laws.
"How is it that that same ATF shot a man's dog and helped provoke the murder of David Koresh and 22 children were BURNT TO DEATH BY THE ARMY'S TANKS WITH GAS."
I doubt you were even born when Waco happened.
"I doubt you even know what country you live in. If you're a leftist, then there's no reasoning with you, btw. They only know violence and hate, so of course they'd target AR-15's. It's super-convenient for would-be Marxist 'revolutionaries', which CNN is clearly aiding and abetting with their bald-faced lies."
Wow. I've never seen someone get through a day so fast. There's a lot of personal stuff in there. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
"Sounds like they have you fooled, too!"
Well, I have been researching gun crime independently for ten years now and CNN has better information and better credentials than you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicholaspreston9586
"Are you going to start being honest? How can anyone trust what you say, oh, 'expert', if you won't so much as show your face?"
When your mates stop threatening to shoot me (I've had four death threats on YouTube alone from "responsible, law-abiding gun owners"), maybe I will use it.
"Put up, or shut up."
KMA. It's on the CDC website but I'm banned from posting links. Look it up for yourself.
"Ok, so which gun blogger? And where is YOUR proof?"
I've quote from numerous sources in this thread. If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem. I have yet to see a pro-gun claim in any department that wasn't cherry picked (that CDC report is a classic example).
"Meanwhile, you get to prance around like you're some sort of 'expert', but for all we know, you're lying your ass off with these numbers."
Yeah, experts like trauma surgeons or researchers like Nicholas Maiden. The numbers came straight from the CDC and the Australia Bureau of Statistics. Look them up. The CDC figures can be found in their "Fast Stats" section.
"What does the NRA have to do with anything?"
They have made it their business to block any and all reasonable gun legislation at every turn. They also bribe politicians like Ted Cruz, John Cornyn and Steve Scalise. Mitt Romney has collected $13.5 million over his political career to block gun laws. That is corruption.
"Or the Bruen decision, let's not forget."
What about it?
"That's not a Constitutional right. Nice try though."
Doesn't matter. It's federal law. It's also none of your business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mzbarsk
"the doctor’s “testimony” or a snippet that CNN showed really did not provide much information."
21 people were killed. Two of the children were decapitated by bullets. Isn't that enough? What else do you need to know?
"He just dressed it up for the court to make it sound scary."
Are you saying it's not? 21 people dead and you don't think that's scary?
"That’s what all bullets are designed to do. All bullets operate by creating a wound channel via cavitation."
This video made it perfectly clear that there are bullets and then there are bullets. A pistol bullet doesn't usually create hydrostatic shock. An AR-15 round does.
"At a short distance on a small target like a child, any round would be devastating"
The AR-15 was designed to fire as many bullets as possible - i.e. as fast as the gunman can pull the trigger - eath one of them designed for maximum wounding effect. Did you not listen to what they said? Oh, that's right: it was inconvenient to your argument.
"The problem is this tiny snippet of vacuously true, overly dramatic statements are mixed with lies by CNN from other “experts”, thus creating a false narrative."
What false narrative? Are you saying these comments are lies? Of course you are! You're the expert. Trauma surgeons don't know shit, do they?
"And LOL at “military grade rounds”. When one lie doesn’t work, fall back on something else that sounds scary?"
Now you're denying that it's a military grade round. Not content with showing zero respect for the victims with these disgusting claims, now you'e living in denial about a well known fact. The AR-15 round is a military round. It was designed for use by the army. This is simply staggering.
"AR-15 is not a military weapon"
Nevertheless, it saw service in Vietnam, both with US troops and the ARVN.
"It’s easy to use and control for smaller persons say… a petite single mom who is trying to protect her family."
Only the American gun lobby believes this fantasy. The Gun Violence Archive rarely reports more than 2,000 DGU incidents a year and fewer than 700 so far this year.
"Because no matter how sad these shootings are, the biggest mass murderer in the world is all of the world’s governments."
Irrelevant.
"So to demand that only government should have weapons is to be either completely ignorant of history or to be extremely stupid."
How does this play out in reality? Come on, give it to me with the bark off. Give me the battle plan. Because the last time American gun groups tried to overthrow the government was on Jan 6, 2021. To do so they were overthrowing a democratically elected government. That is a definition of tyranny. So, in fact, you're the ones in full defence of tyranny.
"Nice try with the “feelings argument” and “think of the children”. But here champ, let me spell it out for you sensitive types: it’s sad that children got shot. I feel bad for the parents and their loss. I wish it didn’t happen."
Yeah, I can really hear it in your post. Not. You're a fucking disgrace. How an animal like you can be allowed access to guns staggers me. A definition of evil, which was used at Nuremberg, was a lack of empathy. If you had any, you would do all you could to reach an equitable solution. I'll believe you're serious when you start posting solutions instead of gun lobby boilerplate.
"There happy? Now are you capable of discussing topics without relying on feelings or emotion?"
The gun lobby talks about feelings as though it's effeminate. There is a time and a place to be pissed off about these things and this is it. I don't know how you sleep at night. It's so obvious that you don't care that children are being murdered so long as you don't have to examine your own conscience. There's no bar too low, is there?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danmeeks193 Well, muppet, you'll be pleased to know that I have taken the time to research this further. It wasn't that hard. In 2020, a child under 11 died once every five days in the United States from choking. The same year, 999 children under 11 died from gunshot wounds. (Gun Violence Archive figure) That's about 15:1.
There is some variation in these figures. First of all, I could find no record of any child over the age of 11 dying in that period between 2000 and 2020, from choking. Secondly, the vast majority were in the 1-4 age group. Finally, the average number of choking fatalities in the United States is about 180 per annum and then number is slowly falling, while the number dying from gunshot is rising dramatically.
It doesn't take much to see that 180 deaths per year, even against 600 gunshot fatalities is not the same as the 15:1 figure quoted earlier. But the facts are abundantly against you, whatever figures you use. It isn't even close.
In short, you're wrong and you have no hope of backing up your claim. I know: I've looked. It was a lie. Whether it was your lie or that of your gun lobby high priests doesn't change anything. You're wrong and it's the same any way you stack it..
Deal with it.
1
-
@danmeeks193
"Calling me a liar that is not only ironic but hypocritical"
LOL!! You can't read, can you? I said what you said was a lie but whether it was your lie of that of your gun lobby high priests doesn't matter. I didn't call you a liar but if the cap fits, then wear it. You're still wrong, however you stack it.
And you still haven't quoted a source for your claim that children are more likely to die from choking than gunshot.
"Gun violence archive figure are you talking about a different one or you talking about the same one that said in 2019 there was over 400 mass shootings while the FBI was only able to find 61 is this a different one?"
Please be specific. You are very free and easy with your own accusations but never back anything up. There's a difference between a mass shooting and a gun massacre.
"The amount of gun deaths have not been going up they have been going down 2019 had less than 2018 2021 had less than 2020 2020 had more than 2019 but that was a spike and crime for everything for everywhere."
Not true. Gun murders have gone only up.
In 2010 there were 16,259 murders in the United States and 11,078 were by gun. That's 68%
In 2020 there were 24,576 murders, with 19,384 by gun. That's 79%.
In that period, gun murders have gone up by 8,306. Murder by other methods has gone up by just 14.
This staggering increase is entirely driven by the liberalisation of open carry, concealed carry and 'stand your ground' laws. If it were not, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect an increase in murder by other methods. As anyone with a brain can see, the increase is statistically insignificant (unless you're unlucky enough to be one of the 14).
"So not only do you have to use an untrusted source you also have to lie congratulations."
The figures I just used were CDC figures. I don't need to lie. The facts are on my side. Do you enjoy being made a fool of?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhoffman6980
"Saying facepalm hardly refutes any of the arguments I've made, and I've maintained a respectful tone."
Mmmm... okay. Sorry you took it personally. I get frustrated with these claims because they are almost always entirely theoretical.
What arguments were you making please?
I don't take a lot of notice of generalised claims about devices like this. I do read books like:
"The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission: American Raids of 17 August, 1943", by Martin Middlebrook,
"Into the Guns of Ploesti", by Leroy W. Newby and
Target Berlin: Mission 250: 6 March 1944",_ by Jeffery L. Ethell and Alfred Price.
Of those three, Newby's book waxes lyrical about the Norden bombsight but it goes for nought because the raids were mostly done at low level. The other two books both point out the significance of the weather in the effectiveness of those raids as a far greater factor that what might be achieved with an advanced piece of technical equipment..
I hear a lot about how accurate the Norden bombsight was but nobody ever talks about things like surface winds or flak. In other words, it's almost entirely theoretical. The weather over Europe is not at all like California and cloud cover is a much greater problem than what was anticipated. The USAAF quite frequently resorted to H2X blind bombing because the target area was totally socked in.
As for the Pacific, American bombers were far less frequently molested by Japanese fighters, compared to those over Germany, by the time the heavy bomber operations really got going. And over Japan, Le May's tactic was area bombing anyway.
1
-
1
-
The Collins class is the only submarine that has ever been built for the unique Australian theatre. Nuclear submarines cannot do what is needed to defend Australia and they were not even considered in the original request for tenders.
The Collins class has spent its entire career engaged in highly secret work of surveillance and special forces insertion. For this they are ideally suited and it was with these missions in mind that they were designed in the first place. The Collins was also built with other factors like salinity in mind. Those missions cannot be performed nearly as effectively by nuclear boats.
The Japanese Sōryū class, while technically a good submarine, did not have enough range and was too cramped inside for Australian submariners. There were also several stumbling blocks regarding any potential design changes.
The German design had acoustic problems that were never fully explained for reasons of secrecy.
The French Suffren class was a pretty easy choice but there needed to be some considerable changes, not just the conversion to diesel, to make it work.
There were other factors to consider. A partnership with Japan was useful to us and championed by Abbott because it would have presented the possibility of a diplomatic triumph, particularly in light of American ambitions in the northern Pacific and the South China Sea. That would come back to haunt us later.
The Suffren (Attack) class was not just the best choice for the Navy, it presented us with a much more flexible and potentially useful option in partnership with France, which is still a major player in the Pacific. When the deal was done, the door was left open to the possibility of Australia acquiring the nuclear variant if such a need was ever identified.
The AUKUS deal threw all of that good work into the bin and gave us nothing in return. Proponents of nuclear point to speed and endurance advantages without considering the mission.
AUKUS was a political decision made by people who were neither expert in the needs of the submarine fleet or interested in the defence of Australia. These were people whose interests let in getting as close to the United States as possible, while simultaneously wedging the Labor opposition on security matters. Ironically, AUKUS actually makes us less secure and at far greater costs.
The choice of the American Virginia class was not considered by anyone expert in such matters. The US Navy is what might be called a blue water navy. It is designed to operate thousands of kilometres from base. The subs are designed to break up battle fleets and supply lines. They are hunter/killer submarines and they are good at that. They are not designed for the coastal needs of Australia.
AUKUS commits us to something we don’t want or need. It commits us to a China containment strategy which is only really of interest to Americans and makes war much more likely. This “change of defence requirements” existed only in the minds of the Liberal Party, it’s secret and duplicitous Prime Minister and a few like-minded anti-China hawks in the federal public service.
Worst of all, any Australian Virginia class subs will never be completely independent. They will always have ultimate control from the United States, something that the French would never have done.
And last week we found out that it’s highly unlikely that we will ever receive the American subs. The yard is supposed to be building two boats per year but can’t manage more than 1.2 at the moment. They hope to reach 2 per year by 2028 but that’s optimistic at best.
AUKUS is the single dumbest defence decision that Australia has ever committed itself to and things are getting worse, not better. I’m left wondering just how long the Collins can continue. They are still very good subs but their hulls must be starting to reach the end of their fatigue lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Far better to pretend to be the saviour, but actually gaslight VW at the last moment, let it go bankrupt, and then come in later to sweep up the consumer base all for itself."
It hasn't happened yet. Sam is reading between the lines. He may well be proven right but there's not enough information to go on yet.
"And just look at what happened in Australia by way of example. We HAD manufacturers here, but costs were too high, so they all went bust. Now we have no vehicle manufacturers of note (yeah, a few small players, but nothing like the big manufacturers of days past)."
No, that's not true. Nobody went bust. Not in the last 20 years, anyway (Tomcar excepted). Like every other country which manufactures motor vehicles, there was a partial government subsidy, without which they would not be sustainable. Australia was among the lowest in that regard, i.e.: we did not give them the same support they got in most other countries.
When the Abbott government was elected in 2013, they proposed dropping the subsidy, which made it uneconomical for those companies - only Ford, Holden and Toyota remained - to continue.
The subsidies they got were in the form of tax concessions and government fleet buys.
"Money was given to some manufacturers, who took the money quite happily, but then disappeared not long after."
Really? Who?
"Our governments are incompetent, look only to tax the hell out of whatever they can, backed by a taxation office that does not follow the principles of innocent till proven guilty."
Given how far your story diverges from the truth, do you think it might be you? We were a small market. The government didn't tax them out of existence and they weren't the victims of strikes. Their factories were mostly way out of date and Australia was a very small market. I went through GM at Fisherman's Bend and Toyota at Altona. Even Toyota was old but GM was like something out of the industrial revolution.
"What a disgrace this economic environment has become. That's Australia. "
It's every neoliberal democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danraymond1253
"The P-47 with a paddle-blade out-climbed almost any other fighter plane at high altitudes where they would protect the bombers."
The P-47's rate of climb was not competitive until at least 25,000'. There is a chart compiled by Squadron Leader T.S. Wade listing the comparative performances of the Spitfire XIVe, Mustang III, Thunderbolt II, Meteor, Tempest and Spitfire IX. Now, while the Meteor was the next generation, the others, with the exception of the Mk IX Spitfire, were roughly similar era. Wade found that the Thunderbolt II (a British designation for the P-47D 'Bubbleback') comfortably trailed the rest until 30,000 feet. I wouldn't argue with the figures but I would question the need for that kind of performance, especially when the rest of its climb rate was uncompetitive.
"In fact, the only plane that I can think of off the top of my head that out-climbed the P-47 at that altitude (25,000 feet and up) was the Spitfire Mk IX and later, which had its own problems as a fighter."
The Mk XIV - which I regard as the best model of Spitfire - out climbed it at all altitudes.
"As far as I can tell (and do note that this is a near impossible statistic to measure) the P-47 had the best zoom climb of any plane in the war, barring jets. Another notable zoom climber was the Typhoon and Tempest. Generally, heavier, more powerful planes excelled in this category. This is in part what made the P-47 such a great boom-and-zoom aircraft. You also have to take into account climb speed, which is almost never mentioned for some reason."
The P-47 did, indeed, have excellent zoom and boom capabilities. Wade found that it was exceeded by the Tempest but did better than all the others But the irony is that zoom and boom requires altitude. The Tempest was never intended to be any more than a low to medium altitude fighter. The Napier Sabre ran very little boost.
"This is in part what made the P-47 such a great boom-and-zoom aircraft. You also have to take into account climb speed, which is almost never mentioned for some reason. The P-47 didn't excel in climb rate down low, however, its peak climb rate was at a relatively fast speed. Most other fighters had better peak climb rates but at lower speeds."
Wade's chart covers this. The P-47 was handily beaten by all comers until 30,000 ft.
"The P-47 can absolutely win that fight if he's smart and keeps his fight in the vertical."
Yes. It will come down to tactics. The P-47 would require very careful flying at 10,000 and the pilot would have to be sure not to enter a climbing turn fight with a Bf-109.
"It's not true that the P-47 would almost always have altitude advantage. For the initial confrontation when escorting bombers, yes that is the case. But for the rest of the fight it wasn't, and there are plenty of cases of Thunderbolts lower than enemies when attacked and still coming out on top. Plus, if that was the case, and the Thunderbolts always got kills because they were higher, wouldn't the Germans just learn to climb higher to avoid death? "
It's very difficult to be precise with generalisations! However, as bomber escort, yes, it would have sat at 30,000 because that's where its best performance was. The USAAF virtually always had air superiority, simply by weight of numbers and the advantage of altitude. Yes, the P-47 was used in low level attacks as 'Jabos', as the Germans called them. But remember that against Bf-109 the P-47 was a fast aircraft in a straight line. According to the British, it had excellent handling characteristics. The 109, on the other hand, had problems with aileron snatch.
The Germans had little choice when it came to interception, the Germans were far more focused on shooting down bombers than on escort fighters, whether P-47s or P-51s. The other problem was that the interception time left little option for the Germans to get much higher. As long as they were high enough to make effective attacks on viermots.
I'll ry to find the chart I'm referring to but I am not allowed to post links. As soon as I find it, I'll try to point you in the right direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@susanc4622
"Oh, and the 'rules of engagement' that people refer to I believe for the US, anyway, mean that they actually have to be SHOT AT FIRST before they can respond. Do you know what happened? Troops died."
Oh pahlease...! Never mind what the yanks say in movies (did you get this from Top Gun?). The Australian SAS is an elite force that is very careful about its selection process. They don't want Sylvester Stallone types, bare chested and toting a machine gun in each hand. They want people who can think, especially in extremely stressful situations. The few I've met are very intelligent people and not trigger happy. Their job is one of stealth. They are expected to exercise good judgement.
These were no 'heat of battle' incidents. The people he's accused of killing were hors de combat and under the full protection of the Geneva Convention. There can be no excuses for this. Anything less is barbarism.
"I recall learning in history at school that during WW1, when our troops overran machine gun emplacements, they would, on occasion, shoot the machine gunners even if they were trying to surrender."
The Geneva Convention was written because of things like this. In modern war, that is a war crime. You should learn what hors de combat means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Socialist imperialism”? Jesus Christ, Tik. It’s hard to know where to start with this. Let’s start in 1919, because before that, Poland as a formal country, with borders, didn’t exist. The Brest-Litovsk treaty ceded large tracts of both Belorussia and Ukraine to the new state. Now, the rights and wrongs of this don’t matter. What matters is that it stirred up a certain amount of dissatisfaction among those Belarusian and Ukrainian citizens who suddenly found themselves under Polish rule - something they hated. To be completely fair, they didn’t like being under Moscow rule either and for much the same reasons. But at least they had some local levels of autonomy, the results of which later contributed, in part, to the Holodomor.
This is why, when you read Alexander Hill’s book, ”The Red Army in the Second World War” you will find that there were many places in eastern Poland where the Red Army were treated as liberators. Sure, there were other places where the shooting started but it was very different from the invasion by the Nazis in the West. This is the only reason the official Soviet history could call it a war of liberation.
Secondly, if you read Fest’s biography of Hitler, you will find that Hitler’s expansionist philosophy had next to nothing to do with socialist ideology and everything to do with pan-German nationalism. Now, you’re an intelligent man so you would undoubtedly be aware of the large ethnic German populations in the Ukraine and eastern Russia. These were the communities Hitler sought to link up with to create the pan-German state. Nothing to do with a “socialist paradise.” That came later with East Germany.
1
-
@blasterelforg7276
"Compare how well the Ukrainians had it in Poland vs the Soviet Union."
If you read about it, the invasion in the east of Poland was rather different from that of the West. In a lot of cases, the locals welcomed the Red Army in. While it was by no means universal, it rather gives the lie to your claim.
"Russia also had no legit claims to either Ukraine and Belarus."
Of course they did. They were part of the Russian Empire.
"In 1919-20 Poland also wanted to set up an independent Ukrainian state comprising central and eastern Ukraine, and such state was proclaimed, but this pissed off Russia which invaded this now independent Ukraine supported by Poland and violently annexed it."
This is a remarkably skewed version of events. There were several border skirmishes between the two and I am continually amazed that people bother to take sides the way they do. I know everyone loves to hate "Russia" (be it Russia or the former Soviet Union) and humans naturally gravitate to a polemic etc., but anyone who seriously thinks they have a handle on ethnic tensions in that part of the world is seriously dreaming. Or worse.
This is why I said I wasn't interested in the rights and wrongs of the matter. Unless you can divorce yourself from making judgements, it's really hard to get an accurate picture, especially in a part of the world where ethnic nationalism is so strong. They're born to it.
"Then later, since Russia was denied the opportunity to annex Eastern Poland after refusing to enter Czechoslovakia through Romania, they signed an alliance with Hitler instead."
Qui bono? By the way, the Soviet Union was not the same as Russia.
"This included military alliance and thereafter trade deals and close cooperation between Gestapo and the NKVD concerning ethnic cleansing of the newly conquered lands."
Please cite documented evidence of a link between the NKVD and the Gestapo (something other than Wikipedia).
"This is the key difference between Russia and Poland- unlike Russia, Poland did not engage in ethnic cleansing."
Rubbish. Read what happened after the end of the war. All of Eastern Europe was engaged in ethnic cleansing. No, don't blame the Soviet Union or Stalin or "Russia". This was done entirely at a local level and was as nasty as it gets. Read Keith Lowe's book "Savage Continent" (seen next to Tik's left ear in this video).
You think Poland didn't engage in some ethnic cleansing of her own? Think again. The Czechs, the Yugoslavs, the Romanians, Hungary... the lot. They were all in on it. They all booted any ethnic Germans out of their country and in many cases they did much worse. Armed gangs roamed the countryside, murdering and looting. Houses were burnt with people inside.
To apportion all of this to the Soviet Union (or "Russia") is just ignorant and naïve. nothing is ever that simple.
1
-
@blasterelforg7276
”The Germans were booted out of East Prussia and western Poland because the Soviet Union wanted more land and decided to shift all populations westward.”
No, that isn’t what happened. The Soviet Union could not simply randomly shift the borders 200 kms west. That was determined at the Yalta conference in 1945. The borders, it was agreed, would move 200 kms westwards. Remember that Poland had only formally existed since 1919 anyway. All it did was to move the eastern border back to approximately where the Curzon line was. This was believed to provide a better ethnic balance. It was less about territory under Soviet control because they already controlled what became East Germany.
Booting Germans out had nothing to do with the Soviet Union and everything to do with local nationalists. The Soviets didn’t care who lived there. Why would they? They cared where the border was.
”Poland did not practice ethnic cleansing.”
Read ”Savage Continent” by Keith Lowe. Every country in Eastern Europe practiced ethnic cleansing at the end of WWII. Poland was one of the more notable examples. Now, if you have a reference to prove that it never happened, I’d be interested in seeing what it is.
”the Russians think ethnic cleansing is A-ok because it was once done to the Germans in 1945, when Russian soldiers allegedly raped 2 million German women btw.”
Yes, I’ve read Anonyma. Have you?
You can’t talk about this incredibly complex matter without talking about the Nazi attitude to Soviet citizens, 18 million of whom died during occupation by Nazi forces. How many of those do you reckon were raped? How many times? The Nazis had every intention of using “the Slavs” as slaves for pan-German benefit. Everywhere they went they murdered them by the thousands. The Soviet republic of Belarus lost about 25% of its population because of Nazi brutality.
Now let’s talk about Red Army soldiers. Nine million died during the war, more than half of them - something like 5 million - in captivity. Nazi treatment of Soviet POWs was appalling. Are you going to just sweep that under the carpet? Now, I’m not saying this justifies the Red Army behaviour in Germany at the end of the war but you’re talking about this as though it happened in isolation. It didn’t.
Now let’s look at some terminology. The terms “Russia” and “the Soviet Union” are not interchangeable. There is no better example of this than the one you quoted about “Russian” soldiers raping German women. The vast majority of the Red Army troops in eastern Germany at the end of the war were from Belarus and the Ukraine. There were very few actual Russians. What this does is highlight what you don’t know.
Sometime what you’ve got nothing better to do, I suggest you have a look at an ethnic distribution map of Eastern Europe. Then you tell me how you’d manage it. There are pockets of ethnic communities all over the place and every one of them has their own version of events. Every one of them believes that they are right and the other guy is wrong. There are ethnic German communities as far east as the Donbass region.
At the end of the war, the continent was divided into two parts; that controlled by the United States and that which was controlled by the Soviet Union. The trouble with the western view is that it views Eastern Europe in the same way as it views Western Europe: largely homogeneous. This error in thinking is pretty easy to illustrate. Have a look at what happened to the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when Slobodan Milosevic was running Serbia and Franco Tudman was running Croatia. A community which was thought by the west to be largely homogeneous was split apart by violent nationalism. In case you’re thinking that was all Milosevic’s fault, think again. Look at the example of the Serbian police officers in the Croatian town of Bihac who were forced to wear the sahovnica - the flag of the hated ustache - on their uniforms.
That’s just an example of how Eastern Europe is riven by ethnic differences. Do you want to take a position on that?
My point is that taking sides in this - in your case, blaming what you call “the Russians” for everything - is naive and in a good many cases, just plain wrong. The identity of the rapists at the end of the war is a good example of that. But it’s a very typical American attitude.
1
-
@blasterelforg7276
”That’s a fascist mentality.”
It wasn’t my idea, old mate. As I said, it was believed this would provide a better ethnic mix than the way things were. There were lots of ethnic Ukrainians in eastern Poland who had no interest in being ruled by Warsaw because, under Polish rule, they were treated as second class citizens. Same for Belarus. Same for Poles living in western Ukraine.
The irony of all of this is that, ultimately, it was fascism, to a degree. Most people don’t actually know what fascism is. If you read Kevin Passmore’s excellent little book on the subject, you will find that fascism, while difficult to define, has one common theme: nationalism.
And nationalism is at the crux of the whole problem. Ethnic nationalism in Eastern Europe was a local problem, with squabbles that came and went. Hitler made it a continental problem and it’s still with us in that form today. The ethnic divisions in Eastern Europe exist today because of Hitler’s nationalism. Read Keith Lowe.
1
-
"Unfortunately with these Electric Vehicles they do have a short life span when compared to almost any other vehicle on the market."
Not true. EV batteries are currently designed to last the life of the vehicle. In recent years there have been significant changes to battery chemistry that has eliminated fires and increased both charge capacity and working life, while also reducing charging time. New 800 volt architecture will have charging times comparable with the fill up time for petrol cars.
"Now it’s not that the cars start falling apart or anything like that but the batteries are a consumable item, yes they are rechargeable but each time you recharge them it’s 1 more check mark on the list of times it’s been charged and all these battery packs have an estimated life span or the amount of times they can be drained down and recharged and after years of use you get to a point where the battery packs simply must be replaced because they no longer hold a charge like they should."
This is no longer the problem it once was. Furthermore, modern EV batteries can accept a full 100% charge without shortening the life of the battery.
"Unfortunately not only is the labor cost high and most mechanics don’t work on high voltage EV Systems so you need to find the right mechanic and then you get the insane replacement cost for the new batteries and many times the cost simply outweighs the value of the vehicle that very well may be in perfect condition otherwise so the customer abandons the car at the mechanic’s shop."
I think this is what psychologists call catastrophising.
The cost - and this comes from the insurance industry - of a replacement battery now, in January 2025, is about AU $8,000. A replacement ICE car engine, second hand, costs that much and takes a lot longer to fit.
There is no problem finding people to work on these things.
Furthermore, the price of lithium fell sharply over the last 18 months and cell price is now about US $55/kWh And about double that at pack level. The battery prices at the moment are higher because those were produced when lithium was much more expensive.
You can work out what the cost will be for an 80kW battery. Now, I don't fully expect that the prices I'm quoting will be reflected in the final price of the battery pack. Shipping and fitting would also jack that up a bit.
"Great in theory but poor in practical terms."
Not at all. Nobody I know who owns an EV is going to buy an ICE car to replace it. That includes a couple of bona fide rev heads who had previously owned some high performance V8s. Furthermore, there are no service intervals for most EVs. There are even Tesla Model 3s out there with 500,000 kms on them that have never had a service. The only maintenance that has been done on them is replacement of consumables, like tyres, brake pads, wiper blades and light bulbs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solan7978
"While I am glad you can admit small government conservatism isn't fascism, the rest of your statement is ridiculous."
Admit? You're not very presumptuous, are you? You wouldn't know. You don't even begin to understand fascism. Go ahead: let's hear you define it. It took Hitler a whole book ("Mein Kampf") to do it and even then, he had to write a second volume.
"True conservatives accept that Donald Trump, in spite of his manifest flaws, was the best choice for President available at the time, and he did a great deal for conservative goals."
True conservatives thought nothing of the sort. True conservatives were pretty uneasy about hitching their wagon to the Trump elephant and they're still uneasy about it. Talk of "stolen elections" and martial law scare them - as they should. But in any binary system, when one is forced into that choice, you don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure out how it's going to happen. They might have voted for Trump but only because they voted for their local guy first.
"ALL politics is "the politics of division", as you incorrectly term fascism, since no possible set of political principles will ever appeal to the entire population."
There's a big difference between the politics of division and party politics in a binary system like the US. Fascism is about "us and them" where the "us" side claim their ideal society was wronged by the "them" side. They base their claims and their policies on conspiracies and a mythological past. The politics of division is about creating underclasses and second class citizens. Immigrants, those who are racially different, those from different religions, the poor, gays, intellectuals and ultimately, any political opponent. From there they set about punishing them. That's a long way from party politics, even in a binary system.
"As Sir Terry Pratchett once wrote, "Pulling together is the aim of tyranny and despotism; free men pull in all sorts of directions"."
I see. You can quote a dystopian novelist but you can't quote scholars of international reputation. That quote is interesting because "all pulling together" is the nub of fascism. A unified population under the patriarch and all pulling the same direction. And of course, to do this, fascism requires society to rid itself of all those undesirable and corrupt influences I mentioned earlier. That's utopianism and as Passmore says, utopianism always leads to terror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minc1236 Not at all. You have to fit pretty much all of them and not just a few categories.
But here’s something to think about. China fits pretty much all of them that I can actually find evidence of. As John Mearsheimer said about six years ago, China has replaced communism with nationalism. Go through the list and you’ll see what I mean: heavy booted nationalism - especially racism, paternalism and machismo, mythologising the past, victim complex because of treatment by Europe and Japan in the last 100 years, paternalism, sexual anxiety, hierarchy, law and order, propaganda, etc.. the list fits very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@casematecardinal
"its record is fact."
I've already quoted a source. What you call 'fact' is not some thing you get to pick and choose.
"Unlike the valiant which you praise."
Oh goody! Let's make this a polemic so we end up screaming at each other.
The Defiant was not a success in its intended role. It was a stand it. It took on the role of night fighter in the winter of 1940-41 because there were few other types available that could reasonably be expected to do it. A classic example of a 'great British bodge job'. It only lasted in that role until Beaufighters replaced it and airborne radar became a thing. To conclude from this that I'm somehow a fan of the aircraft would be wrong.
I met a Defiant gunner once and he was acutely aware of how lucky he was to survive the war.
"I agree that for much of the war Russia was not the country that produced the best pilots however, neither was Finland."
The Finns were better organised, used tactics they adopted and adapted from other forces and were better trained. The Soviet pilots did not use accepted squadron formations - flying in 'circuses' like WWI German Jastas, and had few radios, mostly limited to the leaders. Organised chaos. Some of their tactics had to be approved by political officers, where the Finns had no such restrictions. Their aircraft belonged mainly to the Spanish Civil War era.
Radios were a big deal. They were, in fact, the first 'force multipliers'.
"The valiants perfomance even with the skill of British pilots was god awful."
I presume you mean 'Defiant', not 'Valiant' (which was a V bomber)...
The Defiant was initially very successful. But one swallow doesn't make a summer and its weaknesses were quickly exploited. It was, quite simply, a gamble that didn't pay off. Nobody contests this so you're making a bit of a straw man argument here.
1
-
@danieleyre8913
"The Bolton Paul Defiant was intended specifically to be a fighter for the Royal Air Force, with the assumed opponents back in the mid 1930s being the German Luftwaffe. It was an absolute failure in this role. It stood no chance in aerial combat against Messerschmitt fighters, would’ve stood no chance against Heinkell fighters or any nation’s fighters. Its operating squadron quickly lost 18 of its 20 fighters, and its CO KIA. After this the RAF quickly withdrew it from combat service , despite having hundreds of aircraft being delivered. Yes later they found some usefulness as a desperation night fighter, as they had literally only Blenheim bombers also capable to do the job. But they were overall an absolute catastrophe in service."
Old man yells at cloud.
Are you completely serious? Stop trying to make a polemic out of this in the forlorn hope that you will somehow prove that I'm some sort of deluded fanboi. I know the history of the Defiant better than you and I'm better read on the combat that both the Defiant and the Buffalo took part in. In its first combat, the Defiant was phenomenally successful, which led the British to the mistaken conclusion that it was a good idea. Clearly they were wrong. Any further attempt to polarise this by implying that I'm somehow blindsided by its brief success will simply be ignored. Don't even bother going there. It isn't even relevant.
The Buffalo, in its original design, was never successful. You can bang on all you like about the extra equipment it had to carry but it was the same as the vastly more effective Wildcat. So that's a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' argument and has zero value in assessing its achievements.
As for the Buffalo being able to defeat the Defiant, it's simply a preposterous comparison. The Defiant was a one-trick pony before the Germans woke up to it. It was never intended as a manoeuvre fighter, like a Hurricane or Spitfire. The concept came as a result of the success of the Bristol Fighter in WWI but it was badly botched.
"The Brewster Buffalo was designed and developed more or less contemporaneously with the Defiant (this it is valid to point out how the defiant would probably be defeated by a buffalo). It was NOT specifically intended to ever face combat, in the mid-1930s few Americans expected the USA to be going to war with Japan. It was intended to be a specialised fighter for naval operations, operating from aircraft carriers. However the vast majority of its wartime service was as a regular land based fighter."
Brother, do you need a history lesson. Tensions over territory and fuel supplies in the Pacific had been simmering since the mid-30s. Japan was a known emerging power in the Pacific since the early 1920s. Why do you think they were included in the Washington Treaty of 1922? And Japan invaded China in 1937, which was not entirely unexpected, since the West knew what they were up to through their spy networks.
It doesn't matter that the Buffalo was intended to fly from ships. It matters that it was simply uncompetitive against Japanese fighters in the Pacific.
"Whilst its eventual wartime arrive with the USN and USMC were not any success, they were still far from any “dismal failure” as you exaggerated."
:facepalm: You're in total denial about this.
At Midway, the Buffaloes were scrambled to intercept the incoming Japanese force. They failed to reach altitude because their climb rate was poor and when they did, they were shot down piecemeal. Captain Herbert Merrill was the only survivor of his flight. Severely burnt on the face, neck and hands, he had this to say:
"The F2A-3 is not a combat aeroplane," he reported. "The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground..."
Second Lt Charles M. Kunz was also scathing:
"As for the F2A-3...it should be in Miami as a training plane, rather than be used as a first line fighter."
* "Miracle at Midway", Gordon W.Prange, Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon, Penguin Books, New York, 1982, p. 195
Do you think they were exaggerating? Because they are just one of the sources from which I got my (better-informed) opinion.
You can make all the excuses you like about different variants and different equipment but the fact remains: the pilots who flew it in the Pacific hated it and considered themselves lost before they took off. What it achieved in Finnish service doesn't alter that in any way. In the role for which it was intended - a fleet defence interceptor - it was a deplorable failure.
"The Buffalo was useful for the British in Burma."
So useful they replaced it with the Hurricane as soon as they could.
"The least successful usage of the buffalo, by the RAF, RNZAF and RAAF in Malaya was still many magnitudes less of a failure than that of the Bolton Paul defiant. Once again; the loss rate was not as high, they managed to down some Japanese opponents, and they flew the worst Buffaloes of all."
Why do you think I'm defending the Defiant? I'm not. I just dared to point out one aspect and dared to challenge your (uninformed) opinion. This is classic Dunning-Kruger. You're having that argument with yourself. I don't care about the technical differences. Inferior is inferior and it got a lot of people killed. All you're doing here is proving my point.
And I'm no longer interested in pumping up the tyres of someone who has read sod all and knows sod all about this subject. You're not even in the same postcode, son. Flipping though picture books and defaulting to data blocks while watching YouTube videos to confirm your personal prejudices will tell you nothing. You have to read history. You seem to think that saying something ten times and calling me names will make you right. As long as you continue to parrot the same arguments you will remain wrong. And tomorrow you'll still be wrong.
1
-
@danieleyre8913
”The Defiant initially very successful?!”
Yes. In one of the most successful engagements of the entire war, on the 29th of May, 1940, 264 Sqn shot down as many as 37 on a single day. Even allowing for over claiming, there’s no doubt they caused a lot of trouble. But that was never repeated. The most successful crew were Gnr Cpl Lippert and Flt Lt Kirk shot down a Bf-110 and two Bf-109s in one sortie. Later that day they shot down 5 Ju-87s.
”So the Defiant won 2-3 engagements, they may have actually shot down a couple of fighters. Hardly any “initial success like one would attribute to aircraft like the A6M or FW 190”.”
What would you call an initial success then? And who compared it to the A6M or the Fw-190? Not me. But the Buffalo, on the other hand, must be compared to the A6M. It was its design adversary. And it failed.
”But that was it. After that it was just a slaughter for the defiants. Absolute deathtrap.”
Who denies this? Not me. I’ve made this abundantly clear on multiple occasions. If you’re to stupid to have absorbed that by now then that’s your problem, not mine.
I actually met a Defiant gunner and talked to him about it. Have you ever met a Defiant gunner? I’ll bet you have…🙄
”And actually, the main Soviet fighter used in the 1939-40 war was the I-16, which could match the Buffalo.”
With poor pilot training and few radios it was never going to be effective. It belonged to the Spanish Civil War.
Actually.
1
-
1
-
@ottovonbismarck2443 The 110 was actually hampered by the fact that it was still using the older DB601. My understanding is that rather than re-engine the aircraft with the 603, which would require a redesign, Messerschmitt went with a ‘clean sheet of paper’ and built the 210/410, with very mixed success. The 110 aerodynamics were also a bit old but the G model was fitted with the much later and much more powerful (than the 601) DB605.
The Ju-88, on the other hand, was a bit more modern and Junkers had made a point of updating it to greater degree than Messerschmitt. The late model Ju-88 was nearly as fast as the Mosquito in short bursts and was very highly rated by pilots of both sides. The 110, by comparison, was a bit underrated.
In his book ’Wings of the Luftwaffe’, Captain Eric Brown flew all the major German night fighter types, including the much-vaunted He-219. There’s little doubt that he rated the Ju-88 and the Bf-110 more highly than the Heinkel, which he described as very modern but decidedly underpowered. This came as a bit of a surprise to me, to say the least of it. But if you look at the power and the weights, they seem to bear out Brown’s opinion.
For these reasons, it made even more sense to stick with the Ju-88.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shillquad1
”according to the foundation for economic education, a verifiable 400,000 lives are saved by a gun on average every year and in 2020 the number rised to 550,00.”
Horseshit. Nothing but. For a start, a DGU is not the same as a life saved. The gun lobby and its acolytes love to mix this up so that a DGU becomes a life saved. Even Gary Kleck admits that between 33 and 66% of DGUs are probably illegal. You don’t know if you’re talking to the crim or the victim. You just take the story because it suits your purposes. That doesn’t even qualify for research. Secondly, that website is basically nothing more than a pro-gun blog. There’s a great article there on how gun ownership makes people more virtuous, FFS! Blogs have no requirement for accuracy in exactly the same way as there is no requirement for truth in political advertising. None of those articles would pass muster in a peer review. I notice academic John Lott gets quoted there often and even he failed the peer reviews of his books. Look up “Mary Rosh”. It’s hilarious! Ayers and Donohue took him to pieces and Tim Lambert did the same thing.
”By 66 percent to 32 percent, economists and criminologists answer that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than deter them. this is a study from the crime prevention research center.”
Bingo! John Lott again. Arguably America’s most discredited academic. Lott is an economist, not a criminologist and he’s a liar. In his first book, “More Guns, Less Crime”, Lott used an econometric model to try to prove his thesis. It was so riddled with coding errors that when Ayers and Donohue corrected them, they proved the complete reverse, i.e.: that more guns = more crime, not less. Your problem is that you’re dealing with someone who has done far more research than anyone in the gun lobby and would be happy to debate any one of these jokers face to face.
And Lott’s claims on GFZs are rubbish. They’re not based on any complete evidence.
”this is also why despite having heavier gun control state laws, blue states tend to have more crime.”
LOL!! Horseshit. Again. Go to the CDC website and look it up by state. You will find that of the top 20 states, 15 are red and 5 are blue. Read it and weep! LOL!!
1
-
@B.C.101
”I didn’t know a gun could mind control a person into killing a bunch of people? Hell I thought it would be the mentality of insane people who get shoved off to the side until they go shoot a bunch of people but apparently that’s the guns fault.”
There's one thing that gun massacres have universally in common: a lack of spoons. Active shooters don’t use spoons. They use guns. Guns have been the weapon of choice for mass shooters from Sandy Hook through Virginia Tech, El Paso, Orlando, Las Vegas, Buffalo and Ulvade. But according to you, it’s not the gun. So why don’t they use spoons instead?
There’s no indication that Salvador Ramos or Payton Gendron suffered from any mental health problems. I will believe the gun lobby is serious about mental health when it starts pouring millions into mental health initiatives, instead of lining the pockets of people like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Did you know Steve Scalise, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have pocketed over a million dollars between them in gun lobby payback in the last year to block any and all legislation that might bring about a change in the number of gun deaths in the US? That’s just blatant corruption. These people cretins have presided over a massive spike in gun murders over the last 14 years, since the Supreme Court ruled that the militia clause in the second amendment no longer applied. In the eight years between 2010 and 2018, gun murders jumped by 80%, thanks to winding back of any sensible gun control measures.
The gun lobby is happy to indirectly murder children, old people and other innocent bystanders by the hundreds each year while they collect wads of cash, way beyond what you and I ever could. 213 gun massacres in the US so far this year.
So don’t give me this shit about “guns don’t kill, people kill”. It makes you look callous and stupid (not that the gun lobby needs any help with that).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Weimerica8841
"Are you serious? People have used pressure cookers for bombs several times, notably Columbine and the Boston Marathon bombing."
You fucking bet I'm serious. Do you really think this is an argument for doing nothing about guns? When pressure cookers become the weapon of choice then we can ask ourselves what can be done. But right now, every massacre is committed with guns. And doing nothing about guns will only guarantee that more people will die. It's because of people like you - the gun lobby's useful idiots - that the carnage continues.
"It's good that you don't see how everyday items can be weaponized, but you should at least recognize that people can use anything as a weapon."
Yet guns are always used. I can't believe I'm reading this. It's retarded. Have you ever noticed that there have been no massacres committed with spoons? Have you ever wondered why? Have you ever wondered why Stephen Paddock, Omar Mateen, Salvador Ramos and Adam Lanza didn't use spoons?
"A MD district report does not overrule objective reality, or FBI crime statistics."
I can't believe I'm reading this. You claim the MD report doesn't overrule objective reality when your objective reality ignores the fact that guns are used to murder almost 20,000 Americans each year. Meanwhile, the best you can come up with is a once off with a bulldozer. Try looking at those FBI crime statistics. Or the CDC. Go to their home page. Where the fuck do you think I'm getting my information from? Because it sure as shit doesn't come from the mainstream media.
"All gun crime is predominantly committed with handguns."
This doesn't make sense. You do know, don't you, that in 25% of cases, the FBI doesn't even record a weapon.
"You're again attributing something to the AR that applies to all rifles."
And again you miss the point: the AR-15 is overrepresented in mass shootings and the murder of law enforcement officers. The AR-15 has been used in all the deadliest mass shootings in the last ten years.
"You have yet to identify why that specific rifle is scarier to you than an M1 Carbine, or even an M1 Garand, which is far more lethal at the same distance."
And yet again I point out to you that these weapons are not being used in mass shootings. The AR-15 is. When people start committing mass shootings with M1 Garands (only 8 round mag), you be sure to let me know.
It isn't happening.
"There are several pistol rounds which are far deadlier than the 5.56, especially considering the overwhelming majority of 5.56 ammunition is FMJ, while pistol rounds are typically hollow point."
And yet pistol rounds are more survivable statistically than AR-15 rounds.
"Hydrostatic shock is nothing compared to a 5 inch diameter hole from a 9mm HP."
And yet hydrostatic shock can cause brain damage from even an abdominal wound. But don't believe me. Look it up.
"I find it amusing that you go out of your way to only cite sources that agree with your ideas."
I have literally hundreds of sources but YouTube has banned me from posting links because people on your side kept marking my posts as spam.
But I have paraphrased the Maryland Circuit Court, the CDC and the FBI. What else would you like?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unless there is a second ‘Greg’ video I haven’t seen, I found his conclusions incomplete and unsupportable. From my memory, he asks why the Mustang was so fast and his only conclusion was ‘manifold pressure’. He dismisses the laminar flow wing and he dismisses the Meredith Effect of the under-slung radiator. He also leaves out a third factor.
The laminar flow wing can’t be completely dismissed and it just shows his knowledge of aero is a bit limited. Now, I would be the first to say that, in the vast majority of cases, the Mustang wing was laminar flow in theory only. The fact is that the speed of construction required and the methods of the day meant that it was not a true laminar flow wing. It was a good attempt but it was not completely successful in that regard. True laminar flow wings did not appear until after the war.
Secondly, the Meredith Effect from the radiator provided about 300lbs of jet thrust at maximum speed and for anyone curious, that translates to - if my maths serve me correctly - about 500 extra horsepower. I’d have to sit down and calculate it but it’s also worth remembering that jet thrust and power are not directly related so it will be an approximation.
Thirdly, Greg left out one of the most important things about the Mustang wing. In the late 1930s, high performance aircraft wings had slim profiles and had their maximum thickness about about 30% chord. This was true for both the Spitfire and the P-47. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember the exact thicknesses but they are of the order of 11%, while the P-51 was about 16%. This created problems for the older designs with high speed flying because the drag build up and a substantial shockwave would form on the upper surface that would become increasingly prominent, creating downstream effects that could result in loss of control.
It also meant that a truly high speed cruise was both less efficient and less possible because the drag curve was a lot steeper.
The P-51 wing, on the other hand, had its point of maximum thickness at 38.9% of chord and a semi-symmetrical profile. Because of this, it developed smaller shockwaves on the top and bottom surfaces. This had the two-fold effect of drag reduction and more predictable handling at high speeds. This is a bit too complicated to explain here but it suffices to say that after the P-51, all new high speed fighters, like the Hawker Tempest, had their points of maximum thickness further aft.
So Greg’s conclusion that it all came down to manifold pressure is not even close to the whole story. The most important thing about the design of the Mustang is that it was a complete package and not just reliant on one thing. Yes, manifold pressure was a factor. But so too were the raft of aerodynamic advancements the Mustang pioneered. As a piece of aeronautical engineering, it represented a half a generation advance over earlier designs, like the P-47 and the Spitfire. But it wasn’t one single factor. It was a combination of all these things and probably a few more I have left out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seriously Sam, you lost me with this. If you really wanted to make this video, you needed to do it a bit more thoughtfully and frankly, more ethically because frankly, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing others of.
It’s no good blaming the media. I read Seba’s comment in the media. They didn’t lie and they didn’t ignore him. In fact, it went further than just what you’re saying. This is an old tactic and anyone who walks around with their eyes open can see it. ‘Don’t listen to the media because the media tells lies. Listen to ME instead.’ This happened during the pandemic and quite honestly people died.
Now I’m not saying that your remarks are going to have the same effect but this is lowering the bar to a zone into which I don’t wish to go. Who is actually lying? None of us is omniscient. Did you read every newspaper, watch every news bulletin or listen to every radio report? Of course you didn’t. In other words you are talking about things you don’t know.
There have been plenty of people over the years who have predicted the future accurately. Over the weekend I came across Alvin Toffler’s 1980 book, ‘The Third Wave’. In that book Toffler very accurately predicted a revolutionary switch from traditional modes of power generation to a new and at that time untried method. I think we can all see where he was going. He also accurately predicted that this transition would not happen without a fight. That’s happening now, 45 years later.
Lots of people have framed the rise of robots, from Isaac Asimov to Bob Newhart. And they’ve been right. Tony Seba is just another. He might be more right than others around us but it’s not a new thing.
That’s all fine. What isn’t fine is you pointing the finger at the collective media and assuming that you have better news judgement than those who do it for a living. Really? When was the last time you darkened the door of a newsroom? You followed that up with an implication that everyone should gravitate to you as an oracle of the truth. That tactic is simply unethical.
Demagoguery is one of the very things that we are going to have to counter in the coming years as digital plantation owners like Elon Musk (who is not a ‘genius’ but a drug-addicted psychopath) and Jeff Bezos exert more and more control over economies. It’s not just robots who will take over the world but their owners. And there will be very few of them. And yes, everyone will be unemployed. No economy can survive that.
If you want me to keep watching your channel then you need to stop these P.T. Barnum tactics or I’m out of here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremypnet I get how it works but that's always going to be the case. The difference here was that ,because they attempted to split the fleet, the two columns were crossing the French/Spanish bows, which were generally less vulnerable than their stern galleries. So yeah, I get your point. The British were generally better sailors, if only because they spent more time at sea. A lot more, in fact. Ships like Victory were actually more trouble than they were worth in a lot of ways: too much windage. poor ratio of sail area to tonnage, slow, unmanoeuvrable and not good in a poor sea. Third raters - around 75-80 guns were a lot more use.
So, in fact, I'm really not surprised that Nelson was under fire for so long before he could return fire. I'm also surmising that this was the reason behind the popularity of bow carronades...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 Statistically, that doesn’t seem to have made very much difference, if any. If you look at the casualty rates for both types, the P-47 was 0.73 and the P-51 was 1.18. Score one for the P-47. But if you look deeper, there are other considerations that need to be taken into account.
First of all, the P-51 spent a higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace than the P-47 because it did most of the long range escort work. So if you consider the example I suggested earlier, you can see why survivor bias needs to be taken into account. The time and distance you are from your home base has a very significant impact on your chances of getting back. That’s called survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51 was used later in the war, when there were much higher concentrations of Flak in target areas. This was less the case in the areas where the P-47 was working, like Northern France, Belgium or Holland. The P-51, however, was over Germany.
Any late war memoir you care to read will make mention of how dense the Flak was over Germany in that period. If you read those memoirs, you rarely find any mention of any concerns about a stray bullet in the cooling system during ground attack missions. They were much more concerned with crashing into the target or being blasted out of the sky by a 40mm.
So the point is that the statistics are largely inconclusive on survivability anyway. They don’t take into account a hit in the cooling system - just whether or not an aircraft was destroyed. Some stats on ground attack losses differentiate between enemy aircraft, ground fire and accidental crash. I have more on this if you’re curious.
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments. I wrote a detailed reply to this but it has disappeared.
I’ll try again.
The question of water cooling seems to have minimal impact on survivability rates. The P-47 had a rate of 0.73, compared to the P-51 at 1.18. Superficially, that’s a win for the P-47. These statistics don’t actually reveal the nuance of the story.
As I illustrated earlier, the P-51, because it did so much of the long range work, spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than did the P-47. Time and distance are critical considerations when looking at casualties. This was the point I was showing: Antwerp was a lot closer to home than Cottbus. This is known as survivor bias and formed a major part of USAAF investigations, both during the war and in the post war period.
The second thing the stats don’t show is the fact that the P-51 operated in areas of higher Flak concentrations than the P-47. Northern France, Belgium and Holland were less heavily defended than Germany in the post D-Day period. Read any late war pilot memoir and they all talk about the amount of Flak they faced.
Finally, the statistics don’t differentiate between hits in the cooling system and hits anywhere else. Some stats on ground attack losses account for things like enemy aircraft in the area, Flak and flight into terrain. The pilots themselves say in this their memoirs too. They were more concerned with crashing into the target due to loss of situational awareness, or being blasted to bits by a 37 mm, than a stray bullet in the cooling system. That doesn’t rate a mention.
So the stats on air-cooled versus liquid-cooled don’t really exist and what does exist is inconclusive. They certainly don’t give any reason to be concerned about liquid cooling.
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
@danatcanyonlake583 YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
1
-
YouTube is deleting my comments.
I'll try again.
The stats on this are inconclusive. On the surface the casualty rates were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. Superficially that looks like an easy win for the P-47 but there's rather more to it.
The P-51 did most of the long range work so it spent more time in enemy airspace than the P-47. Time and distance are a huge influence on whether or not an aircraft could make it home. That's to say nothing of a wounded pilot. The example I gave above is survivor bias. Secondly, the P-51, because it fought later in the war, encountered heavier Flak than the P-47. While the P-47 was doing sterling support work in Northern France, Belgium and Holland, the P-51 was attacking airfields and trains in Germany. As the German territory constricted, the Flak guns retreated too.
If you read any memoirs from late in the war, you will know how heavy the Flak was.
So, while the P-47 had a great reputation for toughness, it was still made out of basically the same gauge of duralumin that any other fighter was made from.
The point, of course, is that the P-47 had a better chance of getting back from somewhere near the Channel or North Sea coast than a P-51 would have from deep in Germany. There are plenty of other stats - which I can provide if you like - but they don't prove anything one way or the other. The stats don't say whether the P-51s were lost flew into the ground because of pilot disorientation, were shot down by enemy aircraft or blown to bits by a battery of 40mm.
In any case, whether or not the aircraft was air-cooled or liquid cooled doesn't seem to have any bearing on the loss rates..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidgrover5996
"Without cherry picking you Authoritarians don’t have a functional case."
Authoritarians? For daring to propose responsible gun control laws? On a bit of a hair trigger there, aren't you? And show me where I'm cherry picking.
"Look how fast you pulled the race card when ethnicity is not exclusively race based."
I didn't pull it. You did. You were running the standard stereotype of hordes of Japanese committing suicide without checking your facts. Now you've had the truth wrapped around your ears, you don't like it. My conscience is clear. You're the one with the problem.
"the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."
26% of the Australian population has at least one parent who was born overseas. The figure for the United States is 14%.
"Wait until you have to deal/face the manufacturing technology problem.
It will be fun to watch you squeal then."
You mean 3D printing? LOL!! It's not really a factor in any country barring the United States. Besides, you, of all people, should know that there are different types of metals that go into making a gun (not counting that silly plastic thing) and not all of them can easily be 3D printed.
In any case, that might be a problem for a place with a total gun ban but I can't find anywhere on the planet with such laws, not even North Korea.
You're just avoiding again. Your murder rate is wildly out of kilter with every other neo-liberal democracy. Most other countries have a murder rate of around 1.0/100K. Your's is 6.0/100K. How'd you like to justify that?
In the meantime, you're looking for all sorts of excuses to avoid any kind of reasonable gun law reform. You're not even prepared to negotiate. You are, in fact, enabling murderers. How does it feel to have blood on your hands?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidgrover5996
"Your side left the killers free despite 39 or more indictable offenses in Parkland Florida, left the killer uncontrolled in Sandy Hook, and made all the mass killers famous."
You'd better take that up with the courts. Nothing to do with me. Why were their guns not impounded? Doesn't sound like anyone from my part of the spectrum.
"So how is it that I have blood on my hands?"
Because, despite overwhelming evidence that moderate, reasonable gun laws work, you have flatly refused to negotiate anything, preferring to take the extremist position that nothing is on the table.
Furthermore, with such laws it might have been possible to keep track of those people. You people talk about background checks to keep such things away from psychotics, so presumably you keep records...? You're talking about locking these people up but presumably that means keeping them away from guns, right? The Odessa shooter acquired his weapon through private means. The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's gun FFS!
Yours is the only advanced society on the planet which experiences semi-regular massacres with guns. Places where there are reasonable gun laws don't. And unlike the USA, we keep guns away from psychotics.
Your intransigence puts you front and centre in this. That's why you have blood on your hands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertnicholson7733 I've seen these claims before. Once you understand the Sabre, they sort of don't make a lot of sense. Napier advertised the E.122 as 3,500 hp but I can find no evidence that it ever ran, much less ran in a production aircraft.
And it's advertising material anyway...
The biggest problem with this engine was lubrication and compared to a conventional inline V-12 or radial, the Sabre used a lot of oil - about 27 litres per hour in normal use.
Napier had a lot of trouble getting it to work reliably. Napier drew on a lot of the work done by Roy Fedden at Bristol, who built the redoubtable Hercules and later Centaurus engines. The problems of these engines took almost a decade to solve and thousands of different methods were tried before the engine could be made to run properly, which fortuitously coincided with the start of the war. It almost broke Bristol.
The problem was that the sleeves were not just valves, they were the cylinder liners as well. These sleeves were about 2-2.5mm thick and had to absorb enormous pressure when the engine fired. While these components were quite strong, they were also subject to both thermal and shock expansion. This placed enormous stress on the lubrication system because the sleeve's fit within the block - already pretty tight - would change.
Combine that with the fact that at certain parts of the stroke, the sleeve was unsupported by the cylinder because it was over the ports.
Tighter tolerances means less space for lubricating oil. Less lubricating oil means more heat. More heat means even tighter tolerances, meaning less oil and more heat... and so it goes until the engine seizes. This is why the Sabre was limited in its development potential.
By contrast - and nobody talks about this - the Bristol Hercules - a beautiful engine that was not so widely appreciated, probably because it never found its way into a Spitfire airframe - had ten fewer cylinders and put out about 1,700 hp. I think it started at about 1,200. Yet the Sabre was 36 litres and the Hercules 38. By contrast, the 2,520 hp Centaurus was 53.6 litres.
Calum Douglas goes into this in one of his Q&A videos.
1
-
@robertnicholson7733 Mmmm... Those figures were all for the Sabre VII which used methanol water injection and as far as I can tell, was never used in a production aircraft. In fact, I'm not sure it ever flew. Now, from that quote:
"Some sources state that a Sabre VII engine achieved an output of 4,000 hp (2,983 kW) and was run at 3,750 hp (2,796 kW) for a prolonged period without issues during testing."
I frankly, don't believe a word of that. Not a bit of it. Not your fault but no way.
I don't believe the claimed power and I certainly don't believe the claim that it ran reliably at5 3,750 hp for extended periods. I don't believe it for two reasons: 1) I can find no evidence that it ever ran at that power level or even close and 2) no reference for that claim is provided, just a vague "some sources state". My background is journalism and academia so that claim just doesn't cut it.
There are, as you know, only two ways to improve power: increase torque or increase RPM. I know you know this because you referred to calculating for 4,000 RPM earlier. I can't see how such an immense increase in power could have been achieved, bearing in mind the exponential increases in internal stresses that go with it. Now, I don't mind a certain amount of spitballing - we all like to do it with out favourite things - but there's spitballing and there's making the facts fit the story. When something that starts as something that might be plausible and gets converted into "fact" with no verifiable sources, I just switch off.
You probably realise that I'm not an expert on piston engines of any kind, either by profession or inclination. I just look for what is believable and what isn't. This one doesn't pass the pub test.
"So a question for Hercules versus Sabre as well The thing is, as the gap between the block and the sleeves decreases the thermal transfer efficiency increases, so perhaps your positive thermal feedback loop does not exist the way you think it does."
Not my loop.
Decreasing the gap between the sleeve and the block might help the thermal transfer but not the lubrication. So where do you see this ending? Sooner or later, the engine will sieze.
1
-
@robertnicholson7733
"Just because it never flew does not mean it was not flight ready"
For the purposes of this debate it does. As I said, I still cannot find any reliable reference that says any Napier Sabre variant produced more than 3,200 hp. And using the same reasoning, I can find no reference showing that the E.122 - supposedly good for 3,500 - ever proceeded beyond the drawing board. That tell me that a 4,000 hp Sabre is a myth.
"ADI (methanol/water injection) was part of the Aero engine main stream, so I see no reason to single the Sabre out"
This is wishful thinking Robert. I'm sorry but I can't think of a nicer way to say it but just because the Germans used MW50, that doesn't mean the British were using it, much less the Sabre.
"In 1982 the BMW M12/13 F1 engine which was a turbocharged 1500cc 4 cylinder was good for 1400hp (calculated but probably pretty accurate, nevertheless) in qualifying form, and about 1000-1200 in race form (the driver had a button to change forms)."
This is not remotely comparable. The BMW did not have sleeve valves, ran on highly specialised fuels like toluene and ran at 5 bar boost for one lap. And it ran at that power for one year - I think it was 1987. In any case, there is no comparable sleeve valve in the BMW. Besides - and this is a critical difference between aero engines and racing car engines - Aero engines are designed to run at 80% power or more for long periods so peak power isn't as critical as being able to run reliably for extended periods. A mate of mine tried this with powered hang gliders in the 1970s, using 250cc motorcycle engines and he broke a number of them doing it. Most engines are simply not designed for that kind of sustained power output. The demands on aero engines are completely different.
"Napier was known for doing extreme things like purposely driving a turbocharged Napier Deltic well beyond its design limits to essentially see what happened, as forecast, conrod failure at a slightly higher velocity than what the Napier engineers had calculated."
I have never seen anything to suggest that Napier did anything differently from other manufacturers in WWII. Their development of the Lion in the Schneider Cup series was probably their high water mark in their quest for extreme power (in per litre or per cylinder terms). Beyond that, the Sabre was about meeting a foreseen requirement, rather than trying to see who could make the most power.
"Not my loop. Well it was the positive feedback loop you described, in reality it just doesn't work that way."
Yeah but your reality says that the tighter the sleeve fits the better it works because of heat transfer into the block. When does it become too tight? When does the engine seize, Robert? They were already a pretty tight fit at operating temperature.
"He considered it a non issue."
So? He was talking in the 1920s.
"Finally, lubrication (tribology - a part of fluid dynamics), what you must understand is that this area is not subject to common sense or normal projection. Fluid dynamics is highly (extremely!!) non-linear, can be chaotic and defies complete analysis, we have merely touched the surface."
We don't need detail on this. Surely there is a point of no return: that point where there is simply insufficient lubricant between the two surfaces to prevent the engine from seizing. Calum Douglas explains this in one of his videos. You are talking as though seizure wouldn't happen. Where do you draw the line?
"In the Sabre, seizure was almost always a function of distorted sleeves, by the end of the war this was solved, and the engine was considered very reliable."
Douglas disagrees. I don't think it was ever that simple. Neither does he.
There are all manner of cult-status engines out there which capture the public imagination and inspire people to create rose-tinted scenarios. The Porsche 917/30, the BMW M12/13 and the Napier Sabre are obvious ones. But when you go beyond the hyperbole and read the comments of - in this case, pilots - the reality sinks in.
"However, this hasty rushing into action had not been without its disadvantages. The Sabre engine found a diet of 130 grade fuel uncongenial. There were some serious accidents. Snags arose over the induction system (the Sabre was a sleeve-valve engine), over the lubricating system - the oil pressure sometimes suddenly dropped to zero - carbon dioxide suddenly found its way into the cockpit, etc..
The worst was the accumulation of petrol and oil fumes in the carburettor intake, which led, we were told if ever the engine backfired, to the plane bursting into flames, and sometimes exploding in the air in a matter of seconds." - Pierre Clostermann, "The Big Show"
That was from an operational pilot who flew the Tempest.
There were other problems Clostermann talks about in other parts of the book: oil consumption, difficulty starting, carbon monoxide in the cockpit (he incorrectly refers to carbon dioxide)... There was also matters relating to the Coffmann starter system and its use with both a H form engine and sleeve valves. The oil of that period had a tendency to congeal and starting the engine presented wear and tear problems at the tops of each bank. Secondly, the sudden shock of an explosive system like the Coffmann, could potentially damage the valve gear operation (Douglas).
So clearly, power isn't everything. This begs the question (two, in fact) - if the Sabre was that difficult to operate in service, what was the point of trying to get more power out of it? There were already enough deficiencies in its operational readiness as it was. And why, if the Sabre had so much potential, was it replaced with the Bristol Centaurus?
1
-
@robertnicholson7733 I have taken the time to read your increasingly lengthy posts and I'm frankly finding your information less and less relevant to the case. So I will post again what I have been saying since the start and which I have yet to see any solid evidence on:
1) I can find no evidence that a production Napier Sabre engine ever exceeded 3,200 hp (which is a lot of power, in case you're getting jaded).
2) The proposed 3,500 hp E.122, as far as I can make out, never got beyond the drawing board.
3) I can find no evidence that the Sabre VII ever ran, much less ran reliably to 4,000 hp with 3,750 hp for extended periods.
4) BMEP is only one measure of engine efficiency (Volumetric Efficiency is another). Yes, that was the metric used which most influenced the Sabre design but it's not a substitute for a flying example. This is an example of "never mind the quality, feel the width".
This is from reading the likes of Bill Gunston and Calum Douglas. If you haven't read either then I strongly suggest you do, particularly Douglas. His book "The Secret Horsepower Race" is brilliant and is about as in-depth as it gets.
"In any case, it was you who brought up the oil film issue."
You are talking as though there doesn't need to be any oil and heat transfer will solve everything. When does thing become non-viable, Robert? When does the engine seize?
"This begs the question, why would RR persist with the Eagle 22?"
I neither know nor care. But if you read Douglas's book, you will soon see exactly why the more radical projects didn't go ahead and Britain concentrated on building things that worked and would present no problems in the foreseeable future.
"The reality I live in but i don't own it, it is pure thermodynamics, combined with tribology, materials science (metallurgy is just a subset), mechanical engineering, and production methodology."
When is there insufficient lubrication, Robert? When does the heat transfer reach its limit and the engine seizes?
"Think or prove?"
I could present a welter of data and you would still brush it off.
"Do you, or he, have official data showing persistent sleeve problems throughout the production run of the Sabre?"
This from someone who has yet to provide anything beyond a blog. I'm sorry Robert but you're not in any position to make demands. I have already told you that the problems I have believing the claims you and others are making are due to a singular lack of evidence. Read Douglas's book. He's a mechanical engineer who worked with the Toyota F1 team in the noughties. His credentials are very good and his research is as thorough as I have ever seen on the subject.
"I would be interested to hear the opinions of the pilots who flew aircraft with early marks of the Merlin, at least before it became pretty much sedition to complain about the Merlin."
I wouldn't. That's just whataboutism, Robert. Who cares about that? The point was that Clostermann explains the engine management quirks of the Sabre.
"Most of this has been discussed in my previous posts."
No it hasn't, Robert. You simply cannot fob off the words of an operational fighter pilot just like that. If you have ever done any flying (I have) you know that flying is all about procedures. It is totally different from motorsport in almost every aspect. Pilots are completely different from racing drivers. The start procedure for the Sabre was very precise. The throttle setting had to be exact and timing was critical. Flying the aircraft focused on settings, optimum speeds for efficiency (engine and aerodynamic), stall speeds, VNE, etc.. As for dismissing advice as "rumours", if a pilot was warned about a particular aspect of an engine, he had no choice but to take it seriously. His life depended on it. That's how it goes in flying, especially combat flying.
"The Tempest II and Tempest V were developed in parallel, the Centaurus didn't replace the Sabre, they just stopped making the Tempest Vs and honoured their contracts with Bristol. There were 800 Tempest Vs manufactured and 450 Tempest IIs. But wait! If the Centaurus replaced the Sabre, and the Sabre still had serious problems, why order the Sabre V powered Tempest VI? They built 140 of them after the war. I read somewhere that the Tempest VI was the last operational piston powered fighter used by the RAF."
Except that Hawker's future designs were all built around the Centaurus radial, right up to the Sea Fury, which remained in service through the 1950s.
"In one of your previous posts, you said you liked to think of yourself as an investigative journalist and that you wanted primary sources."
The hell I did. I made no such claim and it's not a matter of what I "like to think of myself as". My background is journalism and academia. That's it. To that end, all I care about is the best available version of the truth. To get that requires relevant references. And the whole point of this is that I can find nothing to support any of the points I laid out earlier.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 Here's your reply which I couldn't post on that other thread.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyromero13 No, that is wrong. The Nazis never nationalised the means of production. In fact, they sold everything off to wealthy industrialists, such as Gunther Quandt or the Flicks. There were plenty of industrialists backing the Nazis precisely because they were anti-socialist. In fact, if you bother to read about it, the Nazis came to power in a coalition with the conservatives, again, precisely because they were anti-socialist.
The Weimar Republic had nationalised a lot of things when the Depression hit in order to protect German jobs. When the Nazis came to power, they set about a privatisation program, under Hjalmar Schacht, that would not be equalled until the 1980s (Thatcherism, Reaganomics). This is how they raised the money needed to build the Autobahnen and rearm.
I refer you to the research work of Germa Bel and ’Nazi Billionaires’, by David de Jong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christiaan Baron I think in some ways it's worse than that. While this wouldn't result in the kinds of misery you refer to, there's no doubt in my mind this will substantially slow process into our understanding of the universe and, in turn, our own world. We don't need this. I understand the perspective of those who live in remote locations: my cousin lives in a remote part of South Australia but there are other ways to do this that have much lower impacts. At least you could say there were some positives in the expansion of rail through the western United States. But the claims that this will allow 3.5 billion people to suddenly access the internet are bogus to say the least. How many have access to devices which could use this? Very few. How many can afford it? Probably even fewer. How many need it more than they need immediate access to safe, clean drinking water? Probably none.
And from a more cynical point of view, how many need access to videos by anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, racists and other hate groups, and endless gaming options? Again, probably none.
If we could guarantee the quality of content and that the system would not be used to exploit, I'd have a more positive approach to this. But I have yet to see anything that can't be done more satisfactorily by other means.
Musk should be required to take these things down now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeiborowski9763 This is a non-sequitur. But since your analysis is most likely the way it will turn out, I’ll address it. The problem is that any of the advantages of nuclear subs have over diesel electric subs are basically almost an irrelevance in the Australian scenario. Let me start with the nuclear boats.
The Virginia class nuclear submarines are built to support a blue water strategy. They need to travel long distances and perform disruption operations against battle fleets and supply lines a long way off shore. This is what’s known as a hunter/killer mission. They are very good at it. Unfortunately, that is not what the Australian Navy needs.
The Collins class subs were built to a very tight and precise specification.
Rather than blue water, our navy is what the Americans call littoral. In simple terms, coastal. There are special reasons for this and it leads to some very specialised design. Our navy operates in the Western Pacific and Eastern Indian oceans. Our subs are designed for work at very close proximity to other nations territories and in shallow water. The reason for this is that 90% of what our people do is surveillance and occasional special forces insertion (they did this in East Timor in 1999). If the nation under surveillance were to find them or discover what was going on, at best it would create an international incident. This requires them to be extremely quiet. I mean quiet to a level that nuclear boats are not capable of because their pumps are required to run 100% of the time. There’s a reason they were called the silent service in the Royal Navy.
Added to that are some special design features that are specific to both the mission and our geography. A major concern in all this is salinity and the Collins was designed and treated with that in mind. They are also designed to sit on the bottom in relatively shallow water where an entire fleet can go overhead and not even know they were there. This has happened more than once in US war games against Australian forces. The most notable example was that of HMAS Waller in 2001, when she scored a theoretical kill on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and a troop ship. She was so quiet that observers started to become concerned when she wasn’t heard from for something like 24 hours and nobody knew where she was. The same boat also got into the baffles of an American Los Angeles class sub as it was leaving Pearl Harbor not long afterwards.
The Attack class subs were a major step up. They were bigger and more capable and had brand new systems that would have put them a couple of generations ahead of even the Collins. They were to employ a new and highly secret type of propulsion system that may or may not have included AIP.
Given that very few people in the US defence hierarchy would have suspected that anyone was likely to deviate from our long term strategy, the choice of the French boat was not a surprise. It was substantially better than either the German or Japanese offerings: the German sub being noisy and the Japanese boat was too cramped inside for Australians, too short-ranged and was not going to be built here. For Japan it is ideal.
Linking up with France as a strategic partner would have leveraged massively in our favour. They are the third nation in the Pacific and remain very powerful and professional. Instead, we decided to throw in our lot with the Americans against China. This was the result of a coup in the Australian public service that saw loyalists and anti-China hawks appointed to the military and security establishment. The result was that we Scott Morrison betrayed the French. We took some of their secret material and didn’t go ahead with the contract. We didn’t even change to the original French nuclear boat, which we could have done.
The Virginia class is an excellent boat but it is not fit for purpose. It’s like driving a Cadillac limousine on the beach where you need a beach buggy instead. What’s more, they will never be independent of the US Navy and instead of spending time doing what we have done so we’ll with the Collins, we will be shackled to US strategic interests in the South China Sea.
It’s probably the worst deal in Australia’s defence history and it made us look monumentally stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@videowilliams
"I could give an engineering talk on how the Collins class has reached the reasonable limits for diesel-electric subs after a helluva lot of work and billion$ of extra dollars spent, leaving our only option as the nuclear one for their replacement."
Nuclear is not the only option. In fact, it's not an option at all and never has been. None of the technical information is of much use if the sub is not fit for purpose. By fit for purpose I mean, does it do what the RAN needs it to do to be the most effective defence system for Australia? The answer is an emphatic "no".
And by the way, the "billion$ of extra dollars spent" would be pocket change compared to what the Morrison clown show committed us to. $368 Bn? Have you even stopped to think of what that figure represents? We are a $1.8 Tn dollar economy. That's more than a sixth.
"And could add that the French Barracuda-turned-diesel-electric was a very expensive failure before leaving the drawing board, but you don't wanna hear it, so fine."
Why was it a "failure"? You want to throw emotive words around like that then you need to back it up with evidence.
In fact, t wasn't. It was on budget but only 8 months behind schedule when it was cancelled for political reasons. The information can be found under FOI. When you cancel a project like that you do it for something other than political reasons. Look at the committee of clowns who did it. Yeah, sure, there were problems with the Attack class. Why wouldn't there be? Who's ever heard of a defence project that was delivered on time and on budget?
"History is moving on without you, like it or not."
I mean, you can be a b!tch about this all you like. It won't change the fact that these submarines do nothing but turn us into a branch office of the United States Navy. Do you know what these things are for or not? The Australian scenario is very specific and entirely different from what the Virginia class was designed for.
In historical terms, this was the stupidest defence decision ever made by an Australian government. It actually makes us less safe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardmontana5864
"They never needed to build the Mustang as the Thunderbolt could do it all."
Total rubbish. The P-47 lacked the internal fuel capacity to do it. Towards the end of 1943, following the second Schweinfurt raid, Hap Arnold gave his assistant Lt Gen, Barney Giles six months to fix the problem of escort range. He was unaware of the range potential of the P-51 but everyone was aware that there simply wasn't the time for a second bite for the P-47. On Mission 250, the vast bulk of P-47s, using 108 gallon centreline tanks, could not get past the Dutch border. A small number - maybe 20% of them - had been re-plumbed in the field to carry two 108 gallon tanks under the wings but even that would not get them past Magdeburg.
"Adolf Galland's J.G. 26 on page 214 he states "with the P-47D the allies have an airplane capable of driving the Luftwaffe from the skies"."
And yet he, like so many from the Luftwaffe, talks mostly about the P-51.
In any case, it makes no difference. The P-51 scored 1.6 times as many air kills in half the number of missions as the P-47, as well as 30% more ground kills.
1
-
1
-
@SliceofLife7777
"While the Mustang was the first fighter with the range for escorting our strategic raids, it wasn't long before Republic introduced the P47N & P47M models with better r2800s, paddle bladed propellers, and plumbing for additional drop tanks."
Irrelevant. The P-47M/N was never a factor in Europe and the P-47 was being replaced by the P-51 anyway.
"It could approximately equal the P51's range, and at 30 000 ft, it could out run and out rate-turn anything but the ME 262."
Fantasy. Greg has conned you.
"Engine power and prop output at that altitude, makes a difference."
Anecdotes please. Real ones.
"Any enemy plane that tried to dive out of combat was at a disadvantage against the Thunderbolt."
The Mustang had a higher VNE than the P-47.
"The P47 was an energy fighter, but could not climb with the P51."
Only the nebulous -M and -N models.
"Agreed, P47 was an underrated asset by some historians."
Because historians rely on the best available version of the truth, not 'what if' or 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' or selective fact farming'.
The P-51 was substantially better than the P-47 and everyone knew it. It may be underrated on the internet but it doesn't change the historical fact that it was the better aircraft and made strategic bombing a reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lqr824 Let me give you some basic facts and then we’ll see who is ‘utterly delusional’ and who has done the research.
The P-47 made its combat debut in April, 1943. By the end of that year, eight Fighter Groups of P-47s had shot down 414 German aircraft (Wagner). Considering that the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year (US SBS), less than 2% is a fairly small contribution. The British alone accounted for 3,300. The first fighter group of P-38s arrived in December and the second arrived on the last day of the year. The first P-51 fighter group also arrived in December.
In its first major test, Operation ARGUMENT, AKA: Big Week’, in February, two fighter groups of P-51s shot down 64.5 German fighters. Eight groups of P-47s got 78. So the P-51 was already out scoring the P-47 at a rate of about five to one. This was almost certainly helped by its long range, which allowed it a lot more opportunities for combat. The last day the P-47 outscored the P-51 was 18 March, 1944. In April, eight groups of P-47s shot down 82 German fighters. Four groups of P-51s shot down 329. There’s your eight to one right there. From May to July, the P-47 was handed over to the Ninth Air Force, all barring 56th FG. Most of this stuff comes from the extensive research of Ray Wagner in his book, ‘American Combat Planes’ but some of it comes from, ‘The P-51B: North American’s Bastard Step Child that Saved the Eighth Air Force’, by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford. Some comes from the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
1
-
@lqr824 The idea that the P-47 ‘took on Germany’s toughest and beat them’ has little going for it, other than a surfeit of chest beating machismo.
By the time the P-47 made its combat debut, the Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self. Pilot quality, in terms of training and experience, along with relative aircraft quality, probably peaked in May or June, 1941 (though the fearsome FW-190 would not go into service until August). At that point, they had recovered their losses from the Battle of Britain, as well as those of Poland, France and the Low Countries.
By early-mid 1943, the average new German pilot had a total of 110-120 hours, including 10-15 hours on type (Martin Middlebrook). That was what P-47 fanbois call ‘the cream of the Luftwaffe’. LOL!! The average new American pilot had 600+ and easily 100 hours on type. What ‘broke the back of the Luftwaffe’ was what Williamson Murray called an overcommitment on too many fronts. While few would regard the Red Air Force as being of a comparable standard, it remains true that, to a very large degree, the Luftwaffe was bled white on the eastern front. Nobody wants to believe it but it’s true and it’s the verdict of historians like Murray.
1
-
@lqr824 The units who switched to the P-51 also did better in ground attack than they did in the P-47. Would you like some specific figures? I can get them quite easily since I have contacts who have researched this extensively. Describing the P-51 as a ‘death trap’ is simply wrong. There were many things that could kill a pilot in ground attack missions, ranging from Flak, to the presence of enemy fighters, collisions or CFIT, which was a lot more common than people realise. All of those will kill you, irrespective of what you fly.
There’s not much point worrying that your engine might conk out in five or ten minutes because of a chance stray bullet in the radiator if you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds.
The P-47 shot down 3,082 enemy aircraft in the ETO in WWII for the loss of 3,078 to all causes. There were 1,043 combat losses, including 200 lost in ground attack. So clearly, two thirds were non-combat related.
1
-
@lqr824
"Utterly delusional, no, absolutely not, step away from the drugs when you get on the internet to avoid embarrassing yourself."
Hmm... another one of Greg Gordon's acolytes...
Anyone with that level of over confidence clearly doesn't know and is motivated by something other than a quest for historical accuracy. But I'll humour you, even though I know I'm wasting my time. So let's see who's done the research and who hasn't.
By the end of 1943 the P-47 had shot down 414 German aircraft, since its combat debut in April. Since the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year (US SBS), less than 2% was a valuable contribution but not war-winning in any respect. The British alone had shot down 3,300 that year.
The first P-38 fighter group arrived in November and the second on the last day of the year. The first P-51 group arrived in December.
In its first test - Operation ARGUMENT, AKA: 'Big Week - in February, 1944, two fighter groups of P-51s shot down 64.5 German aircraft. Eight groups of P-47s shot down 78 German aircraft. The P-51 was already outscoring the P-47 by a factor of five. This was almost certainly because its greater range conferred greater opportunity for combat. The last day the P-47 outscored the P-51 was March 18. In April, eight groups of P-47s shot down 82 German fighters. Meanwhile, four groups of P-51s shot down 329 German fighters for the same period. On a fighter-for-fighter basis, that's almost exactly eight to one. From May the July, the P-47s were handed over to the Ninth Air Force for reassignment, all except 56th. All these figures are from Ray Wagner's book 'American Combat Planes'. You can also find it in 'The P-51B: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force', by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford.
"The P-51 certainly did have a higher kill ratio, due to 1) P-47 facing the best pilots in the most numerous and best-made German fighters and wiping most of them out, leaving easy pickings for the P-51, and 2) moving down to do ground attack for the last year of the war"
The Luftwaffe peaked in about May/June 1941, in terms of training and experience. It had recovered its losses from the Battle of Britain and the fights for Poland, the Low Countries and France. By early-mid 1943, it was a shadow of its former self. The average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours total time and about 10-15 hours on type. The average new American pilot had 600+ hours and at least 100 on type. Martin Middlebrook talks about this in his book 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission'.
The Germans had figured out that the Achilles Heel of the American fighter in 1943 was its short range. The P-47 had only 256 US gallons of internal fuel. With a 108 gallon tank under the fuselage. That was enough to get it to the Dutch border. So the Germans simply waited until the fighter escort went home before attacking. In the Schweinfurt mission, the Germans actually deployed night fighters, which gives some idea of how desperate they were.
So much for the P-47 taking on the best the Luftwaffe had and beating them before the P-51 arrived.
As Williamson Murray said, the Luftwaffe was suffering from massive over commitment on too many fronts. And while few would regard the Red airforce in the same light as the Western allies, they still managed to bleed the Germans white.
"which the P-51 was a death trap for, and thus not really shooting at enemy aircraft much at all."
This is not true. I can provide plenty of statistical evidence because I am in contact with people who have researched this meticulously. Would you like me to do that? Nah, didn't think so. Most groups that transitioned to the P-51 actually did better than with the P-47. My guess is because it was much smaller.
It was certainly not a 'death trap'. Statistics don't care about hyperbole. In fact, if you bother to read about it, you'll find it was very highly regarded. Airfield attack, in particular, was extremely dangerous for any pilot, regardless of what he flew. There were three main dangers: Flak, of which there was always plenty in the last year of the war, enemy fighters in the area and collisions, either with other aircraft of CFIT. The old trope about the single bullet in the radiator is hooey. There's not much point in worrying about your engine conking out in five or ten minutes from a damaged cooling system when you might be blown to bits by a 37mm in the next three seconds. Ask any pilot.
The P-47 ended the European war with 3,082 kills against 3,078 lost to all causes. That wasn't as bad as it sounds because only a third - 1,043 - were actual combat losses. That includes 200 lost performing ground attack.
But if any single aircraft 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe', it was undoubtedly the P-51 and the figures I provided are not my only reason for believing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MartinLovasz-r7r I didn’t forget them. I didn’t include them because they are something of a grey area. And your maths aren’t up to much either. Where did you get 69% from? 47 + 31 = 78 where I come from, leaving a remaining 22% made up of hybrids*. And those are split between PHEVs and standard hybrids. Since a PHEV can be driven on battery alone, it almost falls between the cracks, which is why they’ve had to invent a new term - BEVs - to cover those vehicles solely battery-powered and to differentiate between the two.
Those figures are from the World EV Sales Report.
I’ve also been tracking global oil consumption. The only forecasts that were up were when governments were increasing their reserves. Otherwise, everything is down. In 2023 the world consumption of oil plateaued, leading a lot of people to believe that we had reached peak oil. The figures I’m seeing now appear to confirm this and suggest that it fell in 2024. But the total figures for global oil consumption in 2024 have not been released yet as far as I know.
Furthermore, I don’t get my information from one YouTuber. When I watch a YouTube video I check the sources. You know, don’t you, that The Times was forced to issue a retraction of their claims that nobody wanted EVs? That hasn’t stopped others making the claim. There has certainly been a lot of information put about by the likes of VW, saying that their sales are down. What they don’t tell you - and what usually doesn’t get reported - is that a lot of their market share, especially in BEVs - has fallen because of competition from China. Just because VW’s sales are down - in a market that has tanked a bit anyway - you should not infer that everyone else was in the same position or that EVs were not wanted. VW’s BEVs are not competitive. The are too expensive and not as good as lot of the offerings from China.
*Got it. You added the ICE number to the remaining 22%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MartinLovasz-r7r
"I just knew you would forget about hybrids... It's funny that they put hybrids under EV numbers, even if they have ICE engines. So if we use your numbers, 69% of sold cars have ICE engines. Na, EVs will have a very tough year in 2025."
YouTube deleted my last attempt at this so I'll try again.
I didn't forget hybrids. I just didn't include them because they're a grey area. I also think they will be a short term thing, even though I own one myself. We don't buy hybrids for their internal combustion engines. I bought mine because it was cheap to run. And what of PHEVs? They can actually just run on a battery without using the ICE engine at all.
"Also, a big number of so-called EV sales were actually not sales but preregistered and can be found on trading sites."
I'm going from world EV sales in 2024, month by month. That's sales, not registrations.
"In short, EV sales numbers are a dirty business. Check out Barry Cramton's channel and see how it's just lies."
I never rely on just one site. Any time I see figures bandied about I check their sources. That's how I found out about sales figures. Secondly, there has been a lot of manipulation of figures by vested interests. Just because VW BEVs didn't sell well last year, that doesn't mean EV sales are down for all manufacturers globally. The Times actually had to issue a correction to an article they ran claiming EV sales had tanked. In fact those sales were rising and even a House of Lords inquiry found a concerted campaign of anti-EV misinformation.
So yeah, they are a dirty business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This started off well with your very sensible decision to use the -D models of both aircraft as the standard. Where you went wrong was to deviate from that by including the -N model of the Thunderbolt.
The first problem was when you started talking about range. You went through the various range figures for both types and should have left it at that. But then you added the ferry range of the P-47 and not the P-51. In neither case would this be relevant because ferry tanks were unsuitable for combat.
The second mistake you made was perpetuating the myth of the 'liquid-cooled death trap' that has been put about by so many other videos. This argument is basically a non-starter. There were many very successful liquid cooled aircraft that were used in roles that - on the basis of this claim - should really have been flown by air-cooled types. The Hawker Typhoon was probably the best ground attack fighter of the war, if the P-47 wasn't, yet it used a liquid-cooled Napier Sabre. The Il-2 Sturmovik could easily have been built with an air-cooled engine but it wasn't. The Ju-87 Stuka wasn't either. While it's true that there are stories of radial-engined fighters returning to base with a cylinder or two shot away, these were incredibly rare events that have taken hold and been advanced to the status of 'normal'. Most single-engine aircraft - liquid-cooled or not - suffering that level of damage were doomed. 'It only takes one hit through the radiator' is another argument we hear a lot, yet the most vulnerable parts of the aircraft - and the parts the pilots were taught to shoot at - were the fuel tanks.
The biggest risk of ground attack was misjudging proximity to the ground.
I think you also overstated the ditching and belly landing aspects. Both aircraft were survivable, more so than many others, like the Typhoon and Tempest, which definitely did have a tendency to overturn.
'Obviously more guns firing simultaneously increased the possibility of a direct hit'.
The old 'more is better' argument. That's almost endless. Put enough of anything on an airframe and eventually you'll have something that will barely get over the airfield fence. But if you read the pilot's memoirs, like those of Richard E. Turner (12 victories), you will find that 6X .50 cal. machine guns, fired at reasonably close range, would shred any German fighter. Anyone shooting at longer range and hoping that more bullets would hit was probably just wasting ammunition. So the point is that the difference really wasn't a difference. It might have mattered if the USAAF were trying to shoot down German bombers but that wasn't ever a factor.
Thunderbolts didn't go to Korea because there were already more advanced options for ground attack aircraft available. It wasn't a P-47 v P-51 argument. It isn't even relevant to the debate which was 'the best fighter 'in Europe'.
Your conclusion is mostly accurate. Where you're wrong is the comment that 'the Thunderbolt could go further with more'. This simply isn't true. Yes: there's no question the P-47 was a superb ground attack aircraft, with a heavier bomb load. It was also probably one mission where the extra two machine guns made a difference. But when it came to range and endurance, the P-51 was a clear winner. Anyone who doubts this needs to read about the missions the P-51 flew. Start with Mission 250, the first USAAF raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944. The only aircraft that could provide cover for the bombers over Berlin was the P-51 and that's precisely how the mission was planned (by people who understood a lot more about endurance than most of us).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bear4353 By the way, there are two things your post tell me about you. Firstly, you have no idea of what constitutes freedom and secondly, you have no idea how to use and maintain the democratic system. Politicians aren't intimidated by threats. They get them every day and sooner or later, one of them dies. I know and have known a lot of them in my job. I spoke to one of them last week, on the very day she had received threats from the very clowns you are cheering for. I asked her how she was feeling and she said, "Well, we're getting this and that done" and I said "No, how are you actually feeling?" She was a bit surprised and said something like, "Well, it isn't nice but I'm not going to give up." Politicians are a lot smarter and stronger than you give them credit for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryeguy7941 The government is not "freely pushing its citizens around." The government did what it had to do to keep Covid in check. The first estimates we got last year were that if we did nothing abut Covid, 140,000 Australians would likely have died. Instead 2,000 did. In proportion, if we had handled it the way the US did - you know, the land of the free and where everyone's got guns - the death toll would have been about 30,000.
Secondly, second amendment advocates - the ones who talk about taking up arms against the government - are pretty irrelevant. The vast majority of Australians agree with what the governments did. Sure, we're sick of lockdowns but they're over now and we're not going back into them. We're 90% vaccinated now so we have no more need of them.
Thirdly, Australia is not a gun culture and never has been. Never will be either. There are plenty of people in Australia who have guns but nobody marched on parliament with arms at the high port. We don't need people like that here and we don't need advice on how to run our country either.
We are not American. Your solutions are not our solutions.
I think you guys overrate your significance. You're a very loud minority with no relevance in a democracy. You think politicians are scared of you? They're not. Politicians get death threats every day, some of them are a lot more credible than you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eichler721
"If you know anything about explosions they travel at anywhere from 18,000ft/s to 26,000ft/s so it's 6-9 times faster and carries over 20x the energy easily."
No, that is the burn rate for an explosive like cordite or TNT. It is not the same thing. You're deliberately trying to mislead here, aren't you? Or do you just not actually know? There are plenty of exampes online of aerial views of shockwaves from bombs detonating. They are invatiably rings around the centre of the explosion. They don't travel at those speeds either. Shockwaves are dependent on both the source - in this case a bullet - and the medium through which it's travelling. The shockwave from the igniting cordite in the cartridge will not be a factor here. It's the impact of the bullet into the body that will do it. In fact, there will still be some residual shock waves as long as the bullet remains supersonic, which I understand, is about 400-500 metres for a 5.56mm round. At its maximum velocity, it's traveling close to 3,000 ft/sec and it creates a significant bow and second shock which will be transmitted into the body it hits. Internal organs with a high liquid content and minimal structure, sich as the liver, the kidneys and the bowel are especially susceptible to these shocks. But it would need to be a magic bullet to produce a shockwave travelling at six to nine times faster then the bullet velocity. There are lots of demonstrations online of hydrostatic shock, mainly people firing bullets through plastic bottles filled with water. Not as precise in terms of tracking the bullet as ballistic gel but it shows how devastating the shoockwave is.
Again, I refer you to Nicholas Maiden's thesis.
"So saying this is a explosion is directly misleading people to spread fear and lies which CNN does. It's not how anything gets solved as any gun owner knows this is a lie and attacking them and their rights."
The gun lobby is in no position to lecture people about lying. You do it automatically. You even did it in this post and I have corrected you. One clickbaity headline and you're up in high dudgeon about gun rights.
Furthermore, nobody has mentioned rights. If they did the question would have to be asked about the rights of those children and their teachers not to be shot to death with military grade weaponry. That's not an argument you can win.
1
-
1
-
@eichler721
”so you have zero proof of anything you just claim that the burn rate is it despite not knowing explosives and using the wrong names for what happens thus showing your lack of knowledge.”
Let me remind you of a couple of things. First of all, you re the one making the claim, not me, so the onus of proof is on you. You waved an authoritative document at me but refrained from posting it so I’m calling you out on that. Secondly, let me remind you of a couple of things you said:
”If you know anything about explosions they travel at anywhere from 18,000ft/s to 26,000ft/s so it’s 6-9 times faster and Carrie’s over 20x the energy easily.”
”As far as the overpressure it doesn’t travel as fast as the explosion but it’s still faster then a bullet and you can’t see it with the eye you see it through camera when the frames are slowed down so again you don’t know what your talking about physics doesn’t work that way.”
Now, apart from the spelling and grammar problems, not knowing the difference between “then” and “than”, “your” and “you’re”, refusal to use punctuation, all of which makes your posts much more difficult to understand, you have contradicted yourself. Burn rate and explosion are the same in this case, since we are not using a container like a bomb case. If you take the time to look up the table of explosive detonation velocities on Wikipedia, you will find that this is the speed at which the shock wave travels through the explosive material (you won’t understand it though because it’s in metric). That’s it. Once it has burnt, it’s no longer relevant. The shockwave propagation is nowhere near as fast as it is in the material. And for all intents and purposes, “explode” and “burn” are the same thing (how do you think a solid rocket works?). They have no effect on what happens when a bullet hits a body because the gasses, once they leave the barrel, dissipate very quickly. So that shockwave that travels through the explosive material is not a factor.
The speed of the bullet is what matters. The bullet never travels at those kinds of speeds. TNT, for example, burns at 6,900 m/s. A .223 rifle bullet travels at up to 1,100 m/s. The shockwave from a bullet at that speed travels slower than the bullet. That’s why there is a shock cone ahead of the bullet in any Schliere photograph. And before you say it, there are normal shocks and there are oblique shocks. The bullet travels at a speed faster than the sound waves can get out of the way. That’s what makes the bang.
Liquids are better transmitters of sound waves than air and when a supersonic projectile hits a body shockwaves are generated in the same way as they would be when the bullet passes through air but the energy is better preserved because water - in this case - is 64 times as viscous and 815 times as dense. So an organ which is bung full of liquid and has no solid structure to prevent deformation will likely explode when hit by something travelling at that speed. When it’s something subsonic, there is usually sufficient deformation but a supersonic projectile is much more devastating. Capillaries will rupture and internal haemorrhaging occurs, which is virtually unstoppable.
I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you. You claim to know all about this but you clearly don’t know basic physics.
Come back with some links and I’ll read them. But bear in mind that the authoritative ones will probably expose you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wendellknight2072
"Actually Chief this is total BS on your part the AR15 is lot better defensive choice than a pistol and with the right defensive ammo over penetration is not longer an issue my last statement holds true whether a person is using a pistol, shotgun or rifle"
Actually Wendell, this is not and never was about what makes "the best weapon for personal defense". That's for gun wankers. Even so, you can't keep an AR under your pillow, can you? This is about the problems the AR-15 causes in the community. It represents a significant increase in firepower at active shooter events and is more difficult for the police to counter than a pistol or, indeed, most other weapons in common use.
"Actually the banning of the AR15 has everything to do with the 2nd amendment"
Actually Wendell, no it doesn't. The government can ban the AR-15 under the "Dangerous and unusual weapons" law which was upheld in the "Heller v DC" Supreme Court case in 2008.
So it has nothing to do with the second amendment and that amendment was never intended to give gun fetishists more rights than other people. You might recall this tidbit from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"."
That doesn't include being shot to death with military grade weaponry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bubbly_pen
"Because they were all grouped together shoulder to shoulder like a massive flock of sheep."
Sheep, eh? Not a pejorative term at all...
"You could of fried several rounds of 00 buck from a shotgun and still hit lots of people. "
Are you sure you're a responsible gun owner? You seem to be dreaming up scenarios where lots of people get shot and killed.
"The point of videos like this is to make people afraid of the gun."
Anyone with a brain would be afraid of this gun. Otherwise where is the deterrent value?
"obviously a round from a 233, 5.56, or 7.62x39 is going to do more damage than the typical pistol round because its traveling at a much higher velocity."
Yes. That was the whole point.
"They just want to ban guns that look that because they look scarry and they know nothing about them."
Well, as I said, anyone with a brain would be afraid of this gun or there would be no deterrent value. You don't need to know anything about guns to know that.
"Do you think a Ruger mini 14 with 30 rounds is any different? It certainly doesn't look as scarry."
Yawn. No excuse for doing nothing about guns. This is just whataboutism. Let me know when people start using them for massacres and then we'll talk about the Mini 14.
"Do you know what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun."
Jesus. Are you completely serious?
That's worse than 'thoughts and prayers'. If recent history has shown us anything it's that this is an absolute crock of sh!t. Statistics show that this just doesn't happen. Do you want to see those statistics? I'm happy to show you.
In the case of Stephen Paddock, he was stopped by his own gun which makes him simultaneously both the bad guy with the gun and the good guy with a gun. Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat?
"And instead of focusing on guns we need to focus on the mental health crisis that plaques this country."
Let me know when the gun lobby starts using the bribery money they pay people like Ted Cruz, John Cornyn and Steve Scalise to support mental health causes. Then I'll believe you're serious. Mental health in the United States is no worse than any other peer nation. We just don't allow crazies access to weapons like the AR-15.
"That would prevent most of these shootings from happing"
Nonsense. You can't prove that. Besides, the trouble with crazy people is that they don't know they're crazy.
"Half of the population today is crazy and has some type of mental illness anymore but nobody wants focus on that."
Because it's a lie.
"And he probably could of shot close to as many people if he used pistols."
Well once again, I'm calling your point of view into question here. The fact is - and it's easy to establish - that massacres committed with AR-15s generally have a higher body count than those committed with pistols. You admitted it yourself: the round is more lethal and that was the point of this video. Congratulations on checkmating yourself in one move.
And you might have missed it but Paddock didn't use a pistol, except to shoot himself. So your argument is completely pointless.
"1 in each hand would of given him the same number of rounds as an AR 15 mag."
Did you practice this in front of a mirror or something?
"Also some pistols can be modified to be automatic."
Irrelevant.
"And pistols are quieter so they might not of even realized that a gun was being fired."
Most of the people at Las Vegas thought it was fireworks.
"Also there have been mass shootings carried out with just pistols."
Jesus Christ. Did you think of this all by your self? Don't you think I know this? But the fact is that ALL of the deadliest massacres of the last 10 years have involved the AR-15. The AR-15 is also overrepresented in the murder of law enforcement officers, I suspect, because it can penetrate most ballistic vests.
In short, you're going to have to come up with a MUCH better argument than anything I've seen here if you're going to make any kind of case for the AR-15. Right now it's no better than 'the dog ate my homework'. Meanwhile, people are going to continue to be murdered on a regular basis because of gun lobby truculence, propaganda and outright lies and corruption. And this will be your fault. If you had any morality at all, you'd stop playing the victim and get on board with something that demonstrably saves lives (I'll give you a hint: it's not more guns). The American experiment to outsource personal security to a bunch of slogan chanting, low intellect, low self-esteem, gun-totin' johnnies has been arguable the greatest social policy failure in history. And the proof of that is the trail of blood and bodies that leads straight to your door.
The gun lobby is a social cancer which needs to be excised. The sooner, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DylanIE_
" The wage you receive is based on the value you provide."
What's the most important cog in a clock? I can't see how any manager can provide about 900 times more value than a basic line worker on minimum wage. Don't worry about those who are no good. You can get rid of those.
"Most people with no formal education can complete her job, are they paying a premium for her just because she's a single mother?"
Who said anything about her being paid extra for being a single mother? What about everyone else? You think she's the only one?
"The way to address the gap is to raise the minimum wage by state, but that brings other problems with it."
I agree but it's nothing we can't solve if we want to.
" It's not the bank's fault that she is now trapped in a cycle of low status, regardless of how 'bad' this is."
No but doesn't it sound like exploitation to you? Because it does to me. Wouldn't you say they were capitalising on it?
"Perhaps this hypothetical person made the wrong decisions when they were younger, be it not caring enough about education or not having ambition."
Very few people can go "from the log cabin to the White House", to use a well-known phrase. In other words, not everyone has equal opportunity. Did she have the same opportunities as the bank boss? I reckon not. Does that warrant an almost 900 times difference in their pay? I don't think any job can justify that.
"Perhaps she shouldn't have had the child if she wasn't financially ready to do so."
Don't take this badly but that's the kind of answer I've learnt to expect from the church. It also doesn't answer the problems of all the others there on minimum wage, not necessarily through any fault of their own. How many of them have lost their old job through illness or injury and are unable to perform work that could give them a reasonable wage? How many have psychological or psychiatric problems which may not be their fault? See, it's not just about her. It's about every overworked or underpaid citizen of every wealthy country that can afford to pay more.
"Just because you are experiencing hardships, doesn't mean your employer should be responsible for you and have to pay you more money."
What about if that hardship is caused by low wages?
"Everyone hates these rich tycoons like Bezos and Gates, but if you hate them so much, why do you buy their products?'
I don't. Not unless I have no viable alternative. Same goes for China.
"On a side note, I do agree with the fact that such banks causing and then getting bailed out in 2008 is a travesty. Unfortunately what else are the government going to do? All the banks would've ended up collapsing, and everyone would've been worse off."
I agree but the banks are a lot more than just the bosses. And the bosses used the bail out money to pay themselves bonuses they didn't deserve. It should have been used to pay back some of the losses and keep some of the staff on. The bosses - like this guy - should have gone to jail. Have you ever watched "The Big Short"? The book is a cracking read too. Lewis knows the banking business inside out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zappina You have to look at how this started. After the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991, all the old Soviet states and client states in Eastern Europe had to sort out their alliances. When Bill Clinton was elected he asked George Kennan for advice. Kennan, who had dealt with the Soviet Union and been a diplomat for four decades told him, “Whatever you do, don’t isolate Russia.” Someone must have got into his ear because he set about doing just that. Shortly afterwards, countries that had been Warsaw Pact members applied for and got membership to NATO. Western equipment like the Swedish SAAB Gripen is very popular in some places. The NATO border was moving east. Soon Russia applied and was immediately rejected.
In 2008, at a NATO meeting in Bucharest, attended by Vladimir Putin, Georgia and Ukraine were granted provisional membership of NATO. Putin was incandescent. This would be like Canada joining the WarPac. In a word: unacceptable. Putin was having none of it. Shortly afterwards, Georgian President Mikhael Saakhashvili decided that being a provisional member of NATO meant he could start making territorial claims. Georgia laid on a minor invasion of South Ossetia and were soundly beaten by the Russian army. Saakhashvili appealed to then president George W. Bush, saying that Georgia was in danger of being wiped off the map and that he needed American nuclear weapons in Georgian soil. Bush thought about it for a few days and in what was the best decision of his political career, elected to stay out of it and Georgia continues to be not wiped off the map to this day.
That doesn’t stop the hysterical narrative from continuing in Eastern Europe. At the 2016 NATO conference in Warsaw, Latvian chiefs insisted that Russia was going to wipe them off the map. This comes from people who lead armies. They are also supposed to be on our side. It would be nice if they could keep a level head about it.
In 2014 there was a series of Euromaidan riots in Kiev (I don’t care about the spelling. I’m telling this story!), which resulted in hundreds of people being killed over a period of a few weeks. They wanted less cooperation with Russia and more with the EU. Then-president of the Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, who was moderately pro-Russian, was ousted in a parliamentary vote that was not held according to proper procedures and fled for his life to Russia. He was subsequently convicted in a kangaroo court and sentenced in absentia. This was, in effect, a coup d’état. The immediate result was that the two ethnically-Russian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Ukraine, though that does not mean they are now part of Russia. These are the parts known as “rebel held areas”.
At about the same time, Russia took over the Crimea.
At the heart of this rampaging nationalism. The only thing nationalism does is start wars. It never brings about a good result. But if you know anything about Eastern Europe, you will know that it is an absolute hotbed of nationalism. Any time you hear someone say, “We just want to live in peace on our land”, you know you’re dealing with nationalism. The plain fact is that these are disputed territories. They either belong to both or they belong to neither. That has to be sorted out. War hungry nationalists need to be singled out for who they are and isolated before the worst happens. It’s a bit hard with Putin because we know he’s a nationalist but Russia isn’t about to throw him out.
The circuit breaker on so much of this was Angela Merkel (“the Pomeranian Grenadier”), who had mostly positive dealings with Putin and managed to keep him on a leash. Since Germany and Russia are each the other’s largest trading partners, Germany will continue to play a major role. But whether or not the leadership talent exists to do it well is a bit of an unknown at this stage. Meanwhile, someone - preferably someone in the EU - has to do the same thing with Ukraine.
Footnote: for anyone who thinks that I’m saying people shouldn’t love their country, I’m not. As a very wise school friend of mine once said, the difference between a patriot and a nationalist is that a patriot loves their country and a nationalist hates everyone else’s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Floydpink68 I worked in television news for 35 years. I wasn’t actually talking about the ‘corporate entertainment machine’ you refer to - and you are not wrong about that - but the way reporters write and present stories. These used to be called tape pieces. The vast majority of them are simply putting stories together using the facts and information they have collected into a coherent story that could last from 90 seconds to several minutes. Sometimes there is a live element to the story, if it’s deemed necessary. If there is any opinion expressed, it will be here and it’s nearly always ‘what happens next?’
The people who give opinions, the ones who are the lightning rods for criticism, are the very small percentage of reporters known as ‘pundits’, a Sanskrit word meaning ‘learned person’. They are highly experienced reporters with extremely good connections. It’s their experience and connections that networks pay for. These are people like Anderson Cooper, Lawrence O’Donnell and Tucker Carlson. While they are generally thought to represent the views of the network management, this is often not the case at all. They are there because they are generally thought to be opinion leaders with connections and insight into matters in their area of speciality.
These formats have not changed appreciably in the last 40+ years.
What has changed is the 24/7 news cycle. That’s the ‘corporate entertainment machine’ you refer to and yes, on that, you are right. But even during Desert Storm, that was a factor, mostly because of cable TV. It was the making of CNN and it was possible because of satellite communications. Who remembers Peter Arnett or John Simpson? These were the pundits in 1991 and trust me, they came in for plenty of criticism. The format has not changed appreciably since. They have just added things like online copy and social media.
I wasn’t in the Persian Gulf. The biggest story I ever covered was the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. I had to be medivac-ed out of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, after contracting a combination of serious stomach and intestinal infections that, in normal circumstances, would have killed me in 36 hours. But with proper medical attention, there was no real danger. When I arrived home, I noticed two things: the first was that my supervisor, who was not part of the newsroom editorial staff, told me not to talk to anyone. I have no idea why but I was sick as a dog and didn’t care. I think he was trying in some way to protect me but again, I don’t know what from. The second was the incredible hostility I encountered for the way we had covered the story. I remember my brother-in-law, who has never darkened the door of a newsroom in his life, lecturing me on what he presumed to call ‘the facts’. Apparently he was in full possession of them and I was not. This incredible level of entitlement and presumption came pretty close to starting a fist fight when he told me how ‘the media lied’. Even in my state at that time - I could barely get out of bed most days - he’d have been reduced to a bloody pulp in a matter of seconds.
Whatever we did, we did not lie and I have little reason to believe anyone does today. Their reputations depend on it. Reputations drive ratings and no network can afford reputationional damage. Unlike 1991, reporters can much more easily be called out for any inaccuracy because of social media. More often than not though, they are simply railed against for not sharing the same opinion. Lies are very rare. The abuse and threats they cop online guarantee a short career for many of them. PTSD is common.
While I wasn’t in the Persian Gulf in 1991, I know many people who were. A good friend of mine still has an Iraqi helmet he picked up from the Basra road, where C-130 gunships strafed and completely destroyed whole Iraqi convoys. Those pictures are very famous and I’m sure you’ve seen them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jl.459
"No, fear is the problem, it makes people easy to control and easy to coerce into making irrational decisions."
What irrational decisions?
"Do YOU want people to be scared and reliant on the police and government for their own protection?"
I'm not scared. I walk around the streets at night unarmed and with no fear. I live in a dodgy neighbourhood and drug use is common. But I would never carry a gun. The American social experiment to outsource personal security to a bunch of blowhards with guns has been arguably the greatest social policy failure of the 21st century. The only thing that's happened is that murders have spiked and the liberalisation of gun laws has made it only easier for bad guys to get guns.
"The BEST course of action is to EDUCATE people countrywide about exactly how guns of all kinds work, and not just leave it to CNN and bad faith actors to conflate, misdirect and terrify."
Except that, a bit of sloppy reporting notwithstanding, CNN has nothing on the gun lobby version of events which is arguably the greatest propaganda hoax that's ever been perpetrated on an unsuspecting American public. The gun lobby lies as naturally as it breathes. Lies about history - look at the nonsense talked about Hitler and Stalin, etc.. lies about other countries. Drastically oversimplified versions of the drivers of criminal behaviour, all to sell more guns. Look at the nonsense talked about DGUs. But it's not exactly surprising that your idea of education is a little removed from reality. It is not the job of schools to perpetuate gun lobby propaganda or to sell guns.
"The vast majority of anti-gun citizens are able to shoot a gun themselves under supervision, and like a roller coaster, they realize that it ain't that scary after all."
You're talking to a former shooter and gun owner. And anyone who thinks guns are not scary is an idiot. Otherwise there would be little point in owning them, especially for self-defense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Evil_Pixl The last time handguns were used to create a trail of murder and mayhem like this was Virginia Tech in 2007. All the deadliest mass shootings in the last ten years have involved the AR-15. It’s true that other weapons were used but, say in the example of Sandy Hook, the shooter used his Glock to shoot himself but he killed everyone else with the AR-15. The AR-15 is also over represented in the murder of law enforcement officers.
As far as pistols are concerned, while it’s true that they have been used in some pretty horrendous crimes, they are easier to combat than the AR-15. They lack the accuracy and penetration of a .223 or 5.56mm round and while deadly, they certainly lack the outright killing power of an AR-15. There’s stuff the AR-15 can do that pistols just can’t.
You also have to look at the way these things are marketed. Pistols are primarily marketed (and used) for “self defense”. During the Remington lawsuit, the company revealed that it had been marketing its product to a relatively new range of shooters: the so-called “tactical” crowd. These people are not hunters and they are not buying for self defence. This is an image thing and it centres around people in camo carrying their AR-15 at the high port, just like soldiers do… This marketing strategy had enabled weapons manufacturers to sell millions more firearms.
When the patents on the AR-15 expired in the 1970s (I think) a lot of companies started producing them but in the early noughties, they were only selling relatively small numbers of them. When they hit on the idea of the tactical market, sales skyrocketed tenfold. Remington went from selling a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million AR-15 clones each year. They suddenly became very common and unlike the Mini 14, were quite versatile, especially with the aftermarket attachments that became available.
The problem is that the “tactical” market is populated by a very different crowd from hunters and home defence types. Their whole approach is not about defending their home or hunting varmints or for food. They are not a traditional market. Whatever their preferences, these are the guys who are the greatest promoters of things like open carry. They often have nil previous experience with guns and may even have them for bad reasons.
Anyhow, before anyone starts banning pistols, there are a lot of matters that need to be looked at. The first one is licensing and registration. Like motor vehicles, guns are lethal in the wrong hands. So the best way to deal with this is the have some control over who gets them, just like we do with cars and motorbikes. I don’t hear people saying things like “the guv’mint are coming for our cars”, despite there being no protection for car ownership such as it is with the second amendment. This comes before bans. Unfortunately, every time this comes up, the gun lobby does everything to prevent any reasonable laws from passing, despite the fact that 90% of Americans want stricter gun laws.
But as far as the AR-15 is concerned, it presents a massive scale up of firepower to a potential mass shooter. It is much more difficult for police and any armed bystander to counter and is easy to use because of its low recoil/high power ratio. A tyro can use one and cause terrible destruction, way out of proportion to pistols and it’s really hard to stop. For that reason, it should be banned. We’ll deal with the others as the need arises.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ME-xh7zp
"For this video, the key is the 200 gallon ferry tank did not work above FL180."
What Greg doesn't tell you is that the 200 gallon ferry tank was, as the name implies, not suitable for combat. For a start, it was semi conformal and couldn't be jettisoned.
Most of what Greg says is pointy headed theory. Greg does not read historical accounts and it's bloody obvious. If he did, he would quote examples, instead of relying on pilot's manuals and theory. As has been pointed out by others, ALL Greg's range figures are based on optimum altitude and throttle settings. But escort work was flown at less than optimum altitude and throttle settings. It wasn't just that they were flying a zig-zag course, they also had their throttles set low. Neither is made for optimum fuel economy.
In case you haven't heard, Greg has been challenged to a debate by James William 'Bill' Marshall, author of 'North American’s Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force'. Marshall - also known as 'drgondog' - was banned from posting on Greg's page for disagreeing with him and providing photographic evidence of something Greg claims did not exist.
The debate is due to held in April but it's my bet that Greg will wave off, citing a dose of the vapours or something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I saw this tonight and to be honest, it's not that good. Anyone who has read the book will know what the inaccuracies are but while I"m prepared to overlook a few things, some of it doesn't come off that well. Colin Firth is an acceptably good actor but he's nothing like Ewan Montagu. That's partly the casting director's fault and partly the scriptwriter. Montagu was a pretty highly-strung character and had a tendency to go off on occasions. Colin Firth is nothing like that, even in the more intense parts of the movie. Matthew McFadyen, by contrast, was pretty good. He was what I imagined Charles Cholmondeley to be like - spectral, focused and unafraid to go it alone. Jason Isaacs is usually pretty watchable (His role as Zhukov in The Death of Stalin" was unforgetable) as Admiral Godfrey but I wouldn't say that role challenged him much.
I thought Kelly McDonald (Mary in "Gosford Park) was badly miscast, probably as badly as Colin Firth was. Her role just didn't work for me. She just lacked any sparkle as Jean Leslie while Penelope WIlton was pretty good, though she never really gives the impression of being as iron fisted as Hester Leggett apparently was. A few side characters were entertaining. Mark Bonnar (from "Shetland") was quite funny as the drunken, short-sighted rally driver Jock Horsfall. Johnny Flynn was useful as Ian Fleming.
There were a few things about it that didn't sit well with me. This constant hagiography of Winston Churchill in British movies wore very thin very fast. Nothing wrong with Simon Russell-Beale, though he made little attempt to sound like the man. Just that Churchill had little to do with it. And by overegging the pudding, a more important point went begging. They didn't cover the involvement of Louis Mountbatten, which was critical to the ruse. He actually wrote one of the letters himself. A classic case of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
Also left out were a couple of opportunities for some very wry humour. Bentley Purchase (played by Paull Ritter in his final role) was a very funny man, especially for a coroner. That went missing, as did the incident where Horsfall drove straight over a roundabout at top speed on his way to Scotland, almost wrecking the operation. He apparently refused to wear glasses.
Overall, this was a bit disappointing. There were areas where it worked well but others where it got quite dull.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickmoreno6858
"Germany lost ww2 cause they didnt have oil, period."
Nothing in war is ever, ever so simple. There were lots of reasons why Germany lost and it started before the oil shortage began to bite. When the Germans failed at Moscow in 1941 their course was set. When they lost Stalingrad, it was confirmed. Kursk, 1943, was their last major offensive. Everything after that was a retreat to Berlin.
In short, Germany was on a short war strategy that required quick victories before the enemy could have a chance to recover. Trying to achieve this against the Soviet Union was overreach at best and stupid at worst. But even that isn't an adequate explanation. Nothing like it.
"If they would have had the oil and fuel reserves they could face won the war."
This is simply not true for the reasons I have already outlined.
"But people think that the 2 front war cost them it. No that had only a minute effect, it didnt help along with not Full Mobilizing for war tell mid to late 1942."
Okay, different matter. The "war on two fronts" thing is WWI, Moltke, etc.. Good advice but look again. In WWII, the Germans did not attempt the Eastern Front until after they had defeated France.
In that respect you are right. But they were gambling on the British not being able to mount an invasion before they believed they could defeat the Soviet Union.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eagerlawncare3700
"yup ... it restricts the government's ability to violate the citizens inalienable rights .. hence the word "inalienable ""
Yep? So you're agreeing with me that you don't know the constitution...?
Look buddy, the constitution gives you both rights and responsibilities pertaining to maintaining those rights. It gives you options and multiple courses of action that you, as a citizen, can take if you choose. What it doesn't give you is more rights than anyone else. That means you don't get to tell the government what to do at gun point. I doubt if any of them take you as seriously as you obviously think they do. But you do get the right to tell the government what to do via constitutional means. That's what it's for.
When was the last time you actually voted? When was the last time you wrote to your rep? When have you ever been to a party meeting and raised a point of policy you think needs to be changed? Probably never. The vast majority of the Jan 6 rioters hadn't even fucking voted. But instead of doing something legal as their first choice, they did something illegal. So their first move was also their last move.
What you do instead is put on your big boy pants and negotiate a peaceful transition. You don't take matters into your own hands because you think the system's fucked because your man lost an election. There is always going to be a winner and a loser. In a democracy, when you lose you suck it up and move on.
But you and your mate DJT think you can do it by illegal means because you're not happy with the result. Next thing you know, you've got thousands of people trashingt the Capitol, breaking windows, breaking into offices, shitting on the carpet and inflicting fatal injuries on a Capitol Police officer.
I hope all those rioters in jail right now and the morons who plotted to kidnap and kill Gretchen Whittmer rot in hell. It doesn't matter that she's a Democrat. It matters that those idiots tried to overturn the democratic system.
As a citizen of the United States you agree to abide by the rules, not just some rules. You also agree to maintain the system by behaving rationally and responsibly. You agree to use the tools the constitution provides you. You don't have a right to overthrow democratically-elected governments by violent or otherwise illegal means. Those are the rules.
If you don't like it, leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Chris. Loved the video.
Col. Mike Pietrucha has had a lot to say about this and it's very interesting. You might want to read what he says because he's quite critical of the USAF model of CAS in this day and age, with its reliance on medium altitude. This has been played like a fiddle by the "F-35 can do CAS" community, without really knowing what CAS is and constantly referring to contested environments, etc.. Pietrucha points out that the "11 goalies" strategy simply doesn't work and that CAS, while never performed in contested environments will always entail a level of risk. Pietrucha points out that in a contested environment, ground troops are unlikely to be anywhere near each other.
That you pointed out the A-10s use in Iraq was actually battlefield interdiction is something I've been saying for years but people are now redefining this as CAS, which it plainly is not. More recently, the USAF has been investigating the use of light turboprops, such as the Tucano, for pure CAS. They don't use cannon. When you look at the GAU-8, it's overmatched for CAS but under done for tanks. Personally, I think it was an anachronism from day 1. So Pietrucha proposes that the future is actually with aircraft like the Tucano, armed with PGMs, rocket pods and rifle calibre or heavy machine guns.
By the way, on the subject of a pure CAS aircraft, I really, really hope you do a video on the Hs-123. It was a most remarkable CAS aircraft and in the end the Luftwaffe just ran out of them, which resulted in Wolfram von Ricthofen asking if they could be put back into production. There were things it could apparently do better than the Stuka. I regard it as one of the most underrated aircraft of WWII, to the point that many people have never even heard of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dantheman7145 There's logic for you. Man, are you pathetic or what? A university research paper, which corrects for false positives and overwhelmingly proves that a figure of 2.5 million DGUs is impossible by using responsible and universally recognised methods is "liberal dribble" (I think the word you're looking for is "drivel", which applies very neatly to your nonsense)? You plagiarise and misquote studies you don't understand, look for irrelevance as some kind of trip wire (admit it, you didn't get past the first paragraph, did you?).
"You just cannot admit you were wrong"
You're in no position to judge this. You haven't read that paper. All you're doing is running away.
"Liberal professors from Stanford and university of Chicago."
So what if they are liberal? For the record, we don't know if they are "liberal" or or not but it shows how desperate you are that you criticise them for a presumed political view without knowing the first thing about them or reading what they wrote. Show me where they are wrong on content. Show me where they are wrong on methodology. Come on. Cough up. You can't.
"I love how Cook and Ludwig talk about higher educated people. Who live in safe gated community's and have security systems."
Quote please. With page number.
"I served in the U.S. Army to protect you and our constitutional rights."
Cry me a river. I'm not even American, thank fuck.
"How dare you tell me I should lose my God given right to self defense."
Where the fuck did I say that? I didn't. Spare me the faux outrage. You people are so fucking dumb that you can draw a line between badly conducted research and me trying to take away your right to self defence. There's logic for you. How fucking stupid are you that you need to put irrelevant words into my mouth? You couldn't read Cook & Ludwig, much less understand it. You blatantly plagiarised another article under the pretence that it was you, without having the remotest idea what you're dealing with (and until you have actually read and understood Cook & Ludwig, that situation will remain unchanged). Now you feel the need to change the subject yet again. Pretty desperate, I'd say.
"You wait 10 min for the police to arrive while begging for your life. Not me."
This is a cry for help, isn't it? A desperate plea for relevance in a topic you didn't understand the first thing about. You should learn to pick your fights better. That way you don't have to take the coward's way out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@armoredindividual5582 This is so convoluted and generalised it doesn't really make much sense. What applied to one batch of tanks from one factory didn't necessarily apply to all. At its peak, the T-34 was produced in half a dozen different and separate factories across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union. No two were the same. By the time the T-34 went into series production, its full range of testing and development had not been completed. Add to that the fact that the tank factories had to be moved by rail to the other side of the Urals, means that the coordination between different production batches and facilities would have been very poor.
"a 76mm sherman could penetrate the front"
I almost never use this kind of data when judging the worth of a tank. At some point there will be a round that will be powerful enough the blow any tank. Everything else is relative. Either the tank made a significant contribution or it didn't and the T-34 made an enormous contribution.
"extremely bad visibility"
ALL tanks in WWII had "extremely bad visibility". Some just had it worse than others. That's why defending machine gunners opened up at long range - to encourage enemy tank commanders to button up.
"the engine making so much noise they could be hit and not notice"
Also not unique to the T-34. Anyway, if the round doesn't penetrate...
"still can't reach "max speed" but better"
I don't even know what this means.
"cramped"
Once again, ALL tanks in WWII were cramped. Some were worse than others.
"it had no seats"
Myth.
"a flawed tank and absolute shit at the start of pruduction"
There is no such thing as a perfect tank, especially at the start of production (I have already addressed this).
I don't like quoting myself but I'm going to - from my original post:
"Finally - and this is almost never pointed out - the T-34 was produced in conditions that were not experienced in the same way by any other combatant nation in WWII or, indeed, any other war. Much is made in any video about the quality of design and manufacture of the T-34 without acknowledging that it was built by people who were unsuitable for front line combat and occasionally, such as in the Leningrad factory, under the most horrendous conditions. It's certainly true that in some tanks you could put your finger between the plates. It's true that some parts were badly designed (you should see the original turret design) and it's true that many of them broke down in the early part of the war. But when you stop to consider the fact that the factories had to be moved to safety behind the Urals, that practically all the skilled workers were at the front and those manning the factories were mostly old, very young or unskilled, the fact that they were able to produce anything at all is quite amazing. Whether by design or coincidence, the T-34 was not terribly difficult to build.
Overall, it's hard to imagine amore difficult situation in which to build and perfect and complex piece of machinery like a tank. On top of that, the Red Army had little time in which to learn how to use it to best effect."
Most of the criticism of the T-34 is just a mix of a surfeit of minutiae, recentism and western-centric - particularly American - ballyhoo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, there are so many holes in this argument… He says there’s no left, ergo, there’s no opposition so it can’t be fascism. From this we are to conclude that Trump is not a fascist? Of course Fascism needs an opposition. That’s why it became necessary to invent one. And this has been the focus of the right wing media: the ‘woke left’, the ‘radical left’. Just because it doesn’t exist in reality, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in people’s heads.
To contrast this with the rise of the Nazis, the violent street battles that the Nazis fought against the communists were over by the mid-1920s. Yet Hitler and the Nazis did not come to power until late 1932-early 1933. So again, just because it didn’t exist in reality any more, that didn’t mean the Nazis weren’t able to take full advantage of the concept in people’s minds. And remember why Hitler was made chancellor: to counter the left in Germany. But this time we’re talking about the political left, not the militant left.
The left that Hitler railed against was largely imaginary by the time he came to power. That’s why he talked about it so often. It became necessary to remind people who ‘the enemy’ was.
As for the Supreme Court, part of a transition to fascism is getting the civil service on side. Trump began this by appointing loyalists before he left office the first time. Now he has a large team of loyalists to immediately step into all the vacancies he’s proposing to create by firing all the ‘radical left lunatics’ and ‘DEI hires’. The full purpose of this is to ensure that the civil service is 100% behind Donald Trump. This is how fascism operates and any political scientist who doesn’t understand this needs to look to themselves.
Calling AOC a ‘certifiable airhead’ is an extraordinarily silly thing to do. Sure, some Democrats may have been a bit quick off the mark calling Trump a fascist but they were not wrong. It wasn’t until Jan 6, 2021 that I was convinced. And really, one of the things that separates academia from the mob is the use of appropriate language. You want to disagree with her? That’s perfectly fine. But ‘certifiable airhead’ is the language of the mob. Want to understand the mob? Read Hannah Ahrendt’s book on totalitarianism. Want to maintain the veneer of respectability? Show some restraint.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Albinowolf64
"We won in the Korean War, where the objective was to preserve the independence of South Korea."
The Korean War ended in a stalemate. In fact, it never ended and is currently under ceasefire.
"We won in the Gulf War, where the objective was to liberate Kuwait."
That looked like a win but it was, in fact, a catastrophic loss. The 6 week campaign of 1991 did nothing more than destabilise the region which resulted in a reduction in US influence in the area. The problem with that was that it has cost America far more than anyone budgeted for and for no result.
"We won in the intervention against Serbia in the late 90's and early 2000's, we still have troops stationed in Kosovo for protection."
That is not a win, for the same reason Korea was not a win. The fact that you still have troops stationed there should tell you that.
America's problem is that it knows how to fight large scale wars against early delineated enemies but has no idea how to tackle insurgencies. That is not a fighting problem. It's a vision problem. and America can never articulate what peace should look like. Defeating your enemy is only the first step. So often I hear "America has the most powerful "military" in history. Period." as if that is the only thing that matters. Every strategic argument comes down to "the You Ess Militerry" without any consideration for what is in it for everyone else. You always lose the peace. That is why little Afghanistan is the only country in the world to have defeated not one but two superpowers. One was there for nine years, the other for 17.
Unfortunately, this means we will be back exactly where we were 17 years ago: a repugnant government (the Taliban) and a hostile state in that region.
The other problem is, of course, that the United States always assumes that everyone wants what America wants: freedom, capitalism and democracy. The fact is that in tribal, theocratic states like Afghanistan, most people couldn't give a fig for those things. They care about family, tribe, religion and state in that order, with state a very distant fourth. The American sponsored government in Kabul will be gone by this time next year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Problem 1:
The Sudetenland was the most heavily fortified part of the country and - as anyone who has traveled through there knows - is steep and difficult for an army to traverse. This area became strategically unimportant (not irrelevant) after the Anschluss because it opened up the whole south eastern border, a place the Czechoslovaks didn't envisage as a potential invasion point. And in contrast to the Sudetenland, it was largely a flat plane and much easier for an army to traverse..
You are correct that Hitler didn't care much about Henlein and Henlein knew it. When someone suggested to him that he go and talk it over with Hitler, he told them he didn't have easy access. At least the man knew where he stood.
Problem 2:
The alliances depended on who was prosecuting an aggressive war. France had an agreement that she would come to the assistance of Czechoslovakia if Czechoslovakia was attacked. The Soviet treaty was much the same. But if France attacked Germany to defend Czechoslovakia (well, you would, wouldn't you?), that would constitute an aggressive war and all bets were probably off. That treaty was largely a sham anyway, since the French had been signing treaties with all and sundry in the interwar years, mostly at the expense of the Soviet Union and in many ways, to get back at their own domestic left wing.
Problem 3:
Britain had no treaty obligations to any of these parties. Chamberlain was nagged into getting involved by the French - mostly Georges Bonnet - and this would be to his own personal cost. It was, in fact, the single biggest mistake he made. The second 'peace in our time' speech was also a mistake.
Problem 3:
This was lot more complicated than it first appears and there is little encouragement for anyone to bother to understand it.
First of all, Chamberlain was a very experienced politician and negotiator. This was established earlier in the video. Hitler was a total noob who had never had to negotiate anything more than his pay packet. When they met at the Berghof, Chamberlain, on the diplomatic principle that you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to, asked Hitler what else he wanted besides the Sudetenland. This left the Fuehrer a little flummoxed because he had expected to be allowed to harangue Chamberlain about the unfair treatment of Sudeten Germans (and Germans generally). Benes was a whole 'nother story. The Czechoslovakian president didn't like the Sudeten Germans and didn't really want them because he thought them troublesome. That said, he wasn't ready to carve off the Sudetenland - or any parts of it - just yet. In May, 1938, the Czechs started their own provocations in the Sudetenland, precipitating something of a crisis which the British tried to resolve through Lord Runicman and the British Mission. Benes, rather than using the opportunity to resolve the problem, spent too much time politicking. He would agree with you one day and disagree with you the next to change the deal. He'd sign something one day and come back the next with a suggestion for changes. He'd tell one person one thing and another person something quite different. Benes was addicted to making deals. He was, in the words of his contemporaries,' too clever by half'. It was this indecision that left him with no choice but to follow French and British military advice.
The other thing that's not known is that the Czechoslovakian government was far from united on the matter. The Prime Minister, Milan Hodza, was a Slovak and the leader of the Agrarian party - the largest in the parliament. They didn't care one way or the other what happened to the Sudeten Germans. They saw them as more trouble than they were worth.
TBC
1
-
@megababy80 WTF? It was put before the courts. 60 cases. Two wins, neither of which affects the result. Star witness was incoherent, may have been drunk. Went before the Supreme Court. Trump appointees voted it down. Lost the college vote.
You can't claim all of that is corruption and payoffs unless you are barking mad. It would be impossible. Apart from anything else, who believes the Democrats are even capable of it? Nobody thinks they're that good.
Now, if you want a conspiracy theory, try this: Trump replaced a bunch of senior Pentagon officials with loyalists a month or so ago. There's procedure called continuation of government which was laid down after Sept 11 which allows the sitting or incumbent president to remain in power in time of attack and that includes cyber attack.
Now the nukes are claimed to have been hacked, Trump can easily refuse to leave, citing that provision, regardless of the fact that he lost the election.
Think he's not planning it? Don't say it's fake news or some other shit. Look it up. It happened. All of it. It was reported everywhere. Everywhere except Trump's news source of choice, QAnon.
The US is probably heading up the road to dictatorship. Remember he said he was taking names? Trump will make himself president for life, just like Ji Xinping. Then he'll jail everyone who doesn't agree with him.
Now if it hasn't happened by January 20th then I will happily say I was wrong because this is something I really, really want to be wrong about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democrats, as they are now, are not in a position to do much. I saw Jasmine Crockett the other day, speaking in front of a bunch of senior Democrats at a protest. She was pretty good. She doesn't talk like a politician. Everyone else was just another grey haired man in a grey suit, looking a little bewildered that they might lose their job after 30 years. It hasn't dawned on them yet they might lose more than their jobs.
There's talent in the party. Crockett is one. AOC is another. There are more. Chris Murphy could be senate minority leader. He's 51. But look at the others. Dear old Steny Hoyer, who everyone likes, is 85. You've done a great job Steny but for the sake of the party, it's time to enjoy your retirement. Elizabeth Warren, who's looked more convincing in the last few days than any other time I've seen her, is 75. Chuck Schumer is 74 and he's relatively young. These people are in a totally different demographic from the majority of the electorate. Dianne Feinstein was 90 when she died and still a senator!
The world has changed but the Democrats haven't. They remind me of the old Soviet leaders just before Gorbachev. Faithful public servants but no longer agile enough to respond to what was going on around them. And so it is today, grey and bewildered. A look at the list of people the DNC has put up over the years shows how they lack imagination. They kneecapped Bernie Sanders in 2016 when he was a good chance and went for Clinton, who was a lame duck. They did it because Bernie was a socialist and they didn't want to scare the horses.
It no longer works to have a party that's just conservative lite. They don't actually stand for what people want. Why would anyone vote conservative lite when they can go full retard? I think the lack of voter turnout in November reflected a complete lack of ability to engage the electorate. They need new blood and they need policies that reflect what people want, not what would be less offensive to the billionaire class.
And for Pete's sake, Trump & Co are going to call you 'woke radical left lunatics' who ever you are and whatever you say. If you're going to hang, it might be as well be for a sheep as for a lamb. If you're a lefty, be goddam proud of it instead of cowering. Own it. Get some new policies, ones that address inequality. Start taxing the crap out of extremely wealthy. Put tax evaders and other corporate criminals in jail. Build a national health scheme that works. Make it the envy of the world. Get rid of Citizens United. Change the stupid law that calls corporations 'people'.
I'm a 65 year-old white guy. I consider myself no longer representative of the demographic. At least, not where I live. And I have a hell of a lot of life experience, vastly more than the mainstream. It's time a few old grey guys like me realised that they have nothing to offer the 25 year-old gig worker with a $50,000 debt (Biden's forgiveness didn't extend to all). We have nothing to offer someone who has just lost their job and is about to start cancer treatment. The best thing to do is hand the reins to someone who does. The sooner, the better.
1
-
A bit of reading would have helped with this video.
There is no way breathing I can give the top gong to the P-38. It wasn’t even the best American aircraft of WWII. Despite the claims, there is only one recorded example of anyone calling it ‘the forked tailed devil’ and that was in North Africa in 1943. To give a bit of perspective on its effectiveness, the Lightning shot down about 1,800 enemy aircraft, compared with the Hellcat’s more than 5,100. Good as the Corsair was, it was the Hellcat that won the air war in the Pacific.
In Europe, the Lightning was only a qualified success as an escort fighter. It lacked the range of the later P-51 and also lacked the Mustang’s manoeuvrability. It performed well as a reconnaissance platform and did most of the work for the Americans but it was less productive than the remarkable de Havilland Mosquito.
The P-38 was demanding to fly because the Americans didn’t have the kinds of engine management that the British and especially the Germans had with the FW-190. It took 400 hours of on type experience before a Lightning pilot was considered combat ready, while a Hellcat pilot could be trained in a paltry six weeks. It was also much more expensive, for no great gain.
The P-38 gets a lot of cred because America’s two highest scoring aces flew it. It was the type that famously shot down Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto. It also had the kind of looks that attract attention. But while it was far from a bad aircraft, its design philosophy belonged to a largely bygone era and all that changed when the Pacific war started.
Its relevance in Europe was even less notable. It was useful in the ground attack role, though its engines and its performance regime were completely at odds with that mission. As a bomber it was a lot less effective than the Mosquito.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
15:17 Tito introduced a couple of policies that made a pretty fair fist of uniting the country. It should be remembered that Tito himself was part Slovene and part Croat.
The first was acknowledging the crimes committed against Serbs, particularly the ethnic cleansing. In return for this, he specifically employed Serbs in a large number of government jobs, including the police. This would come back to haunt everyone in Yugoslavia, with the so-called Knin rebellion by a bunch of Serbian policemen in Croatia.
The second thing Tito did was to jail people for nationalism. Now, while this seems to be attack on free speech to us Westerners, it was matter of survival for Yugoslavia. Whether or not it was the right thing to do will be a matter of debate, I'm sure but the way Tito saw it, Yugoslavia had suffered the worst casualties by any national population (ignoring Belorussia for the moment because it was, at that time, still a republic of the USSR) and it was matter of necessity. As a result, Serbs, Croats, Muslims and others not only lived cheek-by-jowl, they intermarried. By the time of Tito's death in 1980, the country was doing a fair imitation of a homogeneous state.
But Tito left no proper succession plan. His new constitution had something like 400 clauses in it and could really only have been administered by the man himself. With no obvious successor and a power vacuum at the top, it was easier for someone like Milosevic to surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@easyenetwork2023
"Enlist the aid of all Europe, including the Soviets if needed."
This was a pie-in-the-sky impossibility. You have to remember that this started with France and was eventually taken up by Britain, after heavy politicking by French Foreign Minister Georges, who was one of the villains of the piece. The fact is that there was nothing in it for most of them, which was why they relied so heavily upon Chamberlain to do their negotiating. In fact, all of Europe was not in sympathy with the Czechs or the Western powers.
As for the Soviet Union, have a think about that for a moment.
1) The Red Army would have to transition through Poland or Romania to get there. This was unlikely to be successful, especially in the light of the fact that both of those countries had their own territorial claims.
2) Stalin had very limited interest in getting involved, in part because he didn't trust any of the Western Allies.
3) Nobody wanted to deal with Uncle Joe.
Churchill's idea of a Grand Alliance was a product of fantasy that has survived the reality. It wasn't possible then and it should be buried now. In fact, during the second round of meetings at Bad Godesburg, Churchill was in Paris trying to break up the existing alliance, which gives you some idea of how impossible it was.
And given that the Czechs themselves were split on the matter, any kind of serious opposition was basically impossible.
*EDIT: I should add that the there was certainly nothing that could have been done to prevent invasion in the timeframe available. Furthermore, there have been suggestions of French attacking from the West if Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. That would make France the aggressor. To keep within the rules, the French would have to find another way to get men and materiel to Czechoslovakia, or risk being in breach of the Geneva Convention. The Red Army would have faced a similar problem.
"Italy was not allied with Germany at the time."
Not formally but Italy was definitely in the German orbit. Mussolini was also quite happy to take what credit he could for any part he played in the agreement (very little).
The fact was that the path to war was started with the Anschluss and the last opportunity to stop Hitler was the occupation of the Rhineland. The French could have stopped him then but didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FanBelt When there are as many choices for EVs as there are for petrol cars, I’ll believe it. Right now, because we don’t have a scale of emissions standards - like every other country except Russia - manufacturers are dumping gas guzzlers here almost at cost to keep their production lines open. And the government, being in the lap of the fossil fuel industry, has no incentive to change that, even though they said they would.
Only once they start closing down in the coming years, will that practice stop. Mercedes, BMW, Peugeot, Citroën, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Subaru, Stellantis… All those manufacturers will either close or be bought out. You look at the figures for EV sales around the world. They are going up by an average of 60% per annum. Nissan has a bit over a year to go. Stellantis even less and they will take FIAT with them.
1
-
@Krill_all_health_insuranceCEOs
There has always been an element of that, regardless of the law. When media outlets talk about the readers or their viewers (even their “consumers”…), they mean it. Media companies spend an inordinate mount of time and money researching their audience’s preferences and tailor their content accordingly. There is a high level of brand loyalty on media, even though no viewer or reader will admit to it. So, in fact, all mainstream media is doing is what their viewers tell them they want.
The alternative is government-based media. In the United States, that is severely frowned upon as propaganda. In other places, it’s not the case. The ABC in Australia, for example, is under a permanent state of government interference from a conservative government who have indoctrinated themselves in the belief that the ABC is full of “left wing bias”, despite half a dozen independent inquiries which have shown on every occasion that this isn’t the case. This phenomenal waste of public money, designed to reduce public scrutiny, has resulted in a significant loss of funding.
Public broadcasters, such as PBS, invariably struggle for funds and are not supported nearly as well so their scope for development is extremely limited and that includes buying both programs and talent. They still manage to produce some worthwhile stuff from time to time.
Social media and YouTube are dominated by extremism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is pretty random and not very accurate. I’ll start with the smallest problem: Hitler’s party membership number. Number 7 is a myth. From memory, it was 6XX or something. Yes, the party was small but not that small.
That minor point out of the way, there are some background things that need to be settled. The Weimar Republik is mostly thought of as a chaotic time. Except for the hyperinflation period between 1920 and 1922, the Weimar Republik did a much better job of recovering from WWI than most people realise. And this factor was directly linked to the rise, fall and eventual rise again of the Nazis. Hitler’s popularity increased when things were bad - like the hyperinflation period - and waned during periods of prosperity. From the end of hyperinflation to the Wall St Crash in 1929, the Weimar economy did very well. So to characterise it as a state of chaos, as many do, would not be completely accurate.
Secondly - and this was one of the main things Hitler was able to capitalise on - Bavaria was unique in German politics at the time. It was the only environment where he would or could have succeeded. Following the defeat in WWI, King Ludwig III had fled Bavaria and the power vacuum that followed produced a series of unstable governments and assassinations that resulted in the left wing Bavarian Soviet Republic. This lasted less than a month before it was violently overthrown by the Freikorps, mostly made up of ex-soldiers and right wing loyalists. This was important because Hitler’s anti-Bolshevik rhetoric was centred around public fears of another government that, as they saw it, could fall under the influence of the USSR, itself currently immersed in a civil war that would kill 10 million people.
So to those who say that Hitler was just a gunshot away from never becoming the Fuehrer, it should be pointed out that the rise of Hitler could not have happened anywhere else but Bavaria and especially Munich. Hitler was able to capitalise on people’s fears and prejudices in such a way that his appeal is much easier to understand. The NSDAP, despite their name, became a force against socialism. Their platform was centred around an anti-socialist, anti-Bolshevik, anti immigration, anti-Semitic stance. And they were, at their core, also anti-democratic. This is why the Beer Hall Putsch happened.
It’s not enough to just say that things were confused and that there were a lot of different parties and interests involved. We’ve got the ‘how’ but the ‘why’ was missing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
artie lusk Every country, every city has crime spikes. London surpassed New York for one month only - in February, 2018 - and is now back where it was. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the gun laws introduced 25 years ago and everything to do with the government failing to adequately fund the Met. They are currently short of thousands of police officers. But aren’t you missing something? The New York murder rate, which is relatively low by the standards of a large American city, has otherwise always been higher than that of London.
The crime spike in Australia around 2001 had nothing to do with gun laws and Australians have never used guns for home defence anyway.
Liberal media? WTF? You do realise, don’t you, that the British gun laws were introduced by a conservative government under John Major? You do realise, don’t you, that the Australian gun laws were introduced by a conservative government under John Howard? The one George W. Bush referred to as “the man of steel”... You do realise, don’t you, that Australia’s gun laws enjoy 85-90% public approval?
Get your facts straight before you call me a clueless fucking idiot, sonny. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markswalley8716
"its mostly because the p 51 was too fragile for the job whereas the P47 could take the punishment from groundfire better."
That isn't true. You should check the results of the 78th FG in Europe.
With the P-47 they destroyed 152 destroyed, they lost 51, giving a ratio of 3:1
Flying the P-51 they destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 for a ratio of 5.9:1
56th FG the figures are 320 destroyed for 50 lost, a ratio of 6.4:1.
Figures From James William Marshall, author of 'Our Might Always - History of 355th FG', via personal correspondence.
For the record, the 355th: P-47 figures are 8 destroyed for 4 lost and for the P-51, destroyed 493 and lost 86 with P-51 for 5.5:1.
As you can see, the picture is far from a clear victory for the P-47 or proof that the P-51 had a glass jaw. Oh sure, everyone says the P-51 was a liquid-cooled death trap that Uncle Same bought because it was cheap so they could sacrifice brave flyboys to... oh God... The truth is rather different. In point of fact, the P-51 destroyed 4,131 on the ground vs 3,202 for the P-47 (figures from Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand').
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:30 That happens in the cartridge, which is at the other end of the tone arm, i.e.: where the needle is.
I disagree that there’s no functional difference between analogue recordings and digital ones. In quieter parts of some analogue recordings you can often hear the hiss of the original audio tape across the heads. This was really apparent when CD first came in.
The notion of analogue having a different sound these days has to be tempered by the fact that all recordings, no matter what they end up on, are recorded in 24 bit digital and mixed and produced digitally. So, in fact, the only analogue part of a vinyl record is the needle tracking in the groove.
Compression is a major factor in modern recordings. As one who listens to more classical than modern, it’s really, really noticeable. The quiet parts of classical music are usually quieter than for modern, while the loud bits are, in terms of the presentation in playback, just about as loud. The problem is though that recording companies have realised that by rereleasing music that has been digitally remastered, they can compress the original and make it sound more impressive. I would postulate that this is so that vinyl listeners can get more from their disc. The trouble is that, for us CD listeners, we are getting less information.
I was listening to a remaster of Pink Floyd’s ‘Wish You Were Here’ the other day through headphones and for the first time I really noticed it. Through headphones it’s awful. The mix is so compressed that it has no depth any more. It’s not as bad through speakers but it’s unplayable through headphones. I wish producers would stop doing this, especially when it’s so patently obviously a sop to the vinyl market.
I ditched vinyl about 15 years ago and sold my Rega Planar 3 to a tragic. I can’t even remember the last time I used it. Lovely piece of kit but I’m never going back.
I bought a CD the other day. I’m planning to buy more. In fact, I’m planning to get a dedicated CD player to replace the DVD player I’m currently using. I don’t expect to get a better sound though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. That’s not the media. Besides, which media are you referring to because this channel is media too. Twitter is media. So is TikTok. Mainstream media doesn’t have an opinion on this, other than it necessarily gets its crews in the field who are invariably located in Ukraine for pretty obvious reasons. Most of the propaganda we see is generated by other agencies, like the US State Department. All those rumours like ‘Putin’s got cancer’ or ‘Putin is about to be overthrown’ are not products of ‘the media’. Where does that come from? Not professional media organisations. We complain about ‘Russian bots’ but we have plenty of our own.
Anyone who has read anything of history knows that these things are largely managed as recruiting tools. Join the colours before the war ends and get your dose of adventure. Ukraine has to look vulnerable and strong at the same time. It also helps us overlook some of the faults of our notional ally. As long as we’re talking about how weak Russia is, we don’t have to talk about groups like the Azov division.
A casual look at history will show that the west believes what it wants to believe. It has the luxury of doing so. The American view, based on their own history, is that ‘the people will rise up and overthrow the evil dictator’ or even more simply, ‘good will triumph over evil’, despite the delineation between the two being necessarily hazy.
So, in fact, this has nothing to do with ‘the media’ stereotype. If you want to learn something, you need to move on from that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@et34t34fdf No, you're quite wrong. The Russia/Ukraine war no longer involves the air force. It's become drone war and part of the reason is fairly simple, if not understood in the West.
About a year ago, the Ukrainians realised that their air force could not be used without sustaining serious losses. I think in the end, only one Sukhoi fighter and a helicopter were shot down.
The problem was a 40 year-old Russian interceptor called the MiG-31. Recently modified and ridiculed by many in the West who know nothing about it, the MiG-31, known to NATO as the Foxhound, has no Western equivalent.
It has a long range and mounted the first phased array radar ever seen in a fighter. It's huge, very fast and its radar dish is more than a metre in diameter, granting it phenomenal detection range. It also carries the advanced R-37 missile.
The problem for any opposing air force is that if you have a jet that can fly at 70+ thousand feet at M2.35, can detect you long before you know it's there and can fire a missile that travels at Mach 6, your chances of survival are something like this:
(Radar warning receiver) Beep!
Pilot: Oh sh...
There is no chance of manoeuvre or deploying chaff or flares (chaff, in this case). By the time the pilot is aware, it's simply too late. This has been discussed by Western observers but didn't make it into the mainstream media for fairly obvious reasons.
In fact, the Ukrainians had to stand their missions down once they knew there was a Foxhound even getting airborne. This method is, by Western standards, somewhat crude and inefficient but it's pretty hard to argue with basic physics and kinematics.
The placement of a single MiG-31 within a few hundred miles of the border was enough to keep the Ukrainian air force on the ground. That is air superiority. This is in no way to be taken as disrespectful of the Ukrainians. They just didn't have anything to counter it. Few air forces do. I'm not even sure America does (before anyone starts the old 'F-22 is da best' tropes, that is entirely dependent on the nature of any conflict. The two are unlikely to ever meet).
That is why the air war in that part of the world is limited to drones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincebenego8548
"You're no longer trying to use stats to justify it here, you're saying that it will be lobbied out of existence."
No, read what I said. The economics of electric vehicles will have established themselves well and truly before ICE is eventually banned.
"At that point it should be clear to anyone that it's not because of any statistical advantage, or for scientific reason. It's pure marketing, which I think is okay. I just think it's weird to market electric over ice under the guise of as you say statistical advantages when there aren't any."
Ask anyone who drives an electric car. The economics make ICE look ridiculous. Even charging off the power grid still costs about 1/5 of the aggregate cost of fuel. Then imaging the cost saving when solar and storage batteries are factored in On top of that, Tesla, for example, have no maintenance schedule. There's no 15,000 km service. It just tells you when it needs something. That means the vast majority of the basic running costs is simply replacing consumables like tyres and brake pads.
And you're telling me there are no statistical advantages?
"When cars are parked they're not always parked or can't always be parked in convenient locations to where they will be able to be charged."
They're not normally parked in fuel stations either.
"The thing about Scandinavia, is that it's a small place in general. There just aren't that many places to go to run out of juice. If it were Australia's undeveloped territories, then ice has the clear advantage. Rapid is the only thing that's practical, but that's in theory. "
In outback Australia, electric can make even more sense. The opportunities for setting up solar arrays are almost limitless. Rapid charging would only be necessary for transit stuff. When the vehicle is parked at home, it can be virtually constantly trickle charging. You can't do that with ICE. My cousin lives in one of the less populated parts of South Australia and he just bought a Tesla Model Y. He has more than a hundred solar panels on his roof - which have been there for a couple of decades because that's what we do. His running costs are going to be next to zero. There are already plenty of examples of people driving across the Nullabor Plain in electric cars. You should look that up. It's entirely possible.
"Like I said Evs have their place, and uses, but it's not taking out ice.'
I know there are holdouts who still want their 10 litre trucks. The fact is that, sooner or later, all major manufacturers will move to EV. It's inevitable. I pointed out earlier that even Ferrari are on the verge of phasing out their V12s. In ten years, the only ICE cars still being produced will be hybrids.
"Manufacturers are pressured by lobbyists and law makers."
Most of all they are responding to the market. That's simple economics. Supply and demand.
"As in morally correct which has everything to do with the left wing and nothing to do with making cars."
This is almost exclusively an American point of view. I'm not the one politicising it. The rest of the world knows what the science has already shown. Now they're going to reap the economic benefits. America is one of the very few places on the planet where the science is not accepted and has been turned into a political football.
"Do you get how this works?"
I've already shown that the economics will drive this. It gets better. Once you get of the ICE merry-go-round, the next thing you're no longer talking about how 'gas prices used to be under $2 and now they're $7'. The costs of running an EV instantly get you off the dependence on oil companies.
"Like I said, it's disingenuous pushy leftist lead philosophical marketing."
Since when is economic viability an lefty matter? And why are you so determined to politicise it?
"I'm just saying it's not worth it, and it won't make our lives better."
And I've already shown that it already is. Furthermore, in terms of transport costs, they can only improve cost of living. When transport costs less, products cost less. It's a significant component and a major contribution to the inflation problems of the las year.
"Electricity prices fluctuate too, just not as much as gas."
Not when you're charging off grid and not nearly as much as fuel, especially when the cost of running an EV is already 1/5 that of the average family car.
"Eliminating gas distribution is not a business case, because gas is used used beyond cars, which is why full electrification is so unrealistic, impractical, and unnecessary."
Keep telling yourself that.
"You can't go out fair, and square, so you pay some guy to change the rule book."
I don't need to . The economics speak for themselves.
"Range anxiety, slow fill up time, no gas bottle, no towing, the ultimate expenses when the battery, and motors have to be replaced?"
ICE vehicles are no less immune. Probably more so, in fact.
"MANDADING A CAR LIKE THAT BE PRODUCES BY ALL MANUFACTURES, BECAUSE PARTISAN LEFIST IDIOLOGY DEEMS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?"
I'm finally going to say this: I don't care. I really don't.
I have never cared for politicising this matter. It just doesn't work on me. Furthermore, it's not remotely relevant and places an obstacle in the way of rational discussion. Governments will do what governments will do. I am not particularly interested in that. By the time it happens, the ICE will be irrelevant except for places like Africa, where infrastructure is poor and few people can afford cars anyway. Everywhere else, the ICE will be dead, save for a few holdouts and conspiracy theorists.
This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with economics. How is that 'leftist'? It's not: it's straight up Adam Smith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nayrtnartsipacify
”Fascism and nazism is a national socialist collectivist movement.”
No it’s not. Fascism is not collectivist and whatever it’s called, is not socialist either.
The association with Conservatism is that no fascist government in history has ever got into power without the assistance of conservatives. Hitler cut a deal with von Papen to become Chancellor of Germany, despite being from a smaller party. This was so socialists would not get their way in the Reichstag. The mistake von Papen made was his belief that Hitler was working for him.
Mussolini came to power with his March on Rome. It could have been stopped but conservatives, the monarchy and other nobility saw the Fascists as the best chance of stopping what was seen as socialist violence. Ironically, this socialist violence was almost entirely perpetrated by Mussolini’s Blackshirts, who were not socialists at all and the principal victims were unionists and other socialist entities.
Franco, if he was a fascist, was totally supported by conservative and extreme right anti-republican and anti-democracy entities, like the Carlists and the Falange, which was the Spanish fascist party.
As far as collectivism is concerned, it’s not even close. Hitler, in effect, banned trade unions and banned strikes outright. German workers were forced to join the DAF, which functioned as nothing more than a labour pool for big business.
Mussolini did the same thing under a different guise, with corporatism inevitably favouring big business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ViralTuber
"Your original question signaled you're already perplexed enough over my plainly-worded suggestion that someone should "follow the man from a safe distance to hopefully get a chance to summon law enforcement before he escapes the area.""
No, that was you 'could have at least...', implying that there was a better alternative. The only alternative you've come up with is that it should have come to a fight.
"So I intentionally and predictably blew your mind by offering brief details of a true experience of mine from decades ago. So you don't believe me."
No, I think you're a tough -talking, self-proclaimed, wannabe alpha, using the opportunity to make up an insincere story for the purposes of a bit of grandstanding. I can tell you know little about these situations because of your excessive use of emotional language.
"Earning some incredulous goofball stranger's faith in me, serves me no purpose."
Then why did you bother?
""Oh, I need some abrasive dimwitted stranger to trust me!" ...and then... "Oh glory day, the obnoxious not-so-bright stranger that comes off like a jerk finally believes me! "
Sounds a lot more like you than me.
"Bye."
Yes, if I were you, I'd run away too. CYA tough guy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sentimentmedia234 Yes but I'm asking for specifics. Apart from that, RN Seafires... that didn't happen until much later. I thought you were talking about the Mk VIII...
Okay, the point that I'm going to make is, in one sense, pretty simple: there was almost never any doubt that getting into a turning fight with a Zero was a bad idea. They knew this early on, well before the Spitfires arrived in Australia.
In the RAAF, they heard from the Americans and did not attempt it in their Kittyhawks over New Guinea. Again, this is a lot more nuanced that just turning circles but the RAAF Spitfire pilots already knew about the danger of trying to out turn a Zero.
It's effectively a non argument.
Yet in spite of this and for a myriad of other reasons, the RAAF did not do well against the Zero. Certainly not as well as they expected. Some of this was tactical, some was pilot behaviour, some was equipment. You need to read Cooper's book to understand it.
1
-
1
-
@Sentimentmedia234
"And does this in anyway support the argument that the Zeroes was "a match for the Spitfire"?"
Results suggest it was.
"Because all the performance metrics certainly don't support this. It's cold hard fact. Just because RAAF Spitfires didn't do well against Japanese Zeroes doesn't mean that the Zeroes were a match for pristine, proferly flown Spitfire."
Aaaaand here's the difference. Data block and ideal world situations figures are of no value when the verdict of history says otherwise. What if it wasn't 'pristine, properly flown' and what of the Zero? This is the problem with the internet: everyone expects to be spoon fed and they expect to have their personal prejudices confirmed. In that respect, I'm not very different. But where I am different is that I read books. Funny how very few people do that or if they do they go straight to the data blocks and posit that the specs must decide the result. What good is that when the results say otherwise?
Furthermore - and this started with you saying that Zeroes got the better of Spitfires until the Spit pilots stopped trying to turn with them - the Allies knew very well what the Zero's turn potential was because the Americans had test flown one. In June 1942, well before any Spitfires arrived in the Pacific theatre, Petty Officer Tadayoshi Koga crashed his Zero in the Aleutian Islands. Koga died in the crash but the Zero was in good enough condition to be quickly repaired and test flown in September.
The Australians defending Port Moresby knew not to get into a turning fight with the Zero. There was plenty of information on the aircraft available. By the time the Spitfire arrived, it was a given that trying to dogfight a Zero was a high risk strategy.
The point is that it wasn't tried in the first place because the RAAF was aware of it and that this is a non-argument.
"Tactics and pilots quality matter alot, but it's not the fault of the plane."
Paying lip service to tactics and ignoring the aircraft... Superficially, this would seem to make sense but not when they play second fiddle to what you call hard, cold fact.
Here's some hard cold fact for you: the Japanese - specifically, the Zeroes - were not defeated by Spitfires over Darwin. They were pulled out because they were needed elsewhere in Japan's contracting empire. They could easily have kept going, though their raids were pretty ineffective. You'll have to read Cooper's book to find this out.
"We all know that the F6F did incredibly well against the Zeroes, yet in Fleet Air Arm service the Germans did not find anything notable about the F6Fs, but German pilots greatly respected British Spitfires."
Sorry but this is a massive 'So what?' moment.
Let me tell you something: I interviewed and profiled an RAAF Spitfire Mk VIII pilot (Geoff Marsh, probably gone by now). He knew all the big guys like Caldwell. I grew up surrounded by WWII pilots, including one (Reece Thomas) who had flown every marque of Spit up to the Mk XIV. One of my Dad's best mates was a 'Black Lysander' pilot. Through him I met dozens of others. I shook Adolph Galland's hand in 1974 (for what that's worth). I knew two Mosquito pilots. Those were the circles I moved in when I was a youth. I've been reading military history for well over 50 years. I know what they thought because I knew them. And I knew their flaws too. Now every day on the internet, some punter comes along and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about because some data block figure says this or that.
If you look further back in this abortion of a thread, you'll find that another bloke tried the same thing. He too baulked at actually reading something, preferring instead to blurt out, 'My Spitfire book says data block, data, block, data block...' That is NOT history, no matter how anyone spins it. At best it's conjecture. Above all, it's f*cking lazy. But if that's your view you're welcome to it mate. You're wrong. Don't tell me I'm wrong because you're too lazy to read.
I'm going to keep this as polite as I can. Go to Amazon and find a copy of Anthony Cooper's book 'Darwin Spitfires' and read it. You should do this because RAAF No.1 Wing was the first unit to operate Spitfires against the Japanese anywhere. If your claim was true it would be in that book but it's not. If you're really interested in air combat history you'll love it. It's 530 pages and I knocked it over in a few days. Cooper has done it properly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crosshair84
"Fascists also realized that outright state ownership wasn't necessary, as long as the means of production were being used for the benefit of the people via government decree/regulation."
Yes and no. During the early 1930s, Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht (the so-called "Nazi banker") engaged in a number of practices that would be illegal in most countries today on the grounds of being anti-competitive. The first thing they did was to set up a sham government bonds system which was pretty much intended to fail. the second thing the did was to encourage German industries to act as cartels to bolster their positions internationally. Finally, they undid all the safety measures that were put into place to stabilise the economy, from the Weimar Republic all the way back to Bismarck. De-regulation was the order of the day and it was pursued to the extreme. nazi Germany became almost the ultimate de-regulated economy.
"Anyone who bothers to read the writings of both ideologies would know this."
As far as Nazism is concerned, this is not very helpful. Hitler wrote his manifesto, "Mein Kampf", while languishing in Landsberg Prison in 1924. He wrote a second edition in 1928. But the fact is that there was very little continuity in any of what he said and even less in connection with what he practiced. In fact, Nazism can really only be judged on what they did. There were dozens of competing interests within the party - Grigor and Otto Strasser were frequently at odds with Hitler, so much so that Grigor Strasser became a victim of the "Night of the Long Knives". Goebbels was another. There is a quote from him that is frequently cited by advocates of this zombie argument that Nazism was left wing that was from a writing in 1923. But that was when the NSDAP was still very fragmented. Goebbels was from the North and Hitler was in Munich. When Goebbels finally met Hitler he immediately dropped any previous aspirations and subordinated himself. The NSDAP recognised eventually that they could get nowhere without Hitler at the helm, so whatever he said, they followed.
Hitler's ideology - such as it existed - was never as absolute as most people like the think. He stuck to his campaigns against democracy, socialism and Jews (though he wasn't an anti-semite until after WWI). His speeches were mostly ramblings based around long-standing prejudices and assumptions which many agreed with. Much of what has been written about Nazism is retrospective, rather than from a philosophical perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kiddkuru
"After the Nazis became the biggest German political party in 1932, hitler conspired with large business conglomerates and due to the economic instability eventually was able to get Hindenburg to appoint him as chancellor."
Not quite. Close but not quite. Hindenburg didn't appoint him due to any economic instability. In fact, Hindenburg didn’t appoint him. He was merely the rubber stamp. The Nazis benefitted from the privations of the Great Depression because Germany was affected more than most other countries, especially when American investment loans were called in.
After the 1932 elections, the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag. The Chancellor at that point was Franz von Papen, a conservative. His government was notable for bringing about the first breach of the Versailles Treaty when it passed a bill to start rebuilding the navy.
After a no confidence motion against him, von Papen wanted to shore up some support for his conservative government so he approached the Nazis. Hitler was only interested in making a deal as long as he was made Chancellor and von Papen put it to his party. They agreed.
You may not have heard it but at the time, von Papen, speaking on behalf of the conservatives, remarked, 'We are hiring him'.
So Hitler was elevated to Chancellor - yes, this was approved by Hindenburg - with the connivance of the conservatives, who were prepared to countenance an openly anti-democratic crank like Hitler over the German left wing parties. With hindsight, one would have expected it to be the other way but it wasn't.
"While I will say that many of the large business conglomerates were right winged, I’d also like to point out hitler screwed them over when he enacted policy to remove the existence of private business, and forced these conglomerates to join the nazi party (the state) or else they would be send to re-education camps."
No. This isn't accurate. You were quite right when you pointed out that the first supporters of Hitler were industrialists like Fritz Thyssen and later, Krupp, Porsche, I.G. Farben and a number of others. I'll get to them in a minute but that much is certainly true..
When the Nazis came to power the party was 10 million Marks in debt. Hitler called a meeting with a number of big business benefactors, which included the families Thyssen, Krupp, Porsche, the Quandt family (BMW), I.G. Farben, Flicks and the von Finks.
They appealed to these people to join them in a business venture that would effectively guarantee them a free hand and a virtual river of money. Needless to say, this went ahead largely as planned.
So there was no need to force board members to become Nazis. They had been Nazis for years before. Some other never became Nazis at all. While there were ways in which the party exerted control over businesses, they remained in private hands and acted in concert with the party, largely at their own discretion.
"This gave the party full control over the economy. That is how socialism and communism work."
Again, no. First of all, even in the most liberal and conservative democracies, governments still exert control over economies. They do this through mechanisms like fiscal and monetary policy, budgets and other policy measures which can have a great deal of influence. Laws controlling industrial relations or public service pay rises can have a huge influence.
So central planning - invariably decried as socialism - is used everywhere, no matter what the stripe of government we are talking about. Without it, you couldn't manage a currency market and you couldn't manage international trade, especially in these days of an essentially global economy. You couldn't manage foreign policy and defence.
Now while it's true that things were somewhat different in the 1930s, it's also true that governments were a lot more invested in major projects than they are now. It's also true that the Great Depression was arguably the first global financial event.
So, to best answer your next point, it is necessary for me to ask another question:
How did the Nazis finance German rearmament and the major capital works programs, like the building of the Autobahns?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not getting this.
First of all the substance of these reports came from the Brereton report from 2016-2020. You should look it up. There is a redacted version you can download.
Paul Brereton is a Major General and a NSW Supreme Court judge. There would be no better qualified person to do it.
Secondly, this is not a bunch of wild, half-arsed accusations made by some hack with a couple of years' experience. The reporters who put this up are some of the best in the business.
Thirdly - and this is critical - the news reports, and by association the Brereton Report - were upheld, in the main, by Justice Anthony Besanko.
Finally, many of the people who gave evidence in this case (and it was not a criminal case) were fellow members of the SAS who did not support Roberts Smith's actions.
To understand this better you need to understand how the Geneva Convention works. This is not a rule book you have to consult every time you go to pull the trigger. It's not 'woke' or political correctness. It's a set of rules, without which we would be as bad as any Nazi hit squad. It is simple and well written so that any dolt can understand it. It is a key part of SAS training. At the heart of this is the concept of hors de combat (out of combat). It can be interpreted as 'unable to defend oneself'. This includes fighters who have surrendered, those in captivity and those incapacitated by wounds. All of the cases mentioned in the final judgement were examples of this. A man in handcuffs is not a threat yet Roberts Smith apparently pushed him off a cliff. Justice Besanko pointed out that these were not 'heat of the battle' matters. From that it must be assumed that these people were hors de combat.
Killing them was therefore highly illegal and Roberts Smith knew it. The Geneva Convention was part of his training. It has to be investigated as a war crime.
The activities of the SAS, which included 39 cases of murder, had long term ramifications for a lot of people who were actually there. There was also the question of the psychologist who was treating fellow SAS members for PTSD who reported to Brereton and then Chief of the ADF, Mark Binskin that she had been told about horrendous incidents which were in line with what was in the report. She was told to continue her investigations. She received death threats.
I will stand by those who played fair, 100%. Ben Roberts Smith isn't one of those people. Now, a criminal trial might well exonerate him but there's little doubt his record is very questionable because the Brereton Report says so.
Now, if you want to see where this is going, Google Oliver Schulz. You will be hearing more about him in time and that will be a pointer to what will happen to Ben Roberts Smith.
This is not about being anti-military or anything like that. The SAS and the Army want nothing to do with him either. People like Mark Donaldson and Daniel Keighley played by the rules and were awarded VCs. That's what was expected of them. They were doing it in our name.
So shame on you for not being across the facts of this case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilpemberton5523 The Hurricane had a tighter turn radius because of the shape of the wing section, not because of the size or shape of the rudder.
It also had the advantage that, when hit by something it could be repaired very quickly and easily. The Hurricane was not a stressed skin monocoque but duralumin sheeting over a space frame in the front half and a fabric covered tail, which was child’s play to repair.
In short, the Hurricane could take a lot more hits than the Spitfire and still get home. Despite the internet judgement that the Spitfires look after the 109s and the Hurricanes took on the bombers, any amount of reading on the subject will reveal that the RAF’s primary target, whether it was a Spitfire squadron or a Hurricane squadron, was the German bomber.
And a well-flown Hurricane was well capable of taking on a 109 and winning. In short, while the Spitfire had a better survivability rate during the Battle of Britain, few Hurricane pilots believed they were flying an inferior aircraft.
It’s noteworthy that the highest scoring ace of the Battle of Britain, Josef František, flew the Hurricane with 303 Squadron. His total of 17 victories included nine Bf-109s; more than half.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, there are several points that need to be addressed here.
Before and during WWII, what you call Russia was in fact the Soviet Union. It's a common mistake and while people might think I'm nitpicking, it's an essential point. After all, it united the Russian Republic with the Ukrainian republic and any number of others who might now be considered enemies. Many Soviet citizens were not Russian.
The second point is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a long way from being a friendly agreement. Everyone except Stalin knew that this was just forestalling the inevitable. Germany and the Soviet Union, despite previous agreements like the Treaty of Rapallo, had been on a collision course for some time. Today is very different.
Thirdly, Trump has made it very clear that he's not interested in supporting the EU. My personal feeling on this is that this could signal the end of NATO and raise the possibility that Europe could actually work something out for themselves without the United States leaning on them. But given that the US no longer seems interested in Europe, why would the US fight a war over it?
Fourth, Trump has been described as 'the most transactional president' and a lot of people think he sees war as bad for business. Yes, it bothers me enormously that the US has handed the nuclear codes to a nutter but I think his stomach for war is probably reflected in his own draft dodging.
Fifth, it seems to me that the United States is on course for very significant political upheaval. At the moment they are in a revolutionary phase that few have recognised. In his book on Fascism, Kevin Passmore talked about it being a revolutionary movement that required the levelling of all existing systems (by Musk). That's upsetting a huge number of people.
Sixth, I don't think anyone is under any illusions about where America is going in democratic terms. Whether or not there will be midterms in 2026 is anyone's guess and yes, it's possible nobody will be left alive anyway. Historically speaking, the next moves for Trump are the suspension of Congress and the oppression of his political opponents.
Right now I suspect his new DoJ, under AG Pam Bondi, are probably preparing cases against his political opponents; the Bidens, Hillary Clinton and the January 6 Committee. There will, of course, be others. Arrests will likely follow.
Finally, there is the possibility of civil unrest in the United States. The protests are mostly peaceful now but with tensions so high in a country with more guns than people, major outbreaks could happen any time, anywhere. This won't be like the civil war of the 1860s. It will be more like the break up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s but with a death toll many, many times higher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kentl7228
"It shows that older razorback models had the required range that was needed in Europe, because the same distances were flown in the Pacific."
And I reiterate. The P-47 with 256 gallons internal and 108 gallons on the centreline pylon - the standard until March, 1944 - could not get past the Dutch border in practice.
If you want to read a specific example, look at 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. The authors show how the relay system worked with only a small number of converted P-47s (D-9) being able to go any further and even they could not get beyond Magdeburg. I'm not making this up and neither were they. The only fighters that flew over Berlin that day were P-51s. P-38s got to within about 40 miles.
When Greg can come up with a specific example like that, I will take him more seriously.
"His point is that they could make drop tanks in Australia to give the needed range on standard early P47s, but the bomber mafia stopped the making of drop tanks for the European theatre."
Greg is dead wrong about this. As a professional pilot, I think he actually knows but he's happy to keep the ball rolling in a quest to prove that 'my favourite plane' was hard done by. He should know perfectly well what I explained in my first reply: drop tanks were not the answer and never could be. First of all, there is the drag penalty, the rough rule of which is that it takes half the contents of a tank to get the other half there. Eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns. If one tank gave you a net increase of 100 miles, two tanks might only give you a net of 150 and three might not give any increase at all.
As for blaming all of this on the so-called 'bomber mafia', that assumes that such an entity even exists. In the context of what he's saying, he's wrong again. This is what I call a God approach: throw enough cherry-picked examples and you might be able to prove your case. That is disingenuous and indefensible in historical terms. Here's how the logic goes:
Step 1: The P-47 had a theoretical capability of a certain range performance.
Step 2: The tanks existed to improve that performance.
Step 3: Those tanks were not used because of a pre-war directive (which would no longer have applied once the US was involved).
Step 4: A political entity - let's call it 'the bomber mafia' - didn't want it, therefore it wasn't done.
Step 5: The 'bomber mafia' blocked 'my favourite plane' from being the greatest fighter of WWII and lots of bomber crews died. F*cking Uncle Sam always trying to do it on the cheap and getting young men killed in the process of trying to prove a 'doctrine'.
I'm not exaggerating. Virtually none of Greg's adherents can see any possible alternative explanation to this crackpot conspiracy theory because most have little exposure to history beyond watching YouTube videos. This has zero support among real historians. This is the God theory that says; 'I can't find a rational alternative explanation (because I don't have enough information), therefore it must be divine intervention'. In this case, it's a matter of finding an explanation that conforms to someone's personal prejudices and that is not history.
Their response? Real historians have been hoodwinked by the official government line and are therefore biased in favour of 'the bomber mafia' and against 'my favourite plane'. Dismiss everything because it doesn't conform to my personal prejudices and put all your faith in Greg.
But, like any good conspiracy, it has an element of truth in it and gained a lot of traction because he has collected well-selected documentation.
I have already explained earlier why this is basically Republic's fault. Everyone increased their internal capacity except Republic. But somehow it's the bomber mafia's fault.*
"The bomber mafia blamed the P47 as an excused for their failed doctrine that cost so many bomber crews."
See? You just did it. In the absence of better information, fall back on a government conspiracy.
Where is the litany of P-47 pilots complaining? Where is the litany of group commanders complaining that the P-47s were being hard done by? The fact was that the bombers got to the Dutch border and the P-47s turned for home. The pilots might have hated that fact but they had no choice. That would be a big enough motivator to complain loud and long.
I modestly suggest you read the book I just mentioned and follow it up with James Holland's 'Big Week'.
Knowing more cannot hurt you. Blind faith can.
Greg is now the outstanding supplier of misinformation on this subject anywhere in the world. He's not a historian and he knows he only telling half the story (unless he's now deluded himself).
Now, if you don't mind, I have other things to do. I'll get back to you later.
* The explanation of bomber theory is the one thing Donald Miller got right in his book 'Masters of the Air'. It's not that he explains how it worked because everyone already knows that. It's that he takes the trouble to examine why the theory existed and the personalities of people like Billy Mitchell and why he was so passionate about it, even if he was later proved wrong (by which time he was dead anyway).
1
-
@kentl7228
"None of what you say addresses that required European ranges WERE flown in the Pacific."
Under totally different circumstances. It's so easy to be dismissive but you can't just write this off. The Pacific was primarily a campaign dominated by vast expanses of water. That's why P-38s were valuable. The probabilities of interception were completely different.
And you don't mention which version of the P-47. The P-47C carried 256 US gallons internally. The early D models carried 305. It wasn't until the D-25 that they had 370 gallons and even then, they needed 150 gallons under each wing (this had become a line mod at last) in order that they could have flown an escort mission to Berlin. What's interesting to note is that the P-47 did not overfly Berlin until 1945.
"It was accomplished with a 200 gallon tank. Not a 108 gallon"
Didn't you see the bit about the P-47s that had been converted to carry 108 gallon tanks under their wings? That was, in part, my counterpoint. 256 internally and 216 externally and they could not quite get to Magdeburg. Do you want to see the mission planning and intercept points for the relay system?
As I have already said, the true determinant of range is not drop tanks. It's internal fuel. To quote an example: a P-51 had a combat radius of 375 miles on internal fuel alone. To go as far, a D model P-47 require 150 gallons on the centreline.
The point is that just because it had the theoretical range, that doesn't mean it could fly the mission. I should also point out that I'm Australian. Of course I know about the 'Brisbane tank'. But I also know that Kenney was furious with Republic for not increasing internal capacity.
"You can say conspiracy or whatever, but history shows there was a blind faith to the bombers flying in tight formation with huge numbers of turrets to bare, which was a failure but stubbornly stuck with for too long."
It wasn't as simple as that and if Greg had any history in his background - other than cherry-picking the bits to build his argument - he'd know that the USAAF was actually achieving pretty reasonable results without incurring unacceptable losses until about mid-1943. Then came the need to raid Schweinfurt. Nobody had time to fix the P-47's problems because Schweinfurt was a priority target that had to be raided and the opportunities to do it were closing. Because they couldn't do it with fighter escort all the way, they tried to time it so that the Regensburg force would go through first and the Schweinfurt force would go through half an hour later, catching the Luftwaffe on the ground. It was risky and it had to be tried. Who knows? They might have pulled it off.
In the end though, the raid was botched not because of drop tanks but because of unnecessary delay in the second wave taking off because of the weather. Greg does not address this. The weather also affected the rendezvous with the fighter groups. There were poor decisions made that day that had some harrowing effects. The point is that the raid has to be considered from something other than a technical point of view. It’s too simple.
In war there are plenty of strategies that have been persisted with for too long. In fact, the USAAF was pretty quick to acknowledge that the bomber theory wasn't working. That's why they suspended deep penetration raids from October. The RAF, for example, persisted with the 'Big Wing' theory for several years in the post Battle of Britain era, despite mountains of evidence that it didn't work. This was a result of Trafford Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas winning a political struggle with Dowding and Park. Compared to that, the so-called 'bomber mafia' looks pretty tame.
1
-
@kentl7228
"You can write a novel but you miss the point."
Really? What else were they going to use 205 gallon tanks for? We made 3,000 of them, you know.
As I said, you give no context. Without knowing the specifics of the mission, it's impossible to make any meaningful comparison.
"They used a 200 gallon tank in the Pacific. A 200 gallon tank could have been used in Europe."
And would have made little to no difference. Once your 200 gallon-equipped P-47 gets bounced at the border, all the theory in the world won't help. It's tanks away. This is why internal capacity is so important. That's why Materiel Command and the USAAF wanted it.
"How much further would the P47 go with a 200 gallon tank instead of 108 gallon?"
I don't know. It depends on the drag performance figures.
"This isn't blind faith. A logical and compelling argument was put forward and I see that you are failing to counter the logic and evidence."
It's a compelling argument but logic is irrelevant, especially when it's someone else's version of it.
This was why I illustrated the thinking process that most people use. Unless you are well versed in history, everything looks pretty simple. The overwhelming majority of arguments about this are technical/performance/data related. Look at some of the other posts here. 95% are about things like top speeds, climb rates, maximum ceilings and the like. Or they're pseudo anecdotes from some pilot that highlight one feature that everyone thinks must have been decisive.
Yet history shows that 80% of air combat isn't decided that way. It shows that the vast majority of victims never sw their attacker. I'm just finishing a book called 'Darwin Spitfires', by an Australian author called Anthony Cooper. It's hard to imagine how he could have done a better job. The real story is totally different from what most people think. War is not logical, it's just what happens. And there are always outside factors.
Greg relies on an incredibly narrow focus and it's one that actually impedes people's understanding of history. This is because everyone gets all their information from one of two things: YouTube videos and playing games like WarThunder. Nobody reads books.
I came into this a few years ago thinking the P-47 had been a bit hard done by. How wrong I was. The internet had blown it up into something it wasn't. The more I read the more I realised that there's probably more bull talked about it than any aircraft in history. It is now massively overrated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3506Dodge Nevertheless that’s how it played out. Did you listen to what was said in this video? Chamberlain was simply acting out a policy that the British had used for a long time, with the exception on WWI. This was true for most of the European powers. It wasn’t just a bunch of out-of-touch, lily-liveried stuffed shirts with no stomach for war being hoodwinked by Realpolitik.
Secondly - and nobody who advocates the idea of the British going to war with Germany in 1938 ever addresses this - there was very little they could have done to prevent Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I already pointed out that the war didn’t really begin in earnest until May, 1940 anyway. So how and where would such an action take place? Presumably this would have been an air war? If so, none of the British types of the day had the capability to seriously attack Germany.
Thirdly, regardless of what people think - and this is really, really difficult to persuade Americans on because they are totally in the Churchill tough talk script - Chamberlain had been rearming Britain for some time before Munich in 1938. That was the most responsible thing to do: continue to act in the best interests of Britain - and going to war with Germany in 1938 was not in the best interests of Britain. Chamberlain’s job was to act in the best interests of Britain. That’s what he did.
Fourthly, the elephant in the room: Spain. Who was considered the greatest threat to European stability in the 1930s? Stalin. The European establishment was terrified of a communist Revolution anywhere in Western Europe. And this is reflected perfectly in the way the European powers behaved in Spain: Stalin supported the Republic and the rest of Europe and the United States supported - even if only indirectly - Franco.
Finally - and almost nobody gets this - this was a middle/Eastern European problem. That doesn’t mean it didn’t concern others but it was simply a case of Hitler’s nationalism and politics of division tapping into long-standing ethnic nationalism and tribalism in Eastern Europe. That situation exists to this day. So the point is that if it is still a problem now, then attacking Germany back then wasn’t going to solve it either. If you want to see what this is like, consider the bulk of the messages we get about the Eastern European view. Treachery and betrayal. We have simply adopted the language of a lot of governments in waiting, like Poland, and adopted it as our own narrative because that’s easier than attempting to understand the mob hysteria and blood feuds that have existed in that part of the world for centuries and still exist today.
What was the point of getting involved in that? That’s the crux of Chamberlain’s comment about “people we know nothing about”. Where was the British interest served in getting involved in that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scootiepatootie7721 And yet it had much higher drag and bled energy like a stuck pig. Against a MiG-21, a delta, the Phantom was relatively vulnerable as long as the pilot exploited the advantages of roll rate and high speed. If the F-4 pilot could find a way to negate those advantages, the MiG-21 was in trouble.
Against the MiG-17, a type that could out turn an F-4, the Phantom pilot needed to maintain energy and climb advantages, as has been described many times in the Cunningham v MiG-17 fight on May 10, 1972. That's how Cunningham did it.
It's not popular opinion to say this but the MiG-21 was something of a pilot's aircraft. It was agile and handled well. That's one reason why it has had such a long service life. As long as the pilot didn't try to get into a turning fight, it was difficult to fight in 1972.
The Phantom had a very nasty stall, in effect a double stall, which could end up with it basically jumping like a bucking bronco. As good as it was, its aerodynamic layout was a series of pretty drastic compromises. And it was heavy and consumed a lot of fuel. US pilots learnt to fight it effectively in spite of its design and technology advantages, not because of them.
1
-
@KB4QAA
"The F-4 went through over four wing and elevon design changes during Vietnam."
My information was for a late variant. I'll have to check which one.
"Had aircrews not been crippled by Visual ID Rules of Engagement, they would have smoked NVN every day without needing to enter dogfights."
No way. Absolutely not. The reason for the visual ID rules was very simple. There were almost always more US aircraft than there were PAVNAF types in the air at any one time. While F-4 RIOs could ID MiGs through their IFF emissions, targeting them was a whole 'nother story. Missiles, especially SARH Sparrows, were not reliable. The Americans had to introduce visual ID rules to prevent the possibility of shooting each other down in droves. Even then, there were mistakes. This was a by product of a target-poor environment and fairly primitive missiles (of all types). Had those rules not been in place, Americans would have been shooting each other down. For more on this read, "One Day in a Long War: May 10, 1972, Air War North Vietnam", by Jefftey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. It's explained well in that book.
"Had they been allowed to bomb NVN airfields there would have been NO air to air engagements after two or three days."
After the start of Linebacker II in June, 1972, airfields were bombed regularly, yet the last US aircraft to be shot down was a B-52 on the 28th of December, 1972. The Paris Peace Accord was signed a month later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've often thought about the lack of consideration for emergencies in British bombers in WWII. For a start, the turrets were so small that they could only accommodate the airman without his parachute. In the case of the tail gunner in a Lancaster, it was stored just outside his turret but he still had to clip it on. The Air ministry seemed unable to comprehend the idea that a bomber which has been hit by Flak or a nightfighter and has been mortally damaged is unlikely to stay straight and level for long. In their minds, it seems, the order would be give, "Alright chaps, we've had it. Time to go", and everyone would calmly clip on their parachutes and make an orderly run for the exits.
The truth, of course, was horrifyingly different. If the aircraft fell apart, the chances of escape were pretty slim indeed. Some pilots, like Bill Reid (also a VC recipient), were lucky and got sucked out of the top hatch by the draught. Bomb aimers tended to have a higher rate of successful escapes. I think the reason for this was probably two-fold: firstly, they had enough room to keep their parachutes clipped on (though they probably didn't) and 2) they were closest to the escape hatch in the floor.
But the idea of trying to get out when pinned to the structure by 6G of rotational energy and your aircraft falls from the sky is horrific. No chance of escape there. For those who don't know, RAF Bomber Command crews suffered 44% fatalities in WWII. The only service I know of which was higher than that was Kriegsmarine U-Boat sailors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philipgrandidge5411
"reduce pollution in china?they are not planning for peak coal until 2030 and coal provides the electric to build their evs"
This has changed. Peak coal has passed. What has happened has been an enormous uptake of renewable energy at a staggering rate. In 2023, 50% of the world's solar panels were installed in China. The result is two fold. First of all, a noticeable improvement in air quality in major cities, notably Shanghai. Some of that relates to the huge uptake of EVs. You might not care about the environment but why would anyone want breathe noxious fumes? That's a spin off.
The second one is the huge reduction in demand for coal fired power generation. What isn't usually reported in the West is that the majority of those coal fired power stations were built to replace older, less efficient installations. But with the move to renewables, the flow of permits issued has reduced to barely a trickle. Such has been the uptake of things like solar that it is now thought in circles outside China than some of those new coal power stations may never actually turn a wheel.
Google the Global Energy Monitor article:
'China continues to lead the world in wind and solar, with twice as much capacity under construction as the rest of the world combined'.
While you're at it, have a look at this article:
'Managing the decline of coal in a decarbonizing China'
There have been massive job cuts across that sector. The decade old claim about China's reliance on coal doesn't really hold any more. Even the nuclear sector is under pressure, with some plants running at only 60% capacity, making them barely viable.
To be clear, they are doing this for economic reasons. Renewables are far cheaper an much more quickly deployed and any power station and they are decentralised. You can put them just about anywhere. Chinese EVs are being increasingly built with green energy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ja4414 Okay, as far as the mental health problem is concerned, America is basically in the same position as any other neo-liberal democracy. No better and no worse. But this gets floated all the time and nobody ever proposes doing anything about it or what can be done. When I say it can’t be fixed without raising taxes, the discussion usually ends there.
It’s become this throwaway line that people use to avoid talking about in preference to making any laws which could curb gun violence.
Secondly, nobody is talking about total gun bans except the gun lobby. It is not part of Democrat policy, no matter what the gun lobby tells you. Never has been. It’s a tactic intended entirely to polarise and to scare. Banning all guns would require an elimination of the Second Amendment, which isn’t going to happen. Most people have no idea how difficult this is. For a start, it has to be put to a public vote. To do this would require a two thirds majority in both houses to even put the vote and, as I understand it, a two thirds majority in the popular vote. Highly unlikely.
Finally, banning some weapons has a flow on effect. It makes them much more expensive, which deters people from using them. A common thief isn’t going to pay $34,000 for an AR-15 to commit any normal crime. An active shooter isn’t going to spend $34,000 to go on a shooting spree. These things deter a lot of casual and impulse crime. This is where expert witness is important.
There are lots of other measures which could be put into place, such as licensing and registration, which would help more than gun safety training, unless you’re prepared to talk about accidents, which is as off topic as gun suicides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree with the conclusion. Pretty much everyone who criticises appeasement postulates that Germany could not have withstood a simultaneous war with Czechoslovakia and France, especially if Britain joined the fray. But it’s not possible to make that case. It’s equally possible that it would only have made for a longer war. Germany was mainly configured for a land war so it would have tended to play into her hands, particularly when the French strategy was built around the Maginot Line, which, itself, could not be effectively used to attack and in 1938 was far from complete anyway.
Britain was a in a very different position. Insulated from the Continent of Europe by the Channel and with her defence mostly configured around her Navy and Air Force, she wasn’t really in a position to do much about it. Add to that the internal pressure from British nationalists (not just Moseley) not to get involved in another continental war, her rearmament was entirely configured for the defence of the realm. So too was Chamberlain’s responsibility: defence of the realm was his biggest concern.
Finally there is the Czech response to invasion. The Czechs, for all the military power they supposedly had, did nothing to prevent it. Six months later, Poland resisted but by then appeasement was no longer being considered as a response and everybody knows what happened. So why did the Czechs do nothing? Why did the government of Benes capitulate when conventional wisdom says they should have stood their ground?
Incidentally, be careful with the use of the term “democracy” when talking about pre-war Europe. Poland - often cited as an example - was a sham and most other countries were at least as bad. Only France was still democratic but she was unstable and governments came and went, making cohesive policy difficult. Remember too that Europe at the time saw Hitler as a lesser threat than Stalin. You have to look no further than the alliances of Spanish Civil War to see what they really thought. Stalin supported the Republic - as a lot of people did - but European governments supported Franco, directly or indirectly. That included Germany. So, even as late as 1939, the European powers and Britain were still aligned with Hitler, rather than against him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 Since the other thread would not allow me to post. I'll do it here,
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in that other thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. It was the Nazis who ransacked un ion offices and beat up union leaders, sending a good few to jail as well. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the section about the possibility of the regime falling is slightly flawed. There's always these assumptions like, 'If Moscow had fallen it would have been all over for the Soviet Union'. You cleared this up and then, in the same vein, the question of the regime falling was also tackled. If you listen to American predictions, they assume that everyone will behave the way their revolutionaries did in the 18th century and rise up and overthrow the government. It's also assumed that this will be a better outcome. Neither is necessarily true and in most cases it isn't true at all. You hear it from the US State Department all the time. They predicted it for Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. More recently, we've heard it about Putin. The only time this has happened - as it did with Ghaddafi and Saddam - was when the opposition was so strong that the country was already falling. This was, of course not the case with the Soviet Union.
Where I disagree is when you said, 'Stalin doesn't care', I think that's only superficially true. Stalin knew that numbers counted and the numbers available weren't going favourably when you consider how much territory was being lost. So, while you said Moscow and the Caucasus were the two things which, when combined, they couldn't afford to lose together, they equally couldn't afford to lose people and territory together.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would challenge the oft-repeated claim that bullies always get their comeuppance. I think that’s something we tell ourselves to feel better when things are grim. But it isn’t something anyone can afford to rely on. We’ve been telling ourselves for years that Vladimir Putin had cancer or was going to be overthrown or that Russia was going to break up because well, bullies always get their comeuppance. None of that has happened and Putin remains as entrenched as ever. Stalin died suddenly of natural causes while he was still in office. We really need to stop saying it. This isn’t Hollywood.
During the Nuremberg trials, the court examined the concept of evil. It was eventually defined as a lack of empathy. In extreme cases it’s often combined with high levels of vanity and the combination is usually thought of as narcissism. Everyone has a bit of narcissism in them, however small. For that reason, we accept ‘healthy’ levels of narcissism. But the bronze make up, the elaborate comb over, the trophy wives, the mouth posing during speeches in the hope that the camera will catch him as he wants to be seen and his claims to be 6’3” and 215 lbs are all pointers to levels of narcissism which are pretty far removed from healthy. You got the impression that the mugshot from the Atlanta jail had been rehearsed for weeks in front of a mirror in a desperate attempt to get people to take him seriously.
The other half of that is his attitudes to other people. The Access Hollywood audio clip that revealed his attitudes to women and the confidence and bluster with which he revealed it showed absolutely zero concern for the feelings of others or even the law. So why would anyone be surprised that he has no problem tearing families apart? Trump has always prioritised himself over anyone else, whatever else he says and I’m pretty sure this is in no small part because of his privileged upbringing. He bragged about not going to Vietnam. For Donald Trump, there is only one person in the world and that’s Donald Trump. Everyone else is just set decoration to fluff his ego. This is the evil side.
Trump made more sense in interviews 20 or 30 years ago. His unchallenged power throughout his life and his isolation from mainstream society mean that he’s used to dealing in monologues. Dovetailed with his own self-obsession, Trumps speeches are just whatever sounds impressive to him and that is becoming increasingly incoherent and disjointed. His speech will always be all about him and he can’t imagine and doesn’t care what anyone else might think.
Is Trump bad? He’s evil, no question. Is he mad? Well, his chances of being able to adequately interact with the mainstream community, the rambling nature of his speech and the fact that he seems deaf to anyone else suggests that yes, he’s mad too.
And that evil madman has the nuclear codes.
But remember something else: Americans put him there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marklittle8805
”The Mustangs, like the Spitfire were vulnerable to ground fire being Liquid cooled.”
Let’s get this old shibboleth out of the way first. All aircraft are vulnerable to ground fire and the P-47 was no exception. If you read anecdotal reports from the time, you will find that Germany, by 1944-45, was awash with anti-aircraft guns. This was the environment into which the P-51 flew. Secondly, those who talk about this vulnerability don’t seem to realise that the P-47 was vulnerable too. They seem to focus on vulnerability to small arms fire, yet the biggest risk to strafing fighters was either flying into the ground or Flak. Not much point in worrying about a lucky 7.92 round when your biggest threat was a Flakvierling or a 40mm.
As for the perception that the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either. The total number - all types - shot down by the Allies in Western Europe in 1943 was 451, with 414 claimed by the P-47. The lion’s share, for sure, but to put that into perspective, the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft to the end of 1943 so the P-47 only accounted for about 2%. It also doesn’t explain why the USAAF lost so many bombers in early 1944. You’d have to look pretty closely to find that (I already know why). It also doesn’t explain why the Germans were still able to fight back so effectively throughout 1943.
Again, there are reasons for this that are not necessarily related to the P-47.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fringedweller5425
"We're one nation on the largest island in the world."
With a very small population.
"We should have the largest navy in the world."
Impossible. We don't have the money. More importantly, there are other ways of doing it that are at least as cost effective.
"We don't necessarily need much of an army."
Yet the Army do most of the work, especially when it comes to things like policing actions. And if you look at the casualties from recent wars they are nearly all army.
"And we really only need an aggressive air force if we're going to fight New Zealand."
The Air Force is a lot more important than that. We lost an awful lot of power projection when we retired the F-111. But realistically, there was no alternative to the F-111. Besides that, the P8 and Triton, both of which we have, combined with JORN and our Boeing Wedgetails, are our best defence assets.
"We need subs, destroyers, battleships and carriers."
Battleships are useless. Nobody, not even the USN, uses them any more. The only use they have is shore bombardment and air defence. Both of those jobs can be done by smaller and more versatile assets. Destroyers are the most useful for landings. Air warfare destroyers are more useful for area denial.
But the fact is that things like aircraft carriers are just a huge target. One hypersonic missile and they're done and you lose a lot of assets and people. That's the reality of modern naval warfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fringedweller5425 Oh, okay. No worries then. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's a bit stumped by this. Let me put it this way: I think we need to take a carrot and stick approach. I don't completely agree with nuclear submarines, especially when they are at least a decade off. But on the other hand, we need a capable stick. Closer to home, we have some relationships to repair. The first one is Indonesia, who are not happy about this. The second one is Thailand, who have been slowly moving into China's circle for the last decade.
We need both of those countries - and probably a few others like Malaysia - in our corner.
Finally - and I know I will cop flack for this - we need to repair our relationship with China.
That is not going to be simple. They know we are never going to accede to their list of demands but getting on better with China is in our mutual best interests. They also know that of the three AUKUS partners we are the weakest link because we are small and because we are close so they will continue to pressure us.
Personally, I think their government has become more extreme because it is starting to die. The steam has gone out of the Communist revolution (which was 72 years ago...). The young people, while not embracing Western values, are becoming more rebellious. Sooner or later, that will be the majority attitude and at some point there will be a critical shift which will result in a sort of counter revolution. You can't put everyone in jail. But just how and when that will happen, I don't know.
In the meantime - and this is the stick part - the various navies who are currently involved in this have one major task: containing the Chinese Navy to the South China Sea. The major focus of these efforts is to contain the SSBNs - the ballistic missile subs. If those things get through the screen an out into blue water, they will be almost impossible to find and that's a situation nobody wants.
Right now, I suspect there are Western ships and the Japanese sowing fields of sonobuoys dense enough to walk on just in case.
This was lesson the Americans learnt hard in the Cold War, when Soviet Navy SSBNs cruised the Atlantic with little fear of being found.
The Collins Class subs are not completely useless here and still have a role to play. What they are really good at is monitoring communications traffic and they have been doing it throughout the Oceania region for about 20 years.
As I said: I don't have any real answers but I have some idea of how I think they should proceed. Hopefully you now have some idea of where I'm coming from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trentinfield7903 I’d look into it again. Many of the orders - most, in fact - were given only after Hitler had listened to what his generals had to say. To blame Hitler solely because he gave the order often overlooks the background where a senior general would say, “Mein Fuhrer, I think this is our best option”. Hitler would nod in ascent and tell them to carry it out. This happened in the overwhelming majority of cases. So who was giving the order? Hitler would never have accepted a general who came to him every time he had a problem. So it was their job to advise, advise, advise. It’s called “managing up”. It’s certainly true that there were some serious mistakes. There were, equally, others which get glossed over (such as why Manstein was relieved) because so much of what we know today was written after the war by people who were anxious not to be remembered for anything they got wrong. Guderian, Manstein, Halder, et al, all wrote memoirs at the behest of the allies, particularly the Americans, because of the obvious successes they had achieved. The Americans even gave Halder a medal! Almost none of these memoirs were written from diary entries (Rommel’s were but of course, he was dead) but from memory. In the period following the war, there was a lot of political pressure not to push the German generals too hard on detail, lest they uncover something unpleasant. In the post was period, there was a need to rebuild Germany (West) and that included the armed forces. This had to be done to ward off any Soviet ambitions, so it became necessary to whitewash a lot of the things that went wrong. This was not merely limited to war crimes either. It meant ignoring the fact that when it came to Barbarossa, the generals largely fell into line and said, “Onward to Moscow”. Some might have questioned it. Some might even have advised against it but in the end, nobody resigned because of it. That’s also how we got the myth of “the clean Wehrmacht”.
But in so doing, there was a lot of “Adolf who?” which only served the generals, who were very keen to distance themselves from him. They didn’t need a lot of persuading because people they knew had been executed for their role in the prosecution of the war. So you get what Jonathan House calls “The three alibis”. 1) General Winter, 2) they were overwhelmed by hoards of “Russians” and 3) that amateur Hitler. As one who was brought up in a house where my father had sincere and deep admiration for Manstein, Guderian, Rommel and von Rundstedt, I was very much a part of it. I read Guderian’s “Panzer Leader” in my late teens and never questioned it. Another who my father had deep respect for the Liddell-Hart, who interviewed these men and perhaps didn’t quite see through them. When you get two soldiers talking, sometimes things get lost in translation.
While I’m still probably influenced by all that, I’m now reading the works of people like Glantz (who every Wehraboo tells me is a liar who makes up his research) and Alexander Hill. These guys have had access to Soviet archives, which we didn’t have when I was a young man. The picture they paint is rather different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:30 Seriously Scott, you are not doing yourself any favours with these ridiculous claims. The Porsches shown in this video as overlay for that comment never went to "nearly 1,000 brake horsepower". Not even close. The 4.9 litre 912 engine had about 620hp (see: "Super Sports: the 220 mph Le Mans Cars", Haynes, 1988, p. 78). The only 917s which went to 1,000 hp and beyond were the twin turbo, 5.4 litre 917/30s of CanAm, which were good for 1,100hp in race trim and up to 1,400 (give or take...) in practice trim.
Secondly, the 917LH was NOT 30mph faster on the straight than anyone else. In 1971, the fastest car on the straight in practice was a Ferrari at 359 km/h (222.6 mph). In the race the Porsche did 362 km/h (224.4 mph). So actually, only 1.8 mph difference, Scott. Google Mulsanne's Corner "maxspeed" for the official ACO speed trap figures.
You should think about changing your channel name to "Motor Sport Myths". Your driving analyses are fascinating. Your technical stuff is bollocks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wesking6172 Good question. I'd have said it's a bit of an internet brouhaha, as so many things are these days.
According to Calum E. Douglas, author of 'The Secret Horsepower Race', which everyone with an interest in this should read, the octane ratings from WWII were pretty useless for comparison. His point was that there were no agreed upon standards, so 130 octane in the US or England was completely different from 130 octane in Germany.
He did an interview with Chris Bergs, 'Bismarck', from Military Aviation History channel, in which he answered a few questions from the public, including one about this. I can't remember which interview it was but from memory, both had bad colds!
It's worth your while looking it up. It's also worth your while getting a copy of Douglas' book. For the money it's extremely good value but if you're going to buy it, do so from the publisher and not from Amazon. They charge more nd the author gets less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firestream93 Let's put that into context for a second. Here is a collection of politicians who have been paid by the gun industry this year to stop any bills passing that might change gun laws:
1. Ted Cruz, $442,000
2. Steve Scalise, $396,000
3. John Cornyn, $340,000
4. Lindsey Graham, $284,000
5. Mitch McConnell, $247,000
6. Devin Nunes, $228,000
7. Ron Johnson, $223,000
8. Kevin McCarthy $220,000
9. Pete Sessions, $208,000
10. Steven Daines, $198,000
They are all Republican. They have been responsible for stopping any and all legislation that might have prevented this. Instead, they eneabled it and they absolutely have blood on their hands. Those bast@rds are probably self-serving, God-fearing Christians, FFS! How many of them did you vote for? Because in any other country, this would be called out for what it is: corruption.
And by the way, the leader as of 2020 was Mitt Romney who, ever the years, has Hoovered up more than $13.5 million in gun industry paybacks.
How much do you get paid?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebardock6785
"Sorry but they lost all credibility a long time ago."
Why don't you tell it like it is. They lost all credibility when they started presenting both sides of the argument. You really can't tolerate it, can you? Do you think I sit there saying all that when they're covering the gun lobby position? Do you think I call them biased or question their credibility for presenting a side I don't agree with? Grow up.
"Idk about the NRA but at some point in time you really just don't have the time to sit with people who just want to turn your words around."
Media strategy v1.0: when approached by the media for comment you engage. You can waive your right of reply. That is your choice but it's a poor strategy and it makes it look as though they have something to hide.
"“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”"
Cook & Ludwig, in their riposte to Kleck & Gertz, said the complete opposite. They said it was extremely rare. In fact, so badly discredited is Kleck's original research from 1995 that he no longer quotes it, saying that between 35 and 65% of DGUs were probably illegal.
The NCVS puts the figure at about 65,000.
"500,000 to more than 3 million"
Without seeing how the figures were arrived at, there's no way of knowing what the methodology was. For example, in the original survey that established that figure in the minds of so many gun enthusiasts in America, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz asked just one question of their 4,000 random telephone respondents: "Have you ever used a gun to prevent a crime?"
Cook & Ludwig did the same thing but corrected for false positives. They asked multiple questions instead of just one. For example, "Have you ever used a gun to prevent a rape?" If the answer was "Yes", they followed it up with "Did you report it to the police?" Their conclusion was that the number of rapes reported was more than double the national total, making it impossible (4,000 is a pretty large sample size).
So either criminals are targeting gun carriers almost exclusively or the figures are wrong. Here is a link to Cook & Ludwig's paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226799270_Defensive_Gun_Uses_New_Evidence_from_a_National_Survey
"Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”"
Please post a link for this. I'm sorry but it's simply implausible. We have no way of knowing the criminal intent or even who the aggressor was, so such a conclusion is almost impossible.
I don't have the figures from 2012 immediately to hand but I have 2010 off the top of my head. That year there were 16,556 murders with 11,078 by gun (about 69%). The same year there were 617 justified homicides with 259 by civilians, of which 200 were with guns. That means for every justified homicide by a civilian with a gun there were 56 gun murders.
"I don't if they don't cover my side by journalism should always stay neutral"
As I said: for journalism to be neutral, it must cover both sides. Vice did that.
"when they don't include the other side then how can I possibly consider them credible?"
They did. They covered the gun range instructors and they covered the anti-gun protesters and victims of gun crime. Both points of view were covered. That the NRA chose to waive their right of reply is not Vice's fault. The were approached. They declined. Case closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bullofthewoods9374
"you don't want to accept any facts but the ones you like."
I really don't care whether you think I'm cherry picking or not. I will debate you and any other member of the gun lobby on fact any time you like. Trouble is, most of you lot wouldn't know a "fact" if it jumped out of your morning Weeties and bit you on the nose. What I will not debate you on is individual instances and silly hypotheticals.
"fact is you are laughable to think guns are not used to save lives!!!"
I didn't say it. My contention - and it's easy to back up by looking at the NCVS statistics - is that it is very much rarer than the gun lobby imagines or claims. My contention is that it is very easy to prove that guns cause far, far more trouble than they solve. And if you want to debate me on that you'd better prepare yourself for a shock.
"your number comparison is hilarious."
Yeah, maybe it's because I'm thick that I don't get the joke. Perhaps you should explain it to me sometime... With some credible links to university papers and CDC, DOJ, NCVS or FBI statistics.
"what do you guys do to protect yourselves where ever it is you live??? do tell."
Well, we don't use guns and we never have and we like it that way. Our murder rate reflects this, particularly our gun murder rate. Your gun murder rate is 2.9/100K. Ours is 0.11/100k. We don't have a bunch of people standing around every street corner packing heat so they can feel good about themselves. I can walk my streets at night without fear of being shot.
"violent crime never went down in countries that banned guns."
Who keeps feeding you this malarkey? Our murder rate went from 1.9/100K to 1.04/100K in the times nice the National Firearms Agreement was passed. That's about -45%. At the same time, our gun murder rate went from 0.30 to 0.11/100K, a drop of about 65%. So, yes, our murder rate did go down, even in comparison to the pre-existing downward trend you lot get all wet and steamy about.
But you're forgetting something (or you're lying about it). Australia did not ban guns. We banned semi-automatics and pump action long arms and we banned pistols. Bolt action rifles, levels action, break shotguns and air rifles etc.. are all still legal. No country on the planet has a total gun ban, not even North Korea.
"I get it you don't like guns, fine with me, what is it to you if we do??"
It's your constitutional right to own guns. Just don't pretend you're preventing crime. LOL!!
"you are just against guns and nothing can change your mind no facts no videos showing robbers getting shot by the victims no nothing will do any good with you so why should we bother or care."
You tell me. I'm not against guns. I'm a former shooter and gun owner who has shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG. Shot pistols. Shot ducks and bunnies too.
I told you, I won't debate you on individual circumstances but in reference to those videos you mentioned, I will tell you this. According to CDC figures, in 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States, with 11,078 by gun. That same year there were 617 justified homicides, with 259 by civilians and of those, 200 were with guns. That means there were 56 times as many gun murders as there were justified homicides. Nobody said they don't happen. I said they're rare and vastly outnumbered by cases of illicit use. How'd you like to justify that?
I repeat, I'm not against guns. What I'm against is the cancer that is the American gun lobby, a group of self-interested zealots masquerading as a civil rights group. You tell lies about my country. You try to influence governments where arms regulation is on the table. You even lie to yourself. Ever bothered to find out about Chicago's gun laws, for example? Or are you just one of those lemmings who's happy to believe that they have the strictest gun laws and the worst crime rates?
"we really don't care what you euros think about it."
I'm not a "Euro". I'm Australian. If you don't care then why are you responding?
"plenty of proof out there to show you your wrong, you just chose not to look at it."
You show me your statistics - with links - and I'll show you mine. But stop talking like a victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johngregory4801
"The Brits had to show us how to land Corsairs on aircraft carriers so they missed a lot of battles, such as the Marianas Turkey Shoot."
It didn't take every Corsair in the USN or USMC to test on RN carrier decks.
"The Thunderbolts were up against the cream of the Luftwaffe's pilots deeper into enemy territory than any other plane but the Lightning could go."
Oh boy... This 'cream of the Luftwaffe' claim as a defence of the P-47 is, was and always has been bulldust, nothing less.
By the time the P-47 actually entered combat in April, 1943, the Luftwaffe was, to a very large extent already beaten. From the point of view of training and experience, the quality of Luftwaffe pilots probably peaked in 1941, just before Operation Barbarossa.
By 1943, the Luftwaffe had lost huge amounts of experience in battles for North Africa and the Soviet Union. By this stage, Stalingrad had already been lost and there is little doubt that Stalingrad highlighted the inadequacies of the Jagdwaffe.
By the end of 1943, the USAAF in western Europe had shot down 451 German aircraft, with the lion's share - 414 - going to the P-47. The RAF shot down about the same number.
But the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. So 2% isn't evidence of 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe' as Greg calls it.
"The Hellcat's 19/1 kill ratio is a lot less impressive when you remember the Wildcat was the plane that faced Japan's most experienced pilots and not only held the line, but posted a 7/1 kill ratio against them. THAT'S impressive."
Oh God, not again. The Wildcat did well in difficult circumstances. But by the time of the 12 month anniversary of Pearl Harbor, The Japanese were at best engaged in a holding action. The Wildcat series shot down 1,327 aircraft for the war but how many Japanese pilots were killed in heir cockpits on the decks of their aircraft carriers at Midway? I'd suggest dozens, if not hundreds.
But I wasn't making any claims either way about the Wildcat, either in qualitative or numbers terms and I just get sick of hearing and refuting these claims that have done the rounds of the internet for the last decade or more.
I don't think there's anything unimpressive about the Hellcat's achievements, either in absolute or relative terms. As someone said - and I can't remember who it was - as great as the Corsair was, it was the Hellcat that won the war in the Pacific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madtechnocrat9234
"you can just call everyone who is not democratic a proto-fascists?"
That's a largely American definition. Fascism ultimately, is not democratic but fascism is a form of extreme nationalism and racism. In the context of the time and the climate of nationalism that existed in Poland at the time, I'd say I'm still pretty close.
"Fascism is very distinct ideology focused mainly around nationality, ethno-nationality to be precise and a state as a final form of said nationality, it is not simply authoritarianism."
Agreed. You have a good understanding of fascism from my perspective. But I can think of no fascist groups which are democratic. History suggests they're not either. Watching eastern Europe slide back into authoritarianism and single party states, it's pretty easy to see the same racist/nationalist themes behind it.
"Had it not for the outcome of world war 1 it could have never existed..."
Fascism has been around longer than that. It really started with a political border dispute between France and Italy in the late 19th Century.
"Democratic or not, it was our rightful government, becouse it was OUR government, not installed by any foreign power."
But that's just it: it wasn't. The election was a sham and the process was done without electoral authority.
"Furthermore you severely downplay how much it was support by the people. Piłsudski to this day is considered a hero by literaly all sides in this country. (Except few far-rightwing radicals)"
Fascism frequently has the support of the vast majority. Look at Italy. Look at Nazi Germany. When you advocate nationalist ideals, it's easy to implement anti-democratic systems and we are seeing that today.
"Legitimacy is not on paper, it is in hearts and minds of people."
Legitimacy is the result of due process. There is no other way to determine this than the electoral process. We don't have an alternative. When people start claiming to speak for the majority - or worse, the "silent majority" - you know they are trying to circumvent democracy.
1
-
@madtechnocrat9234
"Well, in my eyes American defintion is sh*t then"
Why don't you just calm down? I didn't say I agreed with it. I even agreed with your version. What I said was that fascism historically has not been democratic. In that respect it isn't much different from communism. That's not supposed to be dictatorial either but it usually is.
"You can have extreme nationalism and racism in a democracy."
Yes but I've yet to see a democratic fascist government because in fascism, everything and everyone is subordinated to the state (trust me, I hate talking about political ideology).
"Or even by British concentration camps in africa long before Germans came up with that sh*t. "
Will you calm the fuck down? Those British concentration camps were under military rule and that too is incompatible with democracy. On that basis you could argue that jails are fascist.
"On top of that democracy can be a tyranny if certain laws are removed... nothing would stop majority from voting on executing someone for example."
Sure it can. There are lots of ways governments can become tyrannical. Try the military juntas of South America in the latter half of the 20th century. Were they fascist? Not necessarily. Were they tyrannical? You bet they were. They're still digging up the bodies.
"Except it was less authoritarian and more oligarchic."
Well, if authoritarian and democratic are opposites then oligarchic shares more with authoritarianism than it does with democracy.
"Yes, but it was done by Polish politicians, not by outside forces."
And they set the process up for exactly that purpose: so that they could make executive decisions without due process. That is not democratic, no matter how you look at it. Doesn't matter who does it.
"Which for example instalation of soviet puppet government in Poland wasn't."
Who were also Poles. What's the difference?
"I would, however expect you would consider king a legitimate ruler of some country, despite of lack of any electoral process. Am i wrong?"
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The Queen of Great Britain is a legitimate ruler but she works within the framework of a democracy. She's the Head of State in the same way that a president is except that she's not elected. But in actual fact, she's a rubber stamp because all the executive decisions are made by elected officials.
Is it legitimate? The constitution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recognises it.
Do I agree with it? No.
Now, if you want to continue this discussion, I respectfully ask that you lower the tone a bit or you can argue with your monitor instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The main reason that P-51 was highly favored, wasn't anything except simple economics, P-47s ($82K) and P38s ($120K+) were more expensive than the P-51 ($50,000) ."
This is just Greg nonsense again. God damn it, I wish he'd stop posting this drivel. Go to a site called 'WWII Aircraft Performance' and look at the comparative testing. The P-51 outperformed the P-47 almost everywhere; climb, roll, turn, etc. Remember though that the aircraft used were British spec. Their 'Thunderbolt II' was basically a D-25 and their 'Mustang III' was a P-51C with a Malcolm hood and no 85 gallon tank behind the pilot so it didn't have nearly as much range as US spec P-51s.
Economics was never a factor in the choice of the P-51. It's Greg conjecture. He'd know it wasn't true if he'd ever read anything but technical notes. I can back this up quite easily.
"P-47 Razorbacks were flying and fighting greater distances than into Germany and back in the Pacific."
Really? When? Again, this is Greg nonsense. You have to realise that the P-47, prior to the D-25, carried less internal fuel than the P-51 and drank it at a 50% greater rate. That's not a problem that could be cured with drop tanks, merely offset. Yes, I've heard of the 'Brisbane tank'. I'm Australian. It was made here.
"P-38's after Lindbergh went further...however, when both P-51 and P-38 when kept with the bombers and not released to attack airfields, the results were only slightly better."
No way.
First of all, whatever its merits in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, the P-38 was a failure as an escort fighter over Germany. It was too easy to recognise and counter and too unreliable.
Secondly, without the P-51, the USAAF did not have air superiority deep into Germany. With it, they did. With the P-51, the USAAF could go where ever it wanted and bomb what ever it wanted without fear of excessive losses. That is power projection. The spike in losses in early 1944 can be traced not to an increased number of interceptions by German fighters but to an increased number of successful interceptions. This was largely because the Germans started using 30mm cannon. There is a channel called 'WWII US Bombers' which has done a good video on this.
The P-51s basically swept the Luftwaffe from the sky. After D-Day, Flak was more of a problem than fighters.
To give you some idea of how effective the Mustang was, with two fighter groups in Feb, 1944, they scored almost as many air-to-air kills during 'Big Week' as the eight fighter groups of P-47s. They overtook the P-47 in March, scoring around 250 v 150 for the P-47. In April, the eight FGs of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft while four FGs of P-51s shot down 329 German aircraft. That means the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Whatever the merits of the P-38 and P-47, it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
So any claim that the P-51 was only used because it was cheaper is, itself, a cheap shot at best. It's actually total nonsense.
1
-
1
-
@Renshen1957 Greg Gordon is a liar. I know this because I have been a pilot. No, I’m not a professional pilot but I did spend more than 2,000 hours in helicopters. What about you?
Greg is deliberately misleading people because he’s pissed off that his favourite plane was not the best fighter of WWII and now he’s made it his life’s work to rewrite history.
Let’s look at his claim about Critical Mach Number (MCrit). The P-47’s MCrit was 0.71 and I don’t care what he says, nothing will change that. First of all, Greg doesn’t tell you what MCrit is. I know what it is but you can look it up for yourself. Instead, Greg tries to delude people into thinking that somehow the Republic S-3 section could, with changes, propel its MCrit to 0.82. He talks about flight test data which show that it was dived at whatever number he claims.
That makes no difference. The S-3 section was pegged at 0.71, whatever was done to it and whatever speed it was dived at. He even seems to be trying to sell the idea that by adding dive flaps, the speed went up. This is simply impossible. Has he never heard of Drag Divergence Mach Number? MCrit does not change and he should know that. If he doesn’t then he’s talking from a position of ignorance. If he does then he’s lying by omission.
This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. The S-3 simply does not have the characteristics necessary to have a MCrit of 0.82. All of its basic properties are wrong for it. There’s too much camber too close to the leading edge, the point of maximum thickness is too far forward and it’s too asymmetrical. The P-51 aerofoil was 0.78 (this has nothing to do with the laminar flow design) and the Hawker Tempest was about the same. Both were near-symmetrical, both had their point of maximum thickness further aft and both had small amounts of camber that were at least half way back from the LE.
For reference, the NACA 2213 of the Spitfire (2209 at the tip) had a MCrit of about 0.73.
Mathematically, this is easy to back up. The speed of sound at 20,000 feet is about 709 mph. The P-47s MCrit was 0.71 which is about 503 mph. The VNE was 500 IAS.
QED.
Greg also does not read history. He never, ever comments on specific missions, especially the planning. I have debated Greg and he backed down. Then he deleted my comments.
This is not and never has been about ‘my favourite plane’ and no student of history can ever afford to be influenced by such rubbish. I came into this believing the P-47 had been slightly overlooked and having now read about the history of the USAAF over Germany, pilot memoirs from both sides, mission histories, campaign histories and flight performance data, I now believe the P-47 is massively overrated by the internet and the P-51 actually maligned.
He’s spinning you a line and a bunch of lemmings are happy to go over a cliff for him.
Martin Caidin is not worth the paper his stuff is printed on. I have his book on the Bf-109 and on Saburo Sakai. He’s not a serious historian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rebeccabrock7812
"understanding firearms are completely important, If you do knot understand how a firearm works you should not comment on anything related to guns,let alone own or hold one."
Well, using the same logic, perhaps if you can't spell or use a spell checker, you shouldn't post on the internet.
What makes you think I don't know? As previously pointed out, I'm a former shooter and gun owner. Shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG. Owned a number of guns, including a replica .36 1851 Navy Colt. Shot other pistols too. And yes, even an AR-15.
Gun policy does not require an extensive knowledge of firearms. It is not necessary in developing social policy. First of all, it is incredibly easy to outsource when drawing up the finer points but is unnecessary for broader policy framework. Secondly, good law is simple. Look at the constitution. It's easy to understand. Look at the gun laws in those countries where it has been successfully implemented (Western Europe, UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand). The laws are easy to understand. There are different licencing levels. If all you want is a .22 or break shotgun, you get a licence for one of those. If you want a licence for a semi-auto, like an AR-15, that's a different licencing level.
Easy peasy. Just like motor vehicle licencing.
A counter to that - as I pointed out earlier - is the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban", possibly the worst piece of legislation I've seen. In good faith, the government allowed the gun lobby to have their input. The result was a law which delved into so much minutiae that it was virtually unintelligible and so full of loopholes that it was unenforcible.
It was next to useless. That was entirely deliberate because the gun lobby didn't want it enforced. The gun lobby's mission was to shoot it down. Not much of an incentive to include the gun lobby in future negotiations, is it? God knows, the legislation might even work.
"People die everyday because they don't know how a gun works and they accidentally shoot themselves or someone else."
They do but in comparison accidental firearms deaths account for a relatively small number when compared with homicides. In 2020 there were 19,384 homicides (CDC figure) and 2,315 accidental deaths (Gun Violence Archive). It makes no difference. Firearms law should be simple and easy to understand. If you want to ban semi-automatics, you say, "No semi-atomatics". It doesn matter whether it has a variable gas port or whether the safety catch is on one side or both.
1
-
@rebeccabrock7812
"I never said you didn't know how a gun works"
Actually you did:
"If you do knot understand how a firearm works you should not comment on anything related to guns,let alone own or hold one."
Ergo,
"also what is this college if you can understand what I'm saying then I don't need a spell checker."
It's totally your responsibility to make sure you are understood. That usually means sticking to the conventions of spelling, punctuation and grammar, or you are likely to be misunderstood again.
"No one can completely stop gun violence, but we can educate and teach the younger generation about guns."
Nobody is saying that gun violence can be eliminated, but with reasonable levels of gun control, it can be very significantly reduced. That has been the experience of all the peer nations who have implemented it (UK, Western Europe, Australia and Japan).
Teaching children gun safety won't stop mass shooters. And why should children be required to learn about guns just because the US has such an appalling record on gun violence?
"It's not a matter of better laws it's a matter of getting the criminals off the street and fixing the system."
These short term solutions are almost never very effective for long. They are usually just slogans to get politicians elected. The trouble with those kinds of knee-jerk policies is that they take no account of the causes and origins of different types of crimes in different areas. So their effectiveness in fighting crime is minimal. While it's certainly true that the prison system is required to fill a charter - usually listed as punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence - they don't treat the root causes of crime.
Getting guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them would be a good start.
1
-
@rebeccabrock7812 Rebecca, I'm going to tell you straight up that I have heard all the arguments for doing nothing. None hold up..
"Our democracy is corrupt, that needs to change."
So far, the only alternative that has been offered is dictatorship.
"But Im saying criminals don't obey the law, period."
This is an example of bad policy making. Paedophiles don't obey the law either but if anything, we are making anti-child exploitation laws stronger, not weaker. Secondly, depending on the law, criminals can be significantly disadvantaged to the point that the types of crimes involved can be seriously minimised. For example, an AR-15 costs between $1,000 and 1,200 in the United States and $35,000 on the black market in Australia, where the weapon is illegal. That kind of increase in cost is going to put a lot of potential criminals out of the market.
"Guns don't shoot people by themselves."
If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop saying this. It's just zombie argument I see all the time. The fact that it gets repeated so often doesn't make it right. The fact is that guns now account for 79% of all murders in the United States. Without a number of guns, Stephen Paddock could not have killed 60 people and wounded a phenomenal 480. Pro-gun people argue that he could have used a bomb but the fact is that he didn't.
"If your gonna do a comparison do so with another democracy. That being said, California has the most strict gun laws of any state but it's still very high in homicides a day."
If I'm "gonna" do any comparison, it's going to be a pro-rata one. In murders per capita, California is not exceptional compared with other states and sits at 31st on the list of 50 states (see the CDC website "Homicide by State”). California's murder rate is 6.1 per 100,000 while Mississippi runs at 20.5 per 100,000. The national average is 7.5 per 100,000 and the national gun murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000. The reason California's raw number is so high is nothing to do with strict gun laws (a classic gun lobby non-sequitur) and everything to do with the fact that the population of California is nearly 40 million.
"I understand you are not against guns, you think there should be better laws in place, and I respect that, but laws will do no good until we fix the democracy."
I'm not against guns. I'm against idiots, propaganda and lies. People think I hate guns but I don't. I am a former shooter and gun owner and I enjoyed shooting. I'm just abhorred by the attitude of gun owners that a murder rate which is seven times that of any peer nation is somehow acceptable. I don't hear anyone offering any serious solutions, while other nations have successfully implemented gun control and simply don't have the problems the United States has.
And this is not because America has more crime or worse crime or worse drugs or worse mental health. It's because America has saturation levels of gun ownership.
But one thing I'm never going to council is the idea that democracy has to be fixed before gun laws can be implemented.
Democracy is not contingent upon gun ownership. Not ever. Gun owners like to think they are defenders of democracy but veiled threats actually show the extent to which gun owners simply don't understand democracy. The two ideas run counter to each other. The best way to fix democracy is to engage the system. It is not to make threats with guns. All history shows is that gun groups - armed gangs - make the most oppressive governments. Look at the paramilitaries in the former Yugoslavia, the rebel groups in Somalia or Rwanda or even the armed gangs in the Russian Civil War (doesn't matter which side). Between them they murdered millions of people with next to no consequences. If they can, they will. America is no different.
As admirable as your intentions may be, I simply can't support your argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"nteresting, in a dogfight, yeah the Zero was better than the Spitfire, but at low level. The higher it got, the more its performance suffered. At mid-altitude, the Zero and Spit's performance was pretty even."
Where did you get this from? The RAAF experience of Spitfires against Zeros over Northern Australia told quite a different story.
"Anyhow, Spitfire pilots, like the Americans learned, getting height and booming and zooming led to great results."
And the Japanese?
Even towards the end of 1943, Japanese pilots still flew excellent combat formation and employed excellent tactical doctrine. Despite what most people think: that the Zero was purely a dogfighter, their pilots had their greatest successes using bounces, usually out of the sun. Bu wait! Isn't that 'zoom and boom'?
In their combat against RAAF Spitfires, most of their dogfights were inconclusive, while their bounces produced positive results. None of this had anything to do with the Spitfire and the Zero being evenly matched in a dogfight. In fact, it had a lot more to do with tactics. Even in 1943, the Boelcke Dicta still held true, perhaps more so.
"Initially, they'd have the advantage, but once tactics were soughted out, I think they could have been in trouble."
I don't know why. I think it would have been a very dangerous opponent for the Hurricane. Even the Spitfire struggled against it. Furthermore, it carried enough fuel for its presence to have been potentially decisive. Raiding London would have been easy. Even Northern cities and airfields would have come into play.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_oly_241 All true and correct up to the last sentence. Seriously, not a bad summation of events.
But aren’t you forgetting something? There’s a lot more history to this than meets the eye. In 1991, the president-elect, Bill Clinton asked George Kennan, a 40 year diplomat, for advice. Remember that the Soviet Union had been dissolved in June that year. Kennan said, “Whatever you do, don’t isolate Russia.”
Yet isolating Russia has been US policy - and that of NATO - ever since. When a country is isolated and frozen out, it’s pretty much inevitable that it will turn to nationalism. That’s how Putin - a Russian nationalist - got elected. Russia even applied for NATO membership and was instantly blackballed by the US with their controlling vote. In 2008, at the Bucharest conference, the US allowed Ukraine and Georgia to become provisional members of NATO. The Europeans supported it too. This was about as provocative as it gets and Putin was incandescent. That was the Cuban missile crisis in reverse.
The Ukrainian government, under then-president Viktor Yanukovich, was moderately pro-Moscow. Yet the US never attempted to befriend him or his government. Okay, he wasn’t a particularly nice guy, after someone connected to him poisoned his political opponent Viktor Yushchenko. Yuschenko survived. But as soon as an anti-Moscow crowd got in (illegally), out comes the support for Ukrainian nationalists like Petro Poroshchenko and now Vladimir Zelezniyy (a former stand up comic). These guys are under the thumb of fascists and even neo-Nazis and America is siding with them and swallowing whatever they say, just as they did with Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq in 1991..
All because they have a bee in their bonnet over Putin. Yet the fact is that if Russia hadn’t been singled out, Putin and the other Russian nationalists would probably not have get where they are today. Biden has next to no say in that. He’ll have to carry the can, as he did for the Afghanistan exit, even though neither are his fault. It’s simply the result of 30 years of delusional American foreign policy. The Pentagon still thinks it’s fighting the Soviet Union.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized
"The rpm number is a mixed bag, it is mostly brought forward by the fan boys."
Totally. No historical relevance.
"Yet, it is important to note that the Germans in WW2 used both the MG 34 and MG 44 as light and heavy machine guns."
My only question about that would be how long the barrels lasted with sustained fire, especially since the MG-34 and -42 were not water cooled? That was my point about the Bren: that it wasn't ever required to perform sustained fire. Admittedly, that tends to be a WWI technique but the way the British and Commonwealth forces used it in WWII, it remained and effective tactic for discouraging the enemy from putting his head up for too long.
I believe there was a tripod mount for the Bren for airfield defence but the only LMG I can remember seeing mounted that way was a Lewis.
"The light was in the squad with a bipod, the heavy was the same machine gun, but with a special mount on a tripod (which I think cost more than the whole gun) that had mechanism for "spraying an area" etc."
Are you talking about indirect fire here?
"Also on the Eastern Front, I guess those occasions were more common."
The wide (mostly) open spaces of the Eastern Front were probably not unlike the desert scenario I described earlier.
For the record, I didn't describe the use of the Bren on patrols. I trained at squad level as a machine gunner and carrying the Bren was certainly more arduous than carrying a .303 service rifle. The weapon wasn't super heavy but I didn't have the advantage of a sling so it had to either carry it over my shoulder or cradle it. The weapon weighed about 10 kg empty and probably 12 or 13 kilos with a full magazine. Another man was needed to carry mags and a spare barrel. As a youth, it eventually got pretty heavy but as an adult, I doubt it would have made as much of an impact. So while it was lot heavier than a rifle, it could have been a lot worse.
The Australian practice was to put the Bren in the middle of the section, rather than at or near the ends. this was okay as long as you kept an eye on what your "tail-end Charlie was doing. That could be difficult because Australians trained to spread out, even in the jungle, meaning that the leaders and the tail-enders were not always clearly visible. But it limited the affects of grenades or ambush. On the other hand, the Bren gunner was usually a prime target for unwanted attention!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vashmatrix5769
"Don't call me or anyone a liar then ask questions because you don't know what you're talking about."
I know exactly what I'm talking about, viz:
"Look up crime rates in Chicago & where there are more gun laws & less guns & you'll see higher violent crime rates."
Well, you fell into that with a loud thump. I was just about to bring that up.
In the early 1980, Chicago instituted a law prohibiting the carrying of guns in the central city area. Over the next 30 years, gun crime slowly declined, with the exception of the crack epidemic of the early 1990s which affected every city. Following the 2008 "Heller v DC", a near-duplicate case called "McDonald v Chicago" was launched (using the same lawyer, Alan Gura) and that law, which had stood for 30 years, was struck off.
Since 2010, gun crime in Chicago has skyrocketed, peaking in 2016.
So don't bother with the old gun lobby tropes. They're either wrong, deliberately misleading or outright lies. Here's an example:
"Also 94% - 98% of mass shooting happen in gun free zones."
What the gun lobby calls a "gun free zone" can include just about anything, even a private home. It just means there are no guns there. There is also no provable connection between gun free zones and mass shootings. To know about that, you need to read the FBI Active Shooter material. They don't choose their sites based on being gun free or not. They choose them based on things like grudges - a fired worker will go and shoot up his former place of employment or a jilted lover will go to his muse's home a kill the entire family.
The gun-free trope is one of the better examples of gun lobby deliberate misinformation.
"When did we prevent an invasion in the past? Well we armed a bunch of people in Alaska when it was invaded & they did so well many were unaware it happened."
Source please.
"Look up "a rifle behind every blade of grass" - Admiral Yamamoto 1941."
Oh, that old thing again. Jeez you really wheel them out, don't you? I have read the experts on this - Prange, Dillon and Goldstein. They wrote the most complete history of the war in the Pacific and they actually will tell you (well, Dillon and Goldstein... Prange isn't around anymore) that there is no record of Yamamoto ever saying this. In short, it's another gun lobby lie.
If you knew anything about invasions, you'd know that the possibility of a few farmers with shotguns stopping a Japanese invasion would have been the least of Yamamoto's worries. He would have been far more concerned with the US Navy, the USAAF and several thousand miles of ocean.
"Next time you're ignorant of something try asking questions or doing some honest research instead of lying."
I can wipe the floor with gun lobby boilerplate. I eat American gun nuts for breakfast. I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do and if I call it a lie, it's because I've done the research.
1
-
@vashmatrix5769
"Crime rates had been decreasing everywhere & not only Chicago has drugs, just the worst gun laws in the nation."
Lies. I just showed how that's wrong but you're putting your fingers in your ears and saying "It can't be true. It just can't be." Gun crime spiked in Chicago after the gun laws were lifted. Not before. You should stop believing these silly gun lobby homilies and lies.
"There are many cases where shooters have targeted "gun free" zones because they know they're less likely to face opposition."
I see you haven't read the FBI documents on active shooters. You should... except that it's lethal to your claim.
Why, for example, did Nikolas Cruz shoot up Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School? Because he had been expelled. He said so. No mention of gun free zones. Why did Dylann Roof shoot up a black church? Because he hates black people. No mention of gun free zones. Why did Seung Hui-cho shoot up Virginia Tech, killing 32 people? Because he had a grudge against the school. He left a manifesto outlining his hatred. At no point did he mention a gun free zone. Why did Elliott Rodger shoot up a sorority house in Isla Vista? Because he hated the women who rejected him. He left a manifesto explaining it. No mention of any gun free zones.
"That common sense may escape you."
Mass shooters don't use common sense. They're usually out of their minds. That may have escaped you. They are usually motivated by a grudge or revenge. They usually know the people they kill. And in a great many cases, they either kill themselves or chose suicide by cop. So much for encountering opposition.
"Look up Alaska on your own, with your inflated ego you shouldn't need my help."
Nah. Until you provide more specific information - like a date - I'm not remotely interested in proving your point for you. You're the claimant. The onus of proof is with you.
"Disarming people is evil & is the start to all kinds of atrocities."
Conjecture. Give examples.
Not a skerrick of proof to support such a ludicrous claim. I, however, can show you plenty of examples where a surfeit of guns made for a catastrophe. Where would you like me to start?
"Learn some history about those who disarm people."
Please provide some examples.
"If you want in a disarmed society then move to China, Australia, or any other nation where they also have less freedom."
In what reality is Australia like China?
"My grandparents left one of those horrible places to come here."
Your grandparents left Australia? For America?
"My gpa 6 uncles & Father all served to protect the civil rights we have here."
So what? I'd venture to suggest that they'd be ashamed if they knew how you're perverting history to further a cult of evil.
"If you don't want firearms or freedom fine, those other places are where you should live. It's ignorant to expect anyone else especially in America to want to lay down their freedom & take a boot on their neck."
All that emotional language doesn't cut it, Vash. Besides, you're talking to a former shooter and gun owner. I've shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG and all sorts of other things, including but not limited to the FN/FAL, AR-15 and any number of other things. Shot pistols. Shot ducks and bunnies.
Boot on the neck? Let's get one thing straight, Vash: Americans have never known tyranny unless they were slaves. Those who talk in such terms are unworthy of the immense talent and potential in the United States. You are political neurotics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesusmora9379
"astronomy is useless, it's just a bunch of pretty images and some inconclusive theory here and there, like dark matter or the shape of the universe"
All sciences benefit from astronomy. In any case, that's no defence. Only one truly ignorant of science could believe such a thing. Satellites? There are only a handful of the operating. We have yet to even launch the JWST. SpaceX/Musk fans have heard this nonsense from Rocket Jesus and are just repeating it without having any idea what the issues are.
"there have been more science done by satellites, working and malfunctioning, than by ground telescopes."
Please provide examples.
Like as SpaceX/Musk fans you are assuming that everything is optical. You have no idea what you're talking about. It would be in your interest to read the links posted - except that I know you won't. Telescopes monitor all elements of the spectrum from infra red to x-rays and beyond.
"The sat's use particular frequencies (not the hole spectrum + are DIRECTED) and will have orbital data, so their interference can be removed or won't be there at all."
That is not merely a distortion, it is wrong, based on a myriad of false assumptions:
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3702/1
"All not easy or convenient, but hardly the end of the world."
How are we going to do wide field astronomy? How are we going to monitor rogue asteroids? How are we going to research dark matter? The shitty electronic design and manufacture of Starlink satellites means that radio telescopes, which must operate in a quiet electronic environment - as quiet as possible, anyway - will be bombarded with electronic noise. Even mobile phones are not allowed in those places. It's like trying to find stars in the sky over New York city with all the lights on, in the middle of a fireworks display. And you think it's a simple matter of knowing their orbits? All -12,000- 42,000 of them?
"What do you want to say or do once the Chinese, Indians or Europeans do it?"
I'd say exactly the same thing but for the moment, they are not doing it. There are agreements already in place which are supposed to regulate these things and Musk is flouting them by bombarding the relevant authorities with application after application. And while he ties everyone up in red tape, he's flouting those agreements. That is something for which your own government is liable.
"The ship has sailed."
And what are you going to do about it? Space belongs to everyone, not just megalomaniac billionaires and their Kool Aid-drinking fluffers. What are you going to do about the billions - nay trillions - of dollars worth of equipment which Musk is now reducing to junk? You tell me why Musk shouldn't be required to pay compensation to the owners and principal beneficiaries of what comes out of these things - taxpayers. So far, the only thing Musk has said on the subject is that astronomy needs to get off the Earth. How would you like it if someone wanted to bulldoze your house to put a private tollway in the name of "humanity"? Especially when you had done more for humanity than the person building it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem was not bombsights. The problem early in the war was finding the target. The British estimated that before the advent of systems like Gee, only one bomb in a hundred got within five miles of the intended aiming point. But Gee got them to the city. It didn't guarantee that they would be over the target. The Americans believed they could bomb by day, enabling simpler navigation but the simple fact was that from a base in England, there was no way of knowing what the weather was like over the target, much less whether it could even be found.
When the target was socked in, the Americans relied on H2X, based on the H2S system invented by the British. This was a radar bombing system that gave an oblique picture of the target area. From there on, it was blind bombing, which, in fact, was only as accurate as area bombing anyway.
Harris was not the one who "realised" that area bombing was the way to go. He was a devotee of Trenchard and area bombing was always going to be the strategy. Since this was also espoused by Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell in the 1920s, it was hardly limited to the RAF. In fact, the Germans were adherents of Douhet too. A precis of this nonsense was that with enough bombers and enough bombs, the enemy could not prevent their population being attacked and after a time law and order would break down and the government would be obliged to sue for peace. Early in the war, Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, who was AOC of Bomber Command, expressed serious concerns about bombing targets where civilian casualties might result. Harris had no such concerns. Neither did a lot of the British public. By 1945, Douhet and Mitchell, as well as the principal exponent of their hypothesis - Harris - had been thoroughly discredited.
Precision bombing in WWII was a fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akritasdigenis4548
"The only real main point of P51 is being much cheaper."
Total nonsense. The most important point of the P-51 was its range and no, the P--47 could never have matched it. The more you read about the P-51, the better it gets.
When it arrived in December, 1943, there were eight P-47 fighter groups and on, later two P-38 groups.
P-47s outscored the P-51s in January and February, 1944 but after that it was no contest. The P-51 outscored the P-47 in March and in April, 1944, shot down 329 German aircraft to the P-47's 82 and they did it with half the number of aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was eight times more effective than the P-47. The stats remained that way until the end of the war.
Oh, and it also destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47.
"Had i lived that time, i'd prefered the radial engine's fighter without hesitation."
Well, that's your prerogative but it would have put you out of step with everyone else. The stampede was going in one direction - towards the P-51. Everyone wanted it because it was a better aircraft at virtually every level and by any measure. You'd have had no trouble laying your hands on a P-47 if you wanted one. There was only one fighter group left flying P-47s at the end of 1944.
1
-
@akritasdigenis4548
"1. if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option."
If that's your only concern then don't go to war.
"Considering the lost ratio, US would have saved many pilots if using only P47. They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective."
That is not true. This has been beaten up by the internet to such an extent that it's now an article of faith that you couldn't shoot a P-47 down, whereas everyone knows the P-51 could be brought down by a school kid with an air rifle because... insert dramatic music... it had a radiator so it was a death trap!
The fact is that the P-47 had a loss percentage of 0.73 per mission, whereas the P-51 was 1.18.
But that doesn't show you the realities. A P-47 hit in the undercarriage, leaking fluid and with an oleo strut down 20 degrees over Antwerp had a much better chance of getting back that a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. The point is, of course, that the P-51 spent a lot more of its mission time in hostile airspace. This is simply a matter of survivor bias.
And if you care to read it, Arnold's directive to find a solution to the escort problem of 1943 makes no mention of cost whatsoever. The only thing he stipulated was a time limit - six months. Cost was no object.
"2. If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. P51, although a very good bank for the buck is overall for me inferior because he lacks versatility. If US had not built the P51, they still could use P47 but if they did'nt have P47, they'd have lacked something."
Then please explain why the P-51 ended up with 30% more ground kills in half the number of sorties, while out scoring the P-47 in air-to-air by 60%. The P-51 was, in fact, more versatile than the P-47, while scaring the shit out of the Luftwaffe.
The USAAF could not prosecute strategic bombing without the P-51. It's an immutable, immobile fact. Forget all of Greg's drivel about drop tanks. They could not have solved the basic problem: a lack of internal fuel capacity.
Most of this information can be found in Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RH-cu5lg
"I have never heard that an earlier engagement would have created a longer war - but I am open to analyze thsi statement, always open to learn and understand different opinions - can you share any data source or book or whatever to review?"
First of all, I am not a politician, a judge or a CEO. I don't make 'statements'. I make comments. I'm nobody, just a bloke on the internet with a YouTube account.
However, no, you probably won't ever hear anyone else say it because most people don't know much about what was going on in 1938, beyond Churchill's self-serving recollections and they are demonstrably wrong.
Europe, prior to WWII was a diplomatic nightmare. The SpanishCivil War highlighted where the majority of alliances lay. Everyone supported Franco's nationalists, save for the Soviet Union and France for a brief period under Leon Blum. This was because, at that time, everyone's focus was on the Soviet Union, not Germany.
Germany started actively rearming before anyone. That's why they were able to commit to Spain the way they did. France had spent most of her interwar defence money on the Maginot Line and Britain, under Chamberlain had started to rearm in earnest in 1937. But even by late 1939, nobody was really ready for the war that Hitler unleashed. And after the fall of Poland, what happened? A situation known as 'the phoney war' or as some put it, 'sitzkrieg'.
There were reasons why nothing happened, particularly in regard to Britain. It was simple: nobody had the capacity to prosecute a war against Germany. Where would such a war be fought? What would be the most important strategic objectives?
Secondly, even if the alliance between France and Britain had declared war on Germany, there was no way to fight it. Britain had no means of doing it and France was 1) shackled to the Maginot Line and 2) unable to suddenly transport her armies to Czechoslovakia. That's why nothing happened in WWII until Germany made the move. If the Czechs had resisted - and people need to ask why they didn't - there would have been a lot of Czech and German lives lost in 1938 alone.
So a war starting in 1938 was a near impossibility. All the military advice of the time was against it anyway.
See: 'The Greatest Treason: The untold story of Munich', by Laurence Thompson and 'The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940' by Julian Jackson. I have a book to recommend on the Spanish Civil War but it's in my storage unit at the moment and not immediately to hand. 'To Hell and Back' by Ian Kershaw also sheds some light on this. I don't recommend Beevor's book.
As YouTube is fond of deleting posts, I'm going to break hthis into multiple parts. End of Part I.
1
-
@RH-cu5lg
"Meanwhile: Ther German army in 1938 was not that powerful as in 1939 when Germany attacked Polen. I cannot imagine that defence forces in the west had been strong enough. If Germany would have invaded Sudetenland without appeasement, maybe France and Great Britain could have answered with invasion at the open western boarder"
How? Who would have allowed the passage of British or French troops into Czechoslovakia?
The German army was still more powerful than anyone else's in 1938. Rearmament is often cited as a reason why Chamberlain agreed to a deal with Hitler. There is evidence to support that claim because there are books of his correspondence with his sister.
In fact, the situation was a lot more complicated. First of all, Britain had no treaty with Czechoslovakia. France did and France also had a treaty with Britain. But the treaty situation was largely farcical anyway. France's treaty with Czechoslovakia wasn't actually much use because it was aimed at the Soviet Union. France actually had a whole bunch of treaties that were designed to fight the USSR, rather than Germany. None of them were much use.
Britain - especially Chamberlain - was dragged into it by one of the villains of the piece Georges Bonnet, the French foreign minister. Bonnet had warned Halifax during the May Crisis (which resulted in the Runciman Mission) that if Germany invaded France would be forced into a war. Bonnet wasn't going to be caught out a second time and co-opted Chamberlain with all kinds of flattery until he agreed. Chamberlain had nothing to gain and as it turned out, everything to lose. Britain, as everyone knows, was not interested in another continental war.
Two things have to be remembered as turning points on the road to WWII. The Munich Agreement was not one of them.
The first was the german march into and reoccupation of the Rhineland in March, 1936. Once the French had left, this was an opportunity but they were ready to retreat immediately if they encountered any opposition. That was the last opportunity to stop Hitler but nobody did anything.
The second was the Anschluß with Austria in March, 1938. That was in complete defiance of the Versailles Treaty and made WWII inevitable.
The Anschluß also made any entry into Czechoslovakia much easier because they would no longer have to travel through the Sudetenland. The western border was much flatter and more lightly defended. As one who has travelled through both areas, I can use you that the Sudetenland would be formidable for any invading army. The south western sector would have been easy.
End of Part II.
1
-
@RH-cu5lg Finally, there are a few things that never get any recognition about the Munich conference.
The first is that Munich was the last of three meeting, or sets of meetings, Hitler and Chamberlain had. The first was in Berchtesgaden, after which Hitler famously declared that he would kick Chamberlain downstairs in front of the photographers and jump on his stomach. Chamberlain was a polished and experienced diplomat. Hitler was an amateur with and army. This has been variously interpreted as Hitler's mastery of Realpolitik but, as was revealed in the second series in Bad Godesberg, it was little more than a series of temper tantrums.
At the second meeting of the Godesberg weekend, Ribbentrop presented Chamberlain with the notorious 'Godesberg Memorandum'. This was little more than a list of demands and Chamberlain called it what it was. Ribbentrop - who was probably the dumbest foreign minister in history - simply insisted, 'It's called a memorandum!' No wonder he ended up looking up a rope one dark morning...🙄 Chamberlain threw the document on the table and walked out. Both sides believed there would be war. So much for the claim that Hitler hoodwinked a naïve Chamberlain.
Another point that never gets recognition is that all the military advice was against going to war over the Sudetenland. First of all. the Czech government was split over it. Beneš was a Czech nationalist but had spent too much political capital on internal squabbles and now couldn't get an agreement with Prime Minister Milan Hodza's Agrarian Party. Most of the public were prepared to fight but the government was not. Churchill's claims of '40 crack divisions' are nonsense. They had 14 regular divisions and about another 15 reservist divisions, all led by retreads from the previous wars who had mostly got their promotions because of their personal loyalties. The West viewed them as unreliable. They were right.
Secondly, where would it be fought? The French could not suddenly spirit their army into Czechoslovakia. They would have to cross German soil! The Swiss and Austrians were never going to let them through either. As well as that, when Petain was asked for his opinion on how it could be done, he simply advised an attack from the Saarland and Alsace Lorraine. This was unacceptable to the French government because it would mean that France was prosecuting a war of aggression. Secondly, the French army was not configured for manoeuvre warfare. It was designed to fight from the Maginot fortresses, with mobile units to put out hot spots. It had no capacity to attack. As Napoleon once said, the army that stays within its borders is defeated. He was right there too.
Finally, Churchill's ridiculous grand alliance plan was never remotely possible. The Soviet Union would never agree to it. They could only attack through Poland and Romania and neither country was ever going to agree to that!
In the end, the Munich Agreement had little to do with the policy of appeasement. That hasn't stopped every warmonger since from quoting it as a justification for attacking other countries. The clock for WWII was ticking from March 1936 and was inevitable from March, 1938.
If you've come this far then I hope this helps.
But I'm sure you can see that there is no comparison between the current state of affairs and the Munich Agreement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RH-cu5lg
"I have never heard that an earlier engagement would have created a longer war - but I am open to analyze thsi statement, always open to learn and understand different opinions - can you share any data source or book or whatever to review?"
First of all, I am not a politician, a judge or a CEO. I don't make 'statements'. I make comments. I'm nobody, just a bloke on the internet with a YouTube account.
However, no, you probably won't ever hear anyone else say it because most people don't know much about what was going on in 1938, beyond Churchill's self-serving recollections and they are demonstrably wrong.
Europe, prior to WWII was a diplomatic nightmare. The SpanishCivil War highlighted where the majority of alliances lay. Everyone supported Franco's nationalists, save for the Soviet Union and France for a brief period under Leon Blum. This was because, at that time, everyone's focus was on the Soviet Union, not Germany.
Germany started actively rearming before anyone. That's why they were able to commit to Spain the way they did. France had spent most of her interwar defence money on the Maginot Line and Britain, under Chamberlain had started to rearm in earnest in 1937. But even by late 1939, nobody was really ready for the war that Hitler unleashed. And after the fall of Poland, what happened? A situation known as 'the phoney war' or as some put it, 'sitzkrieg'.
There were reasons why nothing happened, particularly in regard to Britain. It was simple: nobody had the capacity to prosecute a war against Germany. Where would such a war be fought? What would be the most important strategic objectives?
Secondly, even if the alliance between France and Britain had declared war on Germany, there was no way to fight it. Britain had no means of doing it and France was 1) shackled to the Maginot Line and 2) unable to suddenly transport her armies to Czechoslovakia. That's why nothing happened in WWII until Germany made the move. If the Czechs had resisted - and people need to ask why they didn't - there would have been a lot of Czech and German lives lost in 1938 alone.
So a war starting in 1938 was a near impossibility. All the military advice of the time was against it anyway.
See: 'The Greatest Treason: The untold story of Munich', by Laurence Thompson and 'The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940' by Julian Jackson. I have a book to recommend on the Spanish Civil War but it's in my storage unit at the moment and not immediately to hand. 'To Hell and Back' by Ian Kershaw also sheds some light on this. I don't recommend Beevor's book.
As YouTube is fond of deleting posts, I'm going to break this into multiple parts. End of Part I.
1
-
@RH-cu5lg Finally, there are a few things that never get any recognition about the Munich conference.
The first is that Munich was the last of three meeting, or sets of meetings, Hitler and Chamberlain had. The first was in Berchtesgaden, after which Hitler famously declared that he would kick Chamberlain downstairs in front of the photographers and jump on his stomach. Chamberlain was a polished and experienced diplomat. Hitler was an amateur with an army. This has been variously interpreted as Hitler's mastery of Realpolitik but, as was revealed in the second series in Bad Godesberg, it was little more than a series of temper tantrums.
At the second meeting of the Godesberg weekend, Ribbentrop presented Chamberlain with the notorious 'Godesberg Memorandum'. This was little more than a list of demands and Chamberlain called it what it was. Ribbentrop - who was probably the dumbest foreign minister in history - simply insisted, 'It's called a memorandum. It says so on the cover. Look!' No wonder he ended up looking up a rope one dark morning... Chamberlain threw the document on the table and walked out. Both sides believed there would be war. So much for the claim that Hitler hoodwinked a naïve Chamberlain.
Another point that never gets recognition is that all the military advice was against going to war over the Sudetenland. First of all. the Czech government was split over it. Beneš was a Czech nationalist but had spent too much political capital on internal squabbles and now couldn't get an agreement with Prime Minister Milan Hodza's Agrarian Party. Most of the public were prepared to fight but the government was not. Churchill's claims of '40 crack divisions' are nonsense. They had 14 regular divisions and about another 15 reservist divisions, all led by retreads from the previous wars who had mostly got their promotions because of their personal loyalties. The West viewed them as unreliable. They were right.
Secondly, where would it be fought? The French could not suddenly spirit their army into Czechoslovakia. They would have to cross German soil! The Swiss and Austrians were never going to let them through either. As well as that, when Petain was asked for his opinion on how it could be done, he simply advised an attack from the Saarland and Alsace Lorraine. This was unacceptable to the French government because it would mean that France was prosecuting a war of aggression. Secondly, the French army was not configured for manoeuvre warfare. It was designed to fight from the Maginot fortresses, with mobile units to put out hot spots. As Napoleon once said, the army that stays within its borders is defeated. He was right there too.
Finally, Churchill's ridiculous grand alliance plan was never remotely possible. The Soviet Union would never agree to it. They could only attack through Poland and Romania and neither country was ever going to agree to that!
In the end, the Munich Agreement had little to do with the policy of appeasement. That hasn't stopped every warmonger since from quoting it as a justification for attacking other countries. The clock for WWII was ticking from March 1936 and was inevitable from March, 1938.
If you've come this far then I hope this helps.
But I'm sure you can see that there is no comparison between the current state of affairs and the Munich Agreement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Venturis, devices which are simply a means of reducing air pressure by expanding the area a given volume of air flows through, have never gone away. They have been given all sorts of different descriptions, including tunnels, diffusers and venturis but they all do basically the same thing. They increase flow velocity and reduce pressure. In other words, by increasing the area a given amount of air travels through, we increase the suction effect. This is because, in subsonic flow, as dynamic pressure - the speed of the car - increases, the static pressure decreases, creating downforce.
In the last 40 years, venturis could only extend back from the line of the rear axle. For 2022 that rule has been dropped.
1
-
Problem 4:
Hitler had a low opinion of Chamberlain but he actually described him as a 'Schlappschwanz', which basically means, 'weak dick'. Hitler's opinion was almost certainly a result of being out-manoeuvred and embarrassed by Chamberlain every time they met.
Chamberlain had an equally low opinion of Hitler and the rest of the Nazi hierarchy, whom he knew to be rank amateurs, addicted to cheap political stunts and theatre. This became overwhelmingly apparent at Godesberg.
Problem 5:
This is the notorious 'Godesberg Memorandum' and caused the biggest blow up of the entire process (which took two weeks and numerous meetings). Hitler and Chamberlain had met the previous day and Hitler had played the ranting tyrant, going on endlessly about the treatment of Germans but not articulating anything that could have been construed to be policy. Chamberlain, unfazed by theatrics, reverted to parliamentarian mode and wrong footed Hitler again, asking him detailed questions to which the Fuehrer had no answer. When they met the next day, Hitler's manner was the congenial mein host as he presented the memorandum to Chamberlain. Chamberlain instantly saw it for what it was: a list of demands and pushed a somewhat embarrassed Hitler for more answers. At some point in this meeting they were interrupted by Ribbentrop - the only one who was actually pursuing a war - who burst into the room. This took on the form of high comedy, rather than the high takes it was meant to and was more like a man slipping on a banana skin.
Ribbentrop announced that the Czechs had mobilised. Chamberlain went pale and said there was nothing more to be said and turned to leave.
Had Chamberlain walked out the result would have been war and everyone knew it.
Ribbentrop buttonholed him and asked about the memorandum. Chamberlain had been briefed on Czech mobilisation and knew it was another Nazi stunt, coming frame the cheapest crook in the pack. He confronted Ribbentrop with the fact that the talk of Czech mobilisation was wrong. He then pointed out that the 'memorandum' was actually a list of demands. Ribbentrop, ever the fool, insisted it was a memorandum because that was what it said on the top! Chamberlain told him that he was more interested in the contents than the title. He then threw the document on the table and left the room. At that stage, the situation was definitely headed for war and Hitler invited Chamberlain back for further discussions the next week.
Problem 6:
Chamberlain gets the blame for this but it was Hitler who issued the invitations. The problem was not the situation. The problem was what the Allies were going to do vis a vis the Sudetenland territorial claims.
Problem 7:
The Czechoslovaks elected not to fight. That was their decision and theirs alone. The Poles fought and fought like hell. The Dutch and the Belgians fought, both without support and knowing they would be defeated. Even the French, despite the legions of pathetic jokes about them, also fought. The Czechs did not fight. So even if the British and French had agreed to go to war over this, it should be screamingly obvious that there was absolutely nothing that would sway the Germans because everyone knew there was nothing they could do about it.
Problem 8:
Britain had not obligation to protect Czechoslovakia. Nil. Nada. She had no treaty agreements with them. End of story.
TBC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lelsewherelelsewhere9435
"The reason we "can't" do it today is money. Also, bad management."
First bit right. Not so much the second bit. Without a signal from the top that they're going back to the Moon they can't go. Management isn't to blame for that.
"The new Nasa moon capable SPACESUIT is going to cost MORE THAN THE ROCKET THEY WILL USE TO GET THERE!! Also, it's like the 3rd one they developed in 15-20 years, getting rid of all the others completely instead of slowly improving them over time."
The old ones couldn't be adapted to do what the new ones will do. The next Moon missions will be much longer and if you know anything about how space suits are constructed, you know that, over time, they wear out. That's not such a bit deal if we're talking about a pair of denim jeans but it matters a lot if the suit's ability to remain airtight is compromised.
And these suits are in no way comparable to the suits worn on Soyuz, Crew Dragon or the Space Shuttle. What is needed for an EVA in LEO is very different from the Moon. The biggest limiting factor is dust. It's as abrasive as hell. And these new suits will have to survive missions lasting months and all have to be custom made, from the length of your inseam to the span of your hands and pretty much anything that goes in between.
"Poor management, poor goal setting, being to friendly to big business friends, etc."
This is too generalised. The fact is that, until Artemis, there was no serious plan to return to the Moon. And since NASA is an agency, rather than a constructor, it is axiomatic that it has to be friendly with big business, otherwise they would have to build it themselves. Artemis at least proved it was possible and with new and better methods than Apollo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is, of course, no right or wrong answer to this. However, you've neatly highlighted a blind spot in Western understanding of the Eastern Front. However, rather than starting from a purely military base, the Eastern Front needs to start with one admission by anyone who genuinely seeks to understand it: most of us know nothing about the Soviet Union or its republics. We just think we do.
As one who has read a lot of Soviet history, from the Russian Revolution to the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, I can say that I know very little. I've barely scratched the surface. Churchill described the Soviet Union as "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma". He wasn't wrong.
The whole Eastern front is much, much harder to understand than the war in the West. Anyone who has ever seen an ethnic distribution map of the Soviet Union can see how complicated the political divisions were and the extent to which Hitler's politics of division exploited nationalist ambitions in so many places. It remains so even today.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
So when I see simplistic comments about how it was just numbers that won and Red army commanders didn't care about their casualties, or that same old quote that gets trotted out all the time, "Quantity has a quality all its own", I'm reminded that Western ignorance hasn't changed. The very notion that this could be summed up so simply is a joke and it just gets repeated ad nauseam and people are either gullible enough, ill-informed enough, smug enough, stupid enough or a combination of all four to believe they have the big picture. They are sadly wrong.
One book I highly recommend is "The Red Army in the Second World War" by Alexander Hill:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/red-army-and-the-second-world-war/2E01D8047C13AE63A3A92D6DEE2CD71F
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheFlyingSquirrel1980 So what? If you knew anything about Hitler, you’d know how whimsical and capricious he was. Here’s another one he said to a group of Hamburg businessmen in 1929:
”We are all workers. The aim is not to get higher and higher wages, but to increase production, because that is to the advantage of each individual.” - “Hitler”, Ian Kershaw, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 179.
In other words, no unions. We’re going to maximise your profits. He was right: they did. As soon as he got in, Hitler and his banker Hjalmar Schacht, dismantled almost every law that had stabilised the economy since Bismarck. They de-regulated on a scale never seen before and they actively encouraged German companies to work as cartels and allowed them to fix prices in order to bolster their international position. Then they sold junk government bonds to prop up wealthy industrialists.
No unions, de-regulation, letting business do what they would not be allowed to do, even in a free market economy….
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankyyaggabot6222 I think you need to find out a bit more about lithium mining. First of all, there are two basic processes. The first is brine extraction, used in the South American lithium triangle and the second is hard rock extraction, used in places like China, Australia and Canada.
It is true that those places are affected by chemical pollution and tailings but lithium is, in reality, no dirtier than most other mining processes, such as gold or silver. Hard rock extraction requires much the same processes as any other, hard rock mining. The idea that lithium is any worse than any other mining method is in error. All mining is dirty to a greater or lesser degree.
By comparison, oil production is a far greater polluter and oil, once burnt, cannot be recovered. And in case you missed it, there are surveys around the world that link motor vehicle pollution to things like heart disease, cancer and suicide. It’s been shown that if you live within 200 metres of a major road, you are at a 50% greater risk of both heart attack and cancer.
So you’re complaining about one industry that you take advantage of yourself every day with your mobile phone etc., while actively promoting the far more catastrophic risks of oil production and consumption. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that oil is less of a problem than lithium then that’s your problem. But it’s not realistic by any measure.
The global demand for lithium is likely to slow in the coming years anyway, as sodium and solid state batteries start to emerge (there are already sodium powered EVs in China). Furthermore, lithium batteries are now 90-95% recyclable. Add to that the recent Stanford University study that showed EV batteries last about 38% longer in the real world than in the lab and it’s pretty obvious that lithium is going to be a less critical resource than it is today. EVs should actually have a longer lifespan than ICE and that’s assuming a 10% capacity loss, rather than total failure.
By the way, the exploitation you are talking about in the DRC is in the tantalum mines (yes, coltan too). Tantalum is mined for use in things like mobile phones and (from memory) things like smoke alarms. Lithium is mined in DRC but the vast majority of the world’s lithium comes from mines in Australia, Canada, the United States and Mexico. There are ratings for ethical production standards so that consumers can make informed choices, something the oil industry seems immune from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RELISAUR PS4
"Stored carefully? Who the hell said guns need stored carefully?"
You did.
"I said properly."
In practical terms there is fffffuck all difference.
"If guns are so dangerous and need to have such high restrictions then so do household cleaners, cars, basic eating utensils and literally every other object you use on a daily basis"
Yeah well, if those inanimate objects you refer to are all the same, next time you sign an arms deal with Israel or Saudi Arabia or whoever else you wanna get into bed with, why don't you ship them some household cleaners instead of guns and see how that goes?
"fact is someone wants to hurt you or kill you, they will do it weather it's with a gun, knife, car, their hands or anything else they feel like using."
You can't prove this. Not in a million years. You'd have to believe that every murderer's motivation is the same and it's not. Both the Unabomber and Ted Wafer are convicted murderers. Are you telling me their motivations are the same? Don't be daft.
YAWN. Same old naive black and white arguments from low IQ, low information gun experts. LOL!! Stick to guns mate and forget criminology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Trinity only encourages people to spend their lives comparing. It's not a useful value set for measuring a tank's success. How would the King Tiger fit with the Trinity? Well, by the standards of the day, very well. But what did it actually achieve? Very little. It was too expensive, too heavy (despite the relative ground pressure), too large for rail carriages, did not fit the needs of the Heer, unreliable and never available in sufficient numbers. Compare that with the M3 Stuart. Why would anyone design a tank like that at all? It doesn't fit the Trinity values, except for mobility. So, in fact, all the Trinity does, as far as anyone but designers is concerned, is to lock people into a mindset of "bigger is always better", even if bigger is not what the army wants or not what the country can build or meet the needs of the war that is being fought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@96stealth
"For one, you did not read the book that I referenced."
Have you read any of the authors I referenced?
"This also means you are unwilling to hear another perspective. Which means you are close minded. You are not challenging yourself at all."
Really? You must tell me more about myself one day.
"Biases and ideologies can blind people from accepting reality."
And what are you doing?
"Nazi - Many people who use the epithet do not know that "Nazi" is an acronym for Nazionalsozialist, or National Socialist, and that the full name of Hitler's movement was National Socialist German Workers' Party.""
And you think what? That I didn't know that? They stopped using the NSDAP name in the early 1920s and called themselves "Nazi".
"Hitler turned private unions to state trade unions."
It wasn't a trade union. They had no power to bargain collectively and no power to strike. That was the idea. If you call a pig an aeroplane it still can't fly.
"The unions that refused to comply were indeed crushed."
ALL the unions were crushed. Hitler sent the boys around and they trashed the offices and beat up officials. Don't tell me about refusal. This was one day after granting them the May Day holiday.
"Lenin did the same thing and called it councils. In Russian the word council is known as a Soviet."
And you tell me this is evidence that Hitler was a socialist? Are you completely serious? Every government on the planet has councils or regoins or states or divisions.
"Safety nets? The state is the safety net."
Like superannuation, hospital insurance and death insurance for families of workers killed on the job? Nah, sorry. They were stripped away or sold. Maybe you'd better look up what Hitler and Hjalamar Schacht did as soon as they go into office.
"Hitler believed his superior intellect as well as the people he surrounded himself with, knew the will of the people."
Hitler had one talent: making speeches that motivated people.
"Also proving he did not believe in democracy."
Not evidence that he was a socialist.
"I did not invent Zitelmann or actual proof that Hitler was a collectivist who needed overreaching big government & truly believed he was saving the world from the Jews as they did not have “pure” blood."
Lies. A complete invention. Hitler was never a collectivist. He was a totalitarian who didn't care about the collective bargaining power of the average German. That's why he disbanded the unions. It was a tacit agreement he had with industry leaders like Thyssen, Krupp, the Porsche-Piech families, the Quandts, the Oetkers and the Flick family. Hitler's rise to power was financed by these people and in 1933 he met with them and asked for money because the Nazis were broke (actually, it was Goering who asked for it at the same meeting). See "Nazi Billionaires", by David de Jong.
As for 'big government', it was about this time that Hitler and Schacht began a series of wholesale selloffs that would not be repeated until Maggie Thatcher became UK Prime Minister. They privatised the Reichs Bundesbahn, National Steel, the major shipping companies, all the major banks and insurance companies controlled by the Weimar Republic, public land and even charities like Winterhilfe, which became a cover for a Nazi slush fund. They even invented a word for it: “Reprivatisierung”. See "The Coining of Privatisation" and Germany's National Socialist Party", by Germa Bel.
This is how they paid for rearmament and building roads. It wasn't done by taxation, like, you know, socialsm does.
How in the name of hell is that socialist or 'big government'?
"Right wing is small and limited government with checks and balances."
Oh ha, ha. Do you want me to repeat what I just said? When you hold onto that silly kind of absolutism as a defining characteristic, you're no longer interested in historical fact.
"I’m pretty well read. You’ve never even considered the arguments that Hitler was on the left his entire life."
No because I have a welter of evidence that he wasn't.
"Hitler went from extreme left to a “new” extreme left, because you know - socialism has never been implemented correctly or something."
Hitler was never 'left'. He told a meeting of German industrialists in early 1933 that he was preparing for a showdown with the left. He had blamed the left for everything from "Jewish Bolshevism" to "the November Criminals" who he claimed stabbed Germany in the back at the end of WWI. His Brownshirts fought street battles with socialists an communists, sometimes lethal, right up to the 1930s.
"Hitler went from extreme left to a “new” extreme left, because you know - socialism has never been implemented correctly or something."
Extreme left to extreme left...LOL!! This is an argument you're having with yourself.
Ref:
"Hitler", Joachim C. Fest, 1973
"The Faace of the Third Reich", Joachim C. Fest, 1963
"Hitler". Ian Kershaw, (abridged edition), 2008
"The Nazis", Lawrence Rees, 1992
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@merch_and_meme
"What is likely to happen if your population is 350k as opposed to 35k ?"
What is likely to happen? LOL!! If it's so obvious then perhaps you should tell me.
Because statistics don't care what you think. It's called rates and the gun nuts don't understand them and have no interest in understanding them because they're lethal to your claims. But rates are how intelligent people compare the relative numbers of homicides in any country. America is currently worse than Afghanistan.
Don't believe me? Look it up (I know you won't). I dare you.
America's murder rate is way out of proportion to that of ANY peer nation. It's out of proportion to all of Europe (pop. 700+ million), where the average murder rate is 3.0 per 100,000 compared to 7.5 per 100,000 in the United States. America's gun murder rate alone is almost twice that of the European total. But Western Europe is a lot closer to the United States in terms of overall wealth, health and education of the population. Their murder rate is rarely more than 1.0 per 100,000, whereas America's is 7.5. Bit hey, bigger is better, right?
So, in fact America's rates dwarf those of any peer nation and there's a painfully simple reason for it: saturation levels of gun ownership.
When your balls finally drop you will realise that the people who care about this stuff actually know a lot more about it than you do. In fact, you are so pig-ignorant you can't even tell when someone is taking the p155 out of you.
And they let you have a gun...🤦♂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam, the mainstream media has zero interest in this. They’re not even reporting it. You’re blaming the wrong people when you say, ‘The media is lying to you’. The motoring media, on the other hand, actually are talking complete BS.
On a slightly different subject, read the hit piece someone did the other day about the government’s new emissions laws which came into force recently. These bring us in line with every other country on the planet. The quote from ‘motoring expert’ Paul Maric of Car Expert, claimed that as a result, Toyota would be raising the price of the HiLux by as much as $20,000, was a targeted hit. Car Expert is owned by Kerry Stokes and some gambling billionaire.
Watch this space during the election Campaign as Dutto goes full potato head to claim that because of some ‘woke ALP policy’, Australian families won’t be able to afford a car anymore. Whinge, moan. (Dutto’s family is worth an estimated $300m).
Call the liars out specifically and don’t generalise. There is useful info to be found in mainstream media. You just shave to know where to look. But stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SubParFlyFisher I read Johnson/Caidin’s book 40 years ago. The claim that they defeated the cream of the Luftwaffe is Johnson’s. It’s not really supported by others who wrote campaign history, like Williamson Murray (he’s far from the only one). It’s also difficult to reconcile with the types of raid the USAAF were conducting in that period. Until January, 1943, they had never bombed German soil.
Throughout 1943, the Germans were committed to North Africa and the Mediterranean and the huge expanses of the Eastern Front. It is not true to say that the Luftwaffe was at its best in 1943 because it actually peaked in probably early 1941, between the Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa.
I know about ‘Big Week’. I have already read and recommended James Holland’s book on it so you’re singing to the choir.
By the way, as I recall, Johnson made the claim the he went on the first Berlin raid in such a way that you would think he was actually overhead Berlin. In fact, at that time (March, 1944), only a few P-47s could get beyond the Dutch border. Even they couldn’t get within 75 nm of Berlin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SoloRenegade
"the POTENTIAL of the Allison if given a proper high altitude forced induction system is Far superior to the Merlin at altitude and this is a known and documented fact."
Hoo boy... where to start with this...
A 'well known fact' is meaningless. I agree with you about the Allison Mustang at low altitude. That's why the British suggested the Merlin for it. However...
It was not just the engine and the Allison had a lot of other problems in the P-38, mostly, I think from oil starvation. It comes up in Miller's book 'Masters of the Air'. They suffered notoriously under conditions of high boost and this was a major factor in the European theatre that did not present itself in the Pacific.
But a few mathematical calculations will show that the basic engines had the same basic figures (BMEP, etc.). What Allison didn't have was a supercharger design maniac like Stanley Hooker.
"Had the Allison gotten the 2 stage supercharger forced induction system applied as North American desired, the P-51 with Allison would have curb stomped the P-51B/C/D at all altitudes. It would have been faster, longer ranged, and capable of flying higher."
This is rose-tinted optimism at best. 'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' and tough guy talk like 'kerb stomped' doesn't get it done. If you read Calum E. Douglas' book 'The Secret Horsepower Race', you will find that the supercharged Allison was a dead duck from early on. The designers tried to make it run on a hydraulically-powered supercharger, similar to the German implementation but axially, rather than at 90 degrees to the crankshaft. This made the engine unfeasibly long and never produced the results expected of it before development was terminated.
'300lbs heavier'? Heavier than what? A Merlin III or a Merlin 61? Which Allison variant? There were many. Let's try comparing apples with apples before jumping to conclusions.
1
-
1
-
@SubParFlyFisher
”I am not claiming the P-47 did it alone”
Alright then, let me ask you this: what was the RAF doing between late 1940 and mid 1943? Because German pilot quality peaked in 1940-41 and that’s what the RAF were facing. We also know that if you look at pilot losses on the eastern and Mediterranean fronts in that period they were actually pretty bad. The number of Luftwaffe pilots killed in flying accidents was also alarming. But you want to credit it to one aircraft alone. And yes, that is exactly what you’re doing. You pretend you’re not but it’s not hard to see through you.
Your claim that you have provided facts and quantifiable numbers is disingenuous. You mixed years and made generalisations you can’t prove. You claim to have provided a timeline, yet you failed to provide even the most basic dates. Meanwhile, I provided you with direct references, like Williamson Murray and you didn’t even acknowledge it. You’re getting your information from ‘Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles’, like everyone else and one thing we know about Greg is that he gets everything from the spec sheet and doesn’t read history. That’s why it’s not that hard to disprove him.
You’re choosing to ignore the work done by the RAF - and Americans flying with the RAF - simply because it suits you. It’s just confirmation bias.
The P-47 could not have taken the USAAF to Berlin. I have referred you to books that directly show this, down to flight planning. But again, you think it’s okay to dismiss this because it doesn’t suit your own confirmation bias. The P-38 was unsuitable as an escort fighter for a raft of reasons which are unimportant to this debate.
What you’re actually claiming is what I call the existence of God argument: in the absence of any other explanation - due to your lack of information - it must be this. It’s a logical fallacy.
”Enjoy your day good sir.”
Oh, passive/aggressive, eh? Gee, never seen that before.
1
-
@SoloRenegade
"Wrong, Allisons were putting out 1800-2200+HP at 70-75" MAP as early as 1942 and verified by Allison."
No, not wrong. The Allison in service P-38s suffered multiple examples of throwing rods and dropping valves. While failures like these are invariably associated with lubrication problems, the Allison failures were mostly associated with high levels of boost. Now correlation doesn't prove causation but there was no denying the failures and from memory, they are cited in 'Masters of the Air'. I'm a little hazy on where I read it but either way, it's not wrong.
"agreed. but had they gotten the proper supercharger, we know full well what the engine did at high altitude with sufficient boost."
Once again, coulda, woulda, shoulda didn't get it done. The engine was troublesome in development and impractically long. For these reasons, as well as the available supply of the Merlin, the program was cancelled.
"This only reinforces what I've said. nothing wrong with the engine, simply a lack of creativity by the engineers to make a proper supercharger. Most Allison V12 in WW2 had superchargers, just not optimized for high altitude. Proving it could be done. They just never did it right, and never got enough time to figure it out."
There were a number of fallacies spread about the Allison, mostly in the UK. It was said to be rougher-running and three feet longer than the Merlin. In fact, the Allison was smoother running than the Merlin and less prone to block failure than early Merlins and I suspect the length matter included the supercharger we are talking about. But the fact remains that there simply wasn't the need for a sort of 'super V-1710'. But not doing it right and taking too long are problems that have faced and finished any number of engine development programs.
"300lb heavier that the Merlin installed in the P-51. Many sources other than myself point this out, not just me. Pull the stats and have a look. Obviously I'm comparing engines for the same airplane, but I guess you have to be an aerospace engineer to logically deduce that."
Not really. Logically, I could deduce that we are talking about the basic engine from the P-38, exclusive of the supercharging system; what's often known in car enthusiast terms as a short motor. It's not clear. The supercharger on the back of the Merlin, even the Packard Merlin, is enormous and if it doesn't at least make up the difference, I'd be very surprised (and I was looking at a Packard Merlin only recently in the Deutsche Museum, in Munich) if it didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis
"I apologise. "
Accepted.
"John Curtain was the worst PM we could have had at the time. He was completely under MacArthurs thumb He allowed Blamey to sack Clewes, he allowed the US to have almost carte blanch to everything."
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Curtin was placed in a particularly difficult situation. The previous government had done nothing to prepare for war, particularly in respect of fighters. The most potent aircraft we had was a squadron of the universally hated Brewster Buffalo, based in Perth.
Curtin also had to deal with Churchill, in the wake of his Battle of Britain speeches. Churchill wanted to send Australian 6th Division to protect British interests in Burma. Australia needed them to defend against the Japanese in New Guinea.
So Curtin stood up to him and 6th Division was returned.
Curtin was faced with having to find something with which to defend Australia. He started the Beaufort and Boomerang programs but we needed something a bit more potent. We had traditionally sourced our defence materiel from the UK but requests for Spitfires or Hurricanes - and even Australian pilots - were ignored or not well received. Curtin turned to FDR and asked for Kittyhawks. The rest is history. Eventually, we would get the much-vaunted Spitfires and even experienced Australian pilots to fly them. So we got John Jackson, 'Bluey' Truscott, Adrian Goldsmith and eventually, Clive Caldwell. In the meantime Jackson and Truscott would fly and fight in the most critical air battles in Australian history.. We won those by an even narrower margin than the Battle of Britain.
I have little doubt that the same situation would have existed had Australian General staff served alongside British officers. Furthermore, Australian political and military command was different from that of the British. Furthermore, since as far as the South Pacific was concerned, we were very much under the jurisdiction of the Americans, it's hardly surprising.
There was a lot of animosity between Clowes and MacArthur. MacArthur was a narcissist and expected daily reports trumpeting Australian victories over Japanese forces. He thought Clowes too passive, yet MacArthur - who had overseen defeat in the Philippines - was completely unfamiliar with the situation in New Guinea and would remain that way until the end of the war.
Either way, Curtin had no power to do anything about it.
"There were no Australian Generals on his General staff and Blamey did not complain."
Again, I would have expected the same behaviour from the British. MacArthur did not like Australians and we did not like him.
"His Gen Staff were those failures that came out here with him "
Not all of them. Sutherland, his Chief of Staff was a bully and a management suck. George Kenney was not and he managed to talk his way into a bigger and better command, simply by bullshitting MacArthur. Kenney was one of the more effective commanders of the Pacific war and would play a key role in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.
"MacArthur hardly went out in the field in New Guinea when he did he was a long way from the front."
Exactly. But there was nothing Curtin could have done about it.
1
-
1
-
@richardmontana5864
"It was the P-47C that regained control of the air over German occupied France .The FW-190 was destroying the Spit Mk.V. P-47 killed off the bulk of the experienced German pilots cutting a swath thru the "Abbeville Boys"."
The 'Abbeville Boys' were a myth. Second cousins to Harvey the Rabbit. It started in the Battle of Britain. RAF pilots who saw Bf-109s with yellow noses believed they were part of an elite unit based around Abbeville. In fact, many units painted their noses yellow but this practice eventually faded from use. The RAF told the Americans and they were happy to believe it.
Any conclusion that this was because of the P-47 or solely due to the P-47 is frankly delusional. The 'Abbeville Boys' did not exist. See Martin Middlebrook's book, 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', for more detail.
"Remember the kills the P-47 achieved,3,752 represent the best the Germans had to offer,while most of the Mustangs kills were "students pilots"."
This is simply not true. For a start, the P-47 shot down around 3,082 in the ETO, which is a perfectly respectable total (see: Francis Dean, 'America's Hundred Thousand). But anyone claiming that it faced down the best the Luftwaffe had to offer simply doesn't know what he's talking about. The Luftwaffe peaked probably just before Barbarossa and suffered unsustainable losses thereafter (see Williamson Murray, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for Defeat'). Even by 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours total and 10-15 on type. The average American pilot had 600+ and 50-100 on type. (See Middlebrook).
So much for 'facing down the Luftwaffe's best pilots'.
Furthermore, if you bother to read about it (and I have no illusions that you will), the Luftwaffe put up something like 600 aircraft against the first Schweinfurt mission, of which between 10 and 20% were night fighters. These slow and unmanoeuvrable types we only able to intercept when there was no fighter cover. Other types, including the Me-410 were also flown on that day with little success. There was even a Dornier, probably the least useful night fighter in the German inventory, which is reported to have tried to intercept the bombers without success. (Middlebrook)
So much for facing down the best the Luftwaffe had.
They did the same thing on 6 March, 1944 when the USAAF performed its first major raid on Berlin. On that occasion, however, the bombers were escorted all the way to and from the target and the night fighters got seven colours of sh!t shot out of them.
Very little of this had anything to do with any contribution made by the P-47 in 1943.
From its combat debut in April, 1943 to the end of the year, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft out of a USAAF total (in the ETO) of 451. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires.
The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year. The RAF shot down 3,300 in all theatres, so how anyone can claim that the P-47 faced the best the Luftwaffe had or how it 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe' on the basis of <2% with a straight face is simply beyond credulity.
The P-47's finest hour was during 'Big Week' when it made a substantial contribution but was also by far the most numerous US type.
You need to do more research and it cannot be found in Greg's silly and unsubstantiated videos. Greg is semi-useful on technical detail and appallingly uniformed on historical accuracy. His conclusions are not only incorrect, they are irrelevant and uninformed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baronbrummbar8691
”murder but not kills in the us 5 times as many people get killed by knives then guns”
With no punctuation and presuming you meant “than”, rather than “then”, I’ll try.
Wrong. In 2018, there were 24,576 murders in the United States, with 19,384 of them by gun (CDC figures). That means 79% of murders in the United States were committed with guns. Your murder rate is 7.4 per 100,000 and your gun murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000. In 2010 there were 16,276 murders and 11,076 were by gun. Back then the percentage was still 69%. Your murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000 and your gun murder rate was 2.83 per 100,000. That was 69%.
So in the space of just eight years, your total murder rate has gone up by 50% but your gun murder rate has gone up by about 80%. So gun murders are not only much higher than any other form, they also drive the total murder rate. That’s what getting rid of gun laws has brought you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DemoNinja79 You have to understand Network Centric Warfare. I wish more people did. ALL modern fighters, especially stealthy ones, need NWC backup. All are networked and are designed to be operated that way.
There were several things which defined the conflict between Pakistan and India. The J-10C was simply a weapons delivery platform - a competent one - for the equally-competent PL-15E missile.
But to treat that as a 1 V 1 against a Rafale, a Gripen or a Typhoon would be to ignore the way modern air warfare is fought. Briefly, the Pakistanis were supported by a small but competent SAAB "Erieye" AEW&C platform that meant that the J-10C pilots had no need to swwitch on their own radar. Their missiles were fired according to C3 instructions from the Erieye and they were given mid course guidance until their radars locked onto their targets.
This is not a new thing. Anyone who really wants to know something about this - and if you want to actually know what you're talking about, you should definitely read it - look for "The Beka'a Valley Air Battle, June, 1982: Lessons Mislearned?", by CIC Lt Col Matthew Hurley USAFA. It's easy to find and won't take you much more than an hour to read. This is the model of warfighting that has ensured that - for the most part - Western fighters have long held an edge on anything they came up against. Controversially, it's also the main reason why, for example, F-15 fans can claim that it has a combat record of 104-0. While it's probably not too far from the truth, it's worth remembering that the F-15 has almost always found itself in a situation where it was properly supported by C3 and tactical jammers. This makes scoring relatively easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrteacher1315
"HEU, uranium that has been processed to increase the proportion of the U-235 isotope to over 20%, is required for the construction of a gun-type nuclear device, the simplest type of nuclear weapon."
That's a high percentage for sure but not weapons grade. After all, who today uses a gun type of bomb?
"HEU can be convered into simplest nuclear weapon by a non-state actor, much less a country."
We don't have the facilities to do that. The "non-state actors" you refer to would hardly be likely to have the level of safety needed to do it properly. Then there's the type of bomb - like a "dirty bomb" which is a conventional explosion that blows nuclear material everywhere, is still technically a nuclear weapon.
"A nuclear bomb requires only small amounts of uranium—a “significant quantity” of highly enriched uranium, according to the IAEA, is about 25 kilograms, or a little over 55 pounds."
Bozhe moi! The central core of the "Fat Man" bomb used on Hiroshima weighed about 6 kilograms and it was highly enriched plutonium. It was sent critical by implosion lenses which compressed it to create the same effect as adding extra material to reach critical mass. The critical mass for U235 is 47 kilos.
Uranium from an old nuclear reactor is unlikely to be of much use, since it loses a significant amount of its radioactivity during its lifetime.
But what's the point? What's with the woody for nukes? We are not getting nuclear weapons. We're not making nuclear weapons either. Besides, the weapons you’re talking about are all very low yield and not worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV
"The loss rate per sortie Is comparing apples to oranges as the p47 flew much more ground attack missions but per sortie the .7% loss rate of the 47 is almost twice as good as the p51s 1.2%.Your math aint mathing bud this is not at all an insignificant difference"
'Mathing'? Jesus...🤦♂
The P-47's ground attack missions were flown over Northern France, Belgium and Holland. The P-51's ground attack missions were flown over Germany. and that was a different proposition As the Germans retreated behind their own borders, the density of Flak increased dramatically. This is commented on by virtually every pilot memoir you care to read. So the P-51's ground attack missions were flown in more heavily defended airspace than those of the P-47. Furthermore, the P-47 was more favourably affected by survivor bias. As I have already illustrated: a P-47 with a hit in the undercarriage, leaking hydraulic fluid and with an oleo strut down by 20 degrees, has a much better chance of getting back from somewhere over Antwerp than a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. You should read something about that.
The GA missions flown by the P-51 were flown in more heavily defended airspace, further from home base, thus the figures are directly affected by survivor bias. Therefore the difference between 0.73 and 1.18 is easily explained.
"The gauge of metal is irrelevant ...The Metal used in consrtuction has little to due with a planes ruggedness and is not armor The pilot protection in the p47 comes from all its secondary armor,"
Ruggedness refers to topography, not 'consrtuction' strength and anyone who thinks skin thickness doesn't contribute to construction strength doesn't understand monocoque construction. The structural strength of any monocoque is compromised by holes. The P-47 carried about 85 lbs of armour, which was roughly the same as the Spitfire. By contrast, the F6F had about 220 lbs of armour. The P-51 had about 65 lbs.
Gauge of metal is very important when fanbois start talking about bullets bouncing off P-47s. And yes, they do say this.
"The 47 had the huge turbo supercharger in the belly of the plane with all the strong steel pressurized ducting which the 51 did not have,"
There is absolutely no way I'm believing the ducting was steel. Nor am I believing the turbo supercharger was there for pilot protection. A couple of hits from a 37mm and it's going down, regardless of whether we're talking about a P-47 or P-51.
"The 47 had 3 wing spars which made much stronger wings then the 51 ."
That problem was solved early on.
"The highest scoring American Ace Francis Garboski did just fine in a 47 until he switched to a 51 and the wings fell off then he was taken prisoner."
That was Hub Zemke. Gabreski was shot down.
"Infact you wont find reports of a 47 ever falling apart from storms, or g force with the exception of early tails in wind tunnels but this was fixed."
I'm not really interested in finding 'evidence' of freak accidents, especially when they had no material affect on the outcome. Then there's this:
"The 18 cylinder r2800 losing a cylinder was not that big of a deal , it could even lose 2 and the pilot wouldnt even notice ."
This is complete fantasy. First of all, P-47 fanbois talk about this as though it was a regular occurrence. It wasn't. Everyone claims to know someone it happened to. This is BS. They made the same claims about the FW-190. Try finding a picture of this. Good luck. There isn't even one in any of the P-47 books I have. Losing one or more cylinders is likely to be catastrophic, even in an air-cooled radial. The first thing that happens is the loss of oil pressure and probably all the lubricant. If you can't land in a matter of minutes, the engine will seize. So having cylinders shot off is an emergency. The ones who survived that were not only extremely lucky but extremely rare. Again, I have no interest in finding supporting material for freak events.
As for 'wouldn't even notice'... You're not a pilot, are you? That kind of catastrophic damage will bring an aircraft down.
I will address the rest of this later.
1
-
@ScoopsTV
”we know this because the r2800 was on the Thunderbolt , Corsair and Hellcat and we have examples of all these aircraft returning home missing one or 2 cylinders , its ruggedness is legendary .”
Link to photograph please.
”The fact that air cooled radials could take more battle damage then water cooled radials is well understood and confirmed by USAAF battle damage tests .”
Link please.
”One bullet to the coolant system of the of a water cooled type and its all over , “
Oh yes, the old 'one bullet and it's all over' argument again.
That didn't stop a large number of liquid cooled aircraft from being entirely successful in WWII, even in ground attack missions. No, I'm not going to make a list. Look it up for yourself. It also didn't stop the P-51 from racking up 4,131 ground kills, versus 3,202 for the P-47.
It did that in half the number of missions, too.
So much for the 'one bullet and it's all over' trope. You won't find it in pilot memoirs, like those of Col. Richard Turner.
”The radials have this same weakness in their oil coolers but these are much smaller and protected by the engine itself .”
Smaller, yes. Protected by the engine itself? No. They're underneath it.
”This is not a rare occurrence with the r2800 .USAAF Optimal caliber tests show that shooting a cylinder or two off a radial is very unlikely to cause an A or B kill”
This is total BS. Absolute nonsense. I don't believe a word of it. You shouldn't either. As they say in science, outrageous claims require outrageous amounts of proof. If you think losing a cylinder is no big deal then you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. Once all the lubricant is gone, the engine will seize and the only options are to bail out or find a field to land in.
”There is a photo of a p47 landing with a 500 pound bomb still attached, the bomb went off ...exploded and shredded the airplane but the pilot walked away .Also the wings are shredded but still attached to the plane .”
Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to document it. A 500lb bomb – which was enough to overturn a King Tiger tank – would blow a P-47 and its pilot into the next county. Digging up these one-off examples of pure luck (if, indeed, they are true) as typical of the strength of the P-47 is facile and irrelevant. These things are so rare that – if they did happen – they had no material impact on the war and they should not be used as any kind of typical situation.
”We have robert S johnson being attacked by fw190s and taking no less than 21 ...twenty-one 20mm cannon hits and well over 200 bullets and stilll getting him home .With 3 other 47s being written off and scrapped when they got home from that mission.”
Ahh, yes, Johnson. Every P-47 fanboi's go-to source. That's probably one of the least reliable memoirs ever written and Martin Caidin had pretty good form on this too. This guy claims he shot down a 190D, yet he left Europe in May and the 190D came out in October. This is the guy who claims to have defeated a Spitfire – without saying which marque – in a mock dogfight which may or may not have happened. It's all big swinging dick stuff. Johnson was undoubtedly a fine pilot but an expert BS artist and he pissed off a lot of people.
”After the war a p47 hit the side of a factory coming to rest on the factory floor ....the pilot walked away.”
You can keep quoting freak accients until you turn blue. They don't matter.
”There are photos of p47s with holes in the wings and the crew chiefs sticking their head through them , the pictures of battle damaged p47s taking insane amounts of punishment and still returning home are numerous. there are many of them .There are relatively few of the 51 and relativly few stories of pilots nursing baddly damaged p51s home .”
Actually, there aren't that many of them. I know because I have looked. And the one that's most notable for being missing is the one of the R2800 with missing cylinders. You find one. As for P-51 photos, why don't you have a look? There a few. But I've seen something you've never seen: a P-51 that was belly landed. The prop was bent and the radiator was written off but the pilot walkd away and the aircraft was rebuilt and is still flying today.
So you can give all the examples you like: I've seen a real life one and I'd take a bet you haven't.
”The top 10 P47 ACES in the ETO ALL survived the war ,this is not true of the 51 or any other fighter.”
That's just a matter of luck. But when you go where the Mustangs did, the risks were higher. Survivor bias.
But let's look at something else, lest you forget what this is about. The P-47 had an exchange rate of 2.04, while the P-51 had an exchange rate of 3.6 and was at least twice as likely to see action as the P-47 pilots. So yeah, if you wanted to survive, being in a P-47 was no bad thing. You were less likely to see action anyway. The Luftwaffe didn't even start attacking until the P-47s went home.
1
-
@ScoopsTV
”There is a reason the 56th fighter group chose to stay in their p47s rather then switch to the 51s .Its ability to take punishment had already been proven.”
Myth. Interesting that nobody else wanted it. Read what Zemke said about it. See, this is the trouble: I don't get all my information from “Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles”. I do this old fashioned thing called reading books. It used to be popular once. When you read what Zemke says you find out there was more to it. I will leave you to research that by yourself.
And it's noteworthy that leaders like Zemke and Don Blakeslee both campaigned long and hard to get the P-51 because, in their own words, it was the best fighter for the job. Neither believed the P-47 was upt to the job. It simply didn't have the range that was needed for the USAAF to carry out its campaign of strategic bombing.
”The poor climb performance was remedied with the new paddle blade prop giving the 47 comparable climb performance to the smaller fighters ,ace Gabby Gabreski stated in his book that after the paddle bladed prop his p47 could escape german fighters by performing a wide circliar climb ,Ace roberet s. johnson stated in his book that after the paddle prop no german fighter eas able to escape his guns by climbing again .”
That's total BS. You don't have to look very hard to find the optimum climb rates for the P-47. Check out Chuck Hawks website. They were showing comparative performances for the -D-25 and it was never competitive with any other type. Not even the -M/N could climb with a Spitfire Mk IX. Against an Mk XIVe it was downright unfair. Anyone with a brain can see why. A seven ton aircraft with a 2,400 hp engine was never going to be able to climb with a four ton Spitfire and 2,350 hp.
But it never mattered. The P-47 invariably had the advantage of altitude so Zoom and Boom ruled anyway.
”The 47s performance at 25k feet and above was unrivaled by any other large scale operational fighter .The ta 152 could outperform it but very few were built and the dora 9 had a better tested service ceiling but the had to fight at 25k feet as it was an interceptor ,its role to shoot down bombers .”
So what? How much combat took place at that altitude? How much of it involved Zoom and Boom tactics? A smart fighter pilot doesn't get into a turning dogfight. He ends it before his opponent knows he's there. He does this by attacking from altitude and out of the sun. These examples you talk of are either exaggerated or out of context. In Johnson's case it is almost certainly both. He was a known BS artist.
”The 47 mach limit of .82 made it overall the fastest diving propeller driven aircraft of the war .(the spit was faster between 23k and 20k feet but at all other altitudes the the 47 is king.) This is confirmed by NACA and the RAF which tested to .83 with no problems .”
Well, we know that isn't true. If it was then you should have no trouble providing that report. The P-47 wing was thin but old and had its point of maximum thickness at 30% of chord. It suffered from what was known as 'Mach Tuck', when shockwave formation over the upper wing caused a low pressure section to form aft of the MAC. This happened at Mach 0.71 on the P-47. The addition of dive flaps... God, what to say about this. Since when is adding complexity a good thing? If you know anything about this, you'd realise that all it does is make the whole thing more cumbersome. That's the last thing a pilot wants in combat, not to mention the possibility of failure. And I would seriously question your revised Mach number. I certainly wouldn't take it at face value. Since when does increasing drag make an aircraft faster, let alone by that much?
”Eric browns .72 claimed tactical mach limit is nonsense and not supported by ANY contemporary data or even pilot reports”
Says some joker on the internet. So you've read all the reports yourself, have you?Eric rown was a great test pilot. You are not.
”There are no pilot reports stating that german fighter were able to dive away from the 47, trying to dive away from a 47 at any altitude was suicide.“
So what? In the context of this, all your interesting facts are meaningless. You will find out why soon enough.
”The p47 flew more missions {740k} then the p38,p40 and p51 combined.”
That's nice. The P-47 flew 423,435 missions in the ETO v the P-51 with 213,873 (See Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'). But the inescapable fact is that in half the number of missions, the P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in a more hostile environment than the P_47 and further from home than the P-47. This makes a nonsense of pretty much everything you're saying. The P-51 was more than twice as likely to engage in combat and more likely to win, as evidenced by the exchange rates I gave earlier.
1
-
@ScoopsTV
”The 47 achieved an arial kill ratio of 4.6 to 1 this when the Luftwaffe was at its strongest facing much better pilots , in fact the 47 probably broke the back of the luftwaffe by the time the p51 got there . Luftwaffe experienced pilots were being killed in droves by the 47s on escorts and fighter sweeps .”
These are just conjecture and lies. Total bulldust.
In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German fighters in the ETO, with the lion's share going to the P-47: 414. The total for the USAAF was 3,300 and the same number for the RAF.
The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943.
So tell me this: how is shooting down less than 2% of the Luftwaffe 'shooting them down in droves'? Because anyone with a brain can see that unless all the very bets Luftwaffe Experten were concentrated over Holland, Belgium and Northern France, that <2% was going to make bugger all difference. So the P-47 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe' is just a lie. Total rubbish.
As for pilot skill, the Luftwaffe peaked in skill and experience probably between May, 1940 and June, 1941. At that time their training hours were high and their experience was unmatched, other than by the RAF and Commonwealth pilots. By 1943, the Luftwaffe were actually calling on nightfighter units for support. They could get away with this because there were no escorts, due to the P-47's lack of range.
By 1943, he Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self. Pilots generally had 100-120 hours experience, with maybe a dozen hours on type. American pilots generally had 600+ hours and probably 50-100 on type (see Martin Middlebrook, 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission').
”So in conclusion , there is ample evidence that the p47 was stronger and more rugged than the p51”
There's also a lot of evidence of survivor bias.
”there is plenty of data supporting the fact that radial engines can absorb more battle damage than a water cooled v type ,this is also supported by surviving aircraft , pilot reports let alone by the data from the USAAF tests.”
Until you can produce those nebulous reports, 'it don't amount to a hill o' beans', to use your idiom. I might agree with some of this if I thought you were capable of a nuanced argument – and it has plenty of nuance – but after your attempt to promote the P-47 to a status it neither had nor deserved, I'm disinclined.
”This is the reason kurt tank went with a radial on the fw190 , he was building a rugged plane and rugged planes used radial engines .”
No it isn't. Tank used the BMW because he was not allowed access to the Daimler Benz.
”The PER SORTIE loss rates are statistically significant and show a rate almost twice as good for the p47 ,you stating this is insignificant shows a lack of statistical understanding. “
Total rubbish. You're clutching at straws. Your argument of 'never mind the quality, feel the width' holds no water. The P-47 could never have won the war on its own. Anyone who dismisses that kind of information so flippantly because it doesn't conform is an idiot. Total per sortie rates absolutely do matter. In exactly the same way as per sortie kill rates matter. How do you even think this is an argument? What makes you right and everyone else wrong? Exchange rates are what matters. That's how you defeat your enemy.
The best example of this was 'Big Week' in February, 1944, when Spaatz and Doolittle engaged the Luftwaffe in an attrition battle they knew the Germans could not afford. In that week, the Germans lost something like a third of their fighter strength. (see James Holland's book 'Big Week').
”The 47 flew twice as many sorties, dropped 2000% more bombs and suffered only 58% of the losses that the p51 suffered. “
Easy to explain. Different missions and survivor bias. (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen).
”You saying there is no evidence that the 47 is stronger shows you dont now what evidence is or you didnt look for it”
WTF are you talking about? No, don't bother. You're rambling. I don't think even you know what the question is!
”P51 Fanboy?”
Realist and an educated one at that.
Mosquito and F6F fanboi, if anything.
You should read a book if you're ever going to learn anything, instead of getting all your information from a charlatan like Greg.
1
-
@ScoopsTV
"Yes "mathing""
There's no such word. And the American term 'math' is wrong. 'Mathematics is a plural and therefore, the abbreviation must be 'maths', not 'math'.
No, I'm not British.
"its an english language jab when some one is clearly making a mistake with math "
No mistake on my part.
"The 47 flew twice and many sorties and took 58% of the losses compared to the p51 ."
I've already explained this: different missions and survivor bias (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen).
"after you claim there is no evidence the p47 is Tougher when if you knew how to math , you would never have stated that ."
Nothing wrong with my maths, son. Once again, different mission parameters and survivor bias cover almost all of the difference (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen).
"LOL, i never stated the turbo super charger was there for pilot protection , a secondary consequence of all the steel ducting happened to be a layer of protection .It was a lot of steel in the belly of the airplane . The pressurized turbocharger ducting is in fact steel. You can look this up ."
Don't play 'I never said' games with me, sonny. What was the purpose of including it if not to imply protection? Furthermore, the turbo supercharger was considerably further aft than either the pilot or the centreline pylon so it's BS anyway.
"The pressurized turbocharger ducting is in fact steel. You can look this up"
You're the one making the claim. You look it up.
"The huge self sealing feul tanks are not there directly for pilot armor protection either but they do a good job at stopping bullets from hitting the pilot ."
We have a saying here; 'pull the other one'. A high velocity round - or more likely a cannon shell - will go straight through a self-sealing tank. That's how they were designed work. They were not designed to stop bullet. They were designed to fill the hole and the less stopping they did, the smaller the hole. (see 'The Hardest Day' by Dr Alfred Price).
"Rugged="[of a machine or other manufactured object]Strongly made or capable of rough handling" "
Co-opted by the American advertising industry in the 1990s. Not recognised anywhere else. It's like the expression 'begging the question'. I doubt you know what that really means. Or 'fulsome', which also doesn't mean what it sounds like. Just because everyone gets it wrong, that doesn't make everyone suddenly right.
"Is English your first language ?"
Yes. Not so sure about you though.
1
-
@ScoopsTV So let's address the elephant in the room: range. As long as the bombers had fighter cover, they basically had air superiority. Without fighter cover they were vulnerable. But in October, 1943, the USAAF had a major problem: without fighter cover, they could not carry out their mission of strategic bombing without suffering unacceptable losses. The problem was that the fighter that the USAAF was counting on had short legs.
The P-47 fanbois would have you believe that drop tanks were the answer and that Greg's conjecture that the USAAF leadership had a plan to nobble the P-47 and kill all the bomber crews to prove a point is true. They call it 'doctrine', which is basically used as a pejorative, along the lines of 'communism'.
But... Newsflash! It's BS. External tanks were not the answer to the P-47's problem. The only thing that could improve the situation was internal fuel. Drop tanks simply create too much drag. They say it takes half of the contents of a drop tank to get the other half there. The P-47C, which comprised the vast majority at the beginning of 1944, was plumbed only for a centreline tank. A small number had been replumbed for wing tanks. This was a very slow process carried out in the field by sweating, swearing ground crews and involved cutting metal. When the USAAF carried out its first major raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, the vast majority of P-47s couldn't get past the Dutch border, even with a 108 gallon tank under the centreline. The small number equipped with underwing tanks could get to a point just north west of Magdeburg. That's with 216 gallons of external fuel. (see Jeff Ethell and Alfred Price 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944'). All the fighters over Berlin were Mustangs. No P-47s.
The problem was that the P-47 carried only 256 gallons internally and this didn't change until the D-25 went into service in May, 1944. By that time, the horse had bolted and the P-51 was not only becoming the standard fighter of the USAAF but had also begun to establish itself as the USAAF's best fighter.
When the P-51 arrived in December, 1943, there were already eight fighter groups operating out of England. That's about 650 aircraft. They also had one fighter group of P-38s and added another at the end of December. During Big Week in February, the P-47 was the dominant fighter, scoring about 250 German fighters, more than half of what it got in 1943, the year the P-47 was supposed to have 'broken the back of the Luftwaffe'. in March the P-51 got 250 to the P-47's 150. By April, there were four groups of P-51s and eight groups of P-47s. That month the P-47 shot down 82 German fighters and the P-51 got 329. So the P-51 was already out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. And it remained that way for the rest of the war (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen).
And the problem was caused by Republic. The problem of internal fuel was recognised before Pearl Harbor. At least a year before the USAAF began operations in he ETO, Material Command told the manufacturers that they needed to increase their fuel capacities. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell, did as they were told. Republic didn't do anything about it. Gen. George Kenney is reported to have been furious with Kartveli for simply failing not only to act on Material Command''s directive but for failing to read the room at all. This compromised his plans in the Pacific.
The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 and used it at 2/3 the rate. Furthermore, whatever the test charts say, escort work is thirsty work. All the calculations everyone quotes are just that. They have the following passage at the bottom of the page that nobody ever pick up on: 'RED FIGURES ARE PRELIMINARY: SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER FLIGHT CHECK'. And anyone who can't see the implications of this simply isn't looking. They were calculated, not flown. Furthermore they were calculated for optimum altitude and throttle settings. Escort work was carried out at less than optimum altitude and throttle settings and involved weaving all over the sky.
The P-51 took the fight to the Germans in their own airspace. The P-47 could not do that. And whatever the technical differences and advantages/disadvantages of either type, it was the P-51 that did the most to wreck the Luftwaffe. That's a fact, whatever anyone's favourite aircraft is. All those technical details and brochure figures are not the story. In fact, they are barely relevant. The impact of the P-51 is a matter of historical record. That record judges the P-51 as the best fighter of WWII. And objectively, that record is correct. When you have done as much reading as I have, it becomes clear. Conspiracy theories never tell you the whole story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"So you agree with me about totalitarianism, but you cannot operate without fallacy."
Are you calling me a liar?
"Totalitarianism does not prescribe specific leadership institutions is what I said and leadership plays no role is your stupid strawman."
I have given you valid historical examples. Is this - 'stupid straw man' - your only response?
"Directly refute that socialists in name - it is essential that they were deliberate in socialism and not accidental - who eliminate capitalist allocation of capital, labor, land and and commodities in their first year in office are socialist in praxis and name, combined."
I don't understand the question. If, indeed, it is a question.
"Directly refute that socialists in name - it is essential that they were deliberate in socialism and not accidental - who eliminate capitalist allocation of capital, labor, land and and commodities in their first year in office are socialist in praxis and name, combined."
Source?
This contradicts everything we know about the Nazis. whose first victims were socialists. The Nazis were mostly disaffected former soldiers and the party was little more than a branch of the Freikorps. In fact, the Nazis direct benefited form the Freikorps victory over the Räterepublik . You really have to read some proper German history to know how this played out.
It also contradicts some of their first acts when they came to power.
Do you know how the Nazis came to power?
"Barkai describes their ranks as bigoted antisemites no differently than Marx and any other socialist of note in the 19th century."
They weren't the ones sponsoring pogroms and beating up Jews. Antisemitic attitudes were more widely represented in the mainstream population in that period - even in places like the United States - but that doesn't mean everyone who sneered at Jews was a killer. The Nazis were. The KPD were not nearly as well represented in attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses as the right - particularly the Nazis - were.
"The fact KPD attempted to overthrow an elected republic just as the nazis had is more support for nazis being socialist authoritarians just like KPD."
The KPD weren't socialist. They were communist and many were backed by the Soviet Union.
So what?
Just because the two were authoritarian, that doesn't mean they were the same. They weren't. When you know something about the history of the Nazis, you realise it isn't really even close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
”RFD eliminated private property rights in German.”
Then how do you explain the massive privatisation program that Hjalmar Schacht instigated?
No, I’m sorry. Basic private property right still existed in Germany after the Nazis came to power in 1933.
”The 3rd Reich Ermachtigungsgesetz entailed Fuhrerprincip which implemented central committee control like the soviets had under Lenin.”
This is one of the great non-points that ever comes up in these discussions.
ALL governments use central planning. How could you run an economy otherwise? How could you set cash rates, plan budgets, print cash, run major departments, like health and education. How could you operate an army or, on the case of Germany, plan for a war?
”DAF is socialist labor relations.”
Only someone who doesn’t know anything about the DAF could say this. Let me ask you something; qui bono?
Just putting ‘socialist’ in front of it is meaningless. It certainly doesn’t make it socialist. The DAF was Hitler’s plan to turn one of the most advanced workforces in the world into a labour pool for major industry. Again, qui bono? It was implemented to replace all those trade unions whose offices were trashed and staff beaten up by the Nazis. Again, qui bono? Who were the principal beneficiaries of this?
Hint: follow the money.
”Compulsory Cartel Act established the same state-dominated Cartel structure the soviets operated underLenin.”
This is just flat out wrong. Hitler wanted companies to act as cartels to protect them during the Great Depression, when the German currency was at its lowest ebb since 1923. And yet again, I ask; qui bono?
Lenin didn’t operate cartels at all. He just nationalised. Simples.
”Comex Act closed all the major commodity exchanges . The purpose was the affectation of socialism and banning of capitalism.”
I’m going to need much more specific information than this.
”Commodity exchanges are central to capitalism, just like privately negotiated labor and just like private property by guarantee.”
If you say so.
Personally, I don’t think you actually know much about what happened. And you really shouldn’t cherry-pick your information from Mises dot com either. It’s a historically fact-free zone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 Blah, blah, blah… The unconventional frightens you, doesn’t it? I have a very limited appetite for generalised pseudo-philosophical blather. My interest is only in what they Nazis did. There are other threads on this page where I have outlined some of what happened and why.
And if you continue to accuse me of lying, you can shove this discussion right up your self-obsessed arse. I have given you enough to work with to go on a voyage of discovery. Unless, of course, you’re too closed-minded to accept any possibility than the preconceived notion that the Nazis were socialist because that suits your comfortable world view.
What’s most concerning for you though is that rhetorical questions like ‘How did the Nazis afford rearmament?’, don’t fit the intellectual straight jacket you want me to wear. Rhetoric is a useful educational tool - unless, of course, you have a closed mind about this, in which case you would be unteachable and I would be wasting my time.
It appears that I have led a more free-thinking, less literal and less structured life than you, for which I’m glad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh boy. Air warfare has moved on an awfully long way since WWII. These days, it's almost never a 1V1 engagement. First of all, this was a battle that apparently involved more than 100 aircraft and probably nearer 150. The Indian aircraft were -- as far as I can make out -- assigned as force packages, The Pakistan air force claims to have scrambled to intercept but it appears, were able to launch one of their AEW&C assets. I'm not sure what type it was. This would have been a major factor in the outcome, I'm not aware that either side employed tactical jammers. In fact, I'm not sure Pakistan has any. But since it seems Pakistan was able to network its fighters, it rapidly increased the probability of success. This meant that the Pakistan air force could deploy more effectively and assign and target enemy aircraft separately. That way you don't have two aircraft shooting at the same target at the same time -- important in such a battle.
It should be remembered that 1) ALL of this likely took place outside visual range. I have heard no reports of dogfighting. 2) The Chinese J-10C and PL-15E missiles (the export version) worked as they were supposed to, though it is unknow how many were fired. The fact they were able to operate in a fully networked environment gives a good indication of their progress.
The true outcome will not be known for some time, though it will inevitably be studied by air forces around the world. For the time being though, I'm taking everything both sides says with a pinch of salt and I'm ignoring any pathetic attempts at nationalist rhetoric/humour.
Anyone who wants to learn about this should find a copy of "The Beka'a Valley Air Battle, June, 1982: Lessons Mislearned?" By CiC Lt Col Matthew Hurley. That is how western air forces have conducted their battles for the last 40+ years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callsignjoker2686
"actually the americans had better muskets than the british also the french just helped at the end."
Rubbish. Besides, the French provided all the artillery and that was more important than muskets. They also provided a hell of a lot of gunpowder and troops. In fact, the American Revolution bankrupt the French government. That's how much effort they put in. It was really an extension of the Seven Years' War.
"Also look at Venezuela right now. There fighting for freedom"
No, they're just fighting.
"Also just wait for a gun ban to happen. Because the american people wont stand for it when it happen."
So tell me how this plays out. You can't even articulate your own political processes. Right now, the only people talking about total gun bans are the gun lobby. Gun control is another matter. What are you going to do about that? Nothing, I'm betting. There's not a leader among you. You're all victims and sheep. You wouldn't stand a chance against the government because the public would turn against you. What would you do then?
"We would commence guerilla warfare. Also look at how the vietvong beat america using guerilla warfare"
Yeah, sure. You'd last about ten seconds. You don't have a plan except to stand up for gun rights. That's no basis on which to run a country and a disorganised rabble, running around waving guns, is not capable of running any country, much less the United States. Single issue parties can never run countries, especially when they're so fragmented.
So go on. Keep talking it up. I'm literally smiling as I type this. This is the most fun I've had on YouTube in ages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pOOTERgOBLiN
"The US military is on the free peoples side and won't defend the government if it really went down."
You mean that, if the shit hit the proverbial fan, the army would side with you? I don;t even know where to begin with this. To assume they are on your side is just bizarre. Do you really think that just because you say you stand for freedom, that everyone else will fall into line with that? Do you really think that the army with share your version of freedom just because you believe what you you say? Do you really think that your version of freedom is the only one?
This is why people like you hate the First Amendment. It allows other people to have a different point of view from yours.
"What about the incident where the citizens made the feds tuck tale back down and run in southern Nevada a few years ago? Even with all their body armor and armored vehicles. The feds were simply outgunned and surrounded."
Evidence please. From a credible news source please and not a gun lobby shit sheet.
"The Vietcong did not beat the US in warfare."
Ummm... so what?
"They simply tried to last until we left."
This is the great American blind spot. There's a lot more to winning a war than winning it militarily. Like in Vietnam and now Afghanistan, you lost because you couldn't sustain the peace. There was absolutely nothing in it for the locals. You wanted in to introduce democracy, capitalism and freedom (all American style, of course) to a bunch of people who didn't want it. Then you left.
When a combatant leaves the field of battle, they concede defeat, no matter how unpalatable that sounds.
You lost. Then you lost again in Afghanistan for the same reason.
"When all is said and done the US didn't lose the fighting/war it lost the politics."
You gave the Vietnamese no choice. They didn't want what you were offering. There is more to winning a war that killing people.
"But you shouldn't worry to much, the soldiers in the US military believe in freedom and side with the people."
This is the most naive thing I have ever seen in 20 year on the internet.
"They already have their eyes on everything going on right now."
WTF? How do you see this playing out? Go on, give me a precis of how this happens. I'm really curious. What's the trigger point?
If you really think that every person in the army is going to side with you over your narrow-minded view of freedom then you are kidding yourself. And if you want to know what happened last time someone tried to take over the government by force, Google "Operation american Spring". It's hilarious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m waiting for the figures on oil usage for the last 12 months to come out in the New Year. 2023 was the first year when oil use tapered off and showed a very slight decline. This, it was said, was due to the uptake of EVs in China, where, as anyone who watches this channel knows, they already comprise more than 50% of the market. If this trend goes where I think it’s going, everything could change dramatically in the next ten years, not through government regulation but through consumer choice.
I see Americans complaining that they ‘won’t be allowed to buy a gas car in 2035 because of government regulation’ but in reality, the manufacturers are going to make this choice. It will simply no longer be economical to produce ICE cars. And that is going to happen before 2035. America is, of course, a special case, where the oil industry has pitched their case as a ‘freedom’ issue. Trump has even flagged banning the Department of Defense from buying EVs. How he’s going to enforce this, I don’t know. Spite is a terrible rationale for policy making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Aaaah… no they didn’t. There were a few that were replumbed in time for Big Week but the P-47, even with a 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon couldn’t get to Schweinfurt and back. You can find this in James Holland’s book, ’Big Week’.
Another book which is much more specific about this is ’Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944’, by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. They actually show the mission planning, including the intercept points. For that mission, only a relatively small number - something like 20% - had be replumbed and even they couldn’t get as far as Magdeburg.
The problem was not drop tanks. It was internal fuel capacity, something Republic took its sweet time to address.
Let’s take Schweinfurt as a case example. It’s the one everyone knows and always the lightning rod for criticism. The trouble is that not a lot of people who talk about Schweinfurt have anything more than a basic understanding of the raid and that makes them easy prey for a guy like Greg, who appears on the surface to have done his homework. In fact, most of his hypothesis is a bit naive and it’s my belief that this is what led him to his (mostly inaccurate) conclusions.
The Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid was expected to encounter its stiffest opposition once it crossed the Dutch coast. That would have been no problem for even the shorter-ranged P-47s. They could cover that. The problem was that British weather and a similar patch covering the Dutch coast and inland meant that many of the escorts never even saw their charges. The result was predictable and drop tanks wouldn’t have made any difference. The weather was what it was. The next problem they hit was over the target. Having just come back from that part of the world last month, I can assure you that both Schweinfurt and Regensburg are a long way from the Dutch coast and this was where the bombers suffered more casualties.
The only fighter in the US inventory at that time which could have made it that far was the P-51.
‘But!’ I hear you cry, ‘the P-51s weren’t in service then.’ That’s right. Due to an oversight, they weren’t.
So I am always of the opinion that, when faced with the choice of conspiracy or incompetence, choose the latter.
I have more on that if you want it.
1
-
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness"
No aircraft is entirely bug free. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sen Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing.
Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.*
The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.**
The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soi and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions.
*Via Historian and author James William Marshall in personal correspondence.
**From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them."
Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate.
At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border.
The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing sweating crews who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s.
If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1943', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price.
The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Osserschleben and Anklam.
This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault.
Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of theumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not.
After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific.
In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons did not reach squadron service until May, 1944.
1
-
"On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness"
No aircraft is entirely bug free. But that problem was fixed. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive in climb with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sqn Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing.
Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.*
The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.**
The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soil and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions.
*Via Historian and author James William Marshall.
**From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness"
No aircraft is entirely bug free. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sen Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing.
Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.*
The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.**
The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soi and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions.
*Via Historian and author James William Marshall in personal correspondence.
**From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
1
-
"Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them."
Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate.
At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border.
The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing, sweating crews, who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s.
If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples, rather than theoretical range - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price.
The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Oserschleben and Anklam.
This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault.
Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of thumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not.
After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. When Materiel Command wanted range, Republic added more guns instead. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. What good is an escort fighter that can’t provide an escort? Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific. Republic seemed not to be reading the play.
In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons, the -D25, did not reach squadron service until May, 1944. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
"Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them."
Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate.
At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border.
The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing sweating crews who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s.
If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1943', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price.
The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Osserschleben and Anklam.
This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault.
Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of theumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not.
After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific.
In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons did not reach squadron service until May, 1944.
1
-
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS The only P-51s I am referring to had the extra 85 gallon tank behind the pilot. Those were the ones that arrived in December of 1943. The other P-51s, those without that extra tank, were mostly handed over to the RAF and are irrelevant.
The 200 gallon tank is a furphy. Greg talks about it but he doesn’t tell you everything about it.
First of all, it was a ferry tank and not combat rated. Secondly, it may have been tested to 30,000 feet but if you look at the chart he’s using, it notes that the tank was empty. From memory, that tank couldn’t carry 200 gallons above 10,000 feet or 100 gallons above 18,000 because it couldn’t be pressurised.
Who were they going to be escorting at 10,000 feet? Nobody.
On top of that, it couldn’t be jettisoned in an emergency. Greg’s 200 gallon tank is a non-starter.
Greg also waves a lot of charts around but he doesn’t show you the fact that at the bottom of the range charts it says that the ranges are calculated, not flown. He also doesn’t tell you that these are best case scenarios at optimum altitudes and throttle settings. Escort work meant a lot of weaving and slow flying which was hell on fuel consumption.
In short, Greg is a liar and he’s trying to reconstruct the facts to fit a narrative that makes the P-47 look better. There are two kinds of lies: lies of commission and lies of omission. Greg is guilty of the latter. He simply doesn’t tell you everything.
I have already detailed the Materiel Command and USAAF directives to increase internal fuel capacity that predate the first USAAF raids in August, 1942. In fact, the Materiel Command directive is pre-war, as was the one about drop tanks. I have also detailed why they were told not to concentrate on drop tanks.
The 370 gallon P-47s did not arrive until late 1944, by which time they were not needed.
I have given you specific references and examples of specific raids to illustrate how the P-47 and P-51 were integrated into the escort stream. I have also explained the problem of re-plumbing the P-47, something that didn’t become a line modification until 1944.
As far as casualties were concerned, this needs to be looked at in context. You might want to look at the RAF raid on Peenemuende on the night after the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid. The British lost a similar number of aircraft but something like twice as many aircrew were killed. Everyone expected similar casualty levels from daylight bombing but the early raids - even the unescorted ones - did not suffer as badly as expected. So what you refer to as a ‘stupid number of B-17s’ wasn’t actually that unusual.
Drop tanks were not the answer. They can only supplement internal capacity. Eventually the drag penalty puts you into the law of diminishing returns. One drop tank might give you an extra 100 miles. Two might give you 150 but three might not give any increase beyond 150 at all.
Drop tanks would not have made any difference on the Schweinfurt raids. The P-47 simply did not have the necessary range and there were other factors at play. Add delays due to poor weather and it’s no wonder the raid didn’t go to plan. The leader of 1st Bomber Wing also decided to fly his formation below cloud, rather than above it, which meant that the P-47 escorts couldn’t find their charges.
1
-
@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS
”The p51 did have a glass jaw…..every single in-line did.”
This is the old ‘one stray bullet in the cooling system and it’s all over’ argument again. If you look at the records for the units that re-equipped from the P-47 to the P-51 you will find that they did at least as well with the P-51. In nearly every case, they did better. I can provide specifics later.
The point being that statistically, the cooling system made no difference. The dangers in ground attack missions - which is what most people are talking about here - were 1) enemy aircraft in the area, 2) Flak, 20mm and above and 3) collision, either with other aircraft or the ground. It’s not like the Germans had squads of people directed to shoot at the P-51’s radiator and the average pilot was a lot less worried about not making it home due to a deadly stray bullet in the cooling system than he was about being vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds or crashing into the target. This is why ground attack was so dangerous, not because you might get a stray bullet in the radiator.
Zemke’s wing breakage was a freak accident.
As for the P-47 defeating the cream of the Luftwaffe, it had very little to do with it. In terms of training and experience, the Luftwaffe peaked in 1941, before Barbarossa. By 1943, the average new Luftwaffe pilot had about 110-120 hours total, including a paltry 10-15 hours on type. The average American pilot had 600+ hours and 50-100 hours on type. P-38 pilots needed a lot more.
In 1943 the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe, with the P-47 getting the lion’s share at 414. That’s not surprising because there were about eight times as many P-47s. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943 so how anyone could claim that shooting down less than 2% of that total equates to shooting down the majority of Germany’s experienced pilots beggars belief.
ALL prop fighters were called spam cans, not just the P-51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enochkrue
"See the similarities yet."
Sure because car massacres happen all the time. LOL!! In the United States, 68-69% of murders are committed with guns. When was the last time there was a car massacre? So far this year in the United States, there have been 470 mass shootings and 28 gun massacres. How many car massacres have there been?
"Murder will always be a thing even without guns, knife crimes rose in England (as Alex pointed out) out of the absence of guns."
Two things wrong with this. First everyone agrees there will always be murder. That is not a valid reason for not making murder illegal. If you were to adopt that line of thinking you could just as easily say that there will always be paedophiles so we should get rid of the child exploitation and sex crime laws. Saying that people still kill each other doesn't mean laws don't work. It does mean that there are consequences. The second point as that Alex is wrong. I'm reluctant to say this but he's probably lying. There have been rare occasions when the murder rate in London has exceeded that of New York but it's very rare and New York is hardly the murder capital of the United States. Let me kno0w when it catches up to St Louis.
On top of that, both you and Alex Jones are making the assumption that crime rates went up (they didn't) because guns were out of circulation. You're going to have to prove this connection. Now, the gun lobby loves to say that "correlation does not equal causation" and it applies here. Even if the crime rates went up, he would still have to prove a connection and nobody in the gun fraternity - not even John Lott - has been able to do this (even when he cooked his figures).
"Also cops and in extension government only having guns is clearly a bad idea no matter how you look at it."
You still don't get it, do you!
I'll say it again so you can hear me. NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED A TOTAL GUN BAN Did you get that? Good. Don't bother bringing it up again.
"This is a extremely emotionally biased and loaded answer from your perspective."
No it isn't. It's a perfectly reasonable question.
"You ever think tranny hasn't happen in so long because of the second amendment, as Alex said Hitler, Stalin, and Moa "took the guns.""
Alex Jones lied. He does it all the time because it suits his audience. When did Hitler take the guns? When did Stalin take the guns? When did "Moa" take the guns? How many people in any of those countries / unions actually had guns in the first place. How many guns do you reckon there were in the average Chinese village? None. If there had been, according to you, the Chinese might have been able to prevent things like the Rape of Nanking. I can show you why the Russian Civil War was so bloody and it had nothing whatsoever to do with gun bans. How many Russians do you reckon owned guns? The problem with the Russian Civil War was that the soldiers came back from the front with their rifles. So, in fact, there was a surfeit of guns. As for Hitler... spare me that nonsense. If the Red Army took four years to defeat him, how long would it have taken German civilians? Hitler didn't seize power at gun point. He was elected by popular vote. And he remained popular until the tide of the war turned.
"Bringing up slavery shows your ideological mind set when we aren't even remotely near that subject."
Now you're just being silly. Do you really think you can argue that I was advocating slavery? No. I brought it up to illustrate that Americans, other than slaves, have never experienced tyranny.
""TRANNY.""
Oh, ha, ha. Very funny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airjordan1325
"Thank you for your explanation. I don't entirely agree with your viewpoint but I can respect your difference of opinion"
No worries. As some famous Frenchman once said, there's nothing more boring than a conversation in which everyone agrees.
We learn nothing from talking in echo chambers. It helps me make my arguments clearer and holds me to accuracy.
"Out of curiosity what was the point you argued with him about? I'd be interested to learn about it"
Greg was spouting off one day about how crew chiefs could have hotted up the engines of P-47s to give extra power. The basis of his argument appeared to be intended to support his claims for a higher top speed than what's listed on spec sheets. This is actually not very important stuff, except to him but a lot of people went along for the ride.
His comment was that the R-2800 could have been pushed to 72 in/hg, in his words 'because there was no reason it couldn't'. In his mind, if he could imagine it then it must have happened. Not a good basis for a realistic argument. I'd want to see some back up for a claim like that.
My comment was that if we are going to make such an assumption, we need to accept that it was not done either in isolation or asymmetrically. In other words, if P-47 crew chiefs were doing it, why shouldn't everyone else? If we are going to speculate like that, it makes a nonsense of any spec sheet arguments, including actual flown performance data.
Scratch that and start again.
Furthermore any claims about potential power outputs are not only entirely speculative but open to a silly bidding war, which clouds any sense of reality because kids and gamers get involved and start trying to outdo each other. Greg's problem was that he only wanted to apply this to the P-47.
In fact, while there were more powerful versions of the R-2800 used very late in the war or in the post-war period, the vast majority never exceeded 2,400 hp in WEP. Those that did were also different in someways from the majority of wartime engines. So what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
Beyond that, while the R-2800 was pretty reliable by WWII standards, squadrons were still expected to maintain an operational readiness level and hotting up an engine was a surefire way to shorten its lifespan. This apparently affects radials more than inlines for some reason but I am unclear as to why. It's not an area that's of a great deal of interest to me.
But if a section of aircraft suddenly didn't make it back due to a series of engine malfunctions, the crew chief would have to answer some pretty pointed questions, especially if the pilots ended up captured, in the Channel or dead.
WEP is only good for a few minutes - maybe three at most so a lot of what is said about top speed and power outputs is necessarily skewed and not necessarily realistic. It's all circumstantial and not ideal world.
Anyhow, it was some years ago and it was a pretty minor point. Greg actually conceded and then deleted my posts. This was before I knew much about him but it was pretty obvious he was gilding the P-47 lily and while I'm open to question, I'm not interested in arguments that are necessarily prejudicial. I'm looking for the best available version of the truth. But there are plenty of other things I disagree with him on, mostly historical.
This was what went wrong in the debate with Bill Marshall. Apart from the infuriating connection problems, Bill Marshall allowed Greg to argue from his position of strength: technical detail. The result was a win for Greg Gordon. Marshall is pretty good on this but he's much better on history. But he broke the rule that you never allow yourself to sucked into arguing from your opponent's position of strength.
Those of us who actually read history know that it's not what we want to hear. It's simply a record of what happened. If he'd stuck to that, the result would have been quite different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcusmaddox2176
"All those places with freedom that you reference. From France to the Dominion lands can thank Americans for raising the bar on government accountability."
Rubbish. America does what's in America's best interests. Otherwise, why hasn't the US tried to fix the problens in Poland or Hungary or Turkey or any of those other places that have slipped into extremism? Because there's nothing in it but trouble.
"Even Great Britain itself was impacted for good as sure as John Paul Jones impacted the island with a clear message to those who ruled the land of his birth ."
LOL!! You cannot be serious. You're still trying to fight the War of Independence. Still trying to prove you're better than the nation that founded you.
"From the menace of communist ruled nations or the subversive domestic threat now known as something called The Liberal World Order , the price of freedom has always been eternal vigilance."
Man, I don't even know what language you are speaking. Are you really trying to tell me that America is defending the world from something called "The Liberal World Order"? I'm completely speechless that you think you even have a fucking right to prevent places like Western Europe from their own self-detemination. Isn't that what America advocates - the freedom to choose?
"The United States has been carrying the burden for a fat and lazy Germany for a long time"
This is flat out wrong. What you did was pay the rent. Germany has propped up a significant portion of the European economy for decades with no help from the United States whatsoever.
"Your own country can afford not to have a deterrence of your own , not because India or France or even Great Britain protects you from the bullies."
What bullies?
"And other than God's protection
That's what shields you and you know it "
I don't believe in God and I don't want you imposing your silly religious nonsense on me, any more than I want any other religion doing the same thing. I don't believe in the United States coming to our rescue unless it suits them. Furthermore, even Nazi Germany's troops had "Gott mitt uns" on their belt buckles. That's the trouble when you think God it on your side. You believe you can never do anything wrong and that your cause will always be just. Nothing worse than a crusader.
How would you like to justify Vietnam? Or Iraq and Afghanistan? You lost all of those. How would you like to justify those vicious dictators the CIA cheerfully installed in South America until those countries wised up? How would you like to justify Bautista in Cuba or the civil wars in Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador which had your names all over them. What about your invasion of Grenada? Was that God's will too? It sure wasn't the British will and it was one of their outposts. The United States has not had a foreign policy win since World War II.
"If not for the US the entire far east , except for Russia, would be in Chinese control."
Wrong. Not even Vietnam is under Chinese control and the US is hardly likely to go back there. In fact, if you had any idea about history and logistics, you might learn that until the rise of Xi Jinping, China has never been an expansionist nation. It has taken her decades to build up her military might and right now, it's fair to say that the United States could not stop her if she wanted to move into other parts of Asia. But unless you know something about logistics, force development and power projection, you will probably say this is wrong. It isn't.
"We saved you in world war 2 and we protect you now. It's precisely because everyone knows Americans are crazy when forced into it, that bullies fear to oppress those weaker than themselves"
So it's down to "we saved your asses" again. For a price sonny and a very big one at that.
Excuse me asshole but have we ever forgotten to thank you? Spare me the bully crap, Crusader Rabbit. You have no understanding of world affairs beyond Trumpian mythology. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's easy to talk tough but when it comes to the crunch, America will always weigh up the cost benefit before doing anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hakapeszimaki8369
"they had alliance with Poles and actually German attack on Poland triggered british and frenchinvolvement in ww2."
Yes. That is not contested.
"Poles werefighting for brits"
The Poles were fighting for Poland and not even the most hysterical types would say they were fighting for the British. They were certainly hoping for British intervention but Poland fell before anything meaningful could be done to prevent it.
"they had emigrated government in london and on victory day london recognised the soviet backed polish commie government and dropped the pole emigrant govenment in london…"
Aaahhh... the Polish government in exile... And what do you think this disparate group of self-righteous, born-to-rule gadflies were actually doing? They were telling the British government what they thought they wanted to hear. This was not an elected government in the sense we understand it, so they had no actual claim to being the rightful rulers of Poland, any more than Achmed Chalabi had any claim to being the rightful ruler of Iraq, much as they all hoped they would be.
They naively assumed - as do so many others like them - that they would be parachuted back into government when the war was over and for some reason, they blamed the British when it didn’t happen. Idiots.
As for "the polish commie government", that was a largely self-spawned group of people who were actually in Poland when the Red Army passed through. They were a hodge-podge of pre-war communists, nationalists and disaffected soldiers. They sniffed the wind and figured it out for themselves.
As did the Allies.
Everyone knew that whenever the Soviet Union or Russia had been invaded, it had been done so via Poland. It doesn't take a lot of research to find that Poland and Russia (even the Soviet Union) had been belligerents for a long time. Poland, as an actual state, had only existed since the end of WWI. The dice were cast. The Soviet Union were not going to give up Poland to the West and it had never been part of the plan. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.
The counterfactual rhetoric on this has gone from melodramatic to completely insane in the last 30 years. People are now inventing stories about Poland sacrificing herself so that the rest of Europe would not have to live under the heel of a communist boot. This, of course, became near-gospel when Viktor Suvorov (AKA; Vladimir Rezun) released his alternative history of a plan by Stalin to invade Western Europe with an army of 100,000 tanks. It was laughed at by anyone who had any commonsense and a reasonable understanding of the post-war Soviet Union.
Like everything else in that debate, it's nothing but hysterical nonsense for Polish nationalist consumption and haters of the way WWII ended. Perhaps they'd rather the Nazis had won...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianbennett1810 The point is that people use guns illegally on a regular basis.
And please, that Gary Kleck claim of between 500,000 and 2,000,000 is bogus (he actually claimed 2,500,000). It was bogus when the report came out more than 25 years ago and it’s still bogus. It has been disproved more times than you’ve had hot dinners. The only reason the CDC cited it was that one of the authors of the CDC report was Gary Kleck.
So far this year, there have been 859 cases recorded of defensive gun use. That’s 859, not 859,000.
There have been 14,000 murders with guns and 17,000 suicides.
That’s 14,000 murders v 859 defensive gun uses.
Illegal gun use far outweighs legitimate defensive gun use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanRoehrich9651 The P-47 did not bear the brunt of the Luftwaffe. That is just Greg nonsense. I get tired of explaining this but hey…
From its combat debut in April, 1943, to the end of December, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft out of a total of 451 claimed by the USAAF. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. To put that into perspective, the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft that year. So <2% isn’t ‘breaking the back of the Luftwaffe’ or ‘shooting them down in droves’ or any other silly hyperbole Greg uses.
When deep penetration raids resumed in Operation Argument, in February, 1944, the P-47 had its best month, getting about 250 German aircraft. The following month the P-51 overtook the P-47. In April, the P-47 shot down 82 German aircraft, compared to 329 for the P-51 and they did it with half the force size. The figures remained lop sided for the rest of the war and with the exception of 56th FG, the P-47 was handed over to the 9th AF for ground attack missions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There was an attempt a few years ago by conservatives to try to frame fascism as a left wing movement. It’s still being argued out by people who have nothing better to do but to argue how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. Definitions are simply straight jackets and they are invariably a massive over simplification.
I have been reading about fascism for over 20 years. I suppose subconsciously, I knew it was coming because there was no well organised and funded hard left to balance the hard right. There’s a lot of finger pointing but not much substance. Where, for example, are the left wing Stephen Millers? Where are the left wing Steve Bannons? Or left wing Marjorie Taylor Greenes?
The point is that both sides of politics have skeletons in the closet. The left faced up to the evils of places like the former Soviet Union under Stalin literally decades ago. The right never acknowledged the evils of fascism and tried to reframe it through dictionary wars.
The fact is that no fascist government in history has ever come to power without the connivance and cooperation of conservatives. Not all conservatives, that’s true. But not every lefty supports communism either.
The Nazis in Germany would not have come to power if not for a cooperative agreement between Chancellor Franz von Papen and his conservatives and the Nazis under Hitler. Von Papen wanted to introduce legislation that would stymie the German left. The right so hated the left that they were prepared to countenance forming a power sharing agreement with a known anti-democratic crank like Hitler.
In Italy, the fascists started smashing up union offices and beating up officials. The violence became so bad that eventually Mussolini announced that only he and his blackshirts could stop it. Since they were responsible for it, he was, of course right. So he proposed a March on Rome. King Vittorio Emmanuele could have called out the army to stop them but didn’t. So Mussolini took power and held it for more than 20 years.
If Francoist Spain could have been described as fascist, then once again, conservatives, particularly the church and the nobility, backed Franco over the Republicans.
That Trump was elevated the way he was by a cooperative movement within conservatives should surprise nobody. American paranoia about communism ensured that a blind eye was turned to fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The development of this aircraft sounds like, ‘We designed this really impressive aircraft but when we fitted it out to requirements it was a disaster’. What good is a high performance aircraft that can’t meet its spec?
This has been the argument about the Spitfire being able to fly to Berlin. Sure, reconnaissance Spitfires could do it but they weren’t fighters and fighters required a lot of other things to be fitted. See also the Breda Ba-88 Lince. It looked like a winner until someone insisted that it be fitted with the tools needed to fight a war.
Against Polikarpovs - few of which had radios - it could acquit itself moderately well. But those Polikarpovs were barely adequate in the Spanish Civil War. I think we also have to take into account the influence of Finnish nationalism in the claims, something that seems to have escaped anyone’s notice.
If I had been a pilot in WWII, the Buffalo is the last aircraft I would have wanted to fly in a fighter v fighter combat. As an Australian, I can tell you the Buffalo’s reputation here was terrible. That’s why, even during the Port Moresby and Darwin campaigns, it was simply not used.
As far as the logistical problems of the early days of the Japanese advance to place like Singapore, I can agree with you up to a point. But it’s also worth remembering that other units, like RAAF 75 Squadron faced even worse problem in their (successful) defence of Port Moresby than the RAF did in Malaya or Singapore. Yet 75 did very well in their Kittyhawks and although they basically fought to a man, they held off the Japanese in conditions which were basically unsuitable for almost any reasonable air operations. So I think I’m entitled to question whether the Buffalo could have done as well. The RAAF, by clear choice, did not think so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StillAliveAndKicking_
"SpaceX developed a reusable first stage."
And as any reasonably intelligent person would assume, it didn't work perfectly from day one. SpaceX didn't get it right the first time and the Chinese didn't either.
"The key technologies are steerable grid fins, retracting landing legs, many (9) engines which can be throttled down, a reentry burn, a ballistic trajectory to the landing pad and a powered touchdown using a small number of engines."
You are aware, aren't you, that none of those things is new. Like a lot of things, the only thing new is actually th combination.
Single stage to orbit vehicles with landing legs were first tried (in the United States, at least) in the 1990s, before SpaceX existed. Throttleable rocket engines have been around for a long time too, including the RS-25 on the Space Shuttle.
Ans as I said, even though SpaceX developed most of the actual components themselves, none of it is exactly new. Even the closed cycle engine - which SpaceX refers to as 'full flow' is effectively a combination of the RS-25 and the RD-180, the former having a closed loop on the fuel side and the latter - amazingly - having a closed loop on the oxidiser side. Nobody in the West believed it was possible until they saw it.
The Merlin, on the other hand, is merely a development of the oldest kind of liquid fuel rocket. It has its roots in the Saturn F-1, the Redstone and the V2 before it.
"And the engines can be reused with minimal refurbishment."
Again, derivative engineering from the RS-25.
"China has copied the essential features, though it remains to be seen if they can match the reliability and rapid refurbishment."
I agree with the last bit but accusations of 'copying' get very tedious after a while. Like I said, the principles and even the technology, has been around for decades. Anyone using them could be accused of copying, including SpaceX.
"The devil is in the details."
Indeed. That's why we test things. Yet people still insist this is a copy, or even reverse engineered. The fact is that everybody is using established and even proven ideas and practices, including SpaceX.
But the Chinese rocket looks like a SpaceX rocket so they must be cheating because everyone knows they're actually stupid and racially incapable of thinking for themselves.* That's what people really think, after all, isn't it.
I seem to remember that the same sentiment was common in 1940 in regard to the Mitsubishi Zero and its pilots.
Until some people on our side got their arses shot off.
*Irony switched to 11 for those who don't get irony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"For the year of 1943 luftwaffe attrition was 140%."
This is a bullshit line you're taking and you know it because I've already countered it.
From its combat debut in April 1943 to the end of December, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft.
That year the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft. The P-47s accounted for less than 2%.
"This is all before the p51 b was flying in any meaningful numbers....."
In February, 1944, during 'Big Week', eight fighter groups of P-47s shot down about 30% more German aircraft than two fighter groups of P-51s. Think about that for a second. The last day the P-47s outscored the P-51 was 18 March, 1944. In April 1944 eight fighter groups of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft. Four fighter groups of P-51s shot down 329
german aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
So whether the Luftwaffe attrition from 1943 was 140% or not, it didn't have a lot to do with the P-47.
"So without discounting some very brave flying, of course the p51's enjoyed running up kills on far less experienced pilots. It's a real shame this is glossed over in nearly all recounts of these aircraft and the 51 is shown as a far better war plane than it actually was"
Oh for f*cks sake.
Read about the Luftwaffe reaction on 17 August, 1943 - the infamous Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission. People here always talk about it but none of you SOBs has ever read about it, have you? If you had you wouldn't be counting this endless BS. By this time the average Luftwaffe new pilot had 110-120 hours total, with 10-15 hours on type. The average new American pilot had 600+ with 50-100 on type. The Luftwaffe, which had probably peaked just before Barbarossa, had been worn down by a couple of years of attrition they could not afford, spread too thinly on fronts they didn't need to be fighting on. On 17 August they were actually reduced to using twin engined night fighters for interception. The only reason they could do that was because the USAAF fighter cover had already turned for home. They did the same thing on the first major raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944. Only this time, because of the Mustangs it was a massacre.
Read Martin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensberg Mission'. Then read 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. By March very little had changed. The war of attrition, mostly against the Soviet Union, had worn the Luftwaffe dow to a shadow of its former self. For more on that read Williamson Murray's 'Luftwaffe: Strategy For Defeat'.
You're just pissed off that the best fighter of the war was powered by a non-American engine. Now you have to invent a cherry-picked narrative to make 'my favourite plane' better than it was. The P-51 was the only fighter to make a strategic difference and I couldn't give a rats about claims of 'ruggedness' or firepower or exaggerated climb, dive and roll speeds. The only thing that matters here is the best available version of the truth.
And my information is a hell of a lot better than yours (which is only a rehash of Greg Gordon's drivel anyway).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dukecraig2402
"He took pictures, he doesn't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, he's no more credible at it than anyone else. "
Um... pardon me but you don't need a degree in aeronautical engineering to understand stealth. What you need is an understanding of Rayleigh scattering. As one who has been a photojournalist, a writer and producer and one who has had links with aeronautical engineering through both flying and a university-level research project I initiated into the stability of F1 cars, I have a very good layman level of understanding of it. Add to that, I have a lot of experience using microwave links, especially the current generation ones.
"Do some actual research into the Horten flying wing that's been gone over by aeronautical engineers and scientists that've actually analyzed the thing, all the myths about it go up in a puff of smoke."
Exactly. William Green's book "Warplanes of the Third Reich" describes the development and testing of the Horten brothers' flying wings and there was nothing remarkable about them except that they handled very well. The Flight test of the first Go-229A went very well, the handling said to have "exceeded the most sanguine expectations". The aircraft was lost and the pilot, Lt Ziller killed when an engine flamed out and Ziller put it into a number of manoeuvres at low altitude in an attempt to relight it, which resulted in the crash. Low and slow in a jet has always been a no-no. All the claims were retrospective ones from Reimar Horten in the last years of his life. He suddenly "remembered" all sorts of things he didn't tell anyone when he was interrogated. Like stealth, which had by then become the great buzzword of aviation. He even remembered the carbon content of the glue that was used to be a way of reducing radar signature. The fact was the quality of glue in Germany at the time was very poor and that was all they could get.
It's perfectly safe to say that no one in the aviation industry took him seriously.
Virtually everything he said was constructed to fit a new narrative. the fact was there were no stealth aircraft in WWII. Furthermore, stealth is designed to defeat modern X-band radar in the 8-11 gHz range. Most WWII radar was in the VHF range so the behaviour is quite different.
The Hysterical Channel pseudo documentary was a slap up joke fest, designed to "prove" a load of conjecture. The model they made to test didn't have anything like the amount of metal in it that the original aircraft had, including but not limited to the undercarriage, the upper and lower centre section skins, the weapons, the cockpit and of course, the two Jumo 004 turbojets. The result of this classic piece of self-interested disinformation is a public that now thinks there were stealth aircraft in WWII.
"For a plane that never flew, wasn't even close to flying, wasn't stealthy, or anywhere near being stealthy, people all the way from the Furher down to you believe all the bullshit about it, and that's all it is, bullshit."
Totally. Furthermore, the jet engines of the time had a durability measured in a few hours, a time that would certainly have been exceeded by a trans Atlantic flight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Joesolo13 As good as the German scientists were, Germany was severely lacking in a number of areas. While there were no Aliied equivalent of the infamous "Big Cats" or the V weapons, they missed out in an umber of other areas.
1) The Germans had no landing craft, other than those cobbled up for the abortive Operation Sealion, which never happened.
2) Germany had no aircraft carriers.
3) Germany had no sonar.
4) Germany had no equivalent to the De Havilland Mosquito or the North American P-51 Mustang;
5) Germany had no heavy bombers worth having. The He-177 was a disaster.
6) Germany had no equivalent to the atomic bomb.
That's the technical stuff. Now for the strategic:
1) Germany was on a "short war Strategy", just as she was in the First World War.
2) Despite the re-armament of the 1930s, German industry was not adequately prepared for anything like a long war.
3) Germany failed to achieve victory over the Red Army before the end of 1941, committing her to a drawn out war she could not afford.
4) Germany was short of resources and for every one she captured, she ended up losing one.
5) German wartime production frequently took place under conditions of allied air attack.
6) Germany's wartime plans were frequently lacking in clear goals and measurable objectives. Her motivations were largely influenced by the Nazis, whose racial policies clouded her assessments of her foes and her willingness to blame her "weaker allies".
In short, all these fancy weapons had no chance of changing anything. They were either too few in number or, as in this case, did not exist. This is simply the Luftwaffe equivalent of the Ratte.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scootergeorge9576 Okay, here's the deal. Aeronautical engineers use scale models in wind tunnels to simulate airflow for the full size jobs. There are set formulae for the relationship of the airspeed to the model size to make it work but I can't remember what it is. The thing that seems to throw most people here is pitch stability. That is, fore and aft stability. Intuitively, that's not unreasonable. It's either a tendency to climb and stall repeatedly (positive stability) or dive straight into the ground (negative, obviously). In an aircraft which is neutrally stable, the aircraft will simply glide stably until it runs out of altitude.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer but I'm a former pilot and I have wind tunnel time. This was because of an idea I had which ended up being a research project for a bunch of third year aeronautical engineering students. It was an investigation into the pitch stability of racing cars and I was invited to head up the project.
A positively stable aircraft has the centre of mass well ahead of the centre of lift. A negatively stable aircraft has the centre of mass well behind the centre of lift. If you have ever made balsa gliders, you'll know that you can trim the aircraft to fly well by adding or removing weight - usually plasticine - from the nose.
Flying wings have long spans and short fuselages (if they have a fuselage at all). If the aircraft is just a straight wing, then the aircraft will pitch about the aerofoil's pitching moment. To counter this, flying wings have a certain amount of sweep built in to make the wing less prone to pitch. But the short fuselage suggests a high level of pitch sensitivity, even though that may not necessarily be the case. It might require messing with the sizes of the control surfaces but the aircraft should still fly well, provided the centre of mass and centre of lift are in the optimum places.
The notion that a flying wing can't fly without computers is an internet thing. I suspect it's just one of those ideas that grew arms and legs and now it's gospel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' does the public and government NOT understand."
I refer you to the Supreme Court decision in the 2008 'Heller v DV' case when, in 'The Opinion", Justice Antonin Scalia said that the second amendment was not unlimited,
That is the law. It's not whatever the gun fraternity wants it to be.
"How many of these so-called mass shooting were done by those who had the firearm legally vs. those that had the firearm illegally??"
Where would you like to start, Dennis?
Would you like to start with 'so-called'? What is 'so-called' about it?
A cursory glance through the list of the deadliest gun massacres in US history shows that the majority were committed with legally owned guns.
"This question MUST be at the forefront of ANY gun control bill as I already know the numbers and they do not look good for those acquiring or carrying firearms illegally!"
Not necessarily. The question is one of availability. It has been shown time and time again that someone wanting an AR-15 get one very easily, legally or illegally. That is simply because they are so common.
"There is a very simple answer, the entire goal is to disarm America, but that pesky 2nd Amendment keeps getting in the way."
This would be funny if it wasn't tragic. The 'concept of 'disarming Americans' is one that is unique to the US gun lobby and its adherents. The fact is, Dennis, that over the past 15 years since 'Heller v DC', gun restrictions have gone in one direction: down. Liberalisation of open carry, concealed carry and 'stand your ground' laws have resulted in the single greatest rise in gun violence and murder rates since 1905. Murder rates are only going up. And before you repeat the old homily about knives, fists and baseball bats, 80% of murders are committed with guns and murder by other methods is declining. So much for 'disarming Americans'.
But in the meantime, America has seen an 80% increase in gun violence and murder in the last 10 years. I am happy to provide the figures in more detail.
*"There are no qualifiers before you can do that."
The learned judges of the Supreme Court might disagree with you there. These are people whose job is constitutional law. That's what they do for a living and in some cases, a lifetime. Following Heller v DC, there were 500 applications to overturn gun laws and only one - McDonald v Chicago, was successful. If you think there were no challenges on things like limitations or 'qualifiers', think again. Without qualifiers anyone could own a gun and that includes criminals and psychotics.
Are you sure that's what you want? I doubt if many Americans would agree with you.
"The right to create, join and maintain a militia for the security of a free state, (the Nation as a whole), with arms in COMMON use at the time of being called up by POTUS!"
The only militias that exist today are basically alt-right, anti-democratic groups whose aim is to overthrow the government.
"The Government at Federal and State levels, and through the state the counties and cities therein:
To NOT infringe on the right of THE PEOPLE to HAVE and CARRY arms!!"
Wrong again, Dennis. They can and do have that right.
"THE PEOPLE HAVE NO NEED TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE OR CARRY ANY ARMS THEY DEEM FIT, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN COMMON USE!!!"
Turn off your caps lock, Dennis. It makes you look irrational.
1
-
1
-
@deebee4575
"FBI Table 11 is MY source. And you?"
CDC 'Stats of the States'. FBI 'report on active shooter incidents from 2001 to 2013. Others, far too many to mention and I'm forbidden from posting links.
"Sorry communist. Guns are here to stay. Cry all you want."
Communist? What are you talking about?
Guns are here because the law says they can be here. That doesn't mean certain weapons can't or should not be banned. The Supreme Court decision in the 2008 Heller v DC case made it very clear: guns enjoy limited legal protection only.
"I noticed in one of your other replies, are you talked about mass shootings done by legal gun owners are prevalent. Care to back that up with any statistics from a credible source?"
Sure, look them up. Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock was a lawful gun owner. El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius was a lawful gun owner. Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was a lawful gun owner. Salvador Ramos, perp of the Uvalde shooting was a lawful gun owner. Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz... the list goes on...
In fact, the only one I could find from that list who didn't actually own the guns he used was Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza. He just used his mother's gun instead.
"The truth is that inner city street rats shooting each other are also counted as mass shootings in the USA. This accounts for almost 90% of the so-called “mass shootings”, and they are done with illegal firearms, usually pistols."
So what?
"Also, almost 50% of gun deaths in the USA are by suicide. I’m sure that makes you sad as well. 🤣🤣😂."
Yeah, it does. It would make any normal person sad. I'm not sure why you think it's funny but you just dropped your pants on that one.
"All your whining on the Internet is getting nothing done, except… You’re whining."
And spite will get it done. eh?
"The second amendment will almost certainly never be vacated."
Nobody is arguing that it should, despite a multitude of good reasons. The political process for changing it - something unknown to you - would render it practically impossible. But it isn't going nowhere because you say so, That's probably the lest convincing reason.
"Get over it."
Get over yourself.
Why should America continue to accept a murder rate which is seven times that of any comparable nation? Why?
" Why don’t you go fight for trans rights or something?"
Why don't you find other ways to express your dubious masculinity? How does it feel to be an omega male with an ego accessory?
Cope.
"You’re not good at this."
I'm better at it that you and that's not saying much.
But at least I can see the point of view of the families of innocent people who have lost their lives to gun violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drstrangelove4998
"the German ejection seats were advanced for their day."
In the late war period, all ejection seats were advanced for their day as there was no other similar or realistic alternative.
"They were operated by compressed air rather than the Martin Baker seats which could cause spine damage."
Whew! Where to start with this one...! Okay, ALL ejection seats were/are capable of causing spinal damage and that continues to this day, irrespective of method. Expanding gasses is the most reliable way of achieving a successful ejection (certainly better the the original spring proposals by pre-war British and wartime German inventors) but there are a lot of variables and a lot of different ways of achieving it.
The seat has an operating range which is mostly determined by the pilot's weight. In WWII there were not many ways of allowing for this. Theoretically, the German compressed air system could have been adjustable but I'm unable to find enough information to confirm it. Either way, the problem is having enough power in the seat to propel the pilot high enough to clear the aircraft, particularly the tail, without causing injury. This is the same whatever system you use.
Both the British and the Germans independently developed what became the ejection gun, a tube containing either compressed air or expanding gasses from pyrotechnics. While some German seats used compressed air bottles (He-219, Do-335) while others used pyrotechnics (He-162, Ta-154). So the Germans were having a bet each way until they found the most effective one. If the compressed air method had proven better, I would expect to see it in use today but it's not.
Where the British system differed was in the way the pyrotechnics were sequenced, the ejection gun having at least two stages during its stroke.
The Martin Baker seats got a bit of a bad rep after a reporter from "The Aeroplane" tried their test rig and hurt his back. He had watched Bernard Lynch - MB's live crash test dummy* - demonstrate the test rig and took up the offer to try it himself. However, he was not correctly seated and the poor alignment of his spine resulted in him being hurt. Poor posture is a factor, even today. Weight was also a factor and Lynch was a fairly big man. I don't know how big that reporter was but if he had used the same propulsive effort, it's likely he would have had a less comfortable ride.
"As for reliable, see Capt Eric Brown, the advanced UHU night fighter had ejection seats for pilot and navigator, and there were a confirmed eleven simultaneous ejections, ‘all completely successful.’"
I checked Brown's comments on this and the only thing he says is that the He-219 had compressed air ejection seats. He makes no reference to any number of successful ejections. I also checked his comments on the Do-335 and the He-162 but found nothing there to confirm that. I have yet to check my copy of William Greene's "Warplanes of the Third Reich", which is another reference I have. Do you mean 11 aircraft or 11 out of 12 crew members in six aircraft? I assume you mean the former, rather than the latter. When you say successful, do you mean they were alive or that they were uninjured?
*Lynch was a remarkable man who eventually made 30 ejections from the Martin Baker test aircraft and was awarded the MBE for his contributions. He never suffered any injuries in any of his work on the test rig or live ejections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JimmySailor
”Brits love the Mustang but the P47 won the skies over Europe.”
I don’t know what justification anyone would have for saying this. From its combat debut in April, 1943, to the end of that year, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft. But the big air battles that culminated in the defeat of the Luftwaffe did not happen until early 1944, with the implementation of Operation ARGUMENT in February and then the first daylight raids on Berlin in March. The last day on which the P-47 outscored the P-51 was 18 March. In April, eight fighter groups of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft. That same month, four fighter groups of P-51s shot down 329. The P-51 was out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. This was almost certainly the result of the P-51s range as well as its fighting qualities. Not for nothing was it known as ‘the fighter with the seven league boots’. The Luftwaffe had lost the tactical initiative.
In spite of the P-47’s undoubted contribution - it did actually shoot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO - it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
As an escort fighter, the P-47 was a failure and this was not the result of any ‘bomber mafia’ conspiracy either. Drop tanks could not make up for the P-47’s lack of internal fuel capacity. The P-47 carried 256 gallons internally, while the P-51 carried 269 and drank it at 2/3 the rate. In fact, so short was the P-47’s range that even with a 108 gallon external tank it could not get past the Dutch border. People will argue the toss about this but that’s how missions were planned, even with the arrival of the relay system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SerangelROM Let me give you a potted history of that claim. First of all, the CDC quotes a number of surveys and that is just one of them. Secondly, that figure comes from a 1995 survey by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz and was established with a random telephone survey of about 4,000 respondents. Since the figure exceeded the total number of reported crimes in the United States, a second similar survey was done by Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig in 1998 and corrected for false positive. While that second survey did not seek to establish a figure, it did show that a range between 500,000 and 2.5 million was impossible. The NCVS, which examines these things on a case-by-case basis, puts the figure at around 65,000.
It's also worth pointing out that these things are all basically neutralised by the fact that these are people defending themselves with guns against other people with guns. Gary Kleck himself no longer quotes that survey, saying that between 35% and 65% of those DGUs were probably illegal anyway. But if you compare the total number of defensive homicides by civilians with guns against the total number of gun murders, you will see that for every justified killing there are around 55 gun murders.
Finally, "only 12,000" is actually a pretty big number. The US gun murder rate is around 2.9/100k and that figure alone is way above the total murder rate - by any method - of almost all First World countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evanhuizenga8626
"a) We don't pay for tax relief, it's literally just the government not taking his money"
And what does that equal?
Lost revenue.
"b) Maybe the politicians shouldn't give out so many subsidies just for being an EV company, literally no reason for him not to take them if they are offered"
True but it's not the whole story. If the state government wanted to increase the number of EVs on the road, the way they would do it would be to buy a fleet of them. Musk would do them a fleet deal and simultaneously guarantee millions of dollars in income. Now, he might pay tax on that but he'll make much more than he loses. That's how a lot of subsidies work.
The long game is that in five years time, the government sells their fleet to the public and buys new cars.
"b) c) Nobody gets to choose how their taxes are spent, which is why we should lower taxes on everybody and stop "subsidizing" (read: back scratching) mega corporations."
You do in a democracy. Even at he most basic, binary level, you get to decide. Take Biden's big building program as an example. Ignoring for the moment that it failed to get through Congress, you, as a voter got to give your opinion on it at the last election. You might like the idea and see it as a positive. Or you might think it's a total waste of money that could be better spent on something else.
That's all pretty remote from the average voter but here's the thing: there are many, many other lobby groups besides mega corporations. They can be everything from people marching for open carry to groups demanding equal rights for gay whales. And believe it or not, they do get listened to. These days. if you've got a bit of flair for words, social media is a great place to garner political support and organise rallies.
Apart from that, getting your back scratched too much by mega corporations can land you some serious jail time. Ask Randy Cunningham about it.
"Elon is like, the smallest, tiniest offender of taking government money, and I'm willing to bet he actually uses it for his company instead of finding it mysteriously appearing in his bank accounts, unlike most elites who take money from politicians."
So why move to Texas (aside from Boca Chica)? I wonder if this isn't just a bluff so he can play the two state governments off against each other. Companies do it all the time. See?
There's a lot of give and take and if you want something done in a democracy, you can do it. In fact, your options are probably a lot better than you think. Unfortunately, the internet has convinced people that they are all victims and that's not way to help anyone but the internet and those politicians (like Cunningham) who really are corrupt (there are probably fewer of those than you realise). Making a difference might take more work than you’re prepared to do but it starts with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesingularityproject4042
”almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Let’s take a sober look at this. First of all, what “national survey estimates”? Who did them? When were they published?
Now let’s look at that CDC report. For 18 years, the CDC couldn’t report on the cost of gun violence to the American taxpayer because a bill brought and passed by pro-gun Congressmen banned the funding for such a survey. After 18 years that law was finally dropped and a new report, commissioned under Obama, was instituted. But the CDC is still incredibly gun shy and did not undertake any original research for this report.
The statistics they refer to come from arguably the most discredited report into DGU that has ever been undertaken: the Kleck - Gertz report of 1995. Gary Kleck was, at the time, a pro-gun criminology academic and Marc Gertz was one of his students. They initiated a random national telephone survey of approximately 4,000 respondents. They asked one question: “Have you used a gun to prevent a crime in the last five years?” That’s it. The answers were what they based their conclusions on.
The following year, Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig performed the same survey with the same number of respondents but corrected for false positives. They asked, “Have you used a gun to prevent a crime in the last 5 years?” If the answer was “yes” then they asked a follow up question, “Was the incident reported to police?” They found that in some cases, like rape, the reported incidence of DGU was statistically impossible. What they did find was that where a claim could be ascertained, the total figure was roughly in line with the NCVS surveys of that time and no more.
Cook and Ludwig is only one of dozens of surveys which have debunked gun lobby claims about DGU.
But let’s not stop there. The Gun Violence Archive reports all reported DGUs and rarely comes up with more than 2,000 per annum. That’s reported incidents, as in a police report.
So why did the CDC use a survey that was 13 years old and seriously discredited? The answer is quite simple: look at the list of authors and you will find one Gary Kleck. But don’t believe me: check the list of authors for yourself. Doubtless there were other pro-gun authors on the panel but Kleck was, in effect, citing himself and made no declaration of a vested interest in the matter. If you are wondering what that vested interest was, it's pretty clear that having your figures cited in a report like that - especially when it was the only one cited - is a matter of prestige and influence. And since the CDC was not about to upset its funding applecart, the rest clearly went along for the ride so it’s pretty hard to take their conclusion seriously, if at all.
1
-
1
-
@thesingularityproject4042
"so saying that they couldn't get a full accurate report which is why they estimate it from 500k to 3 million?"
No statistician would accept that kind of variation. The report was not accurate because it didn't correct for false positives.
"And yes it make the most sense that the question is broad, they aren't gonna ask 1204849 different question "have you ever stopped an armed bank Robbery? "have u ever stopped a rape" etc. They said "Have you stopped a crime in the last five years with a gun?" Murder, rape, armed robbery... "
What else should they have asked? The two surveys were based on the same question but the gun lobby believes one and not the other. The point was to use the same methodology and correct for false positives. They did actually establish that the claims by gun owners referred to specific crimes because they found that the number of rapes claimed to have been prevented were statistically impossible.
If you want to find out for yourself, search for Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig "Defensive gun uses: New evidence from a national survey (1998)"
"And yes it make she most sense that people who know the most on guns do a survey about guns."
Not remotely relevant. This is about statistics and social policy development, not about how guns work. The Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban" was a catastrophically bad law because the government tried to do the right thing by including the gun lobby. The result was a law that was so full of holes that it could never work. And nobody can tell me that wasn't deliberate. So there's very little incentive to include the gun lobby in any future law making.
"The numbers have alos skyrocketed in the past 3 years, as gun ownership goes up, gun violence has dropped dramatically, the soul increases has been mass shootings by a wopping......... 9%...."
I'm sorry but any increase is still bad. Gun murders have gone up by 75% in ten years (see below). Mass shootings have become more frequent and more deadly with most of the deadliest coming in the last ten years. Only Virginia Tech was outside that.
"Gun crime has slowly been going down (even tho general violent crime has gone up)."
Not what the CDC says. But hey, don't believe me. Look it up.
"The report it's obviously out dated as that Gao has changed dramatically."
You were the one who brought it up.
"The FBI estimates that 45% of mass shooters are stopped by a civlian before the police arrive. That's basically 50%, a literal coin toss of a difference"
Citation please.
No way I'm believing that. It conflicts with literally every piece of evidence I have and I have a lot of evidence. I have been reading this stuff for ten years.
The non-aligned Gun Violence Archive reports only 2,000 or fewer DGUs reported each year. The gun lobby would have you believe that the number of crimes prevented each year exceeds the number of crimes actually committed, with no evidence to support their argument than a survey you, yourself say is out of date.
The American murder rate is seven times that of any peer nation. The reason is obvious: saturation levels of gun ownership. The great American experiment to outsource personal security to a bunch of barely literate, low-IQ, untrained johnnies with guns has been a catastrophic failure. It's probably the single worst social policy failure in American history. And the only thing the gun lobby can come up with is enlightened self interest.
"That said (with notable exceptions such as Chicago) gun crime has gone down."
Citation please. Something I can read for myself.
Gun crime particularly is up. In 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States, with 11,078 of them by gun - that's 68%. In 2020 there were 24,576 murders with 19,384 by gun - that's 79%. Here's another stat: there difference in murder by gun over that 10 year period is 8,306. The difference in murder by other methods is...
14.
All of those figures can be found on the CDC website. If you just want a quick look, check CDC Fast Stats Assault or Homicide (I am banned from posting links on YouTube so you'll have to look them up yourself).
So to Chicago. Chicago is the Aunt Sally of the gun lobby. Everything wrong with Chicago apparently relates to Chicago's gun laws. Until you look more closely.
In the early 1980s, Chicago had a law banning guns in the central city area. Over a thirty year period, the murder rate slowly declined and in 2004, went below 500 for the first time in half a century. In 2008, the Heller v DC decision changed everything. A follow up case to that in 2010, McDonald v Chicago, saw the law reversed and over the following six years gun crime spiked. In 2016 murders hit 770 and have remained there ever since.
Sure, it's related to gun laws. All of this can be traced to the liberalisation of things like concealed carry laws and 'stand your ground'. Americans have been shooting each other at a greater rate than at any other time in the last 30 years. And all of it is traceable to lax laws and increased gun sales. America's gun problem is totally out of kilter with any peer nation.
"More crime is happening, with knives, bats, fists, fire, spray paint etc"
The CDC stats don't bear that out. Do you have a citation?
"But overall less gun violence, yet more people own guns now than they have for the past decade ish (it might be two decades but I honestly don't know enough to say 2 )"
11,078 v 19,384 isn't a decline. It's a catastrophic increase of around 75%. Guns cause a hell of a lot more problems than they solve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonykurczewski8384
”Fascism was The New Deal ((public private partnerships), and BHO’s “Affordable Healthcare Act” which gave the the banking underwriters of insurance control over fully 1/7 of the US GDP. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, are all mechanisms of control and this makes them all related, created by the Plutocratic Banking Class, and decidedly Leftist.”
Wow, I’ve got a live one here.
Let me see if I’ve got you right. The US healthcare system is controlled by the insurance underwriters and that is Fascism.
Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act was an attempt to take control away from those underwriters but, according to you, that is also fascism.
This has elements of Schroedinger’s Cat about it.
Also according to you, privatisation of some aspects of government is fascism while public ownership is also fascism.
Apart from that, as is sooooooo normal these days, all these threads eventually become about America. For those of us who don’t live there, American self-talk gets rather boring after a while, especially when you seem to come from a different planet.
It seems to me that the left/right political element is the most important factor of this errr…’debate’ for you so you are building these shallow, disconnected arguments to prove that fascism couldn’t possibly be right wing, all without understanding the history of fascism and how it came to power in Europe.
So if we’re going to talk about historical ‘facts’, it would really help your case if you put your personal judgement away for a while and listen to what those who know more about it than you have to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm Australian. Senators Nick McKim and Barbara Pocock are not alone but there simply aren't enough others who are prepared to stand up against Trumpism. They are simply too scared.
We have a federal election looming in the next three months and our alternative government, led by Peter Dutton (possibly the most divisive leader in Australia's political history), is straight from the mould of Trump arse kissers. They are backed by Australia's billionaires: especially mining magnates Gina Reinhart (Australia's wealthiest person) and Clive Palmer. Both Reinhart and Palmer have a long history of splurging on pre-election advertising, disinformation campaigns and anything that takes people's eyes off anything approaching real issues. Reinhart has openly advocated for a Trumpian-style government here. What Gina wants, Gina gets. Add to that the efforts of that other Australian billionaire, Rupert Murdoch (now, of course a US citizen) and the global reach of Elon Musk and the chances of Australia sliding into fascism are pretty high. The campaign will be fought on the usual tropes of lies about crime waves, LGBTIQA+ matters (with all the usually stuff about men competing in women's sport), terrorism ("streets of fear!"), the economy and immigration, which we currently have too little of to support our present situation.
Our government does not support Trump's proposals for Gaza. Our Prime Minister - in contrast to Dutton, the smallest target in Australian political history - actually did say that we remain committed to the two state solution. Dutton said nothing. It was left to two Jewish MPs from Dutton's party, Julian Leeser and Dave Sharma, to make supportive statements in perhaps the only bilateral stance in the life of this current government. They should be commended.
Trump is a tool. Furthermore, his irrationality and solipsism is being exploited by the Tech Bros to completely level all existing government structures. The United States will not fully recover from this in my lifetime. Even if Trump were - for some strange reason - to leave office tomorrow, so much damage has been done that it will take at least another generation to turn it around. We warned Americans and they called us snowflakes. There is no chance I will ever buy American again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomreingold4024 Whenever polling agencies test the voters for policy ideas, it’s always the same result. People always want things like increasing the minimum wage, a proper national health system, getting rid of Citizens United, getting rid of things like the government treating corporations as people and money as freedom of speech, etc.. And at every election, the DNC pushes a notionally moderate candidate who doesn’t support these things because the party doesn’t want to frighten the horses.
AOC and the other progressives of the party are the only ones who represent those policies. What the DNC doesn’t understand - because they are lost in the time vault of the late 20th century - is that nobody is going to vote conservative lite when they can go the full retard.
I watch Jasmine Crockett giving an address the other day, flanked by senior Democrats. They were all older men with grey hair and wearing the same suits and tie. They looked more bewildered than anything else. I think they are so inculcated in the ways of government that they don’t really know what’s going on. It’s time some of those people moved on. Dear old Steny Hoyer, whom everyone likes, is 85. He’s rendered great service but it’s time to let someone in who is more representative of the electorate. Chuck Schumer (74) and Elizabeth Warren (75) need to move into advisory roles. Bring Bernie back into the fold in an advisory role. Jamie Raskin is still good and has a few years left. Chris Murphy is 51 and still has 10-15 years in front of him.
But the party has to move on from the fear of the public’s attitude so democratic socialism, which is what people like AOC represent. The Republicans are going to call them socialists anyway so own it! When someone calls you a leftist (a new word the right had to invent when ‘lefty’ didn’t cut it anymore), do you cower in embarrassment because you’ve been told all your life that socialism is wrong? Or do you say something like ‘Took you a while to figure that out’? Own it. Be a damn leftist and wear it on your chest where everyone can see it.
The Democrats have to stand for something other than surrender. Those who are prepared to stand up and be counted are the future and many of them are women. The Squad needs to be expanded dramatically and be available every day to be on the attack.
The Democrats have to actually stand for something instead of looking down at their shoes when the right goes on the attack. If they don’t they risk irrelevance.
It’s good to see AOC actually putting it out there that someone like Elise Stefanik can be beaten and building a strategy. Someone has to try. That’s leadership and it’s been sorely lacking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blueeyes3555 I’m thick so please join the dots for me. How does this “spit on millions of graves that fought for your freedom”? We are not Americans. We do not use American terms of reference. The idea of lockdowns was to save lives. When Covid first arrived, epidemiologists predicted that 140,000 Australians would die of Covid if nothing was done. Research from the Spanish ‘flu in the United States showed that the towns which enforced lockdowns suffered far lower death rates than those which did not. Our death toll from Covid so far has been about 2,000, which is one seventieth of the prediction. Yet every one of those people was someone’s loved one. A friend of mine lost her grandfather to it. A mate in the UK lost his brother… 57 years old and no previous medical problems. But according to Americans, this is tyranny. Americans don’t know what tyranny is. Not unless they were slaves at some point in their lives. But they talk about it all the time. That blinds them to the simple fact that these people are mostly neo-Nazis, many with convictions for race hate crimes. Some want a picture of Hitler in every classroom in the country. Are you sure these are “your guys”?
Our lockdowns are over now. A thing of the past. These guys are still out there punching on with the wallopers. All because they didn’t want to wear a mask ‘cause it looks dicky. They’re still out there coughing and spitting on people, ripping their masks off and terrorising innocent, law-abiding families in parks. Are you sure they’re really your guys? This is just rampant machismo, masquerading as patriotism. It’s nothing of the sort. In Australia we have an ethos of looking out for our mates. That means we’re not put off by a little bit of self-sacrifice. If those guys were real patriots, they’d support the laws and help speed up the process of recovery from Covid instead of this self-indulgent nonsense.
1
-
Another problem here is one of the basic tenets of free market economics. If you have a publicly listed company with a CEO and a board, the structure doesn’t do anything to help either its employees or its customers.
When a board member is employed, they get a retainer, annual bonuses and a large portfolio of company shares. They give them back when they leave the company but they get to keep any profit they book.
When a company sheds staff, the market usually reacts better than when they take on staff. So the CEO and the board have a vested interest in reducing staff numbers and services, which runs counter to employment stability. You can’t plan to buy a home if you’re always under threat of losing your job and that affects millions of workers.
And it doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re from, that’s bad for the economy.
This is even worse in a company that serves a small market, especially one where jobs are hard fought for. In my old industry, when an experienced hand left, the company would employ two inexperienced replacements for the same as what the old hand was getting. When one left they weren’t replaced.
It’s pretty had to do anything when the CEO decides after three years of a five year term that it’s time they booked some serious dividends from that share portfolio and embarks on a regime of cutbacks to staff and services.
The only beneficiaries are the shareholders and the people on the board.
When you look at the current series of strikes in Hollywood, you can see how AI is a total windfall for these people. They can bank a massive personal profit and eliminate all but a few staff.
Eat the rich, I say!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimdavison4077 Almost all WWII fighters were what is now known as ‘energy’ fighters. Under normal circumstances, most had only one good turn in them. This was simply a matter of power and few - if any - had enough power to make sustained high G turns. While dogfighting did happen, it was still the axiom that 80% of victims couldn’t have told you what happened when they were shot down. Simply put, they didn’t see their attacker.
So unless you were flying a CR42 or a Gladiator, you were probably going to play ‘zoom and boom’ tactics to a greater or lesser degree. While it’s certainly true that some aircraft had better turn radii than others, it’s also highly likely that, in so doing, they bled off a lot of energy. That meant that at some point, the pilot had to be conscious of energy management. It’s also axiomatic that the longer a dogfight goes on, the lower and slower it will get until someone makes a mistake.
A lot of the things people say about fighter top speeds or turn radii verge on the unrealistic. The simple reason is that these things are almost never reduced to simple back-of-the-envelope (as opposed to the edge of the envelope) statistics.
In short, for the most part, the victor was probably going to be the one who could catch his opponent unawares and get close enough to put in an accurate burst before the other pilot could make a decisive escape manoeuvre. The Boelcke Dicta applied as much in WWII as it did in WWI.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidbeppler3032 I drive a hybrid and it costs me about $2,500 a year just in fuel. If I own it for eight years, it will have cost me $20,000. And that’s a cheap car to run. Many less efficient cars would cost double that.
If we work on the assumption that an EV is about a fifth of the cost to run of an ICE, then I would theoretically have $16,000 saved, in fuel costs alone, to use on other things, like solar panels.
Or you could simply factor it into the purchase price.
Then there’s the matter of maintenance costs. Add to it that I need to service it twice a year at an average cost of $300 and after eight years you can add another $4,800. Even if the motive battery dies, it’s less than $3,000 to replace it.
So work it out for yourself: $25,000 to run an ICE or $5,000 to run an EV over eight years. ICE - even to some extent, hybrids - make no sense at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, they were an outstanding success that could have been stopped by a couple of bomber squadrons, had they been available. Perhaps that is what you meant.
The reason those attacks were so successful was that - as everyone knows - the French did not believe the Germans would try to take their armour through the Ardennes. As a result, the sent their lowest quality troops there. This was where the only recorded account of French troops simply running away actually happened. But when you think about it, they were poorly trained, poorly-led, part-time soldiers with old weapons and on low pay, who had spent months in damp, smelly forts and their morale was very low. Even then, some of those units acquitted themselves reasonably well. Eventually, they were outmanoeuvred and outfought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magictransistorradio4933
"Ok, so maybe I should've said conservative and liberal instead of right wing vs left wing. Texas is right wing, but not always conservative."
Okay, so we agree that it's possible to be right wing and big government...?
"The Nazi's were more left wing than right wing I would say."
Well, let's have a look at a few things. First of all, there is the matter of nationalism and internationalism. The first is a right wing position and the second is left wing. The Soviet Union was internationalist. That's why everyone was afraid of the spread of communism. The Nazis were nationalist. Hitler was a pan-German nationalist who wanted all Germans to be able to live under a united national government at the expense of everyone else (Slav, Jews, socialists, etc..). The communists fought their battles against the class system. The Nazis fought their battles against race and culture (sexuality too). Then there's the matter of the role of women in the Third Reich. Hitler's position on this - with rare exceptions like film make Leni Riefenstahl - was that the role of women was strictly supportive: "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" was the motto. Very much a conservative viewpoint.
Then there's economics. Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht (AKA, "The Nazi Banker") underwent a massive program of deregulation in the 1930s. They dismantled virtually every law that had stabilised the economy since Bismarck. They allowed businesses to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as cartels and price-fixing, in order to bolster their position internationally. Price fixing has often been cited as a left wing policy, whereas it's not. Without legislation, companies in an unregulated market will mark out territory and fix prices. Deregulation is a long way from socialism.
And that's before we start talking about the street fights with socialists and communists and before we talk about Hitler's hatred of bolshevism, etc.. Those are the usual tropes in these arguments but there is a lot more to it when you lift the carpet and look underneath.
1
-
1
-
@rayschoch5882
"Spot-on! Even in wartime, governments pay attention to costs, which were already immense, and I also agree that it was "all hands on deck" regarding the kamikaze threat after the Philippine campaign, and especially during the Okinawa operation."
I think it was Sun Tau who first put forward the idea that war is a battle of industrial economies. Maybe it was Nietzsche. I don't remember. So yes, cost is a factor. But that doesn't always hold true or they would never have built the B-29. Further to that, if you read HapArnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles in August, 1943, you will see that he makes no stipulation on cost. That letter put Giles in charge of finding a fighter that could escort the USAAF bomber fleet anywhere it wanted to go. There was no stipulation on price. Arnold said that Giles could adapt and existing design or build a whole new fighter, as long as it was ready in six months. The result was the P-51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a lot of FUD transmission here. Let’s clear a few things up.
Fast charging.
Fast charging is only a factor for EV drivers on long trips, let’s say 400 kms round trip. How often does that happen? The rest of the time you charge at home at night, using off-peak rates. That means not having to go out of your way to find a petrol station — especially the cheapest one — and having a car with a “full tank” without having to do much about it. All it requires is a simple change of mindset, something of which a lot of people seem incapable.
Yet this is the rock upon which the oil industry has built its criticism of EVs: something that most EV owners do only occasionally. All the EV owners I know charge at home. They occasionally charge in shopping centre carparks.
On long trips you should be taking 20-30 minute breaks every couple of hours anyway, for safety reasons.
Battery fires.
This is something that needs explaining.
First of all, the USNTSB has said that among ICE vehicles, the rate of fires is 1,530 per 100,000 vehicles. For EVs, it is 25 per 100,000 vehicles. In other worlds, an ICE vehicle is 61 times more likely to catch fire than an EV.
Even that needs qualification.
There are two kinds of battery technologies that are currently in use: NMC and LFP. Of the two, NMC is more likely to burn. These are the batteries supplied by Panasonic and LG. The incidence of fires with Panasonic batteries seems to be low, low enough that I’m not sure any data exists. However, LG has instituted several global recalls on a number of its products and that has also affected car manufacturers. They were recently sued by one manufacturer — I forget who it was — for US $2 billion.
Even so, the incidence of fire for NMC is much lower than for ICE vehicles. For LFP it is lower again. And again, this is the rock upon which the pro-oil lobby has built its argument.
Regional/racial bias and stereotyping.
This is where it just gets stupid. Judging these thing on entrenched endemic racism is almost an act of self-harm. But if that’s how people want to make their consumer choices, so be it. Just don’t force feed disinformation to everyone else and expect it to be taken at face value. This is especially hard for America s to swallow. China is now well ahead in many high technology areas and after years of slagging off, that entrenched bias remains firmly established.
The fact is that there is no longer any difference between a Dallas-built Tesla and a Shanghai-built Tesla. And both are made with Chinese robots.
Battery longevity.
Obviously this can vary. It has also taken a long time to establish. Recently, however, a Stamford University study of EV batteries showed that the testing methodology was flawed. All it did was charge, discharge, charge, discharge. The university examined 17,000 EV batteries in use and found that the lifespan of a battery (defined as the point beyond which it will no longer charge above 80%) had been underestimated by as much as 38%. The actual figure quoted was an astonishing 192,000 miles (300,000 kms). That means that, on average, the lifespan of the power train of an EV should be longer than the assumed lifespan of an ICE vehicle.
Now, we can all quote examples citing good and bad points. There’s a Tesla Model S with 2 million kilometres out there somewhere and I’m sure the same exists for ICE vehicles. But the salient point is that the lifespan of an EV should not be a problem.
”EVs are more damaging to the environment than ICEs!”
This is nonsense and not even worth addressing. A bit of research will explain why. Lithium mining is a dirty process. That is true. But it’s no worse than any other rare earth mineral and it’s not like ICEs don’t have this problem. Over the life of the vehicle it’s another matter. Pretty much everything in an EV is recyclable, up to about 95%. How much burnt fuel or oil can be recycled? None.
Conclusion.
Make your own choices. But make sure you’re are properly informed and don’t fall for FUD arguments or distractions like hydrogen (now dead). Do your research and be prepared to be surprised. I went down this rabbit hole six months ago and I have been watching my friends with EVs, after a significant initial cost outlay, save money hand over fist, while enjoying what EVs have to offer. The economics make sense. I have owned a Toyota hybrid for seven years and, good as it is, I will not buy another one.
Other than up front costs, there are few downsides to EVs. Range anxiety, battery fires and Chinese QC are all non-starters, once you look into it. There are situations where EVs don’t work well. High rise apartment living makes on site charging difficult to impossible. That won’t affect me when the time comes, though it would now. Charging on the street is realistic but the cost, while cheaper than petrol in most parts of the world, is still higher than charging at home.
Third world countries will need hybrids and diesels for a while yet but that is changing. I can quote personal examples of this but it would take too long. For the rest of us, the sooner you get on the EV band wagon, the better it will be for your daily cost of living.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"It is the same worker's democracy Marx describes clearly in Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League and The Civil War in France."
Reference please. In context.
"This is a proposal that individual workers give up their rights for them to be wielded by the community as a whole, specifically the government which handles collective/community affairs."
And yet the Nazis robbed workers of their rights and entitlements - all without asking - and turned them into a labour pool for industrialists(1). Mussolini did the same thing with corporatism(2). You can keep quoting speeches and writings all you like. The fact is that, unless you're fool enough to trust a politician of the calibre of Mussolini or Hitler at his word, the only was to judge them is not on what they said but on that they did. How handing over the wealth of the nation to a bunch of already-wealthy industrialists constitutes 'socialism' only you know.
Furthermore, to put it into context, which is something you are deliberately obfuscating about, there is a difference between 'the government', i.e.: the administration and 'the Nazi Party', i.e.: the leadership. Any notion that they were the same thing is wrong. People usually have a say in the government of their country. The Nazis simply confiscated that right by sham process under the guise of strong leadership, which was what they'd always campaigned on.
"This is a proposal that individual workers give up their rights for them to be wielded by the community as a whole, specifically the government which handles collective/community affairs"
What you loosely call 'the government' (there's that obfuscation again) had no say it it. This was done to keep their backers happy and is also easy to prove. Hitler was never pro-worker. He was pro-big business,. i.e.: socialising the losses and privatising the profits. The trail is pretty easy to follow.
(1) See 'Nazi Billionaires', by David de Jong.
(2) See Mussolini' by Christopher Hibbert and 'Fascist Italy', by Alan Cassels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamtruong1759 The vast majority of P-47s simply did not have the internal fuel to get to Berlin from England. The first thing to remember about this is that drop tanks have only a limited effect on range. The real decider is internal fuel. If we go back to Mission 250, which was the first USAAF raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944, we see that there was a small number of P-47s which had been replumbed in the field to carry fuel tanks under the wings. The rest carried a single 108 gallon tank under the fuselage. The replumbed P-47s carried one under each wing.
Those fitted with the single tank could get about as far as the Dutch border. The others - say, 20% of them - could get to a point just north west of Magdeburg. The single tank aircraft carried 478 gallons, while the others carried 586 gallons. Than mean the internal fuel capacity was 370 gallons. That did not change until the -N model, which did not see service in Europe.
The P-51, by contrast, had a large tank fitted behind the pilot and had already been plumbed for wing-mounted drop tanks. Ignoring for a moment the P-51s unique handling characteristics, it’s external tanks were largely incidental. The internal fuel was what gave it the range it had. On March 6, 1944, they were carrying a total of 417 gallons all up.
Until the end of 1944, that was it and by then, the vast majority of squadrons were being re-equipped with the Mustang.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamtruong1759
"But the last thing I'll touch upon is that the drop tank availability seems to be less of a Republic issue and more of a 8th Airforce/Bomber Mafia issue."
This has been a bit of a controversial matter. There's the camp that says the generals didn't care and they were going to push ahead with their doctrinal approach no matter what. There's the other side that I sit on. If you read enough history, like 'Big Week', by James Holland, for example, you pretty soon realise that it was much, much more complicated. YouTube deletes a lot of my posts these days and I think length is a problem so I may have to explain further in another post but I'll try.
After Schweinfurt, Arnold told his deputy Lt Gen Barney Giles, he has six months to fix the problem. At that point Arnold was unaware of the P-51's range potential, despite there being 1,350 of them already available, including a lot of Merlin-powered ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewplayspc3197 Interesting question, though I do wonder how I could be unintentionally disingenuous…? Anyhow, it’s a fair question so I’ll do my best to answer it but I can probably only do it in general terms. The two parameters you used were poverty and organised crime. While it’s certainly true that there is a lot more poverty in the United States than I think a lot of Americans are prepared to accept, it would be a mistake to think that it isn’t replicated in Europe. There are parts of the Mediterranean countries which are very poor. Some of this is because they are drop off points for escapees from North Africa and some because those countries are not that well run. Greece has some pretty high levels of poverty. I’ve also seen it in Spain. But you can equally find it in the east end of London, which is pretty bad. There are parts of Paris and Hamburg which are not pretty either and I’ve seen them. These places don’t compare to Sierra Leone, which I’ve also seen, but as you probably realise, poverty is to some extent relative. A person living in a trailer park in the United States is poor but much wealthier than someone living in Freetown.
As for the organised crime thing, Italy was where it started and they still have it. It’s present in all European countries, whether it’s drug cartels in the south of France or outlaw motorcycle gangs in Germany. As far as the affect this has on the murder rates of American cities, the best information I can find on this is from the FBI who estimate that something like 13% of murders are gang related. This, of course, is a far cry from the 80% you hear from the gun lobby and I’m sure, for a lot of people, that stretches credulity. Nevertheless, it accounts for about 2,000 lives lost a year to murder, out of an average total of 15-18,000. Mr and Mrs America may have a lower percentage in terms of the actual number involved but they still commit the vast majority of murders.
Finally, as to the socioeconomic versus firearms access, the fact is that each year, something like 68-69% of murders in the United States are committed with firearms. In fact, the CDC puts the figure higher than that. They have the current US murder rate at 6.0/100K versus an average 1.0/100K for comparable places like Western Europe, including the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. They also put the gun murder rate in the United States at 4.5/100K, suggesting that the figure is closer to 75%. I would suggest that gun proliferation is so high in the United States that socioeconomic effects are not a big consideration.
Hope this answers your question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@
"don’t you know there’s vehicles in America that still offer v8s right?"
So what are you complaining about?
"You don’t know shit about the American car market."
Nobody cares about the American car market any more. The American car market is in cloud cuckoo fantasy land. It has taken the decision to be uncompetitive. It will die. It can't compete because of lazy managers who were happy to collect bonuses and share dividends but did nothing when it came to planning for the future. Stellantis was a classic example:
'How bad is it? CEO Carlos Tavares resigned this month, said Fortune. That was a shock: Tavares was "once hailed as the very best manager the legacy car industry had to offer." Stellantis posted "record annual results" for 2023, but in September Tavares "shocked the market" this fall by revealing Stellantis' plans to "liquidate a bloated U.S. inventory of vehicles at bargain-basement prices." Critics said the announcement revealed that Tavares "prioritized short-term success at the cost of longer-term problems," Fortune said.'
That underscores perfectly what I said: they dumped unwanted Jeep Grand Cherokees on other markets because they couldn't sell them in America. They had no choice.
It wasn't because they chose not to make V8s any more. It was because they were still making them when they weren't wanted.
"All kinds of problems lurked" behind Stellantis' 2023 success, said CNBC. High prices and quality problems, notably in the ever-more-costly Jeep line, dogged the company's brands. As a result, "profits plummeted by nearly half" during the first six months of 2024, and U.S. sales fell 20% in the third quarter. (Industry sales are up overall.) Dealers now find themselves with a surplus of Stellantis vehicles on their lots. "That means they aren't selling," said CNBC. The company's North American brands, once a "cash cow," are faltering. "The next six to 12 months could also be quite rocky."
See?
"American government inflated gas prices back in 2022 which made v8s expensive to drive"
This is a straight up fabrication. Fuel prices crashed globally during Covid, making the price artificially low because of low demand. Trump, of course, claimed credit for it and all the suckers believed him. The fact was it was everywhere.
When Covid passed oil companies were keen to make up for lost ground. Nothing to do with 'ThE gOvErNmEnT'.
1
-
@JDMSwervo2001
"don’t you know there’s vehicles in America that still offer v8s right?"
So what are you complaining about?
"You don’t know shit about the American car market."
Oh, American coolspeak.
Nobody cares about the American car market any more. Nobody. The American car market is in cloud cuckoo fantasy land. It has taken the suicidal decision to be uncompetitive and it will die. It can't compete because of lazy managers who were happy to collect bonuses and share dividends but did nothing when it came to planning for the future. Stellantis was a classic example:
'How bad is it? CEO Carlos Tavares resigned this month, said Fortune. That was a shock: Tavares was "once hailed as the very best manager the legacy car industry had to offer." Stellantis posted "record annual results" for 2023, but in September Tavares "shocked the market" this fall by revealing Stellantis' plans to "liquidate a bloated U.S. inventory of vehicles at bargain-basement prices." Critics said the announcement revealed that Tavares "prioritized short-term success at the cost of longer-term problems," Fortune said.'
That underscores perfectly what I said: they dumped unwanted Jeep Grand Cherokees on other markets because they couldn't sell them in America. They had no choice.
It wasn't because they chose not to make V8s any more. It was because they were still making them when they weren't wanted.
"All kinds of problems lurked" behind Stellantis' 2023 success, said CNBC. High prices and quality problems, notably in the ever-more-costly Jeep line, dogged the company's brands. As a result, "profits plummeted by nearly half" during the first six months of 2024, and U.S. sales fell 20% in the third quarter. (Industry sales are up overall.) Dealers now find themselves with a surplus of Stellantis vehicles on their lots. "That means they aren't selling," said CNBC. The company's North American brands, once a "cash cow," are faltering. "The next six to 12 months could also be quite rocky."
See?
"American government inflated gas prices back in 2022 which made v8s expensive to drive"
This is a straight up fabrication. Fuel prices crashed globally during Covid, making the price artificially low because of low demand. Trump, of course, claimed credit for it and all the suckers believed him. The fact was it was everywhere.
When Covid passed oil companies were keen to make up for lost ground. Nothing to do with 'ThE gOvErNmEnT'.
1
-
@JDMSwervo2001
"don’t you know there’s vehicles in America that still offer v8s right?"
So what are you complaining about?
"You don’t know shit about the American car market."
Oh, American coolspeak.
Nobody cares about the American car market any more. Nobody. The American car market is in cloud cuckoo fantasy land. It has taken the suicidal decision to be uncompetitive and it will die. It can't compete because of lazy managers who were happy to collect bonuses and share dividends but did nothing when it came to planning for the future. Stellantis was a classic example:
'How bad is it? CEO Carlos Tavares resigned this month, said Fortune. That was a shock: Tavares was "once hailed as the very best manager the legacy car industry had to offer." Stellantis posted "record annual results" for 2023, but in September Tavares "shocked the market" this fall by revealing Stellantis' plans to "liquidate a bloated U.S. inventory of vehicles at bargain-basement prices." Critics said the announcement revealed that Tavares "prioritized short-term success at the cost of longer-term problems," Fortune said.'
That underscores perfectly what I said: they dumped unwanted Jeep Grand Cherokees on other markets because they couldn't sell them in America. They had no choice.
It wasn't because they chose not to make V8s any more. It was because they were still making them when they weren't wanted.
"All kinds of problems lurked" behind Stellantis' 2023 success, said CNBC. High prices and quality problems, notably in the ever-more-costly Jeep line, dogged the company's brands. As a result, "profits plummeted by nearly half" during the first six months of 2024, and U.S. sales fell 20% in the third quarter. (Industry sales are up overall.) Dealers now find themselves with a surplus of Stellantis vehicles on their lots. "That means they aren't selling," said CNBC. The company's North American brands, once a "cash cow," are faltering. "The next six to 12 months could also be quite rocky."
See?
"American government inflated gas prices back in 2022 which made v8s expensive to drive"
This is a straight up fabrication. Fuel prices crashed globally during Covid, making the price artificially low because of low demand. Trump, of course, claimed credit for it and all the suckers believed him. The fact was it was everywhere.
When Covid passed oil companies were keen to make up for lost ground. Nothing to do with 'ThE gOvErNmEnT'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kaleb Jesus, what planet are you on? The vaccine rollout was supposed to be completed by June and if that had happened, we would have barely had any Third Wave. That was because Morrison turned down the opportunity for Pfizer in the middle of last year when there was no evidence that any of the vaccines was going to work. Instead of saying yes, Morrison declined the offer. And that's why he had to trawl eBay looking for supplies - which he portly sent to New South Wales to make Gladys look good. If anyone got us through Covid, it was the states. The deal with the US and the UK is out-of-date window dressing and it will be another 20 years before we get those subs anyway, by which time the strategic situation will undoubtedly have changed. If you really, really think that China has gone quiet because of Morrison, you're kidding yourself. Releasing confidential text messages between him and Macron is the last thing - I mean the very last thing he should have done, especially when it was a pathetic grab for domestic political capital. As a result one of our allies - quite a powerful one - is not likely to enter into any agreements with us? Oh, and his performance at COP26 was a national embarrassment, claiming to have impressed everyone and then leaving a week before the conference ended. As a result, we finished 58th out of 58 of all the nations there. Since then he has been wrong footed again because Biden has done a climate deal with China.
1
-
Kaleb
"The vaccine rollout was estimated to be completed by June 2021 so what you say."
That's right. The vaccine rollout started in February and was supposed to be completed by the end of June.
"The reason why Mr Morrison's government had turned down the Pfizer opportunity is that Australia had already ordered 40 Million vaccines majority being AstraZeneca."
Let me ask you something: when you buy shares, do you put all your money into one share or do spread the risk around? This was the problem. When that decision was made in July last year, there was no approved vaccine. Australia was developing AstraZeneca through CSL and it was perfectly normal to buy from a local supplier. But there was no guarantee any of them would work.
"Since then the media had come out and said how dangerous and ineffective that particular vaccine was."
"The media", as you put it did not say that. That quote came directly from Queensland Chief Health Officer and now-Governor, Dr Jeanette Young. Here is her direct, verbatim quote:
"I do not want under-40s to get AstraZeneca. It is rare, but they are at an increased risk of getting the rare clotting syndrome. We've seen up to 49 deaths in the UK from that syndrome. I don't want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got COVID, probably wouldn't die."
The media reported it but they did not say it. If you can find a direct quote where "the media" said this then I'm all ears. But make sure they were not paraphrasing someone else.
"I'm sure you haven't been living under a rock to see that a majority wanted Pfizer and that was months after the Pfizer deal was offered."
Yes, vaccine snobbery was rampant. In Victoria however, the situation was very different. Victoria's uptake of AZ was about 80% of the allotment, compared with 20-30% in other states. No other state did that. But by the time that had happened, nearly everyone who had been recommended AZ had been given it, in line with ATAGI guidelines. You might remember that the directive that anyone under 60 should receive Pfizer. That was why Victoria found itself in the position it was in and I will address that in a moment.
"Scott Morrisons Government then decided to buy more Pfizer vaccines as well as Moderna vaccines and then finish the rollout with the AstraZeneca batch."
These were decisions that should have been made last year, not after AstraZeneca ran out. Once the decision was made, the United States were prioritising their own rollout and Pfizer was both harder to get and more expensive. Morrison pretty much had to trawl eBay to get it because of a stupid decision last year.
"Furthermore, the NSW government was given priority for the vaccine because their wave started first and have a higher population."
First of all the prioritisation had nothing to do with population size. Allotments were simply done proportionately.
Secondly, NSW was given priority because they suddenly found themselves in a three month lockdown because of Delta.
"This is very clear that you are going off of a hoax and lying unless you have proof and evidence that Scott Morrison personally decided to give extra vaccines to the NSW government to make Victoria look bad, I don't think so; do you?"
Not a hoax. When the first batches of Pfizer arrived, NSW was in the grip of a Delta wave and nobody objected to them getting the vast bulk of it, not even Daniel Andrews. When the second batch arrived, Delta had spread to Victoria (who had actually beaten Delta the first time around) and it turned into a third wave. When Morrison sent all the second batch of Pfizer to NSW, the Victorians were justifiably livid. As well as that, Victoria's reliance on AstraZeneca meant that there was a much longer period for everyone to become double vaxxed than if they had been using Pfizer. When this started, Victoria and NSW were roughly level pegging at 30% double dosed. A month ago, NSW was 15 percentage points ahead because of the shorter Pfizer cycle. Everybody knows this.
It was done for purely political purposes and no other reason. That's why Morrison is known as "the Prime Minister of NSW" and Perrottet is known as "the Premier of Australia" (because he tried to open international borders without consulting the federal government and Morrison had to pull him into line).
"Since you're so big on climate change why don't we just invest in that buddy boy?"
What are you talking about?
"Australia looked to go to the US for the new nuclear submarines due to the factor that the French were 10 years past date, 10's of billions over budget and they were old technology going off of Diesel."
Why are we going to America for submarines? Whose advice are we following that says diesel electric boats can't do the job any more? Who is the principal beneficiary? What tender process was followed that says we should buy American boats? Why not French nuclear boats? Why not the British Astute class? What are the strategic considerations? What is the future? When will they be in service?
"Mr Macron was informed in June over a dinner that the Submarine deal was going to be terminated and ever since they sent an admiral over as an ambassador to Austalia to try and save the deal."
That is a lie. There is certainly evidence that Morrison gave Macron reason to be pessimistic about it but there was no firm word that it would be cancelled. You don't send an admiral to do the Prime Minister's dirty work for him. This was a $90 Bn project and needed to be done by Morrison himself, just as it was Morrison's job to make the new announcement. Nothing else would be acceptable. That's how diplomacy works: you follow due process.
And where, pray tell, did the advice come from that a diesel electric boat could no longer do the job?
"Since the text messages were leaked this has shown that when Mr Macron called Scott Morrison a liar this was clearly false information trying to get at Austalia if there is one word for the French that is that they're salty."
I don't blame them. First of all, due process was not observed. Secondly, Morrison leaked the text messages and now the world knows he can't be trusted. He trashed our reputation. It was the worst performance by an Australian Prime Minister in my lifetime. Who would trust us now?
"Since Australia is on topic why are you talking about China and the United States?"
Because this new deal is to serve American interests more than Australian ones. It's also completely pointless.
"Barnaby Joyce has made a comment in the last few days stating Australia's economy and this makes a good response to the last part of your statement; "If the money’s not coming in, you can’t spend the money, it’s a very simple equation"."
And you believe the economy is good, do you? Want to take a bet on interest rates and inflation then? No, never mind.
"Australia has just spent money on keeping jobs and business afloat while Dan Andrews plays around with his ring of steel."
That was last year. There hasn't been a "ring of steel" this year. By the way, is Morrison going to chase his mates for the Job Keeper money they kept for themselves and refused to return?
"So if you have a better place without going to sleeping Biden in which you obviously support you, dumbass democrat how does Australia make money as Barnaby Joyce said "I'm all ears" in reponse."
I'm Australian. This is a complete - and rather salty - irrelevance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@catinthehat906 Macron is definitely trailing his coat but he never received a reply to that question. That's not how contracts work. The correct procedure is that you inform the contractor that the submarine will no longer meet our requirements and that a new specification would have to be drawn up. A request for tenders would then be issued and Naval Group (which is a private company, by the way) would be welcome to submit a proposal. Until that procedure is entered into, there is no official word on what will happen. Instead, the Australian government just tore up the contract and without restarting the tender process, announced we would be going with either a British Astute or an American Virginia with no possibility for Naval Group/DCNS to bid. The French found out by a trade delegate contacting the Elyssee Palace just as Morrison was about to appear on a three way television hook up with Boris Johnson and Joe Biden. At COP26, Biden spoke to Macron and apologised for the way in which the French were informed, which Biden inferred was Morrison's job. And it was. Morrison also did the one thing a Prime Minister should never, ever do under any circumstances; he leaked the personal text messages between himself and Macron. That's the worst thing he could have done and he did it to make some domestic political capital out of it. You never, ever betray the trust of the leader of a political, military and strategic ally. Not ever. And in doing what he did, it made Morrison sound defensive, which is a bad optic for him. As a former marketing executive, he should have known that. The man's an idiot. He knows no shame and the sooner he's tarred and feathered and run out of The Lodge on a rail, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have often wondered about what happened to GPA helmets. I know that the company is still around so I guess we have to be a bit careful what we say here. The first driver I can remember wearing one was J.P. Jarier in about 1974. I remember Ronnie Peterson came over to them in about 1978 and still fitted his visor with that distinctive yellow peak, even on the GPA. By 1981/82 they were everywhere. Prost, Arnoux, Lafitte, Villeneuve, Pironi, Piquet, Jarier, Watson, Warwick and Henton all used them, to name a few. There were outliers like Andretti and de Angelis, who both wore Simpson Bandit helmets. Jones used a Bell from memory and that was probably the second-most used helmet. Arnoux and Jarier favoured large openings and everyone else used smaller ones.
Then from the end of 1982, they disappeared. By mid 1983, I think only Arnoux was still using one. I have often wondered about that clamshell mechanism and what factors were at play in Villeneuve’s fatal crash. At the same time, there are other examples of other brands of helmets coming off - Lauda’s Nurburgring crash springs to mind. Whatever the cause, they appeared to lose favour very quickly.
Another thing to note is the difference in size. Today’s helmets are a lot larger and you can see this by comparing contemporary photographs with the same cars in historic racing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eliel-Lin
"I dont know what to tell you man. You can go read the literal decree that removes the right to private property."
That was subject to the whim of the party and did not abolish basic private property rights.
There have been a number of studies and books written on the way the Nazi property and economic systems worked. They're worth reading.
"There were no property rights and thousands of factory owners learned it the hard way."
This was limited largely to Jewish-owned businesses. The Nazi regime was a kleptocracy, the basis for which can be found if you're prepared to do the appropriate reading. Wealthy Nazis, who had backed Hitler from the early days, were allowed to buy up Jewish-owned businesses at bargain basement prices.
"Obviously the factory owners who did everything as they were told had the illusion of freedom."
They did have it. The industrialists became mega wealthy under the Nazis in the 1930s and even wealthier during the war.
"But what sort of capitalism is it when you cant decide who you hire or fire when the union makes that decition for you, or when you cant produce what you want to produce?"
The unions had no power in Nazi Germany. They were one of the first targets of the Brownshirts. When Hitler came to power at the beginning of 1933, he granted the May Day holiday they'd wanted and then abolished the unions the next day. Nazi thugs raided and their offices and beat up officials. The replacement 'union', the DAF, had no power. Strikes were banned and all the entitlements the unions had gained for their membership were lost, some going back as far as Bismarck. The result was to convert the unionised workforce into a labour pool for wealthy industrialists.
As for what they could and could not produce, that is relatively normal for a wartime economy. In Germany, industrialists such as Porsche, were allowed almost free reign to build whatever they liked. The Tiger tank is a classic example of that. The Ferdinand, perhaps even more so. They had at least as much influence over what was produced as anyone in the United States or Great Britain. Did the Nazis tell Oetker what to make in their pudding mix? No. Did they tell Guenther Quandt how to make weapons? No. They had quotas but so does every government contract.
"You cant sell what factories you supposedly own, nor could you buy more."
And yet they did. Wealthy industrialists bought up Jewish-owned businesses almost as fast as they could be identified as profitable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
End of Part 1
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
End of Part 2
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
End of Part 3
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book, 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
End of Part 4
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 Good god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child. Now that my YouTube account appears finally to have reset itself...
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact. Don't believe me? Look it up.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament?' If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204 My god, you are such a child.
No, I really didn't care if you believed me or not. Actually, if you had any sense, you'd have checked out a couple of other posts I've made on this video page that includes information not in this thread.
So the answer to my question, 'How did the Nazis afford the Autobahnen and rearmament. If you'd been a bit more reasonable and a bit less insistent on lecturing me, you might have got it a lot earlier.
The trouble was that you kept going off on stupid and irrelevant tangents. Every time I asked the question, 'How was the money raised?', you went off on a tangent about cartel laws and the Reichsbahn.
Then you accused me of non-sequitur.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they were broke. In fact, they were 10 million RM in the hole. Hitler called a meeting with all the wealthiest of his supporters; the Quants, the Flicks, Thyssen, the von Finks, the Porsche-Piechs, Krupp,, I.G. Farben, the Oetkers, etc..
These families had backed Hitler and the Nazis, in many cases from the beginning, right up to their taking power.
Hitler and later Goering, presented them with an investment option: pay off the party's debts and they would have access to basically anything they wanted. Pretty much nothing was off the table. This scheme, which was basically cooked up by Hjalmar Schacht, had no equivalent until the 1980s.
During the late 1920s/early 1930s, the Weimar government had nationalised a lot of industry just to keep it afloat and save jobs. When the austerity measures introduced by the conservative government of the day proved counter-productive, von Papen loosened the strings but the economy didn't start responding until 1934, which is why the Nazis got the credit.
What Schacht was proposing was a massive sell-off/privatisation of government businesses. This included everything from the Reichsbahn - then the largest public enterprise in the world - to shipping companies, all the major banks, government buildings, government land, right down to charities, like Winterhilfe which basically became a Nazi Party slush fund.
With the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934, it also became very much easier for wealthy Nazis to buy up profitable Jewish-owned businesses at ridiculously low values.
The result was predictable: these families, who were already extremely wealthy, became rich, almost beyond measure.
The second result was billions of RM into the coffers to pay for roads and guns and tanks and aircraft and ships and troops...
This much should be bloody obvious, even to you.
So the notion that the Nazis were socialists has a number of factual strikes against it.
First of all, Hitler was demonstrably anti-labour. No point arguing about this. The move to the DAF was a union-busting exercise, intended to keep his industrialist backers happy. If the unions couldn't go on strike, the industrialists had nothing to worry about.
Further to that the workers lost most of their entitlements: overtime penalty rates, leave allowances, sickness benefits, reasonable working conditions, including safety measures... The DAF was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap pool of labour for Hitler's industrialist friends.
And that is how Germany was able to afford the Autobahnen and rearmament.
It was also Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-labour stance that got him a deal with von Papen that eventually saw him made chancellor. That's right: Hitler, just like Mussolini, came to power with the connivance and assistance of the conservatives.
No Fascist government has ever come to power other than with the help of conservatives. That is a fact.
So, massive privatisation schemes, a class of extremely wealthy individuals and a stake-proof labour market.. that's hardly a socialist worker's paradise. We saw identical practices undertaken under Thatcherism and Reaganomics some 50 years later.
Further to that, your claim that money meant nothing in a socialist economy is ridiculous. Were it not, there would have been no need to do this. Besides, the usual claim of uber-capitalists like yourself is that socialism doesn't work or that socialist economies are weak because there's no incentive to work.
But if money doesn't matter in a state like Nazi Germany then the economy doesn't matter either. So socialism must therefore - according to your line of thinking - be the perfect system. It clearly isn't.
The Nazis resisted nationalising anything once they got to power, even the sad case of Hugo Junkers. Already near-bankrupt in 1931, Junkers was temporarily nationalised but then sold shortly after the Nazis came to power. This is yet another example, usually cited by people like you, of Nazi nationalisation. It was nothing of the sort.
Then there's the distinction between state ownership and party ownership. In state ownership, the public own the entity. But state-owned enterprises had been sold off to wealthy backers. A kleptocracy, for sure but hardly socialist by any measure.
This information is not hard to find. As I said in another post on this video, anyone who wants to understand the Nazi economy needs to read Germa Bel's 'Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany'. Another work I have already cited that's worth reading is David de Jong's book 'Nazi Billionaires'.
In short: privatisation on a massive scale, union busting, encouraging businesses to behave like cartels and even price fixing (the last two are where businesses go naturally when there are no laws) could not be further from socialism.
Added to the fact that Hitler's rise to power was aided and abetted by conservatives and it makes any claims of socialism ridiculous. His historical connections with the Reichswehr and the Freikorps of the 1920s places him very firmly on the political right. Read Mark Jones' book '1923: the forgotten crisis in the year of Hitler's coup'.
The fact that he got five years (of which he served eight months) for treason - the same crime that got Eugen Leviné executed by firing squad - shows how aligned he was to the right.
'Hitler was never a socialist.' - Prof. Ian Kershaw.
The notion is ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m from Australia and the information we get on this is basically all sanctioned by the US State Department. The only people who are ever quoted on this are Americans. As a result, most people here not only have no idea what is going on but are happy to champion the big guy.
At a federal parliamentary level, we reached peak stupidity about six months ago when a female member of cabinet, Senator Fatima Payman, in the ruling Labor Party, proposed a bill calling for the formal recognition of Palestine. The Australian government policy already verbally supports the two-state solution but when it came to actually recognising it, the government not only massively back pedalled, they censured Payman and kicked her out of cabinet. Payman resigned from the Labor Party and now sits on the cross bench.
The optics of this are bad enough but the gutlessness of the government is hard to fathom. The only reason I can think of for failing to do this is that they were afraid of the American response. That’s something the average Australian probably doesn’t give a shit about. But as part of the backlash against Payman, the government started briefing journalists about her citizenship status (she was born in Afghanistan but has Australian citizenship. Her attempts to renounce her Afghan citizenship have brought no response but she has made an effort). The hope was, of course, to make her look like she was siding with Hamas.
Voices are being silenced by the strong arm of the military industrial complex. When Eisenhower first used the term in the 1950s, he was referring to the United States, which, it should be remembered, did not de-militarise after WWII. Now the MIC is global. This means that justice can never be served and this woman is 100% right: we might as well give up. We will be spending the next 20-30 years in thrall of authoritarian figures, like Putin, Netanyahu, Orbán, Erdogan, Xi, Kim, Modi and eventually, Trump.
Don’t expect justice from your representatives and don’t allow them to speak for you unless you know that they actually represent what you believe. In Australia we jail whistleblowers while probable war criminals run free. Google David McBride. He’s serving a five year sentence while people he blew the whistle on - including some for whom we have video evidence of war crimes - have yet to see the inside of a courtroom. That’s how weak we are and content to let it be someone else’s problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanJeffery-y5f I have read plenty on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. Putin is an aberration but he was, in many respects, created by the West. Should he have invaded Ukraine? No, of course he shouldn’t but that is one of the last datum points in the story. So instead of starting in the middle or near the end, let’s go back to a much earlier time.
Go back to the last days of the Bush government in the early 1990s. The Cold War was over and Gorbachev had been usurped by Boris Yeltsin. The coalition forces, led by the United States, had crushed Iraq. America was not only starting to believe in its own moral rectitude but it now believed it should be the only superpower. The Wolfowitz Doctrine said so.
When neophyte president Bill Clinton came to office, one of the things he did was to seek advice from George Kennan, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomat on the Soviet Union and Russia still in the US government. Kennan’s advice was ‘Do not isolate Russia.’ The west, led again by the United States, has spent the next 30 years doing exactly that.
The advice was that the NATO border should not go ‘one inch further east’. This was part of the calamity and it involves disputed territory, again something the west knows little or nothing about. In the 1990s, when every eastern bloc and former Soviet state was plying for EU membership, Russia also applied. They were literally told to ‘fuck off’.
So now Russia finds itself surrounded by NATO states, many of them with an axe to grind. The Baltic states have not been known for their love of Moscow. At the NATO summit in Lithuania a few years ago, one of the Lithuanian generals made a passionate speech about how Russia was about to ‘nuke us out of existence’. I think one is entitled to expect more moderate language at such an event but that’s what expanding NATO has bought us.
In Munich in 2007, NATO proposed provisional membership for Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, this was a step too far. Until then, his rule had been pretty benign. Since then, it has been about trying to fend off a bunch of neighbouring NATO states who hate Russia.
I don’t have to tell you about the Maidan riots of 2014 and the fall of Viktor Yanukovich, do I?
I don’t know why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a stupid move but I’d take a bet that I’m better versed on the history of the region than most people.
1
-
1
-
@AlanJeffery-y5f I have read plenty on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. Putin is an aberration but he was, in many respects, created by the West. Should he have invaded Ukraine? No, of course he shouldn’t but that is one of the last datum points in the story. So instead of starting in the middle or near the end, let’s go back to a much earlier time.
Go back to the last days of the Bush government in the early 1990s. The Cold War was over and Gorbachev had been usurped by Boris Yeltsin. The coalition forces, led by the United States, had crushed Iraq. America was not only starting to believe in its own moral rectitude but it now believed it should be the only superpower. The Wolfowitz Doctrine said so.
When neophyte president Bill Clinton came to office, one of the things he did was to seek advice from George Kennan, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomat on the Soviet Union and Russia still in the US government. Kennan’s advice was ‘Do not isolate Russia.’ The west, led again by the United States, has spent the next 30 years doing exactly that.
The advice was that the NATO border should not go ‘one inch further east’. This was part of the calamity and it involves disputed territory, again something the west knows little or nothing about. In the 1990s, when every eastern bloc and former Soviet state was plying for EU membership, Russia also applied. They were literally told to ‘fuck off’.
So now Russia finds itself surrounded by NATO states, many of them with an axe to grind. The Baltic states have not been known for their love of Moscow. At the NATO summit in Lithuania a few years ago, one of the Lithuanian generals made a passionate speech about how Russia was about to ‘nuke us out of existence’. I think one is entitled to expect more moderate language at such an event but that’s what expanding NATO has bought us.
In Munich in 2007, NATO proposed provisional membership for Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, this was a step too far. Until then, his rule had been pretty benign. Since then, it has been about trying to fend off a bunch of neighbouring NATO states who hate Russia.
I don’t have to tell you about the Maidan riots of 2014 and the fall of Viktor Yanukovich, do I?
I don’t know why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a stupid move but I’d take a bet that I’m better versed on the history of the region than most people.
1
-
1
-
@AlanJeffery-y5f I have read plenty on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. Putin is an aberration but he was, in many respects, created by the West. Should he have invaded Ukraine? No, of course he shouldn’t but that is one of the last datum points in the story. So instead of starting in the middle or near the end, let’s go back to a much earlier time.
Go back to the last days of the Bush government in the early 1990s. The Cold War was over and Gorbachev had been usurped by Boris Yeltsin. The coalition forces, led by the United States, had crushed Iraq. America was not only starting to believe in its own moral rectitude but it now believed it should be the only superpower. The Wolfowitz Doctrine said so.
When neophyte president Bill Clinton came to office, one of the things he did was to seek advice from George Kennan, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomat on the Soviet Union and Russia still in the US government. Kennan’s advice was ‘Do not isolate Russia.’ The west, led again by the United States, has spent the next 30 years doing exactly that.
The advice was that the NATO border should not go ‘one inch further east’. This was part of the calamity and it involves disputed territory, again something the west knows little or nothing about. In the 1990s, when every eastern bloc and former Soviet state was plying for EU membership, Russia also applied. They were literally told to ‘fuck off’.
So now Russia finds itself surrounded by NATO states, many of them with an axe to grind. The Baltic states have not been known for their love of Moscow. At the NATO summit in Lithuania a few years ago, one of the Lithuanian generals made a passionate speech about how Russia was about to ‘nuke us out of existence’. I think one is entitled to expect more moderate language at such an event but that’s what expanding NATO has bought us.
In Munich in 2007, NATO proposed provisional membership for Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, this was a step too far. Until then, his rule had been pretty benign. Since then, it has been about trying to fend off a bunch of neighbouring NATO states who hate Russia.
I don’t have to tell you about the Maidan riots of 2014 and the fall of Viktor Yanukovich, do I?
I don’t know why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a stupid move but I’d take a bet that I’m better versed on the history of the region than most people.
1
-
@AlanJeffery-y5f I have read plenty on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. Putin is an aberration but he was, in many respects, created by the West. Should he have invaded Ukraine? No, of course he shouldn’t but that is one of the last datum points in the story. So instead of starting in the middle or near the end, let’s go back to a much earlier time.
Go back to the last days of the Bush government in the early 1990s. The Cold War was over and Gorbachev had been usurped by Boris Yeltsin. The coalition forces, led by the United States, had crushed Iraq. America was not only starting to believe in its own moral rectitude but it now believed it should be the only superpower. The Wolfowitz Doctrine said so.
When neophyte president Bill Clinton came to office, one of the things he did was to seek advice from George Kennan, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomat on the Soviet Union and Russia still in the US government. Kennan’s advice was ‘Do not isolate Russia.’ The west, led again by the United States, has spent the next 30 years doing exactly that.
The advice was that the NATO border should not go ‘one inch further east’. This was part of the calamity and it involves disputed territory, again something the west knows little or nothing about. In the 1990s, when every eastern bloc and former Soviet state was plying for EU membership, Russia also applied. They were literally told to ‘fuck off’.
So now Russia finds itself surrounded by NATO states, many of them with an axe to grind. The Baltic states have not been known for their love of Moscow. At the NATO summit in Lithuania a few years ago, one of the Lithuanian generals made a passionate speech about how Russia was about to ‘nuke us out of existence’. I think one is entitled to expect more moderate language at such an event but that’s what expanding NATO has bought us.
In Munich in 2007, NATO proposed provisional membership for Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, this was a step too far. Until then, his rule had been pretty benign. Since then, it has been about trying to fend off a bunch of neighbouring NATO states who hate Russia.
I don’t have to tell you about the Maidan riots of 2014 and the fall of Viktor Yanukovich, do I?
I don’t know why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a stupid move but I’d take a bet that I’m better versed on the history of the region than most people.
1
-
@AlanJeffery-y5f I have read plenty on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. Putin is an aberration but he was, in many respects, created by the West. Should he have invaded Ukraine? No, of course he shouldn’t but that is one of the last datum points in the story. So instead of starting in the middle or near the end, let’s go back to a much earlier time.
Go back to the last days of the Bush government in the early 1990s. The Cold War was over and Gorbachev had been usurped by Boris Yeltsin. The coalition forces, led by the United States, had crushed Iraq. America was not only starting to believe in its own moral rectitude but it now believed it should be the only superpower. The Wolfowitz Doctrine said so.
When neophyte president Bill Clinton came to office, one of the things he did was to seek advice from George Kennan, probably the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomat on the Soviet Union and Russia still in the US government. Kennan’s advice was ‘Do not isolate Russia.’ The west, led again by the United States, has spent the next 30 years doing exactly that.
The advice was that the NATO border should not go ‘one inch further east’. This was part of the calamity and it involves disputed territory, again something the west knows little or nothing about. In the 1990s, when every eastern bloc and former Soviet state was plying for EU membership, Russia also applied. They were literally told to ‘fuck off’.
So now Russia finds itself surrounded by NATO states, many of them with an axe to grind. The Baltic states have not been known for their love of Moscow. At the NATO summit in Lithuania a few years ago, one of the Lithuanian generals made a passionate speech about how Russia was about to ‘nuke us out of existence’. I think one is entitled to expect more moderate language at such an event but that’s what expanding NATO has bought us.
In Munich in 2007, NATO proposed provisional membership for Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, this was a step too far. Until then, his rule had been pretty benign. Since then, it has been about trying to fend off a bunch of neighbouring NATO states who hate Russia.
I don’t have to tell you about the Maidan riots of 2014 and the fall of Viktor Yanukovich, do I?
I don’t know why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a stupid move but I’d take a bet that I’m better versed on the history of the region than most people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cbwelch4
"The P47 outrolled the Mustang and even the early Spitfires."
No, that is simply not true.
"And the P51 could not match the Hellcat in sustained turn either."
That would depend on a lot of things.
"Once they rolled out the "paddle prop" the performance gap between the P47 and the Mustang greatly narrowed."
But the advantage was still with the P-51. Furthermore, the P-47 was never competitive with any contemporary fighter in the climb department. Above certain altitudes it could out climb a Focke-Wulf but that was a medium altitude aircraft. In the ETO, the P-47 was never in a situation where rate of climb was a factor, since the USAAF pretty much always had air superiority and the advantage of altitude.
"In a dive the P47 could outperform the the P51 because the P51 would shed its wings before the Thunderbolt and the Bolt could sustain far more damadge and make it back."
No, this is not true. The VNE on the P-47 was 500 IAS against 505 for the P-51. This was due almost entirely to the more modern wing design. Where the P-47 had its point of maximum thickness at 30%, the P-51 was at 38.9%. This had the effect of offsetting the effects of compressibility and drag because it delayed the shockwave formation on the upper surface of the wing. That's why the P-47 had high speed control problems until it was fitted with dive flaps, a less than ideal solution.
The early wing problem on the P-51 was solved.
"One point of confusion on kill:ratio for me was that I'd heard that the kill:ratio of the Mustang was close to 1:1 when you factored in losses as far more Mustangs were lost due to the coolant hose vulnerability and even though the P-47 shot down fewer planes overall, the ruggedness of the plane itself made it more effective overall against the Luftwaffe with an actual kill:loss ratio of 3:1."
I'm sorry but this simply isn't believable. The Mustang was no more vulnerable to coolant loss than any other liquid cooled engine. The ratios are given in this video. Even accounting for over claiming, the difference is likely to be proportional.
"A P51D versus an FW190D or an ME109K variant had a hard fight ahead of it with equal pilots."
The isn't what the Germans said. It's not what the vast bulk of the USAAF pilots said either.
"The P-47 could sit on the perch above the almost all German fighters and dive on them with impunity due to its wonderful turbosupercharger."
They were roughly equal on that score. Most escorts were flown around 2,000 feet above the bombers.
"The P51 was successful because it was essentially a flying gas can and was effective on fighter sweeps."
That sounds like sour grapes to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FlatOutMatt No, Republic forgot why they were doing it. Before the war, Materiel Command issued a directive to manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity. Even before the first American bombing raid in Europe on 17 August, 1942, the USAAF called for more internal fuel capacity. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all responded. Republic did not. Rather than increasing internal fuel, Republic dithered around adding an extra two guns instead.
At the end of 1943, at the time when the P-51B arrived in Europe, the P-47C model - which was the dominant variant - had 256 gallons of internal fuel. Meanwhile, the P-51, which drank fuel at two thirds the rate, had 269. To match that, the P-47 would have needed about 400 gallons. This was not a problem that could be simply solved by adding external tanks.
The crisis of 1943, which caused the USAAF to temporarily halt its long range bombing campaign, had its origins at Republic. Had they taken notice of the directives issued, a lot of trouble might have been averted.
1
-
@FlatOutMatt
"and you’ve read through all their internal memoranda and interviewed the company leadership at the time, so you know exactly what the issues were that caused them to delay? They simply forgot what they were doing?"
Well, I can confidently say you haven't spoken to any of them so you'll excuse me for not taking that barb seriously.
Dear me... okay, I'll go over it again.
First thing to understand is that external tanks are not a good way to increase range performance. The adage goes that you use half the fuel in the tank getting the other half there. They are a stop gap. They help but they are not the answer.
Before Pearl Harbor, Materiel Command sent out a directive to all manufacturers to increase internal capacity. They saw what was coming. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all complied. Republic did not.
Between Pearl Harbor and the first USAAF raids on occupied France on 17 August, 1942, USAAF high command sent another directive to the manufacturers, again to increase internal capacity. Again, Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all complied and again, Republic did not get the memo.
Furthermore, the P-47 could only carry fuel on the centreline pylon until the D-9 and D-11 models became mainstream.
But the internal capacity of those models was quite small for an aircraft with an R-2800 in it. The P-47C, which was the dominant model - and the early D models had an internal capacity of 256 gallons. The P-51B had 269 and drank fuel at 2/3 the rate. To have the same combat radius as a P-51B, the P-47 would need 400 gallons. It was not until late 1944 that the D-27 arrived with that kind of capacity.
But that was no use in 1943, when it was needed.
George Kenney, who managed the 5th Air Force in the Pacific, was known to be furious with Republic for their lack of interest in range, which was what every part of the air force was crying out for. That made carrying out his mission much more difficult, so he had skin in the game.
"Hilarious level of arrogance it takes to trivialize things from history like this…as though in their place you’d have had all the answers in real time. GTFO"
Well, I know I don't know much but I know one thing: I know more than you. But since this is not a dick swinging competition, I'll make some suggestions.
If you want to see examples of this in reality, read a few books. Don't bother with data block figures and other trivia. That stuff is not helpful because it turns the whole thing into a technical argument when, in fact, it's a historical one. Data blocks and technical details don't represent history and frequently cause people to draw wildly inaccurate conclusions.
'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', by Martin Middlebrook is as good a place to start as any. When you've finished with that, read 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeff Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. Those guys actually show you how the P-47 was range limited. Even the few recently converted D-9s could not get past Magdeburg and that was with two underwing 108 gallon tanks. They show you where the relay changeovers were.
I don't know what Republic were thinking but there is no doubt they took their eyes off the ball. They seemed more interested in adding more guns - which made little difference - than they did in adding the fuel capacity that had been asked of them.
The P-47 let the Eighth down just when it needed long range escorts. As a result, they had to suspend their long range strategic bombing campaign right when they should have been ramping it up. And they could not change this until they had a fighter that could fly to any target in Germany. The P-51B was available in December, 1943 and available in significant numbers in March of '44 (4 FGs), while the long range P-47s were not available until September, by which time bases on the continent made them unnecessary.
Without the contribution of the P-51, D-Day could not have happened when it did (Operation POINTBLANK). The Luftwaffe had to be defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV
"The dive flaps enabled the pilot to recover sooner from compressability, before the df the pilot had to "wait for lower altitude and pray " after the dive flaps they were able to reduce the recovery time of compressability also have more confidence in going right up and even exceed mach .82"
Finally, you so neatly prove my point.
'Wait for lower altitude and pray.' So controllability was a problem then.
But you still don't know why the Republic S-3 could not have had a MCrit of 0.82 and I know this because I know some of the basics of how to calculate it. There are several reasons (features of) the S-3, the NACA 2412 (Spitfire) and the P-38 section were not capable of that kind of MCrit. In fact, the 2412 was probably more suitable.
And that is also a pointer to why the P-51 section had a higher MCrit. But I have no interest in explaining that to someone who won't listen.
Now, even if we accept that the VNE of the P-47 was 500 mph IAS, and even if we accept that exceeding an aircraft's MCrit, Please tell me how the bloody hell adding drag makes the aircraft faster - or no slower - in a dive. And don't deny you said it.
No, actually, don't bother. I'm well rid of you and your ignorant, condescending ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis
"And my advice to you. Know your subject"
Please explain the difference between a NACA 2400 and a 2200. See, this is the problem. You're arguing pathetic minutiae - a typo, FFS - and missing the serious stuff.
You don't know what Mcr is. Even if you could define it, you don't know how it works.
I do.
"and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive."
Let me ask you again: so what? What does it matter if it was dived at M0.89 if it was also dived at M0.92? It doesn't change anything that matters.
Furthermore, let me remind you of something else you said:
"No but the Spit had a Tactical Mach to 0.89 Source: Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History Serial Numbers page 399 Mark XI April 44 Aircraft Number EN409 Farn. compressibility trls and measurement of airframe drag up to Mach 0.89 in dvs. Quote directly from the text"
That is total BS (in the context in which you are using it) and I don't care who said it.
A NACA 4 digit series aerofoil could never have gone that high, for exactly the same reason the Republic S-3 couldn't do it. That would rival a modern jet. Never going to happen.
Just because it was dived at that speed or greater, it doesn't automatically mean that suddenly became its Mcr.
This is not a pissing contest so stop treating it as one. There is very little difference between a 2200 series NACA and a 2400 series as far as this is concerned. Look it up ofr yourself. They have too much camber and the point of maximum thickness is simply too far forward. They are 1920s/1930s vintage aerofoils and transonics was very much in its infancy.
Mcr doesn't change. You don't suddenly get a higher Mcr by putting the foil on a different fuselage. You don't get a higher Mcr by diving it at a higher speed and surviving. Mcr is determined by mathematical formulae.
Furthermore, in a discussion about the P-51 and the P-51, it was YOU who came in beating the irrelevant Spitfire drum and waving your precious copy of Morgan and Ladyboy, despite it having nothing of relevance to contribute.
I couldn't give a rat's who knows how much about the Spitfire. It's not now and never was of any relevance to this topic. You are being childish and petty. Furthermore, you simply don't know what you're talking about, huh less what I'm talking about.
If you can't be on topic and you can't at least talk in relevant terms then you're simply not in any position to comment. You're creating these stupid hoops and expecting everyone to respectfully jump through them while you argue about the colour of their shirts.
And since you are incapable of either understanding what is written in front of you or posting anything of relevance II have no interest in anything else you have to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis If you can prove to me, using the laws of physics, that an airframe using a NACA 2213, which was developed in the late 1920s/early 1930s, was capable of having that kind of MCrit - which is at least 10% higher than any contemporary airframe - maybe I’ll listen. If you can then explain why aircraft that had much more advanced wing sections (P-51, Hawker Tempest) had MCrits which were at least 10% lower, then maybe I’ll take you more seriously. While you’re about it, maybe you can explain why Supermarine bothered to develop their trapezoidal laminar flow wing*, which they ultimately used on jet aircraft, instead of persisting with the elliptical NACA 2213. The Spitfire wing wasn’t even laminar.
We haven’t even started talking about Reynolds numbers yet.
MCrits of 0.88-0.89 were not possible until a long time after the Spitfire, when ultra thin swept wings were developed. The F-104 had a section that was 3.3% thick (the Spitfire was 13%). The EE Lightning was similar and had its point of maximum thickness of 2.97% at 45% of chord. EE engineers (Petter) were able to achieve this with a pronounced sweep.
Now either your sources are wrong or you are misinterpreting/making it up as you go along. Which is it? Since you don’t seem to care what MCrit actually is, my money is more on the latter than on the former (even though I suspect the former may also be wrong).
*This was not considered a success part of the development of the Spiteful or Seafang.
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
By the way, Google had no part in this. I actually research and I know you don't. Your whole argument is prejudice-based and built on Greg's delusional nonsense.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar. @ScoopsTV
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTV Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't.
"I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ."
Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now.
See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated.
"Which you have accused Greg of and now me ."
I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level.
"Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits."
No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes.
MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour.
The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away.
I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1).
You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are.
You are a liar.
1
-
@jacktattis
"389 Morgan and Shacklady for the dive figures Mach 0.89 Spitfire 0.80 Mustang"
So what? This is little more than useless information, which you are misapplying. Those are dive figures, not MCrit. MCrit does not change just because someone exceeded it.
I've already explained this numerous times but the thickheadedness of posters on this thread is beyond anything I've encountered before. I'll put it in words that even you can understand:
Critical Mach Number determines dive performance. Critical Mach Number is NOT determined BY dive performance.
MCrit is established from parameters such as Cl, a and T (Coefficient of Lift, local speed of sound and Temperature) which are wing section and atmospheric parameters. It is NOT established by what ever Mach number someone dived at. I've told you this half a dozen times.
That is why I don't give a rat's arse what Martindale - or Brown - dived at. The MCrit of the Spitfire was likely to have been about 0.73, based on the wing section used and the lack of any meaningful sweep. That means that for any speed above 0.73, the freestream Mach number over the wing was >Mach 1, or above the MCrit.
"396 for the Wing Section 2200 NOT 2213 and 2213 is not mentioned in any section"
Jesus Christ, you just don't get this, do you? NACA 2200 is a series. The 2213 is part of the NACA 2200 series. The numbers are clearly completely lost on you and that other idiot. It looks like Morgan and Shackedupwithaladyboy don't get it either.
Since you know nothing about NACA 4-digit sections, I'll explain them to you.
The first digit determines the maximum camber (variation from the chord centreline) as a percentage of chord length. In this case the camber - the aggregate line between the top and bottom surfaces - is 2%.
The second digit determines the percentage aft of the maximum camber but in 10%. Ergo the maximum camber is at 20-29%.
The third and fourth digits determine the thickness as a percentage of chord, in this case 13%.
Ergo: there is no such thing as a NACA 2200 aerofoil per se because it would have no thickness. It is a family of aerofoils. Equally, a NACA 0013 would be a symmetrical aerofoil which is 13% thick.
"Critical Mach of the Spitfire was above Mach 0.89"
Lies. Totally impossible.
"Spiteful Laminar flow wing BUT not a NACA Series Page 502"
So what? Not relevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis
"rae Jan 1`944 T/M 0.89 P51 0.80 It has been recorded now for 80 years"
Okay, a few days' research has turned up a few things but nothing that changes the situation. The first place I looked was my old text book "Mechanics of Flight', by A.C. Kermode. It used to be on the first year aero engineering syllabus but I doubt it's used any more. It was also used for pilot training, since it has a lot of useful information in it. I therefore found it pretty strange when Kermode claimed that the Spitfire had a Mcrit of 0.9 so I pushed the matter a lot further. Kermode didn't back it up with any substance and frankly, he should have known better.
Checking through Xfoil's database, I found that the vast majority off NACA 2213 applications were for various marques of Spitfire and the assumed Mcrit for that section was M0.70 and not 0.90. The number will be on the conservative side but not by more than +/- 5% so that would put my estimated figure of M0.73 - 0.74 well into play.
I have most of the information I need now to plot Cp with Prandtl-Glauert and the intersection will give me a much more accurate answer than anything anyone here is going to come up with, including Morgan and Shackedupwithaladyboy or Kermode or even Eric Brown. However, I still expect that I will get the same result.
In short, there is no way breathing the Spitfire had a Mcrit of 0.90 and anyone who knows anything about transonics would immediately question it.
For the record, the P-47 is no better and probably a bit worse.
But the fact is that you need to know what Mcrit is and nobody here besides me actually does.
For the next eight weeks I'm busy tutoring students (not aero or engineering) so it will be a while before I get around to playing with the plots.
"Whatever you think you cannot change it"
Code for: 'Whatever you come up with, you cannot change my mind because I have absolute blind faith in everything Spitfire and I have a couple of fantasy books to back me up'.
These kinds of blind faith arguments are just a new form of religion. They're also the major reason why life expectancy in the world's wealthiest countries is going down. (but that's another matter)
I can post the coding if you like and you can run the maths yourself. However, you will have to insert the appropriate parameters and to do that, you have to know what and where to do it or you get garbage answers or no answer at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sirgreedy88
"Let's assume you are right and in 100% of cases the teacher gets shot right away because they are 100% of the time taken by surprise. already unlikely considering the increased security seen in schools like cameras and dedicated security, but fine. Even if that is the case...As soon as the first teacher gets shot, all other teachers in all other classrooms are now on high alert from the sound of the gunshot and screaming. Weapons drawn and focused on entrances. All those classrooms are now better off. You are assuming it will be a student and not an outsider every time, and you are assuming the shooting will begin and end with only one classroom and one armed teacher."
Ahem. I'm not really interested in hypotheticals. The one thing we know from experience is that as soon as one of these horrific incidents happens, the teacher's job is to enact the active shooter drill and move the children to safety, if possible. That is how it works, whether they are armed or not.
The assumption that all the teachers in the school can work as a trained team, like Navy SEALs, hunt down the active shooter and 'neutralise' them is not a good one. The fact is that, to be that effective, they would probably have to be Navy SEALs in the first place and they would probably need a secure radio network to effect 'the plan'.
But the plain fact is that not everyone is another John Wayne and as soon as bullets start whanging around, there will be casualties with absolutely no guarantee that the shooter will be one of them. The fact is also that people naturally run away from danger, rather than towards it.
It is also true that most active shooters have been able to access classrooms with little to no challenge whatsoever. Even when they were challenged, school police were totally ineffective in preventing what happened. See the responses of Pete Redondo and the Uvalde police.
School security, even with trained staff, has been less than hopeless and I simply fail to see how placing teachers as the last line of defence in a fight they never signed up for, is a practical solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vashmatrix5769
"Project harder."
Speak for yourself.
"I see I'm not the 1st you've accused of this ''I never said" thing when you're caught being dishonest. I didn't even use the word "never" lol."
Semantics won't help you. You're still playing the same game. Here's what you said:
'No one has suggested "forcing" teachers to protect kids.'
This is deliberately muddy. You want teachers to carry guns (despite a welter of evidence that it won't work) and now you're pretending you're not trying to force an agenda by using emotive language. So yeah, it's just another variation on 'I never said'.
"This will be my last response as it was already written when I realized you did that before with the other guy who caught you."
Caught me? Nobody from the gun lobby ever catches me. I'm too intelligent and too well read. So yeah, if I were you, I'd run away too.
"1, I have no desire to write in code but the censorship on yt makes it quite the task to communicate."
Links? You should see the list of links I could post. I used to post literally dozens at a time.. So the ledger is at least square on that score.
"2, No, it's completely true. One of the more recent mass events I heard about was in Uganda a few months ago."
Do you really think that's an adequate answer? Do you think Uganda and the United States are remotely comparable? When it starts happening in every country in Europe I'll take notice of that. In the meantime, it's gun humper feel good stuff.
"3, Dude, you're the one who twisted my words & arrived at a false conclusion. Fact remains they told the people right after, that she (paraphrasing because I don't feel like looking up exact words for statement to press when you should have done that long ago) didn't go to her 1st "TARGET" at another location because she perceived it was too likely she'd be met by resistance."
This is a lie. It's a lie because it is unknowable, yet you're presenting it as fact. It's pure conjecture and nothing more.
None of your points are conclusive proof of anything. To present that last comment as anything more than conjecture is to lie. I searched for backup to that claim and found nothing. It isn't true and was never a fact.
Dude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vilecreature8640
"Anyone with a brain understands the kind of damage 5.56 can do, now go look at machete attack victims, or acid attack victims, people shot with a 12gauge buckshot, or the carnage after a bomb and tell me 5.56 is the worst thing ever invented."
Yet again, do I have to explain this? When people start massacring classrooms full of children with acid, I'll start listening. When they start doing it with 12 gauge buckshot or rifled slugs, I'll take notice. When they start using machetes or bombs I'll start listening. But they're not. They're using AR-15s because it's the ideal weapon for a mass shooter. It carries suffiicient weight of fire to do fatal damage and has relatively low recoil, allowing an inexperienced shooter to do incredible damage. It also has a high rate of fire - as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. Fitted with bump stocks (now theoretically illegal) they can almost match that of an automatic weapon. They can be fitted with 100 round magazines.
The velocity and the hydrostatic shock are the things that separate the AR-15 from pistols. It is the hydrostatic shock that destroys internal organs. Sure, you can get that with an AR-10 but its recoil makes it harder to use. That's why the AR-15 rules in that sphere.
"It’s like people forget you can go to home depo and level a building, case and point OKC bomber, or hell look at the gun used to assassinate the Japanese prime minister."
These are totally isolated incidents. More people have been killed in mass shootings this year alone than died in the Murrah Building. Mass killers just don't use bombs. They could but they don't.
"Banning something for the actions of less than 1% of the people who own those types of weapons doesn’t solve our problem, they didn’t care about the laws before they will either get it illegally or use something else."
You don't know how the black market works, do you? You also don't understand what goes though a mass shooter's mind. You should read the FBI report on mass shootings between 2000 and 2013. It's a lot more than goodies and baddies and dismatles most of the gun lobby propaganda.
And the fact remains that peer nations with stricter gun laws have very few mass shootings and much, much lower murder rates.
1
-
1
-
@vilecreature8640
"none of those are reasons for me to give up my rifle, those things that “make it easy for mass shooters to use” make it easy for everyone to use."
Selfish prick.
"And you are blurting gun words and shit but you don’t know anything about them."
Don't I? You must tell me more about me some time. You're so used to believing that nobody who knows anything about guns could ever be on my side of the argument (in as much as you even know what that is), you've convinced yourself that I couldn't possibly know anything about guns. Well, for a start, good legislation doesn't require an intimate knowledge of guns. And second, I'm a former shooter and gun owner. Shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG. Shot pistols, including everything from a replica .36 1851 Navy Colt to a custom 1911 chambered for .38 Super with a red dot scope set up for speed shooting. Even shot an AR-15. It doesn't matter a damn. Good legislation is derived from clinical studies and methodical research and neither of those things give a damn about you and frankly, since you couldn't care less about the trail of destruction guns a leaving behind in the US, I couldn't give a damn about you and your rifle either.
When the unwiped assholes in the gun lobby recognise that they have had a role in the rapidly increasing incidence of gun violence in the United States, then you might be able to justify your position. But that's going to require you to take an element of responsibility which is frankly beyond you. If you have no empathy you shouldn't have a gun.
"And columbine used a shotgun and a 22, and again most mass shootings are done with pistols."
Already addressed this at least twice. So I'll repeat it so that even the thickest skull will be penetrated: ALL THE DEADLIEST MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS INVOLVED THE AR-15. Columbine was 23 years ago. Things have changed.
Got that? Good.
"Your telling people kids die violently when shot, no shit Sherlock everyone dies violently when shot."
Uuummm... and this is why you should feel no guilt and no remorse when a classroom full of kids is wiped out, including two who were decapitated. Have I got that right?
"Your trying to use these kids deaths to push bullshit that won’t stop anything."
You really don't give a shit about them, do you? Why don't you just say it? You couldn't care less as long as you're not inconvenienced. Fuck you.
"Murdering kids is already illegal, and like some pampered kid from the city knows about the black market like it’s an actual “market” and not just the term thrown on selling of illegal goods."
So lets abandon all laws because people don't obey them. Let's get rid of paedophilia laws because hey, the gun lobby knows paedophiles will still find a way to break the law. Great idea... not. What a great platform on which to build social policy (irony).
"So a bill gets passed then what? The most popular style of rifle in America just disappears from the face of the earth?"
There are a lot of other steps that are, for the moment at least, more time critical. Like keeping guns away from people with a history of criminal behaviour, wife beaters, etc.. But every time this has come up, there stands the gun lobby shrieking "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", while pretending they're being magnanimous and that this is really about self defence. The gun lobby has had its own way for far too long. If you can't see that this is a job for adults who actually know something about public safety, then step back and let them do their job. The great social experiment of outsourcing personal security to untrained dickheads with no life experience has been the most abject failure of the last 20 years. The price has been paid in human blood.
The gun lobby is a social cancer and needs to be excised.
And if that means banning the AR-15 to achieve a lower level of carnage, then so be it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eichler721
"how about the over 2 million defensive uses of fire arms used to save lives in the US this is also a FBI statistic."
LOL!! Oh, Jesus... LOL!! You made my day with that! Are you completely serious? I have already blown that one away in this thread. But just to humour you, I'll go through it again and I promise to use little words.
This comes from a 1995 random telephone survey by pro-gun academic and former mayor of Kennisaw, GA, Gary Kleck and his assistant Marc Gertz. They asked respondents 'Have you ever used a gun to prevent a crime in the last five years?" That's basically it. They did note the types of crime the respondents talked about but that was all. In 1996, Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig did the same survey but corrected for false positives and came up with a completely different result. It was nothing like the "500,000 - 2.5 million" crimes prevented, not lives saved, that Kleck and Gertz claimed. It was more in line with the NCVS figures.
When Obama commissioned a report on this in 2013, the CDC had only just been allowed to examine gun deaths again after 18 years of being effectively prohibited from doing so. When the report was published, the only figures cited came straight from the Kleck-Gertz survey from 1995, by then 18 years old.
So why was it quoted at all and why were no other sources quoted, despite it being arguably THE most discredited piece of pseudo-research on the subject? A cursory examination of the list of authors of that report (which I have on my hard drive) reveals one Gary Kleck. Yep, the one and the same.
It's a crock.
"Plenty of stabbings happen on Europe where they have no guns so it's a stupid argument not based on reality."
Another terrible argument, barely worthy of me knocking it out of the park, But you keep pitching them and I'll keep smashing them.
The US murder rate as of today is around 7.6 per 100,000. That is around 7-10 times the murder rate of any Western European country, including the UK. That's murder by all methods. So let's have a look at recent figures (CDC).
2010: 16,259 murders, 11,078 by gun
2020: 24,576 murders, 19,384 by gun
2021: 25,XXX murders, 20,966 by gun
The gun murder rate is now over 6.0 per 100,000.
This all coincides with the SCOTUS ( "DC v Heller" 2008) changing the second amendment (which they arguably had no right to do) to effectively remove the requirement for membership of a state militia. It also coincides with the Chicago SCOTUS case "McDonald v Chicago".
Wanna talk about Chicago? I'm betting you have no idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eichler721
"As far as Chicago I could care less and if we took the murders from Chicago, Detroit, DC, and LA off the US would drop to 108th in the gun crime rate. Also I liked the FBI study and YouTube deleted it as it doesn't allow links. 13% of all gun crime happens in Gun Free Zones but 94% of the Mass Shootings happen there. Facts sorry buddy do more research"
Do more research? I have done more research on this than anyone you're likely to encounter, Bubele. I chew people like you up and spit you out before breakfast. LOL!!
You can't just take out the cities that make you look bad. Even if you did, being 108th out of 195 is nothing to brag about, especially when the competition is pretty much everyone in the bottom 30.
As for your gun free zone 'facts', they're lies. A crock. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it, especially anyone who has bothered to examine it. Every time it comes up, the figure goes up. Lott said 96%. Trump said 98%. If that doesn't raise some questions - which I notice it hasn't for you - then you must not have more than one oar in the water. I know you don't know what the hell you're talking about and neither do your gun humper 'friends'.
Sorry buddy but you're going to have to come up with something better than that.
Let me put it to you again: why does this happen? Why does the gun lobby insist that gun free zones are massacre magnets?
Come on, cough up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesscott3230 Whats so funny? Do you really think that’s an answer?
I know you only have very limited intelligence so I’ll put this as simply as I can.
First of all, I’m an experienced shooter and former gun owner, though I have not fired a gun of any kind for many years. So I’m not scared of anything unless it’s pointed at me.
And anyone who says he isn’t scared of that is a liar.
Secondly, you can only speak for yourself. You can’t speak for those around you and that means your neighbours, so this ‘we prepared (sic) for ppl like you’ is a bluff at best.
Thirdly, you have no idea what I want because you have never asked. Not that you’d ever bother to read or understand it though.
The only thing a .22LR and a .223 have in common is the caliber. They are otherwise completely different and it is still extremely obvious to me that nobody is backing you up on your claim that they are the same thing.
Your lack of remorse and willingness to take hostages shows a total lack of morality, yet you still try to claim the moral high ground.
Seriously, pal, if brains were made of dynamite, you wouldn’t have enough to blow a part in your hair. Somehow this makes you feel superior and that actually is funny.
People clowns like you should never be in charge of social policy at any level, whether federal, state or county. You don’t have the intelligence, the literacy skills or the capacity for reflective thought that is essential to good policy making and there is absolutely no good reason why the rest of society should be held to ransom by a delusional, unintelligent cock head like you with a gun. People like you fulfil no useful purpose in society.
And the more veiled threats you make, the more apparent it is that laws need to be passed as a matter of urgency. If you want to live like a criminal, so be it. I’m sure there are those who would be happy to accommodate you WRT prising your gun from your cold, dead hands.
I have been researching gun violence for ten years. I get my information from all kinds of sources but very rarely from mainstream media. Most of it comes from sources like the CDC, the FBI and an extensive range of academic research papers. I’ve read literally hundreds of them. I clicked on this because there was high speed photography in it which demonstrated a controlled comparison between a pistol round and an AR round.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xcalibertrekker6693 The Porsche-Piech families were early supporters of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power in 1932, they were part of the groups of families that eventually owned Germany in the greatest privatisation scam and kleptocracy the world has ever seen. The Quants (BMW), the Porsche-Piechs, the Oetkers, the Flicks, the Finks and several others, loaned the Nazis millions of Marks and in return they had a red carpet ride to unimaginable wealth.
Dr Ferdinand Porsche, a literal mad scientist, was a great fan of Hitler and Hitler was a car nut so he liked the idea of the new Volkswagen and agreed to help. The Nazis let the Porsche-Piech families steal land from a Jewish family called Wolf, hence the factory name 'Wolfsburg'. During the war, that factory produced no cars and was used for military contracts. It was staffed by slave labourers who were often worked to death and occasionally shot.*
Ferdinand Porsche, the younger, was the chairman of the company well into the 1970s and had been an SS officer in WWII.
The company (unlike so many others) has never acknowledged its reprehensible past. Once you know this company's history, you would never want one of their cars.
* For more on this, read David de Jong's excellent book, 'Nazi Billionaires'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JadeyOne
"just released its analysis of the China military...pretty scary stuff! Lots of improvement..."
Got a link?
"But miles behind USA"
In what area / capacity?
"if we help defend Taiwan in the next 10 years victory is all but guarantee"
Mmmm... I think you don't get this. At the moment, the West - not just the United States - has been helping Taiwan to improve her defence system. Current projection is that this will be largely complete in the next four or five years. Until then, Taiwan is vulnerable. Xi Jinping knows he has a rapidly closing window of opportunity. (See September issue of Foreign Affairs magazine). Xi is a man in a hurry. He's a gambler and he wants to get things done and he doesn't care how many people get hurt in the process. Some in China regard him as reckless and he has almost brought the whole country down a couple of times already. At he moment they are facing a major economic problem with the virtual collapse of Evergrande. If that happens, China won't be in a position to do much and the entire global economy will be affected. This has the potential to be bigger than 2008 GFC.
Secondly, it depends on exactly what China does if they attack. The most likely target is Penghu. Since those islands are pretty sparsely inhabited, the response will probably be limited.
"The republicans demand we help Taiwan and Biden is going to address the nation this week declaring our involvement...first USA soldier that dies and we declare war."
Yeah, get lost with that chest-beating BS. Biden knows he has to protect American lives but he also knows you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. There is not place for emotional declarations like that when you're dealing with a threat like China. It's not like taking on Iraq (for which the US was far better prepared).
Who is "we"?
"I hear whispers that the legions are gathering over in California and that the USA has deployed 4 new aircraft carriers (to join the current ones in the China sea)"
I doubt if that would make much difference.
China is geared for this exact scenario. Their surface to surface missiles are truly terrifying and I wouldn't want to be on any one of those aircraft carriers if war broke out. they'd be sitting ducks. The only safe place or them to be - and in fact, the only place they are likely to be - is east of Taiwan herself. They would be far too exposed in the South China Sea.
"Also supposedly the new rail guns are about to be utilized for the first time...exciting stuff / would be scared if I was Chinese lol"
Battles are fought and won with weapons that can actually be brought to bear, not with wonder weapons. the Germans learnt this the hard way in WWII.
Here's how it plays out. the Rand Corporation wargamed this exact scenario about ten years ago and there was simply no way for the West to stop the Chinese and they know it. There are videos on YouTube put together by a former RAAF air combat planner called Chris Mills which showed how it played out.
A lot of things have changed since then which have, if anything, shifted the balance even further in China's favour. I suggest you look at a video called "Why the US Military worries about Chinese Airpower". You should also be aware that whatever their previous failings, the Chinese pilots have made very significant strides over the last ten years. Perhaps the most significant change is that Chinese pilots fly a lot more hours than USAF and USN pilots do. At the moment, the USAF is seriously short of pilots and those they have are not flying enough hours. They are supposed to do 30 hours per month to stay current but very few are meeting that figure. This was highlighted when the report was released into the loss of an F-35 hull at Eglin AFB in May last year. It was revealed that the pilot had flown four hops in the previous 30 days for a total of 5.9 hours. The USAF requirement is 30 hours,
For a realistic assessment of how such a confrontation would play out, it pays to have at least a realistic assessment of the relative parity of forces, not just overall but in theatre.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember one thing about the media (and in those days it was just print and radio). In wartime, the armed forces rarely let much out, especially when it comes to missions like this. In the absence of any official sources, which are themselves not always reliable, the media are usually forced to find sources of their own. Remember too that the media is a co-opted arm of wartime propaganda and while they rarely make things up (it does happen but it's a lot rarer than people think), they are frequently fed distorted information by official and semi-official sources because that was seen at the time to be advantageous to morale or the war effort or whatever. Those official and semi-official sources are in the enviable position of having plausible deniability. The media will wear the consequences - good, bad or indifferent.
Looked at in retrospect at a range of 77 years, there was an awful lot of disinformation that came out about the raid. Paul Brickhill's 1953 book, which was, in part based on official history and in part on that of Guy Gibson's book "Enemy Coast Ahead", was full of inaccuracies. Those were the sources for the movie. John Sweetman's 1990 book "The Dambusters Raid" attempted to correct a lot of the inaccuracies and tie up a lot of loose ends relating to other aircraft and the fates of their crews.
It would be a mistake to attempt to wipe all this off as just "media hysteria" or whatever and assume we have all "the facts". That would not help our understanding of the raid or its consequences and contribution to the war effort. Despite comments about media behaviour at the time, the official story of the time, as released by the RAF, was no more accurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@linds6609
"I'm saying that for someone who claims to have been trained in Cadets and also a former firearm owner you seem to know very little about safe handling and operating of one as well as not knowing about retention holsters etc. makes me think that you are full of crap."
You must think I care about what you think. Sorry to disappoint you. Since I have never expressed a view on that subject, it is pure guesswork on your part anyway.
"My gun has never jumped up and spontaneously shot anybody the same as my car has never run any body over on its own."
The old "guns don't kill, people kill" argument again. It gets really old. Here's something for you to consider: children shoot each other dead accidentally all the time. Toddlers have killed their mothers. All the gun lobby can say is "Oh well, it's not the gun's fault. That person should have done this and should have done that". Everyone is a self-appointed expert but in fact, all you are doing is writing off people's lives in a quasi-Darwinist manner.
"When people get hurt because of an inanimate object that is the person who intended the harm or the negligent persons fault. "
You tell that to the families of people who have lost their lives to guns. Go on. This Darwinist attitude is absolutely as disgusting as it gets. You care more about guns than you do about people. Defend the gun. Attack the victims. Terrific strategy.
"In this case the negligent mother who left her weapon in a bag where a toddler could reach it. Its not the kids fault, its not the guns fault its the persons fault that put the 2 of them together."
What a disgraceful attitude. You mentioned the human factor before but you left something out.
You.
You could never make a mistake, could you? Never had a car crash, never got drunk and done something idiotic that could have got you killed.
"I'm afraid you are beyond help and I would suggest you stay away from firearms, motor vehicles, kitchen knives or any type of object that might be able to hurt you in the future. For your and your loved ones sake."
None of these things is of any value when discussing public policy issues. Guns are a public safety issue, no matter how ingrained your dogma is. You can keep trying to talk down to me but you're missing the point. Attacking me personally is not going to prove your point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First, the superiority of the Zero over the P40 and F4F is overstated. Dog fighting depended on multiple things; the aircraft capabilities, the ability and experience of the pilots, the tactical situation at the beginning of the battle, and (IMHO, most important) whether the pilots used their aircraft's strengths and avoided their enemy's."
In the defence of Port Moresby by RAAF 75 Squadron, aircraft capabilities had little influence. As soon as 75 got there, the first thing Sqn Ldr John Jackson did was plan and execute an extremely successful raid on the primary Japanese base at Lae. Virtually all his pilots were novices who had done no formation flying and hadn't even fired their guns. The 'Zero v Kittyhawk' battles never really came down to dogfighting and nearly everything was about surprise attacks, out of the sun or out of cloud. The terrain in New Guinea played a much bigger role than anyone gives it credit for.
"Both the P40 and F4F had excellent records against the Zero overall; from the Flying Tigers before the war, to the adaptation of tactics by US pilots (the Thatch Weave, in particular) - this allowed US pilots to effectively battle the Zero, even before better US fighters arrived."
The Flying Tigers didn't fight against Zeros, though that doesn't mean they didn't fight against competent Japanese pilots. That said, units like 75 learnt early from the experience of Chennault. But a lot of the assumptions that are made on the internet about the way the Japanese fought are misguided.
"A direct comparison is a difficult one to make, since - as noted - they were designed for radically different strategic purposes. I don't believe that a Zero and a
109 ever faced off in real combat, so there is no way to make a 1v1 judgment"
More a question of the strategic situation. The Germans would have given there eye teeth for an aircraft with the range performance of the Zero during the Battle of Britain. And look what happened once the USAAF got its hands on the P-51. Same deal.
In short, it's called power projection.
"Japan's pilot training program was very inefficient - Germany's produced better basic pilots at a faster pace."
I disagree.
It's true that Japanese pilot training eventually suffered. However, it happened a lot later than most people - even me - realised. There were still plenty of competent, highly disciplined Japanese pilots, who employed excellent tactics as late as the end of 1943, as the Australian Spitfire pilots found out in their defence of Darwin.
By comparison, the bleeding away of German pilots, particularly on the Eastern Front, meant that by 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours, including 10-15 on type, while the average American had 600+ with 50-100 on type. The Germans peaked just before Barbarossa.
1
-
There are a couple of things I’d like to add to this that I haven’t heard from anyone else. First point is that we have been living on emergency level interest rates for fourteen years. They were introduced during the GFC. There is a whole generation of house owners who have come into the market who have never known what normal interest rates look like or what to expect if interest rates go up. The $9 trillion housing industry in Australia is about to take a serious hit as inflation bites. The government was warned about this and elected to hold a telescope to a blind eye. So now we find the Reserve Bank raising interest rates by 25 basis points in May and a predicted 60 basis points in June. While the Reserve Bank needs to be independent, there is no evidence the government had any interest in planning for such an eventuality and at a time of approaching economic downturn, they suddenly found themselves with no wiggle room. Remember this: for a 1% increase in interest rates, 25% of mortgages will default. That’s ultimately going to affect about a million households.
Secondly, on national security, I see this as a failure of the security services. This is what happens when they start looking inward instead of outward. We saw this in the lead up to Lionel Murphy’s raid on ASIO in 1973. If they had spent less time investigating the contents of Annika Smethurst’s undies drawer and more time looking at the South Pacific, we might not be where we are now. Dutton’s claim that China is not as transparent as us about these things and we operate differently is nonsense. When it comes to national security, all options are on the table. That’s how it works. And he should stop comparing this to the 1930s. It’s just a pathetic attempt to cast himself as Churchill versus Albanese as Chamberlain. It’s nothing more than vanity. The real comparison belongs to the late 1940s and early 1950s. Why? Two words: nuclear fucking weapons, as Dennis Leary said. Peter Dutton: worst Minister for Defence in Australian history. The man is determined to start a war.
Finally, the LNP has had one economic policy in the last 40 years: supply side economics. This is nothing more than a hypothesis that was the product of an Ivy League professor in the early 1970s has never been proved. It’s bubble think from bubble heads. I was gobsmacked a few years ago when Turnbull raised trickle down economics, something I hadn’t heard without guffaws for 20 years. But they were serious. At this point the only thing we can thank tax cuts for is cutting our revenue stream while the LNP raids social services like the NDIS. Their mantra is that higher taxation disproportionately disadvantages lower income workers and it’s nonsense. Lower income workers are still subject to marginal tax rates. Aimed at the appropriate market sector and our national debt would not be so scary.
And remember this: coal, as a source of revenue, is about to dry up. China is going to stop importing Australian coal in the next year or so and have we planned for that? No!
Whoever wins this election is going to be in for a hell of a ride and the R word needs to be part of any medium term economic calculations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobh1208 Okay, let’s go back to the P-47 then.
Range was one of the Thunderbolt’s flaws. Climb performance was the other. Yes, people point to charts that show this or that and under these circumstances, with the wind blowing in the the right direction blah, blah. It remained uncompetitive with contemporary fighters for its entire career. That said, the situation was well masked by the fact that it pretty much always had the advantages of altitude and air superiority.
In a fight like the Battle of Britain, which was all about interception, the P-47 would have struggled.
If you take the trouble to read about specific missions and how they were planned, you can see how escort squadrons were staged according to their aircraft’s capabilities.
Take Mission 250, on March 6, 1944. This was the USAAF’s first attack on Berlin. At that time the only aircraft that could reach Berlin was the Mustang. Most of the P-47s that day carried 478 gallons. A few carried 586 gallons - with the addition of a second 108 gallon drop tank.
This was because, in order to carry tanks under the wings, the aircraft had to be re-plumbed, a difficult job that required cutting a lot of panels. Apart from that, Republic took their sweet time getting around to making it a factory fit.
What this meant was that, even with that much fuel, the P-47 could barely get as far as Magdeburg. But in reality, most couldn’t even get that far.
Talk of the 200 gallon belly tank doesn’t make it clear which tank. Thee were two: the ferry tank, which was unsuitable for combat and the so-called ‘Brisbane’ tank, of which only about 3,000 were made for the Pacific theatre by Ford Australia in Brisbane. They were consumed quite quickly.
So the P-47’s range remained a problem for the duration. The -N didn’t fly in Europe so whatever that did doesn’t really count.
The P-51, despite its flaws, was the only fighter capable of flying to Berlin and back and taking on the Luftwaffe on its home ground and winning.
’We had nothing of the same effort. They really frightened us quite a bit.’ Werner Schroer (114 victories, talking about the P-51).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@feldweible
”WHen they’re using lies to dredge support for stripping the rights from millions of law abiding people.”
Lies? What lies?
As for stripping rights, nobody has proposed a total gun ban. You’d still be allowed to own guns.
”When they’re intending to disarm millions of people to make them defensless in the face of out of control crime waves that THEY helped create.”
Disarm? Nobody is proposing a total gun ban. In any case, the only people who see this as disarmament are gun nuts. Something like 90% of Americans support tighter gun laws.
As for blaming those in favour of tighter gun laws for violent crime, that’s just gun nut BS. Look at the gun lobby’s favourite Aunt Sally, Chicago. You all believe that Chicago’s crime problems are the result of ‘the toughest gun laws in the country’, which is nonsense. Chicago used to have a law banning guns in the central city area. From 1980 to 2010, murders went down slowly and in 2004 went under 500 for the first time in 50 years. Then McDonald v Chicago was upheld in the Supreme Court and that law was struck off. Guess what happened next? The murder rate spiralled out of control and hit 770 in 2016 and has remained there ever since.
This has been reflected around the country. In the 10 years from 2010, gun murders went up from 11,078 to 19,384, a jump of 8,306. Murder by other methods went up by 14. Guns are now the weapon on 79% of murders and that figure is still going up. In 2021, the total was 20,966. The US murder rate is now 7.8 per 100,000, compared to less than 1.0 per 100,000 for pretty much every peer nation. The gun murder rate alone is 6.1 per 100,000.
All this is due to the liberalisation of open carry, concealed carry and ‘stand your ground’ laws, which you clowns demanded. You have made it easier instead of harder for criminals to get guns and you are responsible for making sure they are the best armed criminals in the world. You have blood on your hands.
So don’t moan to me about your second amendment rights. As long as you don’t care about people being murdered with guns on a daily basis, everywhere from their homes to their schools and anywhere else where they should be safe, I don’t give a fuck about your second amendment rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GanjaBabyy And you expect me to believe that because you say so…?
The principal effect is the cavitation, not the fragmentation. This is determined by the speed of the bullet and tumbling, so fragmentation isn’t a factor. The secondary thing to point out is the difference in temporary an permanent cavities. In ’MISSILE INJURIES - High Velocity Missile Wounding Using Military Projectiles’, Corporal Martin Andrew summarises the performance of the 5.56mm round:
’The NATO 5.56 projectile’s tip does not deform, but separates from the rear lead core. This creates two deep wound channels and multiple fragments.’
That is the reason for the fragmentation. This refers to military rounds and not soft nose or hollow point projectiles.
The fragmentation is created by a number of factors but high velocity is the major one. The difference in medium, going from air at approximately 1.2kg per cubic metre to soft tissue at 1,000 - 1,100kg per cubic metre is another.
Also, most pistol rounds are not Spitzer-type bullets but round nosed and don’t tumble, resulting in much smaller permanent wound cavities.
I wish you self-appointed experts would actually do some research before accusing people of malfeasance, solely because it suits your political position. The performance of high velocity rounds has been known for over 40 years and there is next to nothing about this demonstration that is surprising to anyone who has done even cursory research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geekylove3603 No, I was making an assumption which I probably should not have. The crews on the ground, at the scene, if you like, are different in their work ethic or approach from those who work in studios, either making comment like Anderson Cooper or Laura Ingraham, or are overseeing the production.
The total focus of the crew on scene is to get the story. There's no editorialising or selective recording there. Despite what you hear about crews provoking or setting things up or even using crisis actors, that stuff doesn't happen. They just get what's going down.
Political reporters are usually among the best reporters you will find anywhere in that they have the ability to really ferret stuff out and they have a contact list that would blow most people's minds. The good ones hang around for a very long time. There are notable examples of others who while good, were not up to the Task. Jessica Savitch springs to mind. She was not a success on Capitol Hill.
This is not what the public sees.
The public sees Anderson Cooper, Laura Ingraham, etc. These people are hired for their views and connections, usually directly by management. This is where the likes of Rupert Murdoch have their influence. but that doesn't stop the public from making the direct connection between the crew on the ground, who face the angry man every day, and the pundit voicing their opinion in studio.
For the record, I seriously doubt that any serious pundit is going to change sides for a pay cheque.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, the media moguls know their markets very well. They know and understand their consumers' prejudices and demographic probably at least as well as any other industry and all they are doing is giving their market what it wants. Fox News changed that when they called the election for Biden but in reality, they had little choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Jack, I quote sources all the time. That should be obvious, even to you. You go over my posts and you’ll find that they might contain similar information, they are all different. That’s because I update my information all the time. To give you some idea, I n the last six weeks I’ve read:
’44 Days’, by Michael Veitch,
’Turning Point’ by Veitch,
’The Battle of the Bismarck Sea’, by Veitch,
’Darwin Spitfires’, by Anthony Cooper,
’Fire in the Sky’, by Eric Bergerud, which I’m currently making my way through.
Now, all of those are about the Pacific theatre, rather than Europe but that’s just the last six weeks, Jack. My research is rarely a matter of time or effort and more often than not, about money. So whether or not you doubt it is not terribly important. Each of us is making a judgement based on informed opinion. While this is not a pissing contest, I think I know which of us has made more of an effort.
1
-
Jack, it should be obvious, even to you, that I update my information all the time and I don’t do it just by watching YouTube videos.
In the past six weeks I have read;
’44 Days’, by Michael Veitch,
’Turning Point’, by Veitch,
’The Battle of the Bismarck Sea’, by Veitch,
’Darwin Spitfires’, by Anthony Cooper (best book I’ve read this year) and
’Fire in the Sky’, by Eric Bergerud, which I’m still making my way through.
That’s just in the last six weeks, Jack, in which time I also lost a close family member. Now, those are all about the Pacific theatre and this is not a pissing contest but I think I know who is making a bigger effort to ‘do more research’. So I’ll be trusting what I read and making informed judgements based on that, rather than taking life advice from you or some partisan YouTube channel.
That’s just what I read about air combat. Throw in politics and other histories, such as Mark Jones’ excellent ’1923’ and you can see that I spend a lot of time educating myself, in between my odd bit of casual university tutoring. My research is more often than not a matter of what I can afford to buy and I get a lot of my books second hand.
You go back over my posts and you’ll find that my information changes all the time. I frequently go over what I wrote a few months ago and notice what I now consider to be less reliable information. And most of that was information I could back up then, while what I post now I can back up with more and better sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis I have been crunching the numbers on this and there’s basically no difference. Yes: the P-51 suffered slightly higher casualties than the P-47 (1.18 to 0.73) but it also spent a lot more time in enemy territory than the P-47 did. In fact, the P-47 destroyed about 3,000 aircraft on the ground, while the P-51 destroyed around 4,000 - in half the number of sorties. These are USAAF figures.
The USAAF made no determination on how these aircraft were shot down, unlike the U.S. Navy. We know Johnny Godfrey was shot down by ground fire because there were witnesses but it isn’t recorded. There are, unfortunately, no figures for Flak, CFIT, collisions, pilot blackout or friendly fire. There aren’t even any figures for non-combat related losses. How anyone can determine the exchange rate for either the P-47 or P-51 is anyone’s guess.
The idea that the Mustang was some kind of liquid cooled death trap that could be brought down by a school kid with a slug gun is bollocks. And the more I look at the unadulterated USAAF figures, the more obvious it is that this is a BS argument.
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Since YouTube deleted my comments from the other thread, I’ll post them here.
Regarding the claim about P-47 claims being transferred to the P-51, there’s a saying in science that outrageous claims require outrageous amounts of proof. The information I posed comes from Francis Dean’s book, ’America’s Hundred Thousand’. The idea that the USAAF would make such a simple accounting error and then fail to correct it simply stretches credulity. Sorry but without a citation, I’m not buying it.
Furthermore, even if your figure of 3,200 for the P-51 is true, that’s still more than 3,000 for the P-47 and in half the number of missions. From memory, the P-47 flew about 746,000 missions in all theatres and shot down about 4,200 aircraft for the entire war. In North Western Europe, that figure is 3,000 or thereabouts, while losing almost exactly the same number in combat and non-combat related incidents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:25 Paul F. Crickmore, who has written more about the SR-71 than anyone, established that the Blackbird was probably successfully intercepted by Soviet aircraft about 85 times. This wasn’t merely a matter of talking to former Soviet interceptor pilots. It was about understanding how an intercept was achieved and what aircraft were used.
Crickmore describes this procedure in one of his many books (I think it was ‘SR-71: Beyond the Secret Missions’). It involved no fewer than six fighters to do it. The Soviets used a combination of MiG-25 and MiG-31 types and the mission had to be flown extremely precisely. The MiG-31, with its huge state-of-the-art PESA phased array radar (it was the first fighter in the world to have one) also carried the R-33 missile, which was quite capable of shooting down an SR-71 if launched within the right parameters.
Now, no doubt there are those who will claim - as some idiot always does - that the SR-71 could really go up to Mach 5 and the MiG-31 was commie junk and its R-33 missile had no chance of catching the Blackbird. This is also left in Limbo by the fact that the Americans have never admitted that any successful interceptions ever took place, unless it was by the Viggen. The influence of nationalism and political trench warfare is never far away from a topic like this.
No SR-71 was ever shot down and nobody is claiming it ever was.
By the fact remains that, following the introduction of the MiG-31 on the Kola Peninsula in 1983, it was only a matter of six years before the SR-71 went out of service. The official reason given was that satellites could now do everything. This was immediately proved to be nonsense after the outbreak of the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict, when the SR-71s capabilities were sorely missed and consideration was given to reinstating a couple of aircraft for a brief period. As great as it was, the career of the SR-71 could not last forever.
I have little doubt that someone here will call me an idiot or a commie or a ‘Russian stooge’ or naive for not having all the facts and that I should ‘do research’ (which presumably means ploughing through dubious internet material that conforms to someone else’s confirmation biases). Crickmore is a very credible author with contacts, not all of them publicly acknowledged, on both sides. His background as an air traffic controller means he understands intercept tracks and doubtless tracked SR-71 flights in and out of the UK. I will be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The tactics you refer to were known at the time as "Hutier tactics". They were originally proposed by a Frenchman, called Capitaine Laffargue, in 1915. Contrary to popular belief, they were not first used by Hutier at Riga but by General Aleksei Brusilov in the eponymous Brusilov Offensive in 1916. This is the problem with the lack of information (in English, at least) on the Eastern Front in WWI. While Brusilov sustained pretty heavy casualties in his implementation of these tactics, he was ultimately quite successful. Contrast that with the contemporary Battle of the Somme... Stormtrooper tactics were just infiltration tactics, mostly at a squad or platoon level.
The difference between what was done in WWI and what Rommel did in WWII is that Rommel fought as a division (I have a source for this comment).
There's no good comparing this with Napoleon either. One of the key concepts of all of this is that Laffargue built his idea around the concept of a rolling artillery barrage. That required accurately sighted guns firing reliable long range ammunition which would (theoretically) land just ahead of the advancing troops. Too long and the barrage is wasteful and may be ineffective. Too short and well... you get the idea. It could not be done with a Napoleonic muzzle loader.
In any case, the Germans get the credit for a lot of things they didn't invent. This is just one example. They might have implemented these things well, they might even have improved them to the point that they became much more effective. But they didn't invent them. It's just part of the same od thing where we, in the West, for reasons only we know, believe everything the Germans tell us. That goes for WWI and double for WWII.
So, without a more in depth understanding of the French campaign of 1940, it's easy to see German superiority in tactics, command structure and worst of all, technical aspects such as weapons, when in fact, this is still largely the product of German wartime propaganda. It's certainly true that their victory in 1940 stunned the world, no one more so than the British. But nobody was in any doubt about what they were doing or how they were doing it. It's just that their success was magnified by a number of command structural failures within the French army. It just happened that the Germans were, in 1940, the polar opposite in philosophy and it worked. Make no mistake about it: the German operation of 1940 were extremely high risk. There were in infinite number of things that could have gone wrong and completely reversed their fortunes. The campaign was not decided by German superiority but but a whole bunch of factors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterwebb8732
"Firstly, Britain is not and was not a Dictatorship."
Yet it's funny how the pro-Churchill crowd believed Winston could snap his fingers and stuff just happened.
Yet under Chamberlain, Britain was not a dictatorship...🤔
"To reiterate, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain was well aware of the lack of funding for the military and was privy to all the debates on the subject in Cabinet."
And he could only do so much.
"The unpreparedness of the military cannot have been a surprise to him, unless he was utterly incompetent."
I take it that this is the main thrust of your argument: 'that he was utterly incompetent'. If you bother to actually read something specific about this matter, you will pretty soon find that, whatever Chamberlain's shortcomings, he DID see it coming and he DID do something about it.
Try reading Laurence Thompson's excellent book, 'The Greatest Treason'. When you've finished that, read John Charmley's book, 'Chamberlain and the Lost Peace'. Now, I'll start by saying I didn't like Charmley's book but it does give a pretty good outline of how defence policy and rearmament changed under Chamberlain, so that when Britain was fighting for her life in 1940, her armed forces had what they needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reapersasmr5483 Solar panels last a lot longer than that. My parents house has had them for 30 years and they are still going. They just require regular cleaning to keep them efficient. Most recent data suggests they last at least double what you’re saying.
When I move to a different location late this year, I will either buy a house with solar panels already on it or I will have them fitted. The cost for a 10 kWh system will be between AU $8,000 and $13,000. At certain times of the day, a lot of the power generated will go back into the grid. As a result, I fully expect the system to pay for itself in about four years. Most people I know with systems that size receive credits from their power providers.
In two years time I will buy an EV. I’m not sure if it will be new or used. Recent testing by Stanford University shows that battery life has been underestimated by as much as 38% so I have no concerns that I will be buying a problem if I buy used. At that point it will be possible to be entirely independent of any power or fuel providers. Even if I was to charge off the grid an EV would still only cost about a fifth of what it costs to run an ICE. My current car is a hybrid and that still costs me about $2,500 a year in fuel alone. Charging off the grid will effectively be free, saving that $2,500 a year. Furthermore, most EVs have no service intervals so the only things you need to worry about are consumables like tyres, light bulbs and wiper blades.
There are Tesla Model 3s with 500,000 kms on them that have never had a service. Someone recently went looking and found a Model 3 that had more than 750,000 kms on it. That pales into insignificance compared to the highest mileage Model S (approximately 1.8 million kms). Even using the old figure of 500,000 kms for an EV, the battery degradation is no more than 10%.
The assumed lifespan for ICE is about 500,000 kms but that doesn’t show how much money would have to be laid out over that time in fuel and maintenance costs. The question isn’t who can afford to do it. It’s more who can afford not to do it. The solar panel/EV economy confers massive advantages. Not only does the initial cost layout save huge amounts of money, it means you’re no longer paying to keep some oil industry robber baron on his private island and that feels good to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leebenson4874 It’s not my opinion. It’s what they did. At the start of the war, RAF fighters had their guns harmonised to 400 yards. Gun camera film showed that, whatever range pilots wrote in their reports, many were opening up at double that. None of their shots would have hit their target. After the Spanish Civil War, the Germans harmonised their guns at 100 metres and following the Battle of France, the British did the same thing. The successful pilots were sometimes as close as 30 metres. When Bob Doe, who finished the war with a tally of 16, arrived at 234 Sqn, he asked how best to shoot down enemy aircraft, the acting squadron commander Flt Lt Pat Hughes told him to go as close has he could, then go closer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@92HazelMocha
" Right? They were able to break into the most protected network in the world, saw the plans for an aircraft, found the flaws in said plans then proceeded to make a superior aircraft. The whole thing is actually super impressive."
I suppose it would be if it were true. The incident everyone refers to is the notorious QinetiQ hack from 2007-2010, in which highly secret information about the F-35 was compromised. Just what was compromised has never been completely revealed but since QinetiQ were just one contractor out of literally hundreds, it would be highly unlikely that the hackers could ever have stolen a complete set of plans or specifications. Furthermore, the QinetiQ hack was a classic example of a smug contractor simply not doing enough to protect secret information. The stupidity of American contractors in this case is hard to fathom, especially when they were warned several times that this was a possibility.
There have been other relatively high profile examples of this but the QinetiQ hack remains the most famous and most hijacked by stupid people on the internet who copy everything they hear and repeat it, while simultaneously doing the very thing they accuse the Chinese of: copying. Superficial similarities are just that: superficial They don't confer the same performance on every type. When McDonnell engineers developed the F-15, they found that a few minor adjustments to the nose profile, including a barely-perceptible 1.5° nose down angle had a dramatic impact on drag. So superficial similarities don't indicate anything, other than a similar mission or performance envelope.
You cannot build an aircraft from a bunch of emails. Yet THAT is exactly what you idiots believe and expect everyone else to do the same thing. Furthermore, it's highly likely that US contractors changed things to cover up for their mistakes.
What the Chinese got out of this mostly related to the design of the diverterless intakes. Yet from this you infer that they were in full possession of absolutely every piece of information about the F-35. If that was the case then why didn't they just build an F-35?
Pretty much everything China has done since then has been self-developed, from engines to microchips to Rayleigh scattering. What is more is that more than 40% of Chinese graduates today are STEM, compared with the American figure of 20% and falling. The idea that a whole population was incapable of original thought is just racist stupidity, confirmed in an ignorant, uneducated, nationalist echo chamber. America - in fact, most of the West - made the same assumptions about the Japanese and it earned them a black eye in WWII.
In short, none of you has any idea how China works and none of you is interested or engaged enough to attempt to find out. You don't have a to be a member of the CPC or a communist and you don't have to be a fan of Xi Jinping. I'm not. You don't even have to visit China to find this stuff out. You just have to know what delusional nonsense look like when you see it.
1
-
@Jakery1057
"Copied even to the point that the canopy opens from back to front because they copied the marine f35 variant with the vertical lift fan. They literally copied it exact. They were clueless in understanding why American engineers did the canopy that way so just copied it.."
They didn't copy the lift fan. This jet doesn't have one.
The incident everyone bases this rubbish on is the notorious QinetiQ hack from 2007-2010, in which highly secret information about the F-35 was compromised. Just what was compromised has never been completely revealed but since QinetiQ were just one contractor out of literally hundreds, it would be highly unlikely that the hackers could ever have stolen a complete set of plans or specifications. Furthermore, the QinetiQ hack was a classic example of a smug contractor simply not doing enough to protect secret information. The stupidity of American contractors in this case is hard to fathom, especially when they were warned several times that this was a possibility.
There have been other relatively high profile examples of this but the QinetiQ hack remains the most famous and most hijacked by stupid people on the internet who copy everything they hear and repeat it, while simultaneously doing the very thing they accuse the Chinese of: copying. Superficial similarities are just that: superficial They don't confer the same performance on every type. When McDonnell engineers developed the F-15, they found that a few minor adjustments to the nose profile, including a barely-perceptible 1.5° nose down angle had a dramatic impact on drag. So superficial similarities don't indicate anything, other than a similar mission or performance envelope.
You cannot build an aircraft from a bunch of emails. Yet THAT is exactly what you idiots believe and expect everyone else to do the same thing. Furthermore, it's highly likely that US contractors changed things to cover up for their mistakes.
What the Chinese got out of this mostly related to the design of the diverterless intakes. Yet from this you infer that they were in full possession of absolutely every piece of information about the F-35. If that was the case then why didn't they just build an F-35?
Pretty much everything China has done since then has been self-developed, from engines to microchips to Rayleigh scattering. What is more is that more than 40% of Chinese graduates today are STEM, compared with the American figure of 20% and falling. The idea that a whole population was incapable of original thought is just racist stupidity, confirmed in an ignorant, uneducated, nationalist echo chamber. America - in fact, most of the West - made the same assumptions about the Japanese and it earned them a black eye in WWII.
In short, none of you has any idea how China works and none of you is interested or engaged enough to attempt to find out. You don't have a to be a member of the CPC or a communist and you don't have to be a fan of Xi Jinping. I'm not. You don't even have to visit China to find this stuff out. You just have to know what delusional nonsense look like when you see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brandon Ray The gun lobby has been comparing gun laws to prohibition for decades but there are several problems with that comparison. First of all, one of the major reasons prohibition didn’t work was corruption. Like they said in the movie, everyone knew where the booze was but the government and police were so riddled with corrupt people and practices that, in places like Chicago and Kansas City, it was impossible to administer. Secondly, drinking and drug taking are, like nudity, largely victimless crimes. When was the last time someone rolled over a 7-11 armed with a bag of drugs? When was the last time someone tried to shoot up a bunch of school kids with drugs?
So the real issue with those things is not the drugs themselves but the network. I’m actually in favour of legalising most drugs but it would require a kind of infrastructure we don’t have. Even then, the cost to the community would probably still be lower and it would eliminate an awful lot of criminal activity.
You may not be aware of this but the majority of your contraband comes in not by land but by sea and air, so your problems are not really that much different from ours. This is why there is opposition to Trump’s wall because there are many people who see it as a waste of money and that the money could be better utilised elsewhere.
Finally, the only people talking about total gun bans are the gun lobby. Sure the market goes underground but when the penalty goes up, the risk to the supplier goes up and so does the price. That’s why an AR-15 costs $34,000 in Australia. Not many people are going to spend that kind of money so they can shoot up a school or a nightclub and that has been the experience in Australia.
Tired of arguing? Cry me a river.
1
-
1
-
@mmmvtec90
"Haha and yeah I'm sure your right about 50% of self defense isn't self defense Haha. That's what we call a crime. Not self defense."
Take it up with Gary Kleck. His survey, his figures, his conclusion. And he's the one the gun lobby most likes to quote (Kleck & Gertz, 1995).
"It's easy to debunk what you said by common sense. 100% of self defense is self defense. And 100% of breaking the law is breaking the law. Theres a huge difference between the two."
Of course there is but it depends on whose story you believe (you know; all those alleged DGUs that go unreported... nothing suspicious about that...). The point is that a lot of things claimed to be self defence probably aren't. That's what Kleck was saying. And anyway, it may have escaped your notice but you are talking about people defending themselves against other people armed with guns!
"Your numbers mean nothing to the people who's lives were saved by the shooting instructor who shot the active shooter and the people who were all victims that lives were saved by their and bystanders firearms."
100% emotional argument. Shall I give you some figures? In 2010, there were 16,256 murders by all methods in the United States. 11,078 of those were with guns. That's 69%. That same year there were 617 defensive homicides, with 259 by civilians, of which 200 were with guns (nobody said it doesn't happen). That means for every justified homicide, there were 56 gun murders.
Guns save lives? Against who? Other people armed with fucking guns!! Yeah, right...great idea. The cost of such widespread gun ownership in the United States is not even allowed to be studied, thanks to a law brought by NRA aligned members of congress. The benefits are far outweighed by the cost in human lives alone.
The inescapable conclusion is that guns cause far more problems than they solve.
"The problem with your numbers and your type of people is that you consider criminals and armed robbers the victim."
LOL!! Now you're really getting emotional. I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth. Tell Gary Kleck. He's the one who said that between 35 and 65% of DGUs are probably illegal. And he's the gun lobby go-to guy for statistics.
"Criminals arent victims."
No shit? And simplistic, emotional arguments are a poor way to make decisions on public policy.
"So your stats about that I'd bet is far from accurate."
They're not my stats, you tit. They're Gary Kleck's! Where are your stats?
Get back to me when you've found something that can actually back up what you say, preferably something that doesn't resort to emotional arguments and faux logic. I can blow anything you say out of the water.
1
-
@mmmvtec90
"That means there were 259 innocent people who used their right to self defense."
Everyone has a right to self defence. It's not a justification for 11,078 gun murders.
"But here's the problem with this conversation. You gave me a statistic on the amount of defensive homicides so by your logic the only way someone can use a gun is by killing someone?"
No, that's your logic.
"What about the times that a gun was used for defense without firing a shot? The problem is that there isn't a statistic for lives saved."
Exactly and no country in its right mind would place any faith in such nebulous figures yet this is precisely what the gun lobby wants - nay, expects - us to do.
"Hownot wanting to deal with the hassle of reporting something and getting questioned etc."
I've never known the gun lobby to be backward about coming forward on DGU. It's totally inconsistent. Besides, do you think there could be other motives for not wanting to be questioned?
"By your logic a policeman is only doing his job if he kills the criminals?"
No, that's your logic again.
"your asking for statistics of lives saved."
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the number of people killed with guns in justified homicides is vastly outweighed by the number of gun murders. You can't just sweep that under the carpet.
"A good self defender will do everything not to shoot. Law abiding citizens arent out to murder people."
Spare me the virtue signalling please.
"But if shooting is necessary in the situation to save their life from a felon that is committing a crime and trying to take their life, then so be it."
If anything, the statistics show that these simplistic scenarios are far from commonplace. The NCVS shows about 65,00 per year. Now don't try to tell me that's 65,000 lives "saved" because, like your previous comments, there is no way of knowing what the felon's intention was in the first place.
"It's not as simple as looking at defensive homicides."
It's a pretty good start. If you were to extrapolate on those stats in the same proportion and use them on the NCVS stats, you'd come up with a figure of about 3,650,000 cases of people waving a gun around illegally.
"So I apologize but you haven't really blew self defensive gun use out of the water."
LOL!! We haven't discussed the specifics yet. And we never will because you don't have any. Here are some specifics: 11,078 compared to 200. That doesn't look too good for gun advocates.
"And you never will because every deserves the right to be able to protect themselves from criminals."
Motherhood statements...Jesus. Do you really, really think I don't know this?
"And since they more then likely will have a firearm why shouldn't we?"
That's the whole point: you have too many guns in circulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiaalexander3149
"Haha, Not much of a people person are you? Im sure you convinced this dudes hero Grandfather that he was wrong...Bravo."
Yes, let's start with the personal attacks. Always makes for a reasonable conversation. How dare I disagree or even dare comment?
"The 51 was 3 times as likely to get shot down by groundfire and about 8 times as likely to be brought down by a single bullet to the bottom of the engine according to side by side tests after the war."
And yet, it's not reflected in the stats.
So let's have a look at some individual unit examples. The 355th FG was the most successful unit for ground attack. They lost 41 in air-to-air and 90 in a mix of ground attack and Flak, which are hard to sort out. On the other hand, they destroyed 493 ground targets for a loss of 86 with the P-51 and 8 for 4 with the P-47.
The 78th FG destroyed 152 with the P-47 for a loss of 51, giving a ratio of 3:1. For the P-51, they destroyed 190.5 for 32 lost for a W/L of 5.9.
For 56th FG, there were 320 destroyed for 50 lost - 6.4:1 K/D.
These figures are from historian and author James William Marshall.
78% of 8th Air Force ground kills were by P-51s, while 18% were by P-47s.
The 'one bullet and it's all over' argument is a hoax. Next thing you'll be telling me German riflemen aimed at the radiators! LOL! GA pilots were much more likely to fall victim to 1) enemy aircraft 2) Flak (20mm and above) or 3) collision. That's why it's the most dangerous mission.
"A kindergarten level of research is showing almost everything you say incorrect ."
And personal attacks are usually a sign of a weak argument. They don't work on me.
"The d25 did have 750 gallons of internal feul according to the pilots manual "
Totally wrong. The D-25 had an internal capacity of 305 gallons. No P-47 ever carried 750 gallons internally. You tell me what page that was on in the pilot's manual because I don't believe you. If it could have carried that much fuel then it wouldn't even have needed drop tanks at all to get to Berlin and the argument is nonsense. But the USAAF planning makes a nonsense of what you're claiming.
"47s were escorting to berlin and deepermonths before the d25 and 51s arrived ."
No way. The P-47, when fitted with a 108 gallon drop tank - which is all most of them could carry in early 1944 - could not get past the Dutch border. A small number, maybe 20%, had been re-plumbed to carry drop tanks under the wings. This was a slow process that had to be done in the field by sweating, swearing crews cutting metal to do it. This was because Republic had failed to address Materiel Command's requirements for more internal fuel. Everyone else did it except Republic.
No P-47s went to Berlin until after D-Day. The first major USAAF raid on Berlin was on 6 March, 1944 and on that raid, no P-47 got past Magdeburg. All the escort work over Berlin was done by P-51s. No P-47 could get to Berlin until the late versions, like the -M, with 370 gallons internally. By then it was too late and US fighters based on the continent could already get to Berlin anyway.
"The 47 flew 4 times as many operational hours in the first quarter of 44 and twice as many in the second quarter ."
That's because there were twice as many of them. In fact, there were eight times as many at the end o 1943. And there were four times as many at the beginning of March. But let's not stop there. When the first P-51 Fighter Group became operational in December, 1943, there were eight P-47 groups and one, soon to be two, P-38 groups. During 'Big Week' the P-47 shot down about 250 German aircraft, while the P-51 got about 50. By March, the P-51 got around 250, compared to about 150 for the P-47. By April, when there were now four FGs operating the Mustang, the P-47 got 82, compared to 329 for the P-51. And it did this with half the number of aircraft. So, in fact, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.
"So the 51 didnt "ascend "until after dday."
Rubbish.
"Your "cope" of the 51 dealing with more german flak ignores the entire 9th airforce ,also why does the 47 have a better loss rate than the p40,p38,f4f,f6f,f4u,spitfire and hurricane all thoise planes didnt have to deal with the same level of german flak either but the 47 has the best loss rate of all of them ."
You're going to need to provide some specific and/or anecdotal evidence of this. If you go back to the GA figures I gave earlier, the specific squadrons show remarkably similar loss rates. Yet you lump all those other types in as though they were all operating under the same conditions. You even included the F4F, F4U and F6F. Cute. I suppose you hoped I wouldn't notice...? How many F4Fs were flying GA missions over Germany in 1944?
You have totally chosen to ignore the concentration of Flak on German soil as the Wehrmacht contracted into Germany. All pilot memoirs from that era talk about it. And this was what the P-51 had to deal with, while all the others were doing shorter range stuff into Northern France, Holland and Belgium. The P-51, because of its range, went far deeper into German territory than any other type.
"Your "survivorship bias " nonsense is not the win you think it is , you saw a meme and now you think you have some trump card ."
Before you dismiss it because it doesn't suit your personal prejudices, you should actually find out what survivor bias is because you clearly don't know. You're happy to look at the P-51s that didn't get back and say 'Oh well, that was just a less survivable aircraft' without bothering to find out why. Your unwillingness to consider it suggests it actually would be a trump card if you bothered to research it.
"Survivorship bias was well understood in the second half of the war and easily controlled for ,you post the definition but you still cant see the fault ."
Oh, ha, ha. Very funny. You reveal how little you understand this by edging to the original narrow definition involving the placement of armour plating. Survivor bias can involve anything from Darwin's Theory of Evolution to company failures. You need to research this.
"Using pilot reports of the damage to both types of aircraft and controlling for survivorship bias statistically by factoring in loss rates makes the effect of the bias negligible.
in fact you're engaging in a type of survivorship bias called publication bias by only posting "facts" that support your claim without posting the whole story ."
This is a bluff. Show me the breakdown. Come on then, cough up. I don't believe you. You don't have the level of exhaustive information necessary to make that claim. You're bluffing. Come on: give me 'the whole story', as you put it.
"Half of the ground kills were claimed in a single month...april 1945 . These are abandoned aircraft with no fuel ,ammo or pilots being shot up over and over ,not well defended airfields ."
So what? Show me a reference for this.
"I think you mean well, youre just misinformed."
References show I'm better informed than you. Anyone who has done enough reading on this knows that there's no 'debate' about which was the better of the two. The P-47, good as it was, wasn't even in the same postcode as the P-51. And this comes from someone who thought the P-47 was underrated and the P-51 overrated until I researched it. The P-51 was just a much better aircraft and that's why the Eighth Air Force happily handed over its P-47 fleet to the Ninth Air Force for Ground Attack duties. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft than the P-47 and destroyed 30% more ground targets in literally half the number of missions. (423,000 v 213,000).
More than any other type - including the Spitfire, which actually shot down more aircraft - it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobh1208
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
1
-
@bobh1208
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
1
-
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208
1
-
@bobh1208
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
1
-
@bobh1208
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
1
-
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208
1
-
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208
1
-
@bobh1208
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
1
-
"Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)."
Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it.
The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen.
"Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances."
A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse.
Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work.
As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it.
The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
In half the number of missions.
If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'.
By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%.
"Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter."
Are you saying the P-51 was not needed?
This is a super important question.
"I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?"
You tell me.
It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly.
Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost.
If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block.
"But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields."
The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields.
"So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)."
What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47.
And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really?
"So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)."
Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective.
These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'.
By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis
"The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed"
Not exactly.
Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful.
It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*.
As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought.
Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s.
*As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters.
1
-
@jacktattis
"The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed"
Not exactly.
Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful.
It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*.
As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought.
Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s.
*As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters.
1
-
@jacktattis
"The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed"
Not exactly.
Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful.
It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*.
As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought.
Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s.
By the way, this is not intended to downplay the role of the RAF - particularly Bomber Command - but they had little to do with the P-47 in this context.
*As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters. @jacktattis
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobh1208
"And, regarding the original comment above about his grandad... yup... and something like 7 of the highest scoring 10 Allied aces of the European theater did so in P-47's... and, all 7 survived the war."
There could be any number of explanations for that. Pure luck springs to mind. Don't forget that George Preddy was killed by American AA while chasing a Focke-Wulf at extremely low altitude. Preddy survived the crash but died shortly afterwards. That was the nature of low flying, whatever your mount.
P-51s statistically had at least twice the likelihood of engaging than P-47s (number of missions compared to number of kills) did and outscored them at an even higher rate. There were a lot more P-51 aces than P-47.
"Also, for the fudgers, Eric Brown's (rare) nonsense about the P-47's Mach number in a dive is easily dismissed, by the results of much more comprehensive testing by both the U.S. and Brits, as can be seen in a YouTube video by a dedicated researcher who does consider Brown to be an all-time pilot."
Greg Gordon again. I'll give him credit for a couple of things. First of all, he's researched it and secondly, he's stuck at it. But Greg is not a historian. He's made it his business to prove the P-47 was better than the P-51 but has used an extremely narrow focus. At this stage he has enough followers that he seems to be trying to convince himself. His lack of breadth and nuance consigns a lot of what he says to the bin.
So here's a neat calculation for you. The speed of sound at 20,000 feet is about 709 mph. The Mcrit for the P-47 was 0.71 which translates to 503 mph. The VNE was 500 mph IAS. That doesn't mean it wasn't dived at higher speeds. There's a lot of bollocks talked about the Spitfire but I don't know what its Mcrit was. I do know that the Spitfire was dived at Mach 0.92 but there's no way the Mcrit was that high. It might have been 0.75 (it will always be less than 1) but I don't actually know.
The point is that Mcrit is the speed - expressed not in miles per hour but as a percentage of the speed of sound - at which the free stream airflow becomes sonic at some point on the airframe, most critically, over the wing. The S-3 airfoil was very, very different from that used on the P-51 which was genuinely revolutionary. We hear a lot about the P-51's laminar flow wing but there's a lot more to it than that and it's to do with the section. If the P-51's Mcrit was 0.78 then there is no way the P-47 was any higher. It just isn't possible if you understand transonic aerodynamics. The P-47 may have been dived at a higher speed but it doesn't mean the Mcrit changed. It can't.
The addition of dive flaps would not have changed it. It would have changed the aircraft's controllability but not its Mcrit.
As a professional pilot Greg should understand this. If he does and he hasn't mentioned it... But that's not the only thing Greg doesn't tell you.
"and yet, there were other pilots, some of them less skilled, who shot down more opponents than Brown... some of them by specializing in catching up to FW-190's in a dive, fwiw."
I'm not sure what this means.
"And, by the way, toward the end of the war, the 56th squadron got one hundred and thirty P-47M fighters that, since they had been tested to 470 mph in level flight, were the fastest of all piston-engine fighters of WWII to see any noteworthy combat."
I addressed this earlier. I have serious doubts it was 56. Also the trouble with arguments about top speeds is like black cats. Lots of people have black cats but someone's cat is always blacker than everyone else's. It isn't really pertinent to the debate.
"The beauty of the P-51, however, was that they cost little more than half as much as a P-47, and, used less fuel per mission. And, were easier to fly. Cheap and cheerful, and pretty to boot!"
Cost was never a factor. Range was. If you read Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff Gen. Barney Giles from August, 1943, he makes no mention of cost. In fact, Arnold actually says he doesn't care if they develop a whole new aircraft as long as it does the job in six months. In other words, cost was not a factor. By the time the -M actually arrived in service, 56 had been on Mustangs for months.
If you want more on the comparative performance of the P-47 and P-51, it's pretty easy to find. Google 'WW2 aircraft performance'. Remember though that the comparative data is for British Thunderbolt II and Mustang III types. The Thunderbolt II was the rough equivalent of the P-47D-25, while the Mustang III was, in effect, a P-51C with the Malcolm hood but without the 85 gallon fuselage tank behind the pilot, so the range performance is very different. But by every other metric, the Mustang was the better aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zachary77 Not an excuse for doing nothing about guns.
The number of people who died from gunshot last year was nearer 44,000 with 19,384 murdered. The number of people who died in car crashes last year was around 36,000. But hey, we have car control and it works. Licensing and registration, training and testing and roadworthiness have meant that the road toll has actually gone down consistently over the last half a century, while gun deaths, especially illegal ones, have gone up. On top of that, consumers have far more rights to sue car manufacturers than they do to sue gun manufacturers.
So yes, let’s do it the way we do it for cars. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
And the bit about blaming the inanimate object… that’s just a variation on the old “guns don’t kill” shibboleth. You should drop it. It makes you sound callous and stupid. These inanimate objects make it extremely easy to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. Why do you think Stephen Paddock and Omar Mateen didn’t use spoons?
As for the problem being “rising EVIL”, when the FBI or the CDC identifies evil as being the problem, then maybe we can look at it. But they don’t. They identify the widespread and easy availability of guns to people who shouldn’t have them instead. Your naïveté is completely valueless here. Proper scientific research shows it every time. The FBI did a study of active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013 and didn’t identify rising evil. Perhaps you should tell them. They identified all manner for other common traits but rising evil wasn’t one of them.
1
-
1
-
@matthewlarue1883
"Freedom comes at a cost and that means bad people do horrendous things sometimes, but it doesn't mean that we should give away our freedoms to defend ourselves."
Nice way to justify selfishness. In other words, you're okay with a murder rate that's at least seven times the murder rate of any peer nation (don't try to pretend that your social problems are any different from anyone else's). You don't get to dictate other people's freedom. In fact, thee's a pretty fair argument today that most Americans are living under a gun lobby dictatorship. You've persuaded the government to outsource personal security to a bunch of johnnies with no training, no understanding of the law and no life experience. And as a result of the liberalisation of concealed carry, open carry and stand your ground laws, you not only have a murder rate which is totally our of kilter with any peer nation, you've only made it easier for bad guys to get guns.
"Just because a person takes a tool and decides to kill a bunch of kids with it doesn't mean you blame the tool. You blame the person and the people that didn't raise them properly."
So anything but reasonable gun laws then? There's no such thing as a perfect family background so society can only move as fast as its slowest individual. That means laws. And don't bother telling me that gun control doesn't work because it's worked in all the peer nations its been tried in (UK, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand). Also the old one about the black market is a ruse because as certain types of guns are outlawed, the black market cost rises spectacularly, putting the vast majority of house breakers, muggers and convenience store robbers out of the market.
"I am really trying to figure out what changed."
Well, lots of things actually. Rapidly rising inequality, a bunch of disaffected war veterans returning from a bunch of overseas conflicts, widespread availability of extremely powerful firearms, a coup at the 1977 NRA convention in Cincinnati and a gun industry that delivers saturation advertising, much of it extremely questionable. Those are just a few.
"The one big thing of note were the hippies and pushing of far left ideologies and feminism."
So how does this shift lead to young people blowing away classrooms full of children? If anything, those shooters who left manifestos - and many have - have expressed feelings that are more in line with yours than those of what you call the hippies and the left. Those people - along with feminists - are normally opponents of gun groups and tend to express more inclusive deals. Meanwhile, gun groups advocate things like cultural Marxism and replacement theory, which is fundamentally divisive.
"Basically the destruction of traditional families and parenting is what I am leaning towards, but I could be wrong."
Well, we could all be wrong, including me. But this navel gazing isn't going to fix the problem. 90% of Americans are in favour of expanding gun restrictions rather than liberalising them. And every time the government has put up a bill to restrict criminals and people with profound mental illness from owning or possessing guns, the gun lobby has opposed then shouting, "Shall not be infringed". and every time there's another massacre, they say the same thing. In fact, last year alone, Ted Cruz collected $442,000 from the US gun lobby to block reasonable gun control laws. Between Cruz, John Cornyn and Steve Scalise, they collected over a million dollars last year in what any other national government would call a conflict of interest. Others might call it bribery.
And while all this is going on, 48 Americans are murdered every day with guns. I think America has a lot to learn from from the experience of other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zachthacker7785
"the Hollywood shootout mentioned in this video were ILLEGALLY modified so if you really think criminals will not find a way as they always do considering the insane drug issue in this country you are delusional."
Do you really think this is a rational argument?
This old thing about "criminals don't obey the law" is total BS. The fact is that by taking no action, you are only making it easier for criminals to get guns. What kind of stupid argument is that? When you ban a type of gun and it goes to the black market, it actually makes it harder to get them. Being in possession of an illegal weapon is a crime and punishable. That means there is risk to the seller and as even a child knows, when risk goes up, price goes up. An AR-15 costs $1,100-1,200 in the United States. That same gun in Australia costs around $35,000. That's going to put the vast majority of crooks out of the market.
So by doing nothing about guns, you are helping criminals to get them.
"Criminals do not care at the end of the day and if a bad guy breaks into your home trying to harm you who do you call? A good guy with a gun."
Did you think of this all by yourself?
The "good guy with a gun" ruse has been disproved more times than you've had hot dinners. So far this year there have been just 723 DGUs in the US, compared with 12,422 gun murders (as of 10 August). The "good guy with a gun" ruse was designed to make gun owners feel good about themselves, when you're actually the dregs of society who need to accessorize your personalities with lethal weapons to get people to take you seriously. It was designed to do nothing but sell more guns.
"These people could have done just as much damage with a handgun."
Apparently you didn't watch this video. High velocity rounds do a lot more damage than most hand gun rounds. The fact is that statistically speaking, you are a lot more likely to die from a high velocity bullet than a pistol bullet. Apparently this simple fact went straight over your head.
"It will not stop until the mental health issue is confronted and figured out."
You people are disgustingly dishonest. When you start funding mental health initiatives I'll believe you're serious. You don't care about mental health. You're just using it as an excuse to do nothing about guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joetomas8467 You should proof read your posts. You should also have listened to what Bernard actually said. Tigers were a lot more than just expensive to build. They required an extensive and expensive support network - the complete opposite of the Sherman. This was a poor use of resources. There is also a lot more to combat effectiveness than cost per tank destroyed. Tanks do not exist solely to destroy other tanks. That would be a pointless exercise at best. Unfortunately, when games like World of Tanks reduces armoured combat to that level, people’s understanding of tank warfare is necessarily affected by it. The Tiger was designed to destroy enemy tanks and was very good at it but it was also supposed to be a breakthrough tank. While it could do that, it was not a good tank for exploiting a breakthrough. In purely objective terms, the Tiger’s mission was fuzzy at best and confusing at worst.
And if we’re going to continue with silly 1v1 Tiger v Sherman comparisons, you’d do well to remember a couple of things about the Sherman. First of all, you are comparing a medium tank with a super heavy tank. Secondly, you are judging the effectiveness of the Sherman solely on a 1v1 with a Tiger, which was a rare event. In terms of infantry support, breakthrough and exploiting a breakthrough, the Sherman was a much better tank. That’s before we even start to talk about logistical support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wish more people would take this stuff seriously. I'm Australian. We use what's known as the "Washminster system", a combination of the British and US federal systems: Westminster and Washington. Federally, we have a bicameral system (two houses) and we are a federation, like the US. We have three levels of government: federal, state and council, which is why many people believe we are over governed.
The two houses are the lower house and the senate. The lower house is elected by preferential voting and the upper house - which is elected by state - means the entire senate system is basically proportional representation.
One of the more controversial aspects as far as Americans are concerned is that our head of state is the King. His representative in Australia is the Governor General. The leader of the government - the Prime Minister - is elected by the party in the lower house with the largest number of seats. Voters don't actually have much of a choice and while that might be a problem, every voter basically knows who the leader of the government is going to be, which ever party wins, when they vote, in the same way America does.
We also have a system here which would never be accepted in the United States: compulsory voting. If you don't vote, you get fined. No American is ever going to agree with that. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says that Australian elections are fought in the centre. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. Another thing that has contribute to that has been the decline in the two-party system. In our most recent election, the biggest factor was the rise of what were called 'Teal independents' - basically 'blue' (which in Australia means conservative, as does "Liberal") but with green policies. A lot of moderate hard and conservative candidates lost their seats to these Teal candidates.
The more diverse the candidates, combined with the preferential system, makes for a much higher level of democracy because your candidate has, in effect, a louder voice than in a two party system when party bosses talk of 'loyalty' and enforce it with some brutality.
Our system is not perfect. I suppose sooner or later someone will find a flaw in it an exploit it but for the time being, it works. I expect that at some point we will become a republic, simply by replacing the King with the Governor General as head of state. But in fact, the British monarchy has nothing to do with running Australia and virtually never has.
We have postal voting and early voting and we love it. It works. So people's opportunity to vote is pretty good, which it should be because you get fined if you don't.
You also need to be active politically if you want democracy to survive. Stop complaining and write to your local member (Rep.). That's the only way anyone is ever going to know what the public wants and it reminds them they're being watched.
Good video Joe. Really well done. Anyone who has a problem with this content is beyond help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardwilliams6132 When the proposal was made to mass produce the Merlin, Ford (Birmingham) sent an engineer to look at the production line at Crewe. After two weeks he told Hooker and Lovesy, ‘We can’t build this engine.’ Hooker jokingly said, ‘What’s the matter? Are our tolerances too tight for you?’ The Ford man replied, ‘No, too loose.’
The fact was that the Merlin was never designed with mass production in mind so all Merlin’s were essentially bespoke engines. Ford needed any part to fit any engine, which required much tighter tolerances than what Roll Royce were using because they were making up the difference with shims.
In conjunction with Ford, Rolls Royce redrew all the plans and the Merlin became a mass produced engine.
Packard was a beneficiary of this. The change they made was not to split the crank but to split the crankcase, a modification which, while adding weight, became standard on all Merlins and cure the reliability problems of the Merlin 45.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was an excellent piece. I'd add one thing, just for interest.
During the Beerhall Putsch, 15 Nazis, four Bavarian policemen and a civilian were killed in the fighting, in the north eastern corner of the Odeonsplatz. The man marching next to Hitler was holding a red swastika flag*. He was shot through the throat and killed instantly. As he fell, he dragged Hitler down with him, dislocating Hitler's shoulder. When the Nazis came to power, the bodies of the 15 Nazis and one civilian (adopted as an honorary Nazi) were dug up and reburied in an open air mausoleum in the Königsplatz in Munich. Every year ceremonies were held at both the site of the fighting and the mausoleum to make sure that those people were canonised. A plaque was put up on the side of the Feldherrnhalle, the three-arched logia where most of the fighting took place. Thereafter it had a permanent guard on it and people had to give the Nazi salute whenever they went past it. Symbolism is a central theme in fascism.
In November 2023 I arrived in Munich at about 6 am. After checking into my hotel I decided to go for a walk. It was while I was walking through Munich, a city I know quite well, that I realised that it was November 9, 2023, exactly 100 years to the hour since that battle. Curiosity propelled me to the site. As I stood on the corner of the Odeonsplatz, pretty much in the spot where the fighting took place, about a dozen rather scruffy looking men came marching up the street in white tee shirts. As they got closer I realised they had large red blotches on them. As they reached the spot next to me, their leader suddenly raised his fist and yelled, "Freiheit!" and they all symbolically fell to the ground. I was one of the few people to see it and I am not honoured by that distinction.
I have been reading about fascism for 20 years. In the next few months the American Congress will pass a raft of legislation that will neuter every arm of democracy. They will tell you it is necessary because America is under threat. Gutting the civil service is part of the plan. The courts will back it and everything will become a sham legal process. Eventually, Congress will become nothing more than a rubber stamp and power will come from Trump and those who influence and even control him. Trump will rule by decree. The Democrats must do everything they can to prevent this. I don't know how they're going to do it because they don't have a majority. There would be no incentive and every disincentive in the world for Republicans to betray their loyalty to Trump. It's a huge task. This is how it has played out, not only in the two fascist governments I have read about but also in the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. But forewarned is fore armed. For the rest of you, write to your reps or call them up. Tell them. It doesn't matter if they're MAGA loyalists.
It matters that you get involved while you can. It might be you who stands between democracy and dictatorship.
* That blood-soaked flag became the notorious 'Blutfanne' ('Blood Flag'). It was used to 'consecrate' every Nazi battle flag and disappeared after the war. To this day its whereabouts are unknown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klauslehrmann4927
"The constitution says for the people to have right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government."
The Constitution is silent on tyrannical government. Dude.
"Using your gun for such is not taking the law into your own hands."
It absolutely is.
"You are typing that defending yourself against a tyrannical government, as well as against a nutcase with a gun, is vigilanteism, and that you should wait for law-enforcement to rescue you."
I thought you'd say that. The gun nuts always make that assumption. 1) If you're going to take on government with a gun, it's a long term thing and YOU HAVE TO WIN. There's no alternative because if you lose, the government will either jail you for the rest of your sorry life or execute you. 2) The one thing that's abundantly clear is that the gun lobby's definition of tyranny is rather different from most other people's. 3) The difference between defending yourself from a home invader and taking on government in a shooting war is pretty stark.
"If there was not a right to keep and bear arms, there would still be nutcases to protect yourself from."
Look at the figures from other modern democracies and you will see that the numbers of people you need to protect yourself from are much, much lower and that is also reflected in murder statistics.
"Regardless of guns being legal or not, anyone with bad intentions will still get guns ilegally."
This is a bullshit argument. NEWSFLASH! NOBODY is proposing making guns illegal, just some of them or, more precisely, expanding the list of those which are already banned. You cannot own a machine gun, for example.
Secondly, have you seen what happens when a government outlaws a certain type of gun? The black market price goes through the roof, which pretty much eliminates virtually every casual crook. In the United States, an AR-15 costs between $1,000 and 1,200 delivered. That same gun in Australia costs $34,000. How many casual crooks - or even those who plan - are going to be able to afford those? Basically none. Once again, this is reflected in statistics.
"I wish we had a 2A here in Denmark."
Denmark is one of the safest countries on the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TommyTombstone
"If you remove the 5 cities with the strictest gun control (and worst gang violence, coincidentally) the US drops almost to the bottom of the world in terms of homicide rate."
This is not true. If you look at this list you will see that all but a few major cities have larger murder rates than most neo-liberal democracies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
You can't just remove a few cities because they make you look bad.
"Yet we have 400 million legally owned guns. Think about it."
This is both unknown and unknowable because you don't have registration.
"I'm not going to debate the individual right to self-defense with a bootlicker 😂 you wouldnt get it."
Go on, run away. LOL!! 😂😂😂
"Like it or not, the 2A isnt just about self-defense, or sporting purposes, or hunting. It's about protecting We The People from all forms of oppression, foreign or domestic."
No it's not. The idea of the 2A was to maintain an effective civilian militia.
"Tyrannical government is supposed to be afraid of American gun owners, that's the point."
Highly unlikely. Nobody is afraid of American gun owners in that context.
"And so too are any who may wish to invade."
America is protected by logistics. It would be extremely difficult to invade because the country is protected by two large oceans. When you consider how difficult it was to invade Western Europe on D-Day, it's pretty obvious why crossing a couple of oceans would be next to impossible. Civilian-owned guns would play no part at all.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Fake quote.
"if someone is threatening my life, they won't get a fair fight. Nor should they."
If someone is truly threatening your life then you are allowed to respond in kind. I don't even see a difference.
"Now give her a gun. All of a sudden she has a chance to save her life. Get it?"
I'll tell you what you don't get: people. Just having a gun is no guarantee that it would make a lick of difference to the out come. It may even make it worse. Just having a gun doesn't mean they can use it properly. Even then, an elderly woman can be easily disarmed and the weapon turned on them. You gun humpers are full of these rose-tinted solutions where guns save the day but in reality, you know nothing about people and you presume that they have the same outlook as you do.
There are plenty of alternative solutions to that scenario. You just haven't thought of them.
Get it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TommyTombstone first off: define what you mean by a gun ban in the context of what you are saying. No country on the planet has an absolute gun ban. Not even North Korea. Venezuela doesn't have an absolute ban on guns either;
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/venezuela
"USSR, gun ban."
Please expand on this; I'm fascinated to think what you can tell me of Soviet History, since I'll take a bet I have read a lot more about it than you have. In fact, the Russian Civil War was especially bloody because of the number of guns which had been appropriated from the armories by rebel soldiers as the army units went over to supporting the Reds. Perhaps you'd like to expand on this.
"Maoist China, gun ban."
How many people owned guns in pre-Maoist China? Almost nobody. It was a poverty-stricken agrarian peasant society. Nobody had guns and nobody had any need for guns so this claim is spurious at best. There were no guns to ban.
"Nazi Germany, gun ban."
Not true. Nazi Germany actually expanded the rights of Germans to own guns in 1938. The only exception was for Jews. Now tell me how this changed anything. It didn't.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr
"What followed, without question? Mass murder, government overreach, and genocide."
How would privately owned guns have prevented this?
Now, I reiterate, none of these countries is comparable to the United States or any other neo-liberal democracy such as the countries of Western Europe, Japan, Australia or New Zealand.
"It's not a matter of "if" a gun ban will lead to oppressive government, it's a matter of when."
Since no country has ever implemented a total gun ban, it's never been a factor in your Lion King fantasy version of history.
You're a liar. You might not even realise it because you've been brainwashed by self-interest and NRA sloganeering but you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryansmith1115
"there should be laws such as those that strip city and state prosecutors from charging someone who has to defend themselves against a violent criminal"
That would immediately turn everything into the Wild West. Probably the most naive thing I've ever heard of. You shoot someone you don't like the look of and tell the police you were being attacked by a violent criminal and you can't be charged. All on your word alone (because the perp is presumably dead).
Yeah, that should work. Not.
There's a reason why police investigate these things and they don't usually indict someone unless they believe there's a good chance of conviction. In which case you would be arguing that the shooter shouldn't be charged. Police don't just charge on a whim. If they think excessive force was used or that the shooter's story doesn't make sense, then the shooter f*%$ing well should be indicted.
The American gun lobby is the only group on the planet that thinks this way. This crap doesn't happen at anything like the same rate anywhere else in the free world (Western Europe, UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand).
The great American experiment to outsource personal security to a bunch of low-education, low-intelligence, low self-esteem johnnies with guns has been a deplorable failure and its legacy is written in a trail of blood and bodies. 20,966 people murdered with guns in 2021 alone. 19,384 murdered with guns in 2020. That's more than 40,000 people in two years. In three years there will have been more people killed with guns in American than in the entire Vietnam War. Disgraceful.
This is not 'woke leftist BS' either. It's easily provable (try me). Anyone who thinks that more guns and more 'self defense' will reduce violent crime probably believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaseviking5096
"go look up Chicago, NY a d California and their crime rates over the years as more and more gun control gets implemented. They are the top 3 places for gun control and hold the most amount of crime compared to anywhere else. It's not hard to look up these things called statics."
LOL!! This is living, breathing proof that the gun lobby and its acolytes (that's you) doesn't understand rates. You find it easy to believe the polar opposite of the truth because it suits you.
Here are some statistics for you and they are 100% verifiable. Look them up.
New York and LA are very large cities and naturally, they will have the largest amount of crime, hence bigly numbers, simply because of population size. But they are far from the worst places. Los Angeles ranks 62nd on the list of worst cities by rate and New York ranks 80th. But hey, don't believe me. Look it up for yourself. These are police stats. They're not some randomly generated list to make the gun lobby look bad. It doesn't need any help with that.
As for Chicago... now there's the gun fraternity's favourite Aunt Sally. You shouldn't get your statistics from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Look at the history of gun violence in Chicago and all is not what it seems. In 1980, Chicago implemented a no guns in the city area policy and over the next 30 years, gun crime slowly and through peaks and troughs, abated. In 2004, the number of annual murders went under 500 for the first time in half a century. Then in 2010, the Supreme Court, following on from 'Heller v DC, ruled in 'McDonald v Chicago', that a citizen was allowed to keep a firearm for self-defense. The number of murders spiked, reaching 770 in 2016 and hit 800 in 2021. This is all due to the relaxation of gun laws pertaining to open and concealed carry and 'stand your ground'; laws that have been responsible for a 90% increase in gun murders alone across the US since 2010.
A rising tide lifts all ships mate and those who wanted a gun for protection included criminals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More likely the other way round. This comes from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
P-47 Thunderbolt
Sorties: 423,435
Combat Losses: 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange: 2.04
P-51 Mustang
Sorties: 213,873
Combat losses: 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange: 3.60
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Greg Marks
"USA couldn't defeat the Taliban..how was a second rate Afghan army going to win. There was no warning either to anyone...allies. We hear now that money and supplies from US were being taken by the Taliban ..going back months."
Sorry to disappoint you but it goes back a lot further than that and is a lot more complicated. The answer starts with what the West - and in particular, the United States - was trying to achieve. G.W. Bush gave us "The War on Terror", which opened the way for the US to be involved in an indefinite war against an almost indefinable foe. This had never really been done before and there had probably never been such a gulf between the two forces.
When the international missions stopped, the West placed its hopes in the Afghan army and the air force it had built for them. They were well equipped and well trained. The men themselves were good fighting men and much of the heavy lifting was done by them under mostly US administration.
Now, I can cite all the usual stuff about the government - corruption, self-interest - but that doesn't even scratch the surface. To take that as a full explanation - as I'm sure many will - is to kid oneself. Yes, it was a significant factor but there's a lot more to it. Afghanistan is a country which is not a country and has steadfastly refused to become one. A central government is about as much use as a hip pocket in a tee shirt.
And a defence force is just as irrelevant for the same reason.
Those who have been there (I know many) will tell you that Afghans place their family first, their tribe second, Islam third and their country a very distant last.
So when you imagine an Afghan soldier a long way from home, hasn't been paid for months, is no longer supported by any international presence and is poorly supplied because everything has been looted and is expected to fight a battle which is only of interest to someone else - and that someone else was an invader - where is the incentive to fight? These people aren't cowards and they're not stupid either. They were expected to fight for something they did not believe in. No soldier is at his best under those circumstances.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/coming-to-terms-with-americas-undeniable-failure-in-afghanistan/
https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/debunking-the-myths-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/
https://lynneodonnell.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-afghanistans
But the point is that this whole thing was doomed from the start by stupid assumptions, principally that Afghans were like Westerners and had the same desires in their lives. The truth in that is limited. They don't care about democracy and they are not interested in consumerism. The sooner the West comes to terms with that, the better. The withdrawal from Afghanistan has been planned for years, over successive US administrations, until the final terms were agreed about 12 months ago.
So when you say Biden made the decision, what decision are you talking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callmedeno
"Also, if you are interested, could you give me a pointer to how much private actors were exerting power in Italy or Germany when the Nazis or Fascists had solidified their leadership?"
Where do you want to start with this? I'm not completely sure of the question. In the early days, the Nazis were supported by wealthy private businessmen like Fritz Thyssen. Alfred Krupp was another. Families like Quandt, Porsche and Piech, von Finck, Flick and Oetker were all early supporters. Most were members of the party but ALL were behind Hitler well before he came to power.
"Or is it the opposite argument for fascism generally, that the State harnessed corporate power to meet its goals? In which case how how are these businesses considered meaningfully privatised?"
Good question. The answer is, to a large extent, yes. However, we are not talking about 'the state' in the usual sense. When Hitler came to power, the Nazis were in debt up to their eyeballs. Those dynasties bailed them out on the promise of rich rewards. They became very much richer..
What happened was that Germany, affected by the Great Depression more than most European countries, was in debt. The Nazis sought to rearm. To do this they sold off an enormous number of publicly-owned assets to fund rearmament and the major capital works projects. It also helped to offset unemployment but even under the Nazis, nothing was certain.
This had no precedent and wasn't repeated until the 1980s with Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
Once this was done, the Nazis themselves became very wealthy. They introduced the Nuremberg Laws in 1934 that banned Jews from the civil service and any number of other jobs, like medicine. Wealthy Nazi businessmen went around conducting hostile takeovers of Jewish businesses at way below market value
So, in other words, the Nazi government was simply a kleptocracy. But in a nominally state-owned enterprise, the public has a say in what happens and the public owns a stake. The government acts in a custodial role. In Germany, the public owned very little and the private sector, controlled by powerful Nazis, ran the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UserRobot215
"A form of Syndicalism did exist in Italy, the trade unions were nationalized and they belonged to the state, which Mussolini did."
You're assuming that Italian corporatism and syndicalism was based on either a pro-worker (socialist) model or equality. In fact, nether was true. The negotiation process was always stacked against unions (think SCOTUS). The arbitrators were always Fascist party officials. You might recall the Squadristi, who went around trashing union offices and beating up union officials. Remember the castor oil? That was Mussolini's Blackshirts.
The nationalisation of Italian unions was a way of removing pretty much all their rights, as German unions did with the DAP. Once Mussolini was overthrown, traditional, independent unions returned. You're also misusing the term 'state'. The state is the people. It's the public money (taxes). You're using it interchangeably with the concept of administration. They couldn't be more different. At the end of the war the public owned next to nothing. That's because in both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany the administration was a kleptocracy. For more information on this, I recommend David de Jong's 'Nazi Billionaires'. State and private assets were literally stolen by party members. The state lost and the privileged minority benefited.
Nothing to do with socialism. Business won. Workers lost.
"Mussolini said “everything in the state, nothing outside the state”. By the way, syndicalism is still a form of socialism."
God, I'm patient. They ought to give me a medal for being so patient.
I don't care what he said. I care what he did. Fascist Italy was a kleptocracy. The state - that is, the people - lost out and individuals in a corrupt party administration benefited. I have already given you references for this.
Hibbert points out that Mussolini had to look like a radical but he couldn't afford to lose the people and he knew it.
I addressed syndicalism earlier.
"And there’s academics like A James Gregor that have actually researched Fascism extensively and don’t buy the nonsense that nazism and fascism were the same."
And there are plenty of others like Kevin Passmore and Hannah Ahrendt who have researched it too. I have been reading about Fascism for over 20 years. Passmore, with whom I have had personal contact, is clear on it. He answers emails. Why don't you ask him yourself?
You're going to need to do a lot more research before you start throwing around judgemental terms like 'nonsense'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I reckon one issue the coalition will be creaming its collective jeans moleskins over will be Labor’s emissions laws. This will have gone largely under the radar.
Back in about September, Jeep and I think Chrysler, dumped a whole bunch of gas guzzling V8s on the Australian market. These were cars they could not sell in the United States, in part because they were too expensive. They’re expensive here too. They were the last of the line. Then in the last flurry of legislation before parliament broke for Christmas, the government passed a new emissions law that finally brought us into line with the rest of the world. The only other country that didn’t have such a law was Russia and now even they have it.
Within a short time, this was picked up on by the traditional motoring media (a bull horn for the fossil fuel industry) when Toyota claimed that a new HiLux could cost as much as $20,000 more. In fact, this is little more than a cash grab by Toyota, who are starting to feel the pinch as a result of being about a decade too slow to introduce EVs into their lineup.
Watch as the coalition starts railing against ‘Labor’s new tax on cars that will put more pressure on average working families who want to buy a new car’. It’s a lay down misère (misère being French for ‘bankrupt’) for the coalition. A free gift and the reason we can’t have good laws in this country as Albo struggles to be the smallest possible target. It’ll be branded ‘woke’ (guaranteed to be the slur of choice this year) and an attack on average Australians.
What hope do average Australians have against the might of Gina Reinhart, Anthony Pratt, Clive Palmer, Gerry Harvey, Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So in short blame the Right for Nazism."
Well, if you think the cap fits... Look, the best thing that can happen here is for you to forget this petty tribalism. Conservatives are no more Nazis than progressives are communist, except in the mids of low-information voters. If you want to believe that kind of bilge, that's your business but you're on a hiding to nowhere. Nobody's best interests are served by this kind of absolutist, binary political trench warfare.
But the fact is that the Nazis were right wing. Just as communism is left wing.
"Surely speaking Hitlers platform had more in common with the socialists than the right .Government contrroll of the state is a left wing Idea."
Not at all. The idea that the size of a government is what decides someone is left or right wing is a construct of a troll like Jonah Goldberg. If you want to see a conservative big government, look no further than Texas. Claims to be in favour of individual rights. Stops a woman making choices about her own body. Are they big government? Yes. Are they Nazis? No (despicable but not Nazis).
"There is no god only the Government is god."
No! Couldn't be further from the truth. A totalitarian state has a god: the leader. Hitler's personal charisma, aided and abetted by Goebbels and the Nazi press, was such that to all intents and purposes, he was God to most Germans. Hitler referred occasionally to God in his speeches but it was usually to ay that he was simply following "providence", a word he used a lot and following God's will (his personal interests). Totalitarianism is the cult of the leader (Fuhrer).
"Hitler greatly admired Mussolini. Dismissing it as a rumor is simply a lazy argument."
It's irrelevant.
"Socialists have been responsible for the worst human suffering in the last century since time began."
The Nazis did a pretty good job of it themselves. Once again, putting all progressives, even socialists, into the same basket as Stalin or Mao Zedong is a Zombie argument that's easily dismantled with education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I feel the P47 has been somewhat overlooked in WW2."
Since everyone else on the internet says the same thing and since every video you find pits the P-47 and P_51 as being either much closer than they really were or defers to the Thunderbolt, I'd say you're off target. The P-47 has now become spectacularly overrated. It was by no means bad - it shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO, so it was no dud but it the P-51 was just better in pretty much every regard.
"Remember they were there very early and fought against Germanies best pilots flying well made airplane's."
This is From 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', isn't it? The Luftwaffe peaked in terms of pilot quality between May, 1940 and June, 1941. After that they were stuck in a war of attrition they could not hope to win. From its combat debut in April, 1943 to the end of that year, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft. But the Germans lost 22,000 that year, so <2% is bugger all.
"By the time Mustangs arrived they were fighting mostly poorly trained pilots with low hours fighting in poorly built aircraft because by then there factories had been destroyed and they were building them outside in forests hidden by the trees."
This had been true for a lot longer than that. See my previous comment. It had very little to do with the P-47.
"The P47 may have started with 2 thousand HP but quickly kept increasing HP winding up with almost 3 thousand HP by the end of the war ! This was done with ever increasing octane, water injection and I think they were using nitrous oxide also."
Distraction. Minimally relevant.
"It had the record for sending more aces home alive than any other fighter of the war."
Survivor bias.
The P-47 is now very overrated and the P-51 dismissed. In fact, if you look deeper - I have been reading this stuff for half a century - the P-47 wasn't even in the same post code as the P-51. The USAAF could not have prosecuted its strategic bombing strategy without it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScoopsTVtools
"His use of contemporary primary sources that directly contradict what you have said is all I'm interested in ."
All his sources are technical and many are simply theoretical. Furthermore, he quotes no operational information, like what happened in the Ste Nazaire raids or the disastrous week that led up to the second Schweinfurt raid. He doesn't even mention 'Big Week' that I can recall. It's all 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' conjecture.
Do you know what conjecture means? In his case, it's taking a leap of faith, based on incredibly narrow information. Geekery gone mad. And all you're doing is following along with all the other sheep.
"The fact that you think the Usaaf website is some sort of primary source 80 after is silly .it's not even a secondary source ,it's circling."
LOL!! The fact that you think I was referring to a website - despite all the references I quoted - gives me an amazing insight into how much you actually took in. Did you even read my responses? The only website I quoted was Wikipedia, for a broad definition of survivor bias.
More to the point, I have provided multiple references. You have provided none. So it's hypocrisy to criticise me on referencing. Watching YouTube videos doesn't count, especially when the person who makes them is so clearly biased towards the P-47 and against the P-51 that he's got you believing in conspiracy theories ('government propaganda' was the term you used). Yet that same source provides no historical examples. I provided several, from the balance sheet to the operational. Your hero doesn't do this.
"You said 1.2% per vs .7 per is negligible is stupid"
Not when you're talking about German casualties that were ten times that. During 'Big Week' the Germans lost something like 30% of their fighter force. Furthermore, as I already pointed out, the P-47 couldn't actually fly far enough to engage with the Germans is a pretty fair indicator. Of course you're not going to lose many aircraft if you can't get to the combat area! But the P-47s might as well have stayed in England for all the good they did as an escort!
The fact that you rounded the P-51 figure up and the P_47 figure down in the hope that I wouldn't notice it is stupid. If you're going to do this, be consistent. the real figures are 0.73 and 1.18.
In any event, it's easily explained by survivor bias.
"You didn't even know the word rugged and you're trying to talk about airplanes ...silly"
'Rugged' refers to terrain or topography. It's not a new manly word for strong. It came from misappropriation by the US advertising industry in the 1990s. Don't expect me to follow suit.
"You misunderstand and mis apply survivor bias"
I gave you a definition of survivor bias. Somehow you still struggle with this. Survivor bias is what happens when you ignore the ones that didn't make it home. I have already illustrated this. But you want to pretend that it only applies to a tiny, narrow section of research. Survivor bias has been used to describe a near infinite number of applications, from company failures to Darwin's theory.
So if anyone here doesn't understand survivor bias, it isn't me. It's you. Go to the Wikipedia page and read some of the examples. And just because it was famously applied to one particular aspect of aviation, that doesn't mean it can't be applied to others (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen).
"You think that wings coming off of planes from g force is freak and rare , it still happens to this day ."
LOL!! Then why would anyone fly? LOL!! Do you realise what you're saying? Lemme guess: it happens all the time but it never gets reported... LOL!! North American fixed that wing problem. I don't care how many wing spars it used. That tells me nothing.
"You think that a radial engine losing a cylinder is serious damage"
As a former pilot, I can tell you that losing a cylinder absolutely IS serious damage. The only option is to land immediately. But in wartime, of course, that isn't always practical. The fact that you think it's no big deal tells me how ignorant you are of these things. After the impact, the first thing that happens is that oil pressure drops. The next thing that happens is that all the oil falls out. An engine like a Merlin can survive up to 15 minutes without coolant - if you baby it. No engine can survive more than a few minutes without lubricant. The engine will simply seize. If you want to see this in a modern application, there is a YouTube channel called 'I Do Cars', which is a mechanic tearing down car engines that have failed/seized. Ninety percent of those failures are due to lubrication problems.
Nobody who knows anything about aviation could possibly believe that losing cylinders is 'no big deal'. This is utterly delusional.
And where are the pictures of P-47s with R-2800s with missing cylinders? You certainly can't provide any. You equally did not provide the 'report' you claim exists that showed it was 'no big deal'.
Could it be that surviving such an event was actually incredibly rare? Yet according to you, it happened all the time and was 'no big deal'. Where are the pictures of missing cylinders?
Any single engine fighter suffering the loss of a cylinder is unlikely to make it home, other than by the freakiest of chances. But according to P-47 fanbois, despite ZERO evidence, it happened all the time and was 'no big deal'. You actually said this!
You have no idea what you're talking about. You really don't.
"You stated "that problem is fixed " in response to the 47 having 3 wing spars compared to the 51s 2 ...silly"
That's nothing more than useless information in the context of this. What I said was that North American fixed their problem. I made no comment about wing spars.
"You're obviously a young man so I don't want to be too hard on you but ...damn"
Interesting coming from someone who places so much faith in one YouTuber who tells you what you want to hear. Interesting coming from someone whose only response is to flap critical things away as unimportant when they don't confirm your personal prejudices. Interesting coming from someone who has clearly read no history and flaps away anything he doesn't agree with as 'government propaganda'.
No son, I have been reading about this stuff for almost half a century. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I still read. I used to fly too. I've been around aviation almost my entire life. I've seen a belly landed P-51 up close. I grew up surrounded by fighter pilots. I shook Galland's hand. You have no idea how I came to be of this opinion, the path I took and the information I uncovered by myself. That much should be obvious.
The P-47 wasn't in the same post code as the P-51. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in half the number of missions. Its exchange rate (including losses of all types from combat to taxiing) was 3.60 to 2.04 for the P-47. It was more than twice as likely to see combat because it took the fight to Germany. It didn't just stop at the boundary fence like the P-47 did. No fighter did more to defeat the Luftwaffe than the P-51. All your 'interesting facts' cannot change that.
You don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By early 1944, the USAAF had largely given up on the Thunderbolt as an escort fighter. It simply did not have the necessary internal fuel capacity for the 8th Air Force to prosecute its strategic bombing campaign.
That’s why they were handed over wholesale to the 9th Air Force.
The idea that the P-51 was a cheap ‘cookie cutter’ version chosen over a better aircraft is absurd. The P-51 was half a generation ahead of the P-47. Do you know what’s required to build a laminar flow wing? If anything, the P-51 was built to higher standards than the P-47. And North American were far more responsive to USAAF needs than Republic.
But in the end the figures tell the story and that story says the P-51 did more than any other to defeat the Luftwaffe.
I’m a Mosquito and F6F fanboi. I recognise their shortcomings. I came to the conclusions I did because I read about the USAAF campaign against Germany. I also read about the German opinions of the P-51. They don’t talk much about the P-47, much less fear it, as the fanbois would have me believe. They feared altitude, numbers and attacks out of the sun.
But their comments about the P-51 are near-universal. Pilot memoirs, RLM reports and unit histories, the few that I’ve read, talk mostly about the Mustang and again, the figures show they are right.
‘We had nothing of the same effort’, said Werner Schroer (114 kills) in an interview about the P-51 for ‘The World at War’. ‘They really frightened us quite a bit.’
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isher304
"yea those cute little channel incursions of 41' & 42' did sooo much damage to the Luftwaffe. Id say hurricanes, P-40s, P-39s, A-20s did more damage to the Luftwaffe in 42'-43' in Russian hands than the channel incursions did. The real fighting over Western Europe started in late 43' and was decided by Spring 44' and the P-47 was the workhorse during that time. By the time the P-51 came on (powered by a Packard Motor exclusively) the Luftwaffe was already in a death spiral. The P-47 did not get surpassed by p-51 kills to a substantial degree until Sept 44'. Packard P-51s did not out number P-47s in the 8th AF until May 44'."
The claim that the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe in 1943-44 is nonsense.
At the end of 1943 the USAAF had claimed 451 German aircraft, with the P-51 claiming 414. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Spitfires (presumably from Eagle Squadron). That year the RAF shot down 3,300 aircraft. That's 3,300 and the British didn't count ground kills. The Germans lost a total of 22,000 so 414 represents about 2% of the total. So much for the P-47 decimating the Luftwaffe.
To paraphrase Bill Marshall:
Meanwhile, before December 1, 1943 there was one P-38 group which had been operational for 6 weeks. There were no P-51B operations, seven P-47 groups, the 4th, 56th 78th had been operational for eight months with the 353rd operational for four months, 352nd and 355th for three months. By the end of December there were 8 P-47 groups operational, one totally inexperienced P-51B group and one+ P-38 group. (20th began December 28). The victory credits were 78, 9 and 5 respectively for P-47, P-51 and P-38.
In January those numbers were 43 and 32; In February, 233, 89.5 and 32.5 and in March 175, 251 and 25. At end of March the 354th, 3554th, 4th and 357th FG were flying P-51B. The 56th, 78th, 352nd, 353rd, 356th, 359th, 362st FG were flying P-47s.
The April victory credits for the three P-38 and seven P-47 (352nd converted to Mustang) dropped precipitously with 23 and 82, while the P-51 totals for April went up 50% to 329.
P-51 vs P-47 = 329 to 82. 4X the impact with 0.5X the force.
P-51 vs P-38 = 329 to 23. 15X the impact with 1.4 X the force.
That's 329 v 82 in April, not September. With half the number of aircraft.
It remained that way for the rest of the war.
There is no objectively measurable statistic where the P-47 is ahead of the P-51. At no stage of the war did the P-47 outscore the P-51 on a mission by mission basis.
Furthermore, according to Wagner (quoting USAAF statistics) in Francis Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand', the P-51 scored 4,131 ground kills, compared with the P-47 at 3,202. In other words, the P-51 outscored the P-47 ground kills by 30%. And overall, it outscored the P-47 in air to air kills by 1.6:1 (3,082 compared to 4,950).
In half the number of sorties..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twolak1972
"Early on the only allied fighter in europe was the P47 .In the 3 1/2 years it took to make the P51 the 47 decimated most of Germany's great aces ."
Bullshit. Absolute nonsense. You can't just keep on parroting Greg's ludicrous claims with no background information.
First of all, in terms of skill and experience, the Germans probably peaked between May, 1940 and June, 1941. By 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 100-120 hours and about 10-15 hours on type. The average new pilot in the USAAF had 600+ hours and 50-100 on type. More information on this can be found in Williamson Murray's book, "Luftwaffe: Strategy for Defeat' and Martin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission'.
Between April, 1943, when the P-47 made its combat debut in Europe, and December that year, it shot down a total of 414 German aircraft. That year the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft. Are you really telling me that by shooting down <2% of that total, the P-47 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe'? Really? Both the RAF and the USAAF shot down about 3,300 German fighters each.
"The 51 was a good plane but not the war winner the ME262 would have been had it been taken seriously in 1939 when the prototype came out."
The P-51, more than any other aircraft, enabled the USAAF to carry out its strategic bombing campaign. With the P-47, long range missions were impossible without incurring unacceptable casualties. With the P-51, there was nowhere the bombers couldn't go. The Me-262 is basically irrelevant.
"But back to the 51, it was not an ideal GA aircraft due to its liquid cooled engine. 1 hit in a critical coolant line and the 51 would seize up and crash. Many stories of P47 pilots coming home with football sized holes in the fuselage and pistons pumping up and down outside a shot out cylinder with engine oil covering the side of the plane were common."
Oh, FFS, when does this crap end?
The P-51 destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47, liquid cooling or not. As for them flying with missing cylinders, find me a picture. If it was so common, why are such things so hard to come by? Yet people have told me hand on heart that it was 'no big deal' to have a couple of cylinders shot away. I use to fly and I can tell you that anyone who says this has no idea what they are talking about. After the shell impact, two things will be immediately obvious: the engine will be incredibly rough in operation and oil pressure will vanish. The next thing is that most of the oil will be lost and the engine will seize in seconds. The only thing you can do is find a field to land in. If you ant to see this, check out a channel called 'I Do Cars'. He pulls seized engines apart and virtually all of them are the result of lubrication problems.
The 'liquid-cooled death trap' trope is BS of the highest order. A liquid cooled engine with a hole in the radiator can run a lot longer if it's babied than any engine can run without oil. Apart from that, GA pilots were a lot more concerned about 37mm or flying into the ground. The stats prove it and I have the stats..Apart from anything else, the P-51 destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47 and did so deeper in German territory than the P-47 went and in half the number of missions. It also faced heavier Flak than the P-47 as the army retreated behind the German border. Every pilot memoir you read from late in the war says the same thing: the Flak in Germany was thicker than anywhere else.
I'm sorry to get stirred up about this but Every day I read another repeat of Greg's crap by people who don't ever, ever look it up for themselves. I encourage you to look further but don't take Greg at face value because you happen to prefer the P-47. And before you say it, my preference is the Mosquito, the Hellcat or the Yak. I only realised how important the P-51 was when I researched it myself.
1
-
@lqr824
"The bombers themselves did shoot down a fair number of fighters, but what do you think was escorting the bombers?"
In the early raids over France, the bombers managed to survive without sustaining unacceptable casualties. Once over Germany, the bombers had little to no protection. The P-38s were not successful as escorts, despite their range. The P-47s might have been good escorts but they didn't have the range and that is wha caused the crisis in October, 1943. That's why there was a six month layoff before 'Big Week'. The 8th needed to wait for the availability of the P-51 before it could continue with its campaign.
"It had EVERYTHING to do with P-47s. They were outclassed below 20,000 feet. But above 20,000 feet, the Germans didn't have a chance against them."
That's almost irrelevant. Once the P-47s turned for home at the Dutch border, the Luftwaffe attacked. Altitude performance made no difference to that. You can't shoot down Germans beyond your range.
"At altitudes where 109's and 190s literally could not maintain altitude while turning, the P-47 could still pull 2G turns."
That's fine as long as the Luftwaffe attacked within the P-47's range envelope. Why would they do that? This is why Goering instructed his fighter controllers to hold off until the P-47s turned for home before turning the Luftwaffe loose. You can find thins in James Holland's book on 'Big Week'.
"The supreme irony of the war is that a plane that was TOTALLY built around high-altitude combat ended doing so well in ground attack."
I wouldn't argue with that but that happened once the P-47 was consigned to the 9th AF, once the P-51 took over the escort role.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ohboy2592
"1) inflaming racial tensions? Ok, how or is this just your opinion?"
He called BLM protesters terrorists. Did he do the same for the people who overran the Michigan Capitol building wearing bullet proof vets and armed with AR-15s terrorists? No.
"2) the proud boys, really? They were a direct result of leftists lies on police brutality exploited by false claims from the msm."
Bullshit. There are scads of these arseholes running around the US, threatening to shoot people. The Boogaloo Boys, the Oath Keepers, the ones who a couple of weeks ago stormed the Capitol building in Oregon, armed with AR-15s. Tell me MSN made that up (that's MSN, by the way).
"3) the wall. You do know why it is necessary right?"
False flag. Knee jerk reaction. Meat head approach. This is the problem. Trump simply lacks the political dexterity and imagination to come up with anything better. The internet and the world generally, loves the idea that there are simple answers to complex problems. The wall is a colossal waste of money. It won't work. It's the kind of thing political neurotics like Walter Unlbricht were rightly criticised for. And no, it doesn't matter whether it's there to keep people in or out. It will have no effect on the big players.
"4) covid, please. He banned travel immediately from China."
Don't patronise me. The vast majority of infections were coming into the US from Europe. In any case, he admitted to Bob Woodward that he knew how dangerous it was yet advised everyone it was just a little flu and nobody should panic. The man suggested injecting and drinking disinfectant for fuck's sake. You reckon the experts told him that? Is that why he wanted to fire Anthony Fauci?
"5) best people for the job."
Like Ivanka? Donald Junior? All those other unemployables?
"6) Biden will just replace them."
He'll probably just reinstate the others who were fired.
"7)Obamacare was and is a joke."
Tell that to the people who lost access to treatment. Yes: they really did. The only people who complained about Obamacare were those who hate the idea that anyone should be able to get essential health care and that everyone should be happy with the idea that getting sick could cost you your house. Tell me who benefits from that. Nobody.
"8 and 9) children being separated at the border has been going on for a long time. Why? Because of child traffickers coming into the US. The kids in cages, yep those pictures you saw were taken under Obama’s presidency. "
No excuse.
"10) revenue shortage? Not sure on that one except we’ve spent billions on covid."
You should look it up because it pre dates Covid.
"Here you can see what your cnn or msnbc never reported."
"Error 404: Page not found" LULZ!!
"if you think Biden actually won legally, then you are truly ignorant."
The permanently outraged right wing thinks it has a right to call people names for daring to disagree with them and I am reserving my right to tell you where to go. So fuck off.
The rest of your post was nothing but propaganda. It has been addressed elsewhere and has no bearing on the subject. The other poster said:
"I’m going around asking leftists name something bad trump has done (not hurty words) and I’m getting told that I’m deaf and didn’t go to school."
I addressed that comment so you can get of your soapbox.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aikaramba12 It doesn’t matter:
”The He 162 had proved itself no novice’s aircraft, being rather unstable around its longitudinal axis as a result of the back-mounted turbojet. It was an unforgiving machine, demanding the careful handling of competent pilots, and the first rule drummed into the aspiring He 162 pilot was: “Always use the control column in a continuous flowing movement — no sudden or erratic movements, and no tight manoeuvres!” Experienced fighter pilots, used to throwing their aircraft around as a matter of course, found they had to re-learn much that had become instinctive, and if they had difficulty in mastering and bringing into service this somewhat unstable and aerodynamically unsound little aircraft, attempts by 16-year-old youths to do so, possessing only cursory gliding experience, would have been little short of suicidal.”
”The Warplanes of the Third Reich” William Green, 1970, p. 373, MacDonald and Jane’s Publishers Limited, London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@violetviolet7735 There are so many assumptions about this that it’s hard to know where to start. I have a work colleague who, by coincidence, is a registered Republican, voting in a ward somewhere in Atlanta. He votes by post and he votes at every election. This year he voted late but before the cut off time and had to pay something like $95 to make sure it arrived on time. The process is quite simple. He shows ID and is given a ballot. He signs the ballot and puts it in an envelope which he also signs. That envelope goes into another envelope which is sent to the Georgia election office. When it arrives, it is taken out of the outer envelope. The inner envelope is opened and the ballot form is taken out and the signatures compared, after which the inner envelope - the one with the signature on it - is destroyed. I don’t know where you got that Sterling quote from but this is how the system was explained to me. It correlates exactly with the system we have and was explained in the same way by Gabriel Sterling. This is why the signatures cannot be checked.
When the Georgia election officials recounted the votes they found nothing abnormal about the numbers and no irregularities, other than that the found a chip from one of the voting machines containing about 2,500 votes which had not been included. Trump tried to claim that all of those votes were for him whereas, in fact, it was about 60-40 for him.
The claim about Republican observers not being allowed to watch has also been debunked, as were the claims about ballot stuffing and being pulled out of suitcases under tables, etc.:
https://securevotega.com/factcheck/
When the leak happened at the vote counting centre, nobody was told to leave, they just left of their own accord and they left after the workers they were observing had completed their job and left themselves.
And of course these things were still being checked. They had a senate runoff to do the other day and they knew full well they’d be under the microscope, more so than ever.
As for Carter’s research, first of all you give no date when that was written and secondly, you’re taking the notion that something which was possible and turning it into something that was a certainty. Along with this comes the assumption that the entire Georgia electoral commission was corrupt. That includes Republicans, like Sterling and anyone else who was involved down to and including volunteers who staffed the booths on Election Day. Somehow all these people would have had to work together to organise this alleged fraud. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats, would have had to be in on the joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielkaufman208
"our inflated gun deaths and murders can be accounted for primarily in the 4 most populous cities in America,"
So what?
"which all by the way have the toughest gun laws in the country"
Not true. Come on, tell me about Chicago! LOL!!
"combined with all the gun free zones that only law abiding citizens have to obey, accounts for the vast majority of the horror stories that anti gunners pop off about."
Would you care to explain this in detail? As it is, this is just wild rambling.
"Their are plenty of nighttime robbery attempts in this country crackheads are not highly skilled bank robbers."
Those things happen in most countries. They're probably not highly skilled housebreakers either. Do what we do. Get better locks. See, you people aren't interested in security. You don't go to security conventions, you go to gun conventions. You don't give advice on the best way to secure your home. You just tell people to buy guns. The insincerity is staggering.
'Case in point, any adult male who is unwilling to be responsible enough to defend his own family should definitely not wield a gun, they should also be castrated at the first sign of cowardice so they couldn't have a family."
Listen to the brave man hiding under the bed with a gun at the ready because he's paranoid that someone is going to break into his house. You really equate gun ownership with being a man, don't you? Have I got that right? You have a psychosexual attachment to guns. A fantasist.
"Bully for you if you live in a country where you have to cower under your bed or flee your home while waiting on the police to bail you out of a violent home invasion."
I sleep like a log.
"That would make you not only a coward but a hypocritical piece of whale s--t for expecting someone else to put their life on the line to save your useless hide."
You're really struggling, aren't you? You're down to personal attacks because I am not a victim like you. You equate gun ownership with being a man. Worse, you think that not owning a gun makes someone else "not a man". (Just for the record sonny, Im a former shooter and gun owner and American gun nut is my favourite white meat.) Everything you said here reveals you to be a fantasist. An ammosexual with a major problem. You are person who should not have access to guns because you're still trying desperately to prove you're a man. A wannabe tough guy.
To someone on the internet.
That's about as pathetic as it gets. Do you practice in front of the mirror Travis?
"you can reminisce how easily you gave your responsibility of caring for you family into complete control of your government."
LOL!! That old line again, combined with a pathetic attempt at emotional blackmail. Citizens on patrol... LOL!! You are pathetic.
1
-
@bigdogtim7998
"Well said verses this Australian nut job who throws out non-delineated statistics about a Country he doesn’t even live in."
I'll debate you on fact any time junior.
"such as my factoid about Israel having zero planes hijacked in their Countries History. "
Well, I've been there and you haven't and your "factoid" is nonsense. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership.
"he didn’t know that there are more guns owned legally in America, then there are people."
I don't know what gave you that idea. I've been aware of that for a long time. But you're missing the point. You have all these guns yet you can't get your murder rate down to our level. Not even close. And as long as there are people like you getting around packing heat, it'll never happen.
"The guy is an Anti-Gun Nut, who is Jealous that he can’t live in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, with an actual Constitution that allows Americans to always own arms."
Former shooter and gun owner here. Shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG. Shot pistols. Shot ducks and bunnies. What could I possibly be jealous of? Your Constitution allows you to keep killing each other at rates far beyond those of any other western liberal democracy. Good for you.
"If it came to Americans giving up their 2nd Amendment rights, their in for a war they can’t win. So, conform or shut up Libtards!"
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,!!!!!!
Joke's on you genius. First of all, the only people talking about total gun bans are the gun lobby and paranoid knuckle draggers like you. There's a difference between gun control and a gun ban. There is not country on the planet which has a 100% gun ban. Not even North Korea.
Secondly, the Australian gun laws you are so terrified of were introduced by a conservative government under John Howard. The British gun laws you hate and fear so much were introduced by a conservative government under John Major.
So learn something about the topic or shut up.
1
-
1
-
Daniel Kaufman Mate stop trying to be a hero with a gun. It might sound impressive to you but you sound like a victim to me. Travis Bickle in the bathroom mirror. You’re so desperate to be seen as an alpha because you know deep down you’re not. Nobody who was would expend so much time and anger trying to convince someone on the internet, who you don’t even know, unless they were a prisoner of their own insecurities. You’re a victim.
Do you really think we don’t have the same patterns in Australia? The difference here is that we don’t have a bunch of wannabes with guns running around the place pretending they’re doing police work. Way to go, Citizens On Patrol...
As for your claim that active shooters deliberately target gun free zones, there is little evidence that this is true. In some cases, those zones were declared after the incident. Secondly, you lot talk as though you understand the mind of an active shooter but in reality, you have no idea. Stop pretending it’s a matter of logic. These people are irrational so logic is almost irrelevant. Try reading the FBI active shooter profile and you will see how wrong you are and how irresponsible it is for you to continue to spout this horseshit.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view
Do you really think Seung Hui cho killed 35 people at Virginia Tech because it was a gun free zone? Do you really think Elliot Rodger killed six people near a university campus because it was a gun free zone? No, they did it because they had a grudge against the people there. Being incels didn’t help either. What could a person with a gun have done in a crowded nightclub to stop Omar Mateen shooting 49 people dead and wounding 53 others? Nothing. Not a fucking thing, except add to the body count. His problem was homophobia and repression of his own latency.
You should stop telling lies.
As for freedom, you wouldn’t know freedom if it jumped out of your morning Weeties and bit you on the nose. Until you’ve been outside the US of A, you will never know any different. I’ve been to America and at least 30 other countries. I’ve lived in London and I can think of several places which are at least as free as the US. New Zealand probably tops the list. Most of Western Europe is freer these days than America. For most people, a bunch of wannabes packing heat is not a mark of freedom but one of oppression. Access to good quality health and education, a vibrant democracy, a free press, low levels of poverty and inequality, government transparency and accountability and high levels of public safety make those places much better that America.
When your balls finally drop and you stop being a prisoner of your own insecurities, you might realise that your idea of freedom is really self-imposed oppression. And it won’t get you a girlfriend (or boyfriend if that is your preference).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonlewis758
"dude you’re so wrong look around the world mental health is our issue a US issue."
No it isn't. When the gun lobby starts paying to support mental health programs, I'll believe you're serious. Load of crap.
"The UK doesn’t have millions of homeless neither does Europe, why is that?"
You bet your ass they do. Obviously you have never been there. I have.
"cuz their society isn’t all fucked up like ours."
Your society is fucked up because people like you refuse point blank to make any concessions on guns. Europe doesn't have assholes running around screaming "Shall not be infringed!" every time someone wipes out a classroom full of kids.
"It really is a systemic mental health issue in the US the worst mental health care in the world for 1st world country’s mind you."
When you offer to fund it, I'll start taking you seriously.
"Your side just wants to ban them out right because you don’t think we need them."
Wrong. You don't know what I want because you're too busy talking to listen.
"We’ll I beg to differ if they come for my guns it’s gonna be Waco all over again."
That's actually a naked threat. You can be charged for saying things like that.
"Like I said I took an oath and the left liberals know nothing about."
And care even less.
"You guys want to rewrite the constitution."
Wrong again.
"That’s not gonna happen without a civil war, yes it could happen and probably would."
That's coming anyway.
"The school shootings are a tragedy and should never happen but the rights of many to protect themselves from evil and tyranny over rule the rights of the few that want guns gone."
You still have no idea what people like me want. You never will either.
"Joe Beiden is the biggest Dick to ever take office the worst ever so I will never trust him or general milli with my life."
Well, right now you look like an even bigger dick because you don't know what you're talking about. You're still too busy telling me what I want to listen. You've never asked and right now, I can't think of a reason why I would tell you.
"They will imprison us just wait all they need is one more crisis to do so then what if you have no guns you can’t fight back."
When the civil war does start, it will be people like you who start it. Guaranteed.
"I suffer from severe adhd and am on meds for it and other things. You know how long it took drs to diagnose me, like over 30 yrs."
Well, I'm sorry to hear it but not everyone is like you. The object is to get guns away from people with severe mental illness (ADHD is not a mental illness. It's a cognitive impairment). Every time this has been tried the gun lobby has blocked it. Every time. About 90% of Americans want tighter gun restrictions and every time it comes up, the gun lobby pays politicians to block them.
"It’s the system it doesn’t work trust me."
That's just the point: I don't trust you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When it comes to kill ratio, I think you fail to take into account more seriously (although you do mention it) that the P47 was fighting for months against excellent Luftwaffe pilots (like the "Abbeville Kids") before the P51 was introduced into the ETO."
Straight from Greg's disinformation channel.
First of all, if you bother to read books, the Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1941, just before Barbarossa.
In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe. Of those, the P-47 got 414 and the rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. To put that into perspective, the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft that year. So you're looking at less than 2% for the P-47.
Secondly, by the middle of 1943, the average Luftwaffe pilot had 110-120 hours total, with 10-15 on type. The average American had 600+, with at least 50-100 on type. P-38 pilots had 400. Furthermore, if you look at the Luftwaffe response on 17 August (Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids), about 15% were night fighters. These slow and unmanoeuvrable twins would have been easy meat for any escorts. There were Bf-110s, Ju-88s and even a Do-17, which was probably the least useful German night fighter. On 6 March, 1944 - the first major raid on Berlin - the Luftwaffe put up a similar force but on that occasions, they got seven colours of shit shot out of them. Yo can read about the first in Marin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission' and 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price.
Furthermore, there never was a unit called the 'Abbeville Boys'. They were a rumour started by the RAF. Any Bf-109 with a yellow nose was assumed to be part of an elite unit they nicknamed' the Abbeville Boys'. But lots of units used yellow for identification and it eventually faded out of use. It had nothing to do with the P-47. See Middlebrook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradschaeffer5736 The P-47 didn’t immediately transfer to the GA role until later. In fact, if you look at the results from ‘Big Week’, you will see that the P-47 got 78 kills, compared to the P-51 with 64.5 and 10 for the P-38. From memory, there were about 160 P-51s, which suggests two fighter groups against about 600 P-47s. So even before the hand over to the ninth, the P-51 was easily out scoring the P-47 on a one-by-one basis.
But according to you, this is torturing the numbers to say whatever I want. So what are your numbers?
As for the 56th, this wasn’t exactly what it appeared to be. It’s never been clear why 56 kept their P-47s but ‘refusal’ is not in the lexicon of acceptable military responses.
’Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I requested one time for P-51s and I was sent to the United States and during my absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organisation over and was influence to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was determined in the program that they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat airplane was the P-51. I know it is.’
- Hub Zemke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradschaeffer5736
"I'm confused. Are you saying the JG 26, stationed for a good period of its history at Abbeville-Drucat didn't exist?"
I think I'll just laugh at this.
"You think guys like Galland, Muencheberg and Priller knew this? Don't you admit this with the quote?"
You missed the subtlety of the quote, didn't you? The quote said that Allied pilots consoled themselves with a series of beliefs. It says nothing more than that.
"I do suggest you write a strongly worded letter then to Caldwell whom you quote whose third book just covering the daily missions of JG26 in 1941-42's very first sentence in the very first pgh of the very first page reads (and I did look this up just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind or being gaslighted) "Jadgeschwader 26 (JG 26), the 'Abbeville Kids' is the Luftwaffe fighter wing best known in the UK and USA.""
Again, you missed it. He doesn't say the rumours were true. He says the Abbeville Boys and JG 26 were the best known unit. The fact that many people associated the rumours with one unit doesn't make everything true.
"If you want to say JG26 didn't exist, by all means."
I'm sorry but this is childish. You're trying really hard to not understand this and it's not working.
'This is a suitable place to dispose of an old legend. The Americans had often met German fighters, the Messerschmitt 109s, with yellow-painted nose sections and believed - as they still do - that these planes were from a select unit made up only of top German pilots. They were called 'the yellow-nosed Abbeville Boys' or the 'Abbeville Kids'. The legend was not a new one; the R.A.F. had been meeting these German fighters long before the Americans started fighting in Europe and R.A.F. pilots had handed the legend on to the Americans. It is now generally accepted that there was no such special unit. Several German units painted part or all of their nose sections for no other purpose than quick identification in combat. Yellow was just the most useful colour for this purpose. There was no such thing as the 'Abbeville Boys'.'
- 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', Martin Middlebrook, p.91.
Maybe you'd better write a strongly worded letter to Mr Middlebrook. Oh wait...
Your logic works like this: JG 26 used yellow identification on their noses, therefore any aircraft with a yellow nose belongs to JG 26. That goes with the joke: all cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat.
"I never said THEY called themselves that."
Back to 'I never said'...
"And I'm not sure what your Big Week stat is meant to do other than to kind of prove my point."
The old 'your point proves mine'... It's pretty clear what my point was. The P-51 on a one-to-one basis was outscoring the P-47 handsomely, even during 'Big Week'. Again, you'd have to be making an effort not to understand this.
"The Jug, however, by then had drop tanks increasing its range enough in the interim to allow it to actually find and do combat with the Luftwaffe before having to turn back for home."
Except that the P-47 had been using drop tanks for quite a while. There were some which had been field modified to carry under wing tanks - a long, slow process that required cutting metal (the P-47D-9 variant) but about 80% had not been so modified. The vast majority could only carry a centreline tank and with 256 gallons internally and 108 on the centreline pylon, they could barely cross the Dutch-German border. The others - those with 108 gallon tanks under the wings - could almost get to Magdeburg. Republic eventually made it a line modification (D-11) but they took their sweet time about it. Prior to the arrival of long range P-51s, the Luftwaffe could use its discretion about when to engage. Generally speaking, they waited until the fighters went home.
Without the P-51, the Luftwaffe could decide when to engage. With the P-51, they had no choice.
"And your own numbers show they did just as well if not better than the P51 in the combat role."
'My' numbers haven't shown anything of the sort. Please explain how my numbers show the P-47 was doing 'just as well if not better'.
"You are MUCH more emotionally invested in this for some odd reason than I am. Fact: Neither you nor I have flown either of these aircraft (although I've flown small planes before nothing with the performance of a WW2 bird). Fact: There were plenty of WW2 pilots who loved the Jug and preferred it to the Mustang because they were much harder to shoot down...want to get the girls, fly a P51. Want to get home, fly a P47."
Then why are you bringing unquantifiable and non-sequitur remarks into it?
That remark about getting the girls v getting home is another post-war knock off. I doubt anyone said it. This is really clutching at straws. I'd only say something like that if the barrel was empty.
"Corsair was better than both of them once you learned how to tame it."
Oh dear. I'll let that one go, since it is of peripheral relevance.
"Still curious how that 20,000 destroyed Luftwaffe aircraft in 1943 stat was arrived at. If from Allied reports in real time, don't bother. Every side in every theater usually grossly exaggerated the number of enemy destroyed."
Then you look it up. I have already told you where it came from.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have to give you figures that you like or they don't apply.
1
-
1
-
@bradschaeffer5736
"Clearly that you would take the time to go line-by-line through a silly subject ("which was better" which is as much an OPINION as "fact") shows that you are truly and deeply emotionally invested in this thread I've already moved on from. So QED."
'Which was better'? No, I wasn't arguing that. Must have been you.
"So get off Youtube and go write a book setting the record straight. If you need an agent or a publisher send me the finished draft called "FACT: Mustangs Were Better Than Thunderbolts Despite What Many Pilots Who Actually Flew Them In Combat (Unlike Me) Say" and I'll pitch it for you."
How did you manage to get this so wrong and why are you suddenly so defensive about it?
I was correcting historical errors and pointing out that many of the claims - some of which you echoed - for the P-47 are incorrect. I was not making a value judgement. As I said, the only thing I care about is the best available version of the truth. And that's where we differ.
"Have a great day. Get outside."
Oh, passive/aggressive? Never seen that before.
"P.S. the "best" fighter plane was the one with a) the best pilot; b) the best position at the beginning of the dogfight; c) the one that employed the best air combat tactics. Turning radius, climb/dive rate, HP, firepower, snap roll, etc. help. But in the end it's the guy at the stick who will decide which is the "best" plane. That you rate your opinion (which is what it is) as "fact" shows a lack of understanding of the aspects of dogfighting despite your battery of raw data. If you haven't go get your pilot's license then come back. You may see it differently,"
I do. Interesting that you have taken all this to mean I was trying to justify a value judgement when all I was doing was looking for an objective truth. You don't find a lot of that in er... 'debates' about the P-47. I didn't start from a position that says, 'I think the P-XX is the coolest plane ever' and spent the rest of my time trying to prove it. I started, as I said, in the belief that the P-47 was under appreciated. But every objective account has show that the P-51 belongs where it always has been. My opinion doesn't matter.
The 'best fighter' is decided by many things, quite a few of which you left out. I'll give you and example: 'everyone knows' the Spitfire was 'the best plane ever'. But anyone who has read an objective account of its performance in the defence of Darwin would know that it performed quite badly and it succeeded in spite of all of those things you mention, not because of them. Fighters are just the sharp end of an eco system and it pays to study it.
I'm sure this is a complete mystery to you but I assure you it's all quite provable.
1
-
@bradschaeffer5736
"Hey, if it matters that much to you, then I'll leave you to your devices. If you want to write a book called "FACT: The Mustang Was Better Than The Thunderbolt Even If Guys Who Flew Jugs In Combat (Unlike Me) Disagree Because, Well, What Do They Know Compared To Me" I'll be happy to forward the manuscript to my agent and publisher."
Well, once again, you you're ignoring what I said. I wasn't here to prove 'the best' and I even gave you an example!
"But all I'll say is the "best" plane in any dogfight is the one that is: A) Flown by the most skilled and experienced fighter jock; B) Gets the upper hand at the beginning of the fight (Richtofen claimed most of his victims never even saw him before he shot them down); C) Employing superior tactics/formations."
Once again, ‘the best’ is coming from you, not me.
If you're going to write a book, you need to realise that 1) 80% of victims never saw their attacker so dogfight capabilities are not often a factor and 2) no pilot ever goes into aerial combat with the intention of dogfighting, even to the extent of avoiding dangerous situations. They go in there with the intention of giving their opponent absolutely no chance.
Furthermore, I added a specific example where virtually nothing of what you said applied.
"Anyway, I REALLY don't care about this debate that has been raging for 80 years (and should be fun). You obviously do. So I'll leave you to stew in your own juices while I go outside. Enjoy. Next up: "FACT: Beethoven Was Better Than Mozart.""
Just how old are you? Your obsession with 'the best' suggests that this is what you are doing and projecting it onto me. You started this thread with a moderately expansive post about the P-47 and when challenged, you accused me of airing my knowledge. Funny, because that was what you appeared to be doing. What is anyone to make of that (other than that it's consistent)?
I think you’re having this polemical argument with yourself, not me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Americans, under Pershing, were very conservatively broken in and did not really appear in significant numbers until the end of September. Pershing was, in fact, just doing his job in agreement with Wilson, to preserve the army he'd been given On 4th July., 1918, approximately 7,000 Australian and British troops, along with a few battalions of Americans from the 33rd Division, under the command of General John Monash, attacked the German lines at the small village of Hamel on the Somme. Monash planned all kinds of tricks and traps, in line with what was generally known as 'Hutier tactics', up to and including air drops. All of this was relatively new and showed the way forward and away from the old tactics of trench warfare.
During the battle, American officers were taking direction from highly experienced Australian privates and in this environment, they fought well, sustaining few casualties. The Australians found them willing to learn and competent when they were well led. Pershing was less than happy about this and I suspect that, because of his opposition to the American involvement, he actively discouraged a repetition of them. By the time they were withdrawn from the front in September, due to appalling levels of depletion, the Australians were probably the best shock troops in the world and things like cleaning up afterwards were among the skills they were very well versed in. It was optional whether the Americans chose to take advantage of such advice or not.
But we know that in six weeks, Americans were lost in numbers that almost mirrored those of the French in the early periods of the war. Inexperience, overconfidence and poor leadership are killers, even today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Ha! Evolve or die. Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen?
When you say ‘the government’, which government are you talking about? The Federal government? The state government? There are not many states in the US who are particularly committed to that course of action. Scandinavian countries are doing it with the cooperation of the manufacturers. As a result they are providing options for motorists. Why can’t the United States do the same thing?
And by the way, the oil industry would have you believe that this is some lefty feel good crap. But if you ask people why they will give you their reasons. And who are you or anyone else to criticise them for the choices they make as consumers? It’s their money. What ever happened to the idea that the customer is always right? Apart from the environmental spiel, EVs are much cheaper to run. I think the cost of operating one is about a quarter or a fifth of an ICE equivalent. And who doesn’t want to use their spare cash for other things besides fuel and servicing costs?
China, China, China! (furious finger pointing)
I’ve got news for you: ALL governments sponsor car manufacturers in those countries where they are actually made. They do it with tax breaks and fleet buys, among other things. And maybe it comes to US $10,000 per car and maybe it doesn’t but stop pretending that this is cheating or unfair to American manufacturers. Remember what happened in 2008 when the Federal government had to throw General Motors a lifeline? You would have thought they would have learnt by now, wouldn’t you? GM in other countries didn’t seem to suffer as much. The point, of course, is that US manufacturers have enjoyed a certain amount of government protection for a long time.
If American manufacturers can’t stay in business after that then they deserve to die and it won’t be any more China’s fault than Japan or South Korea or Germany if it happens.
1
-
1
-
@ Well, since you only need to do it every two or three hundred kilometres, it doesn’t matter. Anyone with a brain is going to stop for food, drink, a stretch and a pee anyway. But remember that every time you get into your car in the morning, it’s full. You don’t have to go and fill it up because you’re a bit short. It’s always full because you left it on charge over night. So having to stop every now an again to charge probably isn’t as common as going for fuel in an ICE car anyway. In fact, if the vast majority of your driving is in the city, you probably almost never need to stop and charge.
It’s a non-argument.
Mate, you can’t win this. I’ve been seeing this for so long now I can argue in my sleep. I know of no one who owns an EV that has any intention of going back to ICE. I have another cousin with a Model 3, a mate with a Model 3, another mate with a Model X and another cousin with an MG 4. Those are just the ones I can think of. I’m sure there are others. All of them rave about their cars. None is going back. They have no service intervals, cost very little to run and they are effectively always full. The only trouble with EVs in Australia is that they are too expensive because our chicken sh1t government is beholden to the fossil fuel industry.
But this was never about any of these silly oil industry shibboleths. It was about the reason the US industry is terrified of Chinese cars.
The message is simple. This isn’t 1968 anymore. You’re not buying seven litres of Detroit iron in your Corvette. This is 2024 and the world has changed. The motor industry has to change with it. Evolve or die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258
"You don't know what you are talking about. The Chinese government picks up about $10,000 of the costs per unit."
Bullshit. The Chinese government picks up about $1,000 per car (cute that you added another zero) and then pays the owner a similar amount. But that double dipping is about to stop. Legacy car manufacturers in China will be gone by 2030.
"GM getting money was not to reduce what the buyer was paying for the car, it was to keep the company from going under."
Because GM was not making cars that people wanted to buy. That's capitalism: evolve or die.
"In your EV you get in and drive, until your batteries go dead, then you need to stop for much longer than a gas car, and you need to find a charging station before you are out of juice. Not so easy while on the road, and you will travel a longer distance to find a charger."
I've already been over this. The people I know with EVs charge their cars at home. They never go to charging stations. How do you not get this? When they travel, they use the app to find the nearest charging station and the Tesla app even tells you if there's a queue. Not very different for petrol vehicles, except that you can't walk away from your car when you're filling up your gas guzzler.
If you can't understand that this is a simple change of mindset, then you're probably to dumb to be allowed to drive a car on a public road.
"I get in my gas car all the time and just drive, and I can drive much longer than you and get refueled in minutes most everywhere there is a road. You can't do the same for charging."
Yep. You're too dumb to be driving. Fuck, you're thick headed.
I told you, you charge your car at home overnight. That way, when you get in the next day, it's full. No need to go to a charging station. There are EVs now with ranges approaching 1,000kms. Don't believe me? Look it up. Do the fucking research.
"That example I gave destroys your argument."
I've countered it five or six times now but you're just too dumb to see it. Either that or your reading and comprehension is lower than third grade...
"They told me they had to stop and recharge in an out of the way place because there are few charging stations on the route, and it is a major highway."
And I told you you're full of shit. You never gave any indication of distances or ranges of either vehicle. I think we can discount this as a hoax. I just don't believe you.
"You have your EV, so you should be very happy, but you are not."
Since you know so much about me, you should know that I don't own an EV. I own a hybrid but I'm looking at a Polestar to replace it. I told you that already.
You must tell me more about myself some time. LOL!!
"The proof is that you feel the need to argue with someone who wants a gas car."
No, the comedy here is that you have absolutely no idea what you're dealing with.
The market is changing. It 2030, the world will see EV sales of around 70 million. They have been increasing at a rate of about 60% per year on average. In that time, dozens of legacy manufacturers are going to go broke. Think of all those names like Chrysler (or whatever they're called now), BMW, Mercedes Benz, Honda, Mazda, maybe even Toyota. They will either vanish completely or be acquired by Chinese manufacturers. The secret is in the planning. Where American and other Western manufacturers wanted to make a lot of money quickly, the Chinese simply invested in the long term. Companies like BYD, who are completely vertically integrated, now outsell all other manufacturers in China by several times. 55% of cars sold in China are electric.
In ten years fossil fuel cars will be almost impossible to find (like the fossils who want them in 2035). This has nothing to do with the guvmint and everything to do with economics.
"Again, are you one who thinks we are all going to die from "climate change"?"
You're an idiot, aren't you? Where have I mentioned climate change?
I haven't. You're having this argument with yourself, aren't you petal?
"Even in places away from civilization, people can carry extra gas in cans or extra fuel tanks. And you can transport gas in cans to where you need it. Can't do that with EVs. When it goes dead, either you need another battery, or a very long charging cable."
With EV ranges now approaching 1,000 kms, that's a lot less of a problem that it ever was before. My cousin, who has a Model Y, lives in a semi rural community in South Australia. That state is 30% larger than Texas and has a much smaller population. According to you, he should be suffering from range anxiety. He's not.
There is a family from Sydney who drove a Nissan Leaf from Sydney to Perth, across the Nullarbor Plain. That's probably the most desolate road on the planet. That's 4,000 kms son, almost the distance from LA to New York. And with almost nothing in between (by comparison). All they had to do was plan their stops, which anyone with brain does anyway. That was least 5 years ago and everything, from range performance to charging stations, has improved since then.
In 2035, your gas guzzlers will no longer exist. This won't be because of any laws, there will no longer be a need for them. There are Tesla Model 3s that have traveled half a million kilometres and have never had a service. Their batteries are within 10% of new.
Did you get that? 500,000 kilometres without a service. The only things they've changed are the tyres. Show me one petrol vehicle that has done that.
EVs are the future and your Chevy pickup truck, with its 1930s-tech V8, is dead. So is the market for it.
You need to do some serious research son. You don't have the remotest idea what's in front of you. The future is coming faster than you're capable of understanding and it doesn't give a flying fuck about you and your pickup truck. This will be like being hit by a freight train. You won't know until it's too late.
Evolve or die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was actually worse than anyone realises. Much worse. As a former scuba diver myself, I have never dived in caves but have some idea of the myriad of things that can go wrong and get you killed. As Richard Harris, the Australian anaesthetist, said in his book, panic has killed more divers than running out of air. So Rick Stanton hatched the plan to anaesthetise the boys and get them out using positive pressure masks so they could breathe while unconscious. There was only one problem.
This had never been done before. Never.
There was no medical precedent and no diving precedent. Dr Richard Harris had to anaesthetise the team in circumstances that could not have been further removed from his operating theatre in Adelaide. Conditions were unsanitary, it was dark and difficult to see and to top it off, he lost his glasses somewhere in the dive to chamber 9. He had to guess the approximate weight of each of the boys and their coach and instead of the monitoring equipment he was used to, all he had was the sight of bubbles coming from the regulator.
And what if they started to rouse during the dive out? All the divers were given a crash course in how to use syringes to give an intra-muscular anaesthetic. Syringes of Ketamine were distributed among the teams. Even so, a boy starting to come around would probably start to panic and could drown the rescuer so their hands and feet were bound. There was no other possibility.
The four British divers, Rick Stanton, John Volanthen, Jason Mallinson and Chris Jewell, had to tow these unconscious boys through narrow passages with stalactites hanging from the roof. They had to protect the boys’ heads from being bashed against them by putting their own heads through first. What if the mask became dislodged? Simple: the boy would drown.
The chances of this going catastrophically wrong were extreme. Nobody expected them all to come out alive but there was no choice. The oxygen levels in the cave were going down. Eventually, the water level would rise. If the carbon dioxide didn’t kill them, infection probably would because they were basically living in a toilet. One of the last boys to come out had a chest infection and almost stopped breathing on the way. When they took his mask off in chamber 8, someone rolled him over and he started breathing normally again. Eventually they were able to continue.
One diver got lost towing one of the boys and ended up back in the chamber he had just come from. Eventually Harry Harris caught up with him and took the boy out but not without encountering serious problems and giving himself a serious scare in the murky water and tricky currents.
1
-
1
-
@ No. It was a measure to prevent a run on the banks, like what happened in the United States. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.
In those circumstances, people withdraw all their money before the bank collapses, which only speeds up the process. In Australia, just to call yourself a bank required backing from the RBA. That was done away with at some point and the Rudd government effectively reinstated it.
That way customers had no fears of losing all their money so there was no run on the banks. We were one of the first economies to do this. I think Germany beat us to it by a few hours. By preventing the run, there was no need to hand out money.
In the US, following the failure of Lehman Brothers etc., there was panic and while the run on the banks wasn’t nearly as bad as what happened in 1929, there were still unsustainable losses. As I said, the trouble was that the American bank execs took the government funds and paid themselves their bonuses before anything else. That’s why they became known as the banksters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IncogNito-gg6uh
"It was USAAF doctrine that bombers could reach their targets unescorted. USAAF commander-in-chief General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold turned a deaf ear to not only the development of drop tanks for the P-47, but also to the reports of American Air-attaché Col. Tommy Hitchcock from England pleading the potential of a Merlin powered Mustang."
Dear God, where to start with this...
The development of drop tanks was not completely banned and I will explain why later.
First of all, drop tanks do not increase range. They are simply a bandaid solution. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel capacity. The old adage is that a drop tank uses half the fuel in it to get the other half there. You can't just keep adding external tanks because eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns.
Before the American involvement in WWII, the USAAF Materiel Command sent out a directive to manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not. In early 1942, USAAF senior command sent another directive to increase internal fuel. Again, everyone responded except Republic.
Gen. George Kenney, who was commander of the 5th AF in the Pacific was furious with Republic and arranged for a 200 gallon tank to be designed and built in Australia. This was known as the Brisbane tank. So clearly, what happened in peace time and what happened in wartime were two different things.
In August, 1943, Hap Arnold sent a letter to his Chief of Staff, Gen. Barney Giles, instructing him to find a solution to the lack of range. He gave him full remit, even including the development of a new fighter, as long as it was completed in six months. Giles was aware of the Mustang's range potential and that the were 1,350 P-51s ready and waiting. All they needed was the addition of a fuselage tank behind the pilot.
Those aircraft were available from December, 1943. The P-47, with larger internal capacity, wasn't available for another six months.
So, in fact Arnold had been on the case for years.
"It is noteworthy that both efforts proceeded without his blessing until the disastrous losses in the fall of 1943 threatened to end the daylight bombing campaign"
The efforts of Materiel Command rather put the lie to this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reza E Not true. Dyatlov was very competent. He had more experience with nuclear reactors - most of them of the RBMK type - than anyone else at Chernobyl. He had been there for fourteen years. His biggest flaw was that he was a hard task master and didn’t hesitate to berate people for incompetence, laziness or trying to hide things. His bosses thought very highly of him because he was very good at getting things done.
The sequence of events which led to the explosion is poorly explained in the series (I should add that I haven’t seen it but nobody who has can convince me they have much idea of what happened). Chernobyl 4 was a long way behind schedule and the staff were under extraordinary pressure to get this last test done so that the reactor could officially go online.
On the night of this final test, Dyatlov was uncharacteristically late. In the meantime there had been a shift change and the replacement crew was at a lower state of readiness to undertake the test than the one it replaced. The reactor had been running at about half power (1600 MW) for most of the day. Dyatlov ordered it taken down to 580 so the test could begin.
The RBMK was quite stable at its normal operating level of 3200 MW but not so stable at below about 700. Unfortunately there had been a large build up of an isotope called Xenon 135 in the system and because it is a reaction killer, putting the control rods in almost stalled the reactor. The output plummeted to about 30 MW. Dyatlov had a choice; shut down the reactor and cancel the test or try to get it going again. He chose to keep going.
All but a few control rods - the start rods - were withdrawn and the output buildup again over about four minutes to 200 MW. The test - which was supposed to prove that the water pumps could function off the turbine for the time between the simulated failure of the plant’s electrical supply and the start of the emergency generators - was completed in 36 seconds. Then the reactor surged. The lack of water in the reactor, due in part to the slowing of the water pumps, meant that there was not enough water to act as a moderator and also that some of it turned to steam, creating voids, which was nothing like as good a moderator as water. This was the main fault with the RBMK design - a positive void coefficient.
Dyatlov ordered the crew to scram the reactor and they duly pressed the AZ-5 button after removing the cover. The RBMK reactor was seven metres deep. Debate rages as to whether the continuing surge was the result of the fact that the rods could only go in at a rate of 40 cms per second - the whole process taking approximately 18 seconds to complete - or whether the control rods simply jammed due the rupturing of the fuel rods due to the fantastic amounts of heat.
Either way, the result was the same. The reactor suffered a massive steam explosion which blew the 200 tonne cap off the top and threw bits of highly radioactive abs highly toxic material through the roof of the reactor hall and into the compound. The graphite tips on the rods also did not act as a moderator but tended to increase the reaction.
So, once the process is understood, it’s easy to see how Dyatlov can be blamed for this. However, the lack of experience of the night crew, one of whom was working from pages of dictated notes, and the massive time pressure they were under, made Dyatlov decision to continue with the test easier to understand.
The inquiry was looking for a fall guy and at an operational level, Dyatlov was the one. Two others, Briukanov and Fomin, were also jailed. All three received ten year sentences. I don’t think any of them served more than four years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mack626 Stanley gives ten different criteria, all of which have to be present in order to define a person or government as fascist. You have read a bit of von Mises and Hayek and you think you can sweep all this away with one tenet. Yet you signally failed to address one thing I put to you earlier:
All governments use central planning to a greater or lesser degree.
It’s for things like fiscal policy and monetary policy. While von Mises and Hayek and their devotees decry this practice and somehow believe that the invisible forces of the market should decide the money market (and all others), nobody, no government on the planet agrees. Central planning is a fact of all economies, not just fascist ones. By your definition, all governments on the planet are socialist, a point of view which many would describe as absolutist, irrelevant and unrealistic, to say the least of it. Even Hayek does not actually say that fascism is left wing. Yours is a fringe point of view.
Secondly, economics is not even a factor in fascist ideology, regardless of how it plays out in practice. You are so dedicated to applying highfalutin economic theory that you seem to have completely overlooked why countries become fascist in the first place. This was the purpose of Jason Stanley’s book. But since you have not read it, you’re in no position to criticise him. The ten points Stanley raises have nothing to do with economics. They are to do with voter sentiment and the rhetoric of the fascist leader. But your claim that the position can only be judged by rigid adherence to the Austrian school would appear to put you not only out of step but completely out of touch with how the politics of fascism work. Nothing about fascism has anything to do with economics. The works of Stanley, Passmore and Umberto Eco - all of whom have studied it and written on it extensively - make this abundantly clear. Fascism is not an economic philosophy.
But it does have a lot of right wing components which cannot be so easily dismissed. Patriarchy, racism, sexism, victimhood, mythology, conspiracies, hierarchy and Utopianism are pretty consistently referred to across the board. No references to economics. Yet you say that one point - one which has been contradicted by every government on the planet - proves all those points and all those writers wrong.
You called Stanley a “hack” and a “Marxist” and now you’re complaining that I insulted you. What I pointed out is the presumptuous nature of your comments (that all economists agree with you). If that’s not anti-intellectual, I don’t know what is. This sounds a like like, “this offends me”. You’ve been pretty free and easy with your name calling but when you get called out, you don’t like it.
As to Stanley being a Marxist… please define what a Marxist is and then provide proof that Stanley has ever said he was a “a Marxist”. Then you can tell me the precise difference between a Marxist and.a communist in such a way that it makes a difference. Because until he says he is, I’ll reserve my judgement (not that it matters). This is starting to sound like irrational dismissal. Next I expect you’ll say he’s got bad breath or something. Even if he was a Marxist, by your logic, it would be reasonable to expect Stanley to be advocating fascism instead of decrying it.
As for price fixing… Jesus Christ. Do you know why price fixing is illegal in most countries? Because the free market, left to its own devices, will ultimately end up with producers fixing prices and marking out territories. To presume that price fixing is exclusive to left wing economics is completely unrealistic. It happens in all markets, whatever their political bent.
And if you have “a couple of economics degrees” please feel free to tell us what they are and how they are relevant to this discussion. I have a couple of degrees too but they are not relevant because they are not in political science. It just happens to be a hobby of mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1