Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. +Max Steele "the only real flaw the plane had was small fuel tanks" Not so. The Spitfire was designed to be a short range fast interceptor. It was not designed for long range, so that is not a flaw. When the RAF needed a plane that could fly over to Germany they developed the Mustang, getting a US company to make it for them as British aircraft companies were working 24/7.
    7
  2. +Fascist Canuck "The flaw was they caught fire too easily AND there were never enough pilots." The pilots, not a flaw with the actual plane.
    7
  3. +Baker7498Army "Fatal flaw" doesn't stop Spitfire from being in service until the jet age, one of few pre-war fighter designs that lasted that long. In 1957 the the Spitfire made its last operational flight, in active British military markings, from RAF Woodvale near Liverpool.
    5
  4. The Spitfire was the most complete plane at the time.
    4
  5. +Bad Beard Bill Excellent leadership on the British side meant the BofB was a one sided affair.
    2
  6. Not in the winter war.
    2
  7. bwda666 After the 1940 peace deal the Finns moved closer to Germany. They would side with anyone to keep the Soviets out. The Soviets were retrieving former territory as far as they were concerned. The Germans gave the Finns weapons and oil which was a rare commodity for the Germans. Finnish leader Mannerheim (who could hardly speak Finnish being a Russian speaker, needing an interpreter), was the only non-German leader told of the Barbarossa attack. Not even Mussolini knew. Hitler went to Finland to wish Mannerheim a happy birthday. Finnish troops would attack the USSR simultaneously with Germany. Hitler was furious that the Finns stopped their troops at the 1939 borders. He thought they would go further with the Germans. Some Finish troops did go further into the USSR but for strategic defence reasons. Finland is not actually in Scandinavia, although they would like to be. They were one of the 4 Baltic states, but pushed themselves into the Scandinavian sphere with many thinking they are in Scandinavia. The people originate from Russia near the Urals, while Scandinavians and northern Germans are of the same stock as the British. The Finns were not in NATO fearful of the Soviets moving into the country again. They did all not to antagonise the Soviets. Finland is an eastern European country, but speaking to them you would think they were in the middle of the Irish Sea.
    2
  8. Martin de Angelis You bet your boots!
    2
  9. +barracuda7018 What world are you in? Holland did no such thing. ♦ The aim of the Germans was to destroy the RAFs fighting capability to resist a seaborne invasion. ♦ The Germans never destroyed the RAF. ♦ More Germans planes were destroyed than British. ♦ There was more British planes at the end of the battle than at the beginning. ♦ The Germans lost. ♦ It was a British win.
    2
  10. +Berge Jermakian The Spitfire had eight machine guns to give a greater spread of fire.
    2
  11. +Fascist Canuck "The flaw was they caught fire too " New to me.
    2
  12. +Fascist Canuck You are seriously disturbed.
    2
  13. They would also pull out of dives that would rip the wings off the little Me109s.
    2
  14. The housing crisis is solved by Land Value Tax. LVT prods people to use land efficiently. This also has to be backed up by relaxed planning regulations. LVT near eliminates land hoarding and speculation in land. Anyone familiar with economics will know the devastating effects of these negative activities on an economy - and housing people. Technology will not solve the housing problem. It has not in over 200 years.
    2
  15. This does not cover zero emissions hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen is much lighter than aviation fuel for energy per weight. But more volumous. Hydrogen would need to be stored in the body not wings making the plane fatter. Hydrogen fuel in planes is a real thing with much R&D going on.
    2
  16. Ireland.
    2
  17. Oh no! History is not his strong point. "the Germans as usual, were well ahead of the competition." How wrong.
    2
  18. Mikkel Bjäll You are one screwed up man. Get therapy quick.
    2
  19. In Italy American troops played a minor role in the operation. Throughout the war even the ‘American’ Fifth Army usually had as many, if not more, British, Canadian, NZ, Polish, Italian, Polish or French troops in the army than Americans. It was not until almost 1945 that even the US Fifth Army was majority American troops. Americans rarely made up more than a third of Allied ground forces in Italy.
    2
  20. Germany produces too much electricity in the summer. This can be used to produce hydrogen which can be used in winter.
    2
  21. The first mass manufacturing was in Portsmouth England. The Royal Navy's massive fleet of wooden sailing ships needed millions of rope pulley blocks. A mass manufacturing factory was set up making them. They also sold them to merchant ship makers.
    2
  22.  @majesticredneck4093  The Jumbo Sherman broke down a lot, as the mechanicals were not up to moving the increased weight.
    2
  23. True it was not unique to Merlin powered planes.
    1
  24. +Bad Beard Bill Carburettors were inefficient and cheap. At certain speed the centre two cylinders would have more fuel than the outer two and the reverse in other situations. Control was poor. Compared to even electro/mechanical fuel injection they are crude.
    1
  25. +soaringtractor Tractor McTrackface, the Carb' problem was solved immediately. Two-stage auto-superchanging was fitted giving the engine 70mph more and another 10,000 feet of operation.
    1
  26. +Thee Adjudicator "It's a miracle we won the war given we were always a technological step behind." *The British were ahead in the scientific war. The Germans could only dream of making planes like the Lancaster, Mosquito, Mustang (basically a British plane), Tempest, Meteor, etc. The British were far ahead on RADAR, SONAR. Proximity fuse, armoured aircraft carriers, etc. The British figured out how to produced the A-Bomb (the MAUD Committee). The British also developed germ warfare but never used it. The experiments on a Scottish island meant until recently no one could go on it.
    1
  27. The Germans were not involved in the 1939 winter war. They were in the later conflict when the Soviets attacked the Finns. The Germans aided the Finns as a diversion to slow down Soviet progress into Germany. The Finns made a peace with the Soviets and Britain and then turned on the Germans to get them out.
    1
  28. The Germans flatly refused to aid the Finns in the 1939 winter war as they signed a pact with the USSR months previously. Between them they divided up countries. The USSR was to have the four Baltic countries which Finland was one and Germany the western part of Poland. Finland was not regarded as being grouped with Scandinavia, although in the Nordic Council. Only 20 years previously Finland was part of Russia, with the Soviets reoccupying their territory. Germany was not allied to the USSR. The British and French were attempting to get arms to Finland with some getting through. When the Soviets were threatening to invade Finland again, the Finns allowed German troops onto their soil, although not being allied to Germany. Britain then declared war on Finland being a co-belligerent. When Finland made peace with the USSR and Britain a part of the peace deal was the ejection of German forces from Finland. The Germans were asked to leave. They never, so the Finns fought the Germans to get them out, otherwise the Soviets would have run right into Finland.
    1
  29. bwda666 Yes. Most of Norway went Germany's way and there was a move keep the north of Norway which would give access to Finland. Matters in France took on a different complexion with French troops moving home. Without holding northern Norway it was near impossible to supply Finland properly. The Finish peace deal with the USSR which meant Soviet troops were not occupying all of Finland, scuppered any troop deployment to Finland. Churchill, who was not PM then, objected to abandoning northern Norway.
    1
  30. The large frontal area was a disadvantage for radial engines, giving a greater fuselage width and a greater area for bullets to hit from the front.
    1
  31. The landing gear was only a real problem on the Seafire, the carrier based Spitfire. The pitching decks gave it a problems. Planes designed specifically for carriers had the wheels wide apart.
    1
  32. +thevoxdeus "If neither the US or USSR ever entered the war, the Germans would have eventually worn down the Brits" An opinion of course, hardly a balanced view. The reality was that British industry was equal size to Germany's. The British could raise an army of over 40 million from it's empire. The British assembled 2.6 million to march into Burma, far larger than any US army in the Far East. The Royal Navy blockade of Germany was highly effective starving Germany of Food, rubber, oil and vital metals, etc. Read Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the NAZI Economy by Prof Adam Tooze.
    1
  33. +diGritz1 "Most don't realize it but it was almost as dangerous to simply fly some planes as it was to take into combat." The last Spitfires in the RAF flew in 1957 being relegated to weather data gathering (Thum unit) based near Liverpool. They just flew them around in circles at different levels gathering temp and humidity data. In the 1950s two pilots in the Thum unit were killed.
    1
  34. diGritz1 "One of the most incredible aspects yet relatively unknown were the female ferry pilots that were tasked with delivering planes through both theaters. I believe in the UK a total of 15 female pilots were lost during these operations in the UK" Mustangs were finished off in Liverpool. Young girls test flew them over the Mersey estuary (one killed there) and delivered them to units, US and British. They would take a bomber with them and all get in it to fly back home - flown by a lone girl. The US men at bases were amazed when a whole batch of new planes were delivered, young girls got out and showed them the basics of how to fly them. Some would not accept instruction from the girls.
    1
  35. +Martin de Angelis This is all being wise in hindsight.
    1
  36. Flying inverted and diving are not quite the same thing. If a Spitfire peeled away in dive initially the engine would cut out. That was solved for the Mustang.
    1
  37. +The real doktorbimmer Bimmer McBimface, the later version of the Merlin had Lucas Fuel Injection. Now you know.
    1
  38. The US carbs were used to fit on US made Merlins under licence on the USA. It meant a shorter lead time.
    1
  39. +The real doktorbimmer The carbs have been explained to you many times - idiot!
    1
  40. +The real doktorbimmer The Spitfire was the best fighter design.
    1
  41. +The real doktorbimmer This one is barking mad!
    1
  42. +barracuda7018 "UNDER EQUAL CIRCUMSTANCES 109'S WOULD HAVE EATEN SHITFIRE'S FOR BREAKFAST " Total drivel " the 109 was the superior fighter" More drivel.
    1
  43. Only because the German had to rely on it as they developed only the FW-190 after it. The British made the Typhoon, Tempest, Mustang, etc and some US fighters. Comparing type for type the Spitfire was superior, as the Germans found out over Dunkirk and southern England.
    1
  44. Bimmer McBimface, as the video states, the problem was solved before RR got Packard to make the Merlin under licence. The Merlin later use fuel injection.
    1
  45. +soaringtractor Tractor McTrackface, The Spitfire was a short range inceptor. The Mustang was specified by the Britsh Air Ministry to have a longer range to operate over Germany from England. Now you know.
    1
  46. This video is very poor in some points. The carburettor problem was immediately solved by inserting a venturi invented by a women engineer, Mrs Shilling, as stated. Called Mrs Shilling's little hole. The planes were immediately retrofitted during the early stages of the Battle of Britain, with the negative Gs causing the engine cut out not a problem. Later Merlin engines had fuel injection, as did the Me109. But from 1942 the Merlins also had fully auto supercharging.
    1
  47. 2/3 said yes? Obviously Americans.
    1
  48. He keeps mispronouncing the word "many", pronouncing it is as manny. He is wrong, as the Soviets produced more T-34s than the US produced Shermans.
    1
  49. Stangford Lough is in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. Northern Ireland in a different country to Ireland being in the United Kingdom.
    1
  50. @pjd412 You may have a point.
    1
  51. The Canadian fell under the title British, because of the British Commonwealth.
    1
  52.  @JamesPhieffer  Canada was, and still is, a part of the British Commonwealth.
    1
  53.  @JamesPhieffer  The British Commonwealth is shortened to British.
    1
  54.  @JamesPhieffer  It was very clear what I put across.
    1
  55. The Concorde did not fail. It was operational for decades. Should I take these vids seriously? mmmmmm
    1
  56. Normandy was a British operation, planned and executed by the British. ♦ More British were put down on D-Day than Americans ♦ The British planned D-Day. ♦ All air forces were under RAF Command - Lee-Mallory. ♦ All naval forces were under Royal Navy Command - Ramsey. ♦ All armies were under British Army Command - Montgomery. ♦ In Normandy the British destroyed 90% of German armour. ♦ All infrastructure like the two mulberry harbours and PLUTO were devised and provided by the British ♦ British naval personnel outnumbered US by 5 to 1. ♦ Most landing craft were provided by the British. ♦ Most planes were British ♦ Most ships were British.
    1
  57. The cost of a P-47, 2.5 Mustangs could be bought. Poor value for money. The P-47 excelled in the ground attack role.
    1
  58. This vid is aimed at the US market. The Sherman was nothing special at all. In fact outdated on introduction. In 1939 the US Army never even had a tank.
    1
  59.  @kaos1043  ?
    1
  60.  @kaos1043  I know all about the Ronson. Read Death Traps by Belton Cooper.
    1
  61.  @kaos1043  Read the book. Shocking indeed.
    1
  62.  @kaos1043  Lots I am sure
    1
  63. He still cannot speak properly. I cut out after a few minutes.
    1
  64. Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nnjGjGuRjo
    1
  65. He says wun tun instead of one ton. Get your pronunciation sorted. Many who do not have English as their first language can't understand you.
    1
  66. The bunkers could knock out tanks as well.
    1
  67.  @Crashed131963  The Soviets got out of Austria. Once they were at the North Sea they would have been disfficult to shift.
    1
  68.  @1Barsamian  wrote: "One of the stipulations for the US join the war on the side of Britain was that Britain give up the rest (or most) of her colonies, especially in the Western Hemisphere - which she did." There was not such stipulation. Also Britain did not give up its empire directly after WW2. Most was intact way into the late 1950s. Look up the Winds of Change.
    1
  69. In 2013 the first hybrid plane flew. The propeller was turned by an electric motor. It had a battery bank and rotary (Wankel) engine as an onboard elecyrity generator.  The rotary engine is ideal for this setup, and even better when using hydrogen. The efficiency of a rotary rises greatly when using hydrogen as opposed to gasoline giving greater efficiency than piston engines. There has also been advances in rotary engine technology, like HCCI ignition.  A rotary engine is one third of the weight for the equivalent power output than a piston engine, so ideal for planes. They are also far, far smoother, with fewer moving parts being quite simple. The efficiency rises again when used at its constant speed sweet spot. The rotary can be located in the fuselage giving lighter and cheaper wings with better balance. So, the ingredients are there to have zero emissions over built up areas.  Greater range when the batterey bank is charged on the ground. The hydrogen rotary is a great intermediate eco solution for smaller planes and even smaller airliners.
    1
  70. A rule measures. A ruler rules - like a king. He still cannot pronounce many, saying manny. Easy to fix if he wants to.
    1
  71. Rotary engines are 23% more efficient using hydrogen than using petrol, with near zero emissions. https://www.cder.dz/A2H2/Medias/Download/Proc%20PDF/PARALLEL%20SESSIONS/%5BS22%5D%20Internal%20Combustion%20Engines/13-06-06/169.pdf
    1
  72. "as usual the Germans were well ahead" You need to read some history me boy.
    1
  73. He is Irish, so mispronounces. You will get used to it.
    1
  74. The huge Qattara Depression in Egypt is below sea level. A forest could be planted there with sea water from the Mediterranean desalinated using solar panels, then dropping by gravity to the irrigation systems of the forests saving on pumping costs. The forests will change the climate producing more rainfall.
    1
  75. Dieppe was a test.
    1
  76.  @aquarius5719  It was a test of enemy defense and how they conducted such an operation. They never assaulted a port full on ever again.
    1
  77. O.K. In the 1930s the German economy was that 56% of the people worked on the land. The agriculture was so poor it was similar to southern Ireland and Romania. Prof Adam Tooze states that Germany was a mid-sized workshop economy.
    1
  78. Batou Gintel I love to read some of the drivel. Germany declared war on the USA.
    1
  79.  @budslife4003  Yes, the west of \Ireland, that is why he can't pronounce words properly.
    1
  80. @ BigMathis As an economist you should know about land values and how they affects the economy and supply of homes.
    1
  81. On D-Day the Germans were still way inside the USSR. The western allies pleaded with the Soviets to attack the Germans on D-Day. They did in Operation Bagration.
    1
  82. Will you pronounce English properly please.
    1
  83. Ventus Tavistock complete and utter nonsense. It takes the same amount of electricity to produce gasoline as to power an EV. Refineries take an enormous amount of electricity. One refinery in the UK consumes the equivalent of Leicester and Coventry combined having s direct link to the local power station. EVs charge directly to the power station, eliminating the intermediate electricity used to produce the gasoline. The head of the British National Grid said that the grid needs no more capacity if all cars went over to be EV soon, as the existing is fine.
    1
  84. There have been breakthroughs in battery technology giving much higher density storage. Not on the market yet as production setup takes time. A plane consumes a lot of energy when taking off. An electric plane can have an electric induction pickup taking electricity from the runway as it rolls to take off. This will preserve the battery charge. Also runways could have ski jumps, like on aircraft carriers to reduce energy used on take off.
    1
  85. This guy still cannot pronounce English properly. He still keeps pronouncing "any" as anny.
    1
  86. The winter did not defeat Germany. The Soviets beat the Germans at the Battle of Moscow, taking 30,000 prisoners.
    1
  87. @Britannic Dieppe was not a second front. It was a test.
    1
  88. Pronunciation for any is "enny" not "anny". ;)
    1
  89. Hydrogen makes economic sense in trains. Electric overhead wires for miles and miles are expensive to build and maintain.
    1
  90. @Allen Loser Diesel fuel makes no sense whatsoever.
    1
  91. @Allen Loser Do you work in the oil industry,? You must to write such garbage. Diesel fuel pollutes. It emits soot which is carcinogenic. It ruins lungs and blackens buildings. Filthy stuff. Must be banned ASAP.
    1
  92. @Allen Loser You do not have much a clue. The UK has pledged that half of all new car sales will be hybrid or electric by 2030 and a total ban on diesel by 2040. https://www.ft.com/content/30f7e328-8372-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929
    1
  93. @Allen Loser You have two cars? Are you sane?
    1
  94. @Allen Loser You are a complete idiot.
    1
  95. @Allen Loser Case proven.
    1
  96. @Allen Loser The lot. When used, only the cleanest fuel, then in controlled environments to ensure the least emissions, like power stations. The EV will dominate in about 10 years, so nuts like you will not matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
    1
  97. Only Kings Cross? Please. There was Euston, London Bridge station's, etc.
    1
  98. The word is many not manny. It is irritating to listen to your mispronunciations. Not difficult to put right.
    1
  99. Hydrogen makes sense in large vehicles like: ships, trains, trucks, buses... and planes
    1
  100. This guy still cannot pronounce the word any.
    1
  101.  @gillescordier8033  An opposed cylinder diesel engine is highly inefficient to a hydrogen fuel cell.
    1
  102.  @dosmastrify  The magnificent Baily bridge. It could be built from one end.
    1
  103. What is he saying at 1:09? "the resulting explosion ****"
    1
  104. This guys still cannot pronounce English properly. I never finished the vid as he was so irritating.
    1
  105. You need ti understand what Dieppe was about. It was a test of enemy defences. It was not to gain a foothold on the Continent. It could never be a win or a defeat.
    1
  106.  @buckhorncortez  The US high command though the Germans would be defeated without them. Look at 1 hr 14 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4&t=4362s
    1
  107. They did miss their targets. They also never took up the British beach clearing Funnies. A foolish thing for Bradley to do. A man who should have been fired.
    1
  108. You need to know the difference between a machine and a _network, (a collection of machines).
    1
  109. Barrages are expensive but have other benefits besides tide power, like: -Forming bridges; -Forming a tunnel at the base of the barrage; -Pretty well constant locked-in water levels for ships docking; -Acting as flood protection; -Access to the enclosed near constant level water 24/7; -No waiting for tides for ships to enter port; -The barrage being a mountings for wind turbines; -Flood protection; A barrage was considered for the River Mersey at Liverpool, between New Brighton and Bootle (I believe still being considered). One suggestion was a road on top with a tunnel for the Merseyrail metro network built into its base. The whole river estuary would be locked in with a series of entrance locks used 24/7, rather than having to wait for high tide to enter the existing enclosed, locked, multiple dock systems in the estuary. The expensive cost of maintaining the existing locks in the multiple dock systems in the river would be eliminated. The barrage would also act as flood protection. Something like the proposed multiple use Mersey barrage then would a very cost effective project.
    1
  110. Normandy was a British operation, planned and executed by the British. ♦ More British were put down on D-Day than Americans ♦ The British planned D-Day. ♦ All air forces were under RAF Command - Lee-Mallory. ♦ All naval forces were under Royal Navy Command - Ramsey. ♦ All armies were under British Army Command - Montgomery. ♦ In Normandy the British destroyed 90% of German armour. ♦ All infrastructure like the two mulberry harbours and PLUTO were devised and provided by the British ♦ British naval personnel outnumbered US by 5 to 1. ♦ Most landing craft were provided by the British. ♦ Most planes were British ♦ Most ships were British.
    1
  111.  @Avalanche041  The Americans wanted a full landing in 1942. Very odd as they first had boots on the ground against the Germans after 13 months. The British had to tell them about seaborne invasions and that it would be suicide. Churchill wanted to move up Italy though the gap into Austria to get into the heart of Germany. The US view won over with a cross Channel invasion. The British then planned the D-Day operation, and as I wrote, ran it. Of course some US men were involved in the planning where it concerned their forces, however the prime planners and those who decided what and where, were the British. D-Day was a British operation for sure. British landing craft were superior to the wooden US Higgin's boats. The helmsman was behind an armoured shield. As the advance inland progressed at a snail's pace due to Eisenhower's broad-front strategy (taken from the US civil war - no kidding) US forces were sustaining exceptionally high casualties, mainly due to poor generalship. US generals cared little about the lives of their men, unlike the British and Canadians who developed armoured personnel carriers in WW2 - the US rejected them when offered. 100,000 casualties at the Bulge (Montgomery had to take control of two shambolic US armies), 52,000 at Lorraine, 12,000 Operation Queen, 33,000 at the Hurtgen Forest defeat, etc. US chiefs of staff in Washing fearing embarrassing US defeats being pushed right back, poured more troops into the ETO. Most of the US forces sent over were poorly trained, green and luckily never saw any action whatsoever. They were immediately taken back to prepare for the invasion of Japan. At the end of WW2 in Europe the forces were half American because of this panic by their Chiefs of staff, with British, Commonwealth, French (they had over one million), and other contributors making up the rest. BTW, the British and its empire fielded 100 divisions in 1942 alone while US overall in WW2 fielded 88. An army of 2.6 million moved into Burma, dwarfing the US boots on the ground against the Japanese. Churchill gave the green Americans initially too much rope. He suggested an American be supreme commander, flattering them to get them to adopt Germany First. The US assumed the British would be in full control as it was ther backyard. Churchill had an obsession about Hitler over estimating the Germans. The Americans should not have have been in control of any part of the ETO. When were in control of planning (Market Garden comes to mind) it nearly always went pear shaped.
    1
  112.  @bigwoody4704  Rambo, which army contributed less ground troops than the British and Soviets against the Japanese.
    1
  113. The world is full of them! :(
    1
  114. Around 1 min 20 secs. The resulting explosion did what? (I can't get around the accent).
    1
  115. In Normandy, 90% of German armour was destroyed by the British. The British did use Shemans, as the US was throwing them at the British, but! They used the Sherman chassis to mount a Tiger killing British 17-pdr gun, not used by US forces. They used Cromwells, a better tank than the Sherman, the Churchill, again a better tank than the Sherman. The Challenger with a 17-pdr gun. The US had only one tank, the Sherman, with an inadequate 75mm gun.
    1
  116.  @peterson7082  The Cromwell was fast, using the superior RR engine. It had a lower profile. Roomy inside. Using the 6-pdr gun with APDS shells could knock out Tigers. Superb fast cross country running. The later Churchills had thicker armour than the Tiger. It could turn on its own axis. Very roomy inside. Highest survival rate of any tank in WW2. Even climb hills, as the Germans found out to their detriment in Tunisia as Churchills appeared when least expected. Using the 6-pdr gun with APDS shells it could knock out Tigers.
    1
  117.  @peterson7082  wrote: "Because the outstanding majority of German armor was encountered by British and Commonwealth forces until late June." That was the way Montgomery planned it. His left flank (the British) takes on the bulk of the German forces drawing it away from his right flank (the Americans), in order they break out forming an encirclement. That was the plan which happened. US forces were not capable of taking on massed German armour. They lacked experience and not with a 75mm infantry tank. US forces hardly met German armour in Normandy. The Americans had only faced one battalion of 40 assault guns in June (17th SS) and only one panzer divisions (2nd SS) in July. The only time the Americans faced a large number of tanks in Normandy was when the Germans counter attacked them in August during Mortain. Even then, the panzer divisions had been whittled down in strength after engaging Monty's forces around Caen and were nowhere near at the strength they were when they were fighting around Caen. In Normandy throughout the whole of June there was just one battalion of 40 assault guns in the ENTIRE American sector. These were the Stugs of 17th SS. There was no other armour in the whole of the American sector (apart from some few insignificant early war obsolete French tanks) until 2nd SS Das Reich turned up in front of St Lo in early July. At this time the British and Canadians had EIGHT panzer divisions (4 Waffen SS) in their sector. Two more Tiger battalions were sent to the British sector in early July 1944.
    1
  118.  @peterson7082  and?
    1
  119.  @peterson7082  the Cromwell was a common tank in British forces. It performed a multiple of roles.
    1
  120.  @peterson7082  So? The Cromwell.was a superior tank to Sherman. That is obvious. It was improved to the Comet which was the equivalent to the Pather.
    1
  121. Advances....H2IL state: "More energy out than usable input energy enabled clean, self-sustaining energy generation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjdn1Jv58o Hydrogen trains look to be the first mass uptake. UKs 1st train: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTNxIN7aPSc
    1
  122. You are still saying, "anny", instead of any. ;)
    1
  123. He is Irish.
    1
  124. A power station in London was the first in the same year - 1882.
    1
  125. The French had more tanks than the Germans and better tanks.
    1