Boeman
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Boeman
-
-
The T34 was not a modern tank tho - it had a 2 man turret and was unreliable and as awkward as all heck to operate. The engine/transmission layout was appalling so when the T34/85 was introduced it was grossly overbalanced - something that could only be rectified by massively increasing the strength of the front springs - which did nothing to improve the ride. Ammunition stowage was pathetic - 9 rounds ready in the '76!!
the T34 did have good armour, a good gun and good mobility for 1941 - but it was not as fantastic as many people would like to believe.
What made the T-34 a quantum leap was that it first tank platform to achieve the correct balance of mobility, firepower and armor protection whereas other tanks were deficient in one or more of the other three. It forced the entire world to re-think the concept tank design with its sloped armour and wide tracks; the Germans most of all.
Regarding reliability, it is worth pointing out that Russian engineers were relatively inexperienced by comparison to their western counterparts as Russia itself was emerging from a largely agricultural economy though they did some have brilliant minds among them. Originally, the initial batches of the T-34 were made in western Russia, but as the German invasion rolled inexorably on, these facilities were dismantled and transferred east of the Urals – effectively putting Russia’s industrial capacity in disarray as new facilities of lesser quality were hastily constructed. Another factor to consider was the urgency to mass produce tanks in ever greater numbers even with a shortage of skilled workers. Plant managers were under threat of death if quotas were not met and so supplemented forced labour (women and teenagers) to meet their expected targets. A largely unskilled work force churning out tanks under appalling conditions would naturally lead to many T-34s with poor riveting, welding, etc. In practice, the average T-34 was capable of traveling about 200km before reaching its end of shelf life. This was considered acceptable by the Soviet high command as most tanks would see their demise long before that accumulated distance was reached. As for its other deficiencies, the Russians did correct the 2-man turret with the T-34/85 and addressed the issue of cramped conditions simply by employing tank operators of smaller stature.
It is no secret that the German tanks on average utilized superior optics, had a better interior layout, wider field of view and fielded radios which provided them with innumerable advantages. But let’s not forget as well, of course, that many of these tanks were not without their own deficiencies- the tendency by designers to over-engineer leading to reliability issues, especially early models of late-war vehicles.
Having said that, the T-34 is not the mythical wonder weapon that it is often praised to be. Certainly, it was not the best tank by August, 1945. Still, it proved to be a war winning platform as a result of the concept of balanced stats in addition to the volume produced. At the very least, it left an indelible impression on those whose task it was to design mobile armour for the next generation.
As for operational "agility" - the US introduced the 76mm Sherman in July 1944, the Russians got the T34/85 operational in May - so there's not a lot of difference in eth timeline there.
The Russians didn’t just have the T-34/85 at their disposal, they had a wide range of platforms by 1943 such as the SU-85, SU-100 and even SU-152 which were able to penetrate the heavier German tanks. The IS-2 was also being introduced in 1944 to provide the Soviets with a heavy assault weapon for spearhead operations, a class of tank for which the Americans relied upon the British for.
As for the American 76mm, it did provide better penetration with HVAP ammo on upgraded Stug III and Panzer IVs but proved impotent against the Panther’s frontal armour. This is significant as D-Day onwards saw Panthers accounting for half the Panzer force arrayed against the Allies in Normandy.
By contrast, the Russians were very quick to recognize threats posed by new German vehicles and upgraded their arsenal accordingly whereas the Americans moved at comparatively glacial pace. By the time they took it seriously enough to finally field 90mm solutions via the Pershing and Jackson, Germany’s defeat was already assured.
The Pershing was as good as anything anyone else produced - so again, not sure what your point is.
Not quite. While the Pershing was a vast improvement over the Sherman in terms of armour and armament, it used the same engine which had to cope with much heavier weight. As a result, it was a slow and difficult to maneuver. The British Centurion was an all-around better solution that actually did fit the major requirements of a post-war main battle tank. The shelf-life of the Pershing was measured in just a few years compared to Centurions which are still in use by some armies today.
A "political" decision was made to not produce it in numbers in favour of Shermans.......but that's certainly nothing to do with US design agility.
It could be argued that the American leadership prioritized Sherman production with the full knowledge that it was outclassed in an effort to put more tanks on the ground thus, adopting a similar strategy used by the Russians of employing numerical superiority at the cost of expending more lives.
However, if you examine the perception held by military bureaucrats, specifically Lesley Mcnair and George Patton, one can spot a reverence for the M4 Sherman that indicated an astonishing level of willful ignorance. General Mcnair actively fought the development of the Pershing from its initial proposal in 1942 and beyond even despite having good intelligence on tank specifications for the Panther in 1943. Only after the Battle of the Bulge was there a tacit acknowledgement on the inadequacy of the Sherman to take on heavy German Panzers by the Pershing’s detractors.
The British, to their credit, saw the shortcomings of the Sherman and retrofitted their M4s with the 17-pounder which was equivalent to the penetrative qualities of the German L-70 gun (and even better with tungsten shot). When these were offered to Americans forces prior to D-Day, Omar Bradley, in his belief that they were unnecessary, rejected the offer out of hand. He would later admit it was an error on his part.
In the end, US tank forces were able to grind down the German Panzer arm through sheer force of numbers and air superiority. It still leaves one wondering though, how many lives could have been saved had the development of heavier tanks like the 90mm Pershing not been stonewalled to the degree that it was. It is a tragedy brought about not by the lack of innovation in American tank design, but by the worst possible reason of all, plain old fashioned hubris. And THAT is my point!
-
It wasn't the depression - that affected everybody.
The implications of the stock market crash was felt worldwide. However, its effect among the major participants of World War II were not universal.
While not hit initially as hard as the Americans, for Britain, the repercussions of post 1929 would linger on for a longer period. Britain was already weakened by the Great War and the Depression further exacerbated its problems as an empire in decline. Heavy industry was most affected with some towns in northern England seeing as much as 70% unemployment. The situation was not helped by the fact that Winston Churchill, then Chancellor, enacted a policy of floating the Pound Sterling on the gold standard in 1925 to a level before the Great War which served to make British goods more expensive thus, slowing the economic recovery in the 20s. This same policy would have disastrous results in the 30s.
In 1927, the formation of the Experimental Mechanized Force by the British military was the world’s first armoured brigade. It took part in several exercises to prove the concept of mechanized warfare; specifically, the benefits of having an independent mechanized force with its own operational and strategic focus. The results of the 2 year exercises proved the viability of the concept but problems in the force organization and the small scope of the maneuvers left the brass, many of whom were highly conservative and some believing horse cavalry still had a role to play, unconvinced. When the Experimental Force was dispersed in 1929, several months prior to the start of the Great Depression, advocates of tank units working in tandem with motorized infantry would not see another chance to impress upon their generals the urgency of this new reality when the stock market crash finally did hit. With the budget cuts across the board and the political establishment in no mood for war, tank units were relegated to serving as adjuncts to large traditional forces, the same WW1 structure which put the British at a tactical disadvantage over the Germans at the start of the Second World War. Consequently, the influence of tank design was subsequently focused on mechanical reliability and speed but with light armament. Like the Americans, the British were slow to adapt as they continued using the same emphasis on their design until late in the war.
The effect of the Great Depression on the United States is already well known. The Americans were better able to recover from it due in large part to the automobile industry as well as government economic stimulus initiatives. In the end, it was less about the economic downturn and more about the policy of isolationism and the resulting neglect for its armoured forces. That was painfully obvious when the Americans entered the war with flawed doctrines for tank warfare and with tank designs that better served plant managers who needed to meet production quotas over protecting the lives of tank crews. This would eventually be corrected at great cost in lives and fairly late in the war at that.
For Germany and Russia, the Great Depression had the opposite effect. Germany was already heavily restricted by the Versailles treaty at the point the Great Depression hit. While the general population suffered mightily in the first few years, the level of poverty and depravation paved the way open for Hitler who quickly denounced the Versailles treaty in 1935 after taking power. Under sweeping economic reforms, German engineers were able to set their fertile minds to the task of designing weapons of war under the guise of numerous civil industries. Designers tended to stress modularity and performance which gave German arms production the ability to adapt to new requirements for upcoming variants and designs. Despite initial Germans tanks being lighter than that of their western opponents, their combined arms doctrine and advanced tactics helped compensate them in the early war years until heavier platforms became available.
Russia, by virtue of having government control over all factors of production and with an economy that was not tied to the rest of Europe, was insulated by the Great Depression which had ravaged others. Stalin’s five year plan saw the rise of Russia from a backward rural country to a leading economic power, especially in steel production. The economy grew as much as 400% in some areas. American and even German engineers who could not find employment in their own countries traveled to the Russia to assist with the construction of machinery necessary for the plan’s implementation. Soviet engineers themselves were not shy about incorporating foreign technologies into their own tank designs - Walter Christie’s suspension system being among them. Many technological advances and ideas with military applications which could not be realized elsewhere as a result of budget cutbacks were happily put to use in Russia. Due to the harsh climate, reliability and ease of maintenance was a necessity that would punctuate all Soviet designs from small arms to aircraft. The Russians designers also had another aid in the form of practical experience as a result of the battle of Khalkhin Gol which highlighted the vulnerabilities of the BT series of tanks. The battle’s aftermath inspired Mikhail Koshkin to develop the BT’s successor that would come to be known as the T-34.
Overall, the Great Depression’s impact on the ability for countries to innovate, especially in the field of tank design was profound – some more than others. Lack of funding to continue the testing of new concepts on a larger scale saw Britain drop from a leading advocate of mechanized warfare back to World War One levels, for an example. By stark contrast, Germany and Russia actually came out the Depression with a net plus which facilitated an environment for new ideas. Where the establishment governing the Western Allies were quick to dismiss the potential of the tank in the 1930s, the Germans and Russians saw opportunities to position themselves in an effort to expand beyond contemporary pre-conceptions when the need arose.
While the Depression certainly isn't the only factor with respect to tank design, to downplay it as insignificant is to ignore the economic and political realities of the time.
The Americans had nothing at all effective in 1939 - but like the Soviets had 1940-41 to absorb some of the lessons of the early war and got the formulae right with the Sherman (in the sense of a "modern" concept)On the contrary, the Americans were the least agile of the major powers when it came to introducing new classes of tanks as the situation warranted. I'd say it was the Russians who got the concept of the modern tank right with the T-34.
-
In brief, the Brits used tanks a lot (ISTR that they actually built more than the Germans did). Regrettably, their designs during the war were often not quite up to snuff, which is odd since they were world leaders before the war and after.
You can thank the great depression for that.
Following the 1929 stock market crash, drastic cuts to the British military saw programs which oversaw innovative tank designs, development and tactics suddenly disappear overnight. What was left was a reversion back to the old WW1 doctrine when war finally did break out.
-
Am I the only one who thinks the OP comes off a major douche bag?
Employing the use of passive intimidation in order to avoid paying a nominal fee for a movie ticket. Really? I shudder to think what other things this guy does in the name of entitlement.
As for the review, it reads off like it could have been narrated by James Sawyer from Lost; shallow and non-erudite. One exception being Josh Holloway's character having a vastly more expanded vocabulary.
-
War Thunder and World of Tanks have been all the rage for free-to-play WW2 combat. As they appeal to a broad audience, less of an emphasis is placed on realistic simulation.
At the very least, War Thunder does factor the impact of shells on various components on the vehicle.
Bottom line however, is that the game IS buckets of fun, as you say.
-
Zazzle, as I understand it, is a company that sells user-designed apparel. It is a service that enables graphic artists to create designs for transfer onto T-shirts, mugs, posters and other items ordered by customers who browse Zazzle.com.
The artist (or most likely, hobbyist) independently sets up their own virtual store in Zazzle from which they sell their designs to be stenciled on various apparel and other gift items.
For an example, Artist A designs a logo that can be stenciled on a T-shirt. A customer orders a T-shirt with said design. Zazzle prints the T-shirt and delivers it to the customer; handling all of the logistics for designer A. Designer A gets his cut and naturally Zazzle get its share of the proceeds.
There are probably WW2 posters that have been created true to form while others may have been modified to taste for satirical purposes. The final output is up to individual designers, most of whom are just part time hobbyists that have a copy of Photoshop laying around as opposed to historians who have conducted meticulous research.
In other words, I wouldn't rely on Zazzle.com if historical accuracy were of utmost importance.
-
A newly created account with a highly provocative entry on the second posting?
I vote for spam bot.
-
Then I'm waiting for wing commander.
Chris Robert's current spiritual successor to Wing Commander is Star Citizen.
It's a crowd sourced MMO project that plays like Privateer. You acquire your own ship and you can join various different factions or go it alone. There may or may not be a single player component. One of the most interesting aspects of this MMO is the micro transaction economy that takes on the form of users creating their own ships using external 3D modeling applications and if approved, selling them on the Star Citizen marketplace.
-
Lately there has been a trend of old classics being re-released with updated engines and major bug fixes; not to mention full compatibility with windows 7/8.
I've been playing icewind dale 1 and bauldar's gate enhanced edition for the first time and having a blast with it.
Whenever a sequel to a beloved classic series appears like fallout 3, I may take interest and actually start playing the series from the first game (no matter how antiquated the gameplay mechanics) right up until the latest release to ensure I enjoy the maximum benefit from the single player backstory. Enhancing old classics would definitely facilitate this (in addition to earning additional revenue) rather than force players to sift through abandonware sites.
-
I put the Tiger on because it really was revolutionary. Yes, it was heavy and unreliable. But, it was pretty badass up till the end of the war, and heavily influenced Allied anti-tank doctrine. And it was likely one of the most feared, if not THE most feared, tanks of the war. IMO, that counts for something. Looking back over this, I think I might rewrite it as such:
1. T-34
2. Panther
3. Sherman
4. Panzer IV
5. IS-2
6. Panzer III
7. KV-1
8. Panzer 38(t)
9. Tiger
10. S-35 (or maybe still T-26)
As to criteria, I really don't have any. I guess it has to be at least somewhat influential in design and have been built in large enough numbers to see a good amount of combat. Having a very versatile chassis helps, as does being particularly effective. I do think being feared by the enemy is a contributing factor.
The Tiger is disqualified from some of that criteria due to the aforementioned reasons previously given. Although Wittman helped to cement the Tiger's reputation in Caen, ironically enough he was also responsible for helping to dispel the Tiger invincibility mythos when he lead an attack with four Tigers. Three of them were knocked out by a single Sherman Firefly and Wittman's Tiger was itself supposedly destroyed by a fighter bomber.
It you were listing tanks based on infamy alone however, then the Tiger would certainly rank at the top.
-
The Panther was approximately the same height. Maybe an inch or two taller in fact. Should we assume that made it an easy target?
In the case of the Sherman, lessons from the M24 and M18 revealed that two transfer cases could have significantly lowered the profile and so in effect, it really should have been lower. It was an engineering failure that cost many lives.
But then, more than half of the German armor in use was either PzKw. IV or StuG III, which the Sherman was fully capable of handling.True. But in turn the Sherman proved quite vulnerable to the Stug and Panzer IV. It was only versus Japanese light tanks in particular did the Sherman have any overwhelming advantage in tank vs tank engagements.
The 88 was an antiaircraft gun. There were also a small number of dedicated ATGs made based on it. While it was sometimes used as an artillery piece, that was not its primary mission.
Artillery is often defined as "large-caliber guns used in warfare on land" and it is in that context that I classify the 88 as an artillery piece. Yes, it was created primarily as an anti-aircraft gun initially but its use was quickly expanded to encompass two other roles; that being anti-tank and as conventional artillery, all of which it was able to do with equal ability. In effect, the 88’s primary role was whatever the Germans wanted it to be as need arose.
Actually that was not so in practice. What the stabilizer was good for—when it was working—was holding the aim well enough so that when the tank halted to fire, it was easier for the gunner to lay the gun on target quickly.
Sure, I can accept that. Still, it is an innovation worth mentioning.
While you are entitled to your opinion, I can't see where you are coming from to make that statement. Specifically, what shortcomings of the Sherman did the Chaffee address? It was a different kind of tank designed for a different mission and would not have been able to perform the Sherman's mission as well. It was by and large a great improvement on the M5 Stuart, which is the tank it actually replaced.
Yes, the M24 Chaffee was a light tank built for reconnaissance. The armour was lighter but it did have the speed to scoot and shoot, a tactic best employed on the European front given what they had to work with. It's smaller size made it quite difficult to hit and the armament allowed for it to hold its own, It was certainly able to deal with any recon vehicles the Germans had. For the mission it was assigned, the M24 was certainly not left wanting whereas the Sherman, designed as a break-through tank and then forced into the role of the main battle tank, proved problematic in the roles it was asked to perform.
In any case, insofar as WW2 tanks are concerned, the M24 Chaffee belongs somewhere in there – my humble opinion of course.
-
I would have to agree on the Tiger needing to be brought down a few rungs. It's effect was primarily psychological; thanks in part to Michael Wittmann's exploits in Caen. As a practical weapon, it was under powered, slow, costly to build, too heavy for many smaller bridges and was by most accounts, a maintenance nightmare.
At the other end of the spectrum was the Sherman which, while being easy to produce, easy to maintain, light enough to facilitate transport almost everywhere, also suffered from numerous technical shortcomings that should see it positioned much lower than second place.
The Sherman was a hastily designed platform with the first iterations using an aviation engine thus, giving the tank its high distinctive profile which presented allied opponents with an easier target.
Although the Sherman was effective against light vehicles and infantry, its protection and armament was wholly inadequate against much of the heavier armour fielded against them. More often than naught, US, British and Canadian Shermans found themselves routinely outclassed by German panzers such as the Panther and most especially the 88 artillery gun.
The Sherman certainly had a few neat innovations going for it, including a stabilized turret that allowed for accurate firing while on the move and a highly adaptive chassis to enable it as a platform for everything from flamer throwers to a makeshift rocket battery. In the end however, it was their massive numbers that overwhelmed the Germans rather than its technical abilities.
In my humble opinion, the M24 Chafee, which successfully addressed all the shortcomings of the Sherman and then some, should be on that list somewhere.
-
I'm not sure how far they expect to get with this but it certainly adds an interesting dimension; especially given the timing of the "Lone Survivor" film which is due for release.
January 10, 2014
by Dan Lamothe
When insurgents shot down a CH-47D Chinook helicopter carrying Navy SEALs over Afghanistan in 2011, it spawned myriad questions about who in the U.S. military and political establishment should be held accountable. But the families of several of the 38 men killed in that mission intend to take it a step farther, suing another entity more removed from the incident: Iran. Problem is, the families don't at the moment have much in the way of direct evidence to implicate Iran in the shootdown.
The families plan to name Tehran, two of its leaders -- former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei -- and Iran's Revolutionary Guards among the defendants in a lawsuit seeking $600 million in damages. The suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, also will name several other individuals and organizations more commonly associated with the U.S. war in Afghanistan, including the Afghan government itself, President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Additionally, lawyer Larry Klayman, who is representing the families, tells Foreign Policy the suit will target three Afghan military organizations: The Afghan National Security Forces, the Afghan Operational Coordination Group, and Amalyati Qeta/Qeta-e-Khas-e-Amalyati, an Afghan special operations unit.
-
Rheinmetall demos laser that can shoot down drones
A laser weapons system that can shoot down two drones at a distance of over a mile has been demonstrated by Rheinmetall Defence. The German defence firm used the high-energy laser equipment to shoot fast-moving drones at a distance.
The system, which uses two laser weapons, was also used to cut through a steel girder a kilometre away.The company plans to make the laser weapons system mobile and to integrate automatic cannon.
The 50kW laser weapons system used radar and optical systems to detect and track two incoming drones, the company said. The nose-diving drones were flying at 50 metres per second, and were shot down when they reached a programmed fire sector.
The weapons system locked onto the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by using radar for a rough approximation of the location of the targets, then fine-tuned the tracking using an optical system.
The high-energy laser system was used to cut through a 15mm-thick steel girder, and to shoot out of the air a steel ball designed to mimic a mortar round. The company has tested the laser system in a variety of weather conditions, including snow, sunlight, and rain.Rheinmetall plans to test its laser weapons mounted on different vehicles and to integrate a 35mm revolver cannon into it.
A number of governments and defence firms are in the process of developing weapons that use or incorporate lasers. For example, Raytheon unveiled a 50kW anti-aircraft laser at the Farnborough Airshow in 2010, and in June 2012 the US Army released details of a weapon that can fire a laser-guided lightning-bolt at a target.
Mirror surfaced drones, anyone?
-
I spent hours on the original X-com and am now learning about this new reincarnation.
I'm curious if the original strategy for the original still works which consists of:
- Killing off all squad members with a natural low PSI resist by equipping them with dynamite and sending them off on a Kamakazie errand.
- Trailing ufos with only vertical take-off troop carrier craft and landing on the drop site to capture all resources and equipment intact.
- Positioning soldiers by the entrance teleporter pad and simply waiting for the enemy to come to you; making them easy targets that could be picked off piecemeal when invading large installations.
- Producing laser tanks and reselling them for a substantial profit.
- Creating expendable bases with just large radar facilities to create a large detection net.
- Setting up depot bases that serve only as storage and manufacturing hubs. These are usually protected by the "concealment" base upgrade.
- Deploying soldiers mainly as snipers around the troop carrier while hover tanks scout for enemy positions as they are immune to Chrysalid infection (those things SUCK!).
- Abusing guided rockets
Looking forward to trying out this latest from the XCOM franchise.
-
Which is entirely understandable in an age where there are a llot of demands on time.
Why do you think it is strange?? IMO the vast majority of people have always only been interested in "getting by" at some level or other - it has only ever been a small minority who want to learn for the sake of learning and go on to do something more remarkable than "getting by".
Indeed, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that students in general see attending higher education as a necessary (and expensive) evil.
Institutions often tell us that in order to succeed in life, you need a degree from which you'll be given employment, garner increased wages, have something to brag about at parties when looking for that significant other, advance through the higher echelons in your chosen career field, and so on.
No high-school counselor ever told me that University would be a wondrous experience with the limitless diversity of thought upon which my mind would feast upon. Rather, they emphasized that if I elected not to obtain a degree, I may as well sell hot dogs in downtown for the rest of my life.
Consequently, undergrads who are being sold the merits of university through fear will naturally view it as simply a means to an end.
-
Very cool find to say the least - especially given it's asserted Canadian connection.
I suspect that the Egyptian authorities will relinquish it quickly and smoothly to the custody of the British.
Can anyone think of a reason as to why they wouldn't?
Discovery of buried warplane puts Canada's aviation buffs on Cloud 9.
A Second World War fighter plane, just discovered in the Egyptian desert 70 years after it was crash-landed there by its British pilot, is generating excitement among vintage aircraft experts in Canada who suspect the long-buried Kittyhawk P-40 — literally unearthed from the sands of time — was once flown by one of this country's great aces in the air battles of North Africa: Saskatchewan-born James "Stocky" Edwards, now 90 and living in Comox, B.C.
Edwards is, in fact, considered to be the "highest scoring" living fighter ace in Canada, credited with 19 "confirmed kills" and many additional damaged and destroyed enemy aircraft on the ground.
His wartime exploits while assigned to the Royal Air Force — like many other Canadian pilots — have been poignantly honoured by Vintage Wings of Canada, the Gatineau, Que.-based aviation heritage organization that restores antique aircraft and flies them at air shows around the country.
Among the group's treasures is its "Stocky Edwards Kittyhawk P-40," which was acquired from New Zealand but restored and painted to match the markings of Edwards' principal aircraft during the Desert War: a fighter plane identified as RAF 260 Squadron's HS-B.
Remarkably, the Second World War relic discovered in March by an oil worker travelling in a remote part of the Sahara Desert was marked with the same identifier: HS-B.
Vintage Wings spokesman Dave O'Malley told Postmedia News on Friday that the newly discovered aircraft is definitely not the same plane Edwards is best known for flying in Africa, because that P-40 was not lost during the war.
However, the group believes the newly discovered P-40 might be the plane Edwards was piloting before it vanished in June 1942 — while being flown by a British pilot to an Allied aircraft depot for landing gear repairs — and which subsequently was replaced by the successor "HS-B" that became closely associated with Edwards as his "personal" Kittyhawk fighter.
It's believed the British pilot who crash-landed the earlier HS-B — RAF Flight Sgt. Dennis Copping — was forced down in the desert after being hit by enemy fire.
Copping is believed to have survived the landing before dying in the desert. He was reported missing and presumed dead at the time; the plane he was ferrying for repairs was written off as lost.
O'Malley said news of the aircraft's discovery in western Egypt — which "went viral" in aviation history forums just before April 1 — initially was treated skeptically by Vintage Wings officials.
"There was a lot of discussion about whether this was just an April Fool's joke," said O'Malley, adding that fresh discoveries of well-preserved aircraft from the 1939-45 war are "extremely rare."
But when Polish oil company worker Jakub Perka, the man credited with the discovery, posted dozens of high-resolution pictures to a photo-sharing website, O'Malley and others began examining the aircraft and determined it was a genuine lost-and-found relic of the Desert War — with a tantalizing Canadian connection.
"It seems possible that Stocky Edwards did fly it," O'Malley has written at the group's website. "To say we at Vintage Wings are excited by this is an understatement."
In Britain, military heritage experts are equally excited but also concerned about the future of the P-40 "time capsule" because it appears to have suffered some vandalism damage even in the few weeks since it was found.
U.K. officials are also reported to be considering a search for Copping's remains.
British historian Andy Saunders said this week that "the aviation historical world is hugely excited about this discovery" but warned that the British defence ministry "needs to act and get the plane out of there as soon as possible rather than embarking upon a great deal of hand-wringing and meetings to discuss its future."
O'Malley said he applauds suggestions that the plane be transported to a British museum — unrestored, filled with sand — to give visitors a vivid sense of the perils of the North Africa Campaign waged by Allied forces.
O'Malley said a Google Earth view of the "chunk of desert" in which the plane was found makes clear how it could have remained undetected for 70 years.
The P-40 was probably covered in sand for much of that time, he said, only intermittently appearing at the surface of the shifting, windblown desert.
"This is an entire state, a government section of Egypt that's as big as Kansas," said O'Malley. "There's nothing — absolutely nothing — out there. There'd be no reason why anybody would be wandering about there."
-
So what are we all getting at here? Lower levels of testosterone in an aging community is to blame for the lack of forum activity?
Perhaps it's time to bring back the Peng threads?
-
http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny
War Crimes in Video Games Draw Red Cross Scrutiny
One of the world's largest and most respected humanitarian groups in the world is investigating whether the Geneva and Hague conventions should be applied to the fictional recreation of war in video games.
If they agree those standards should be applied, the International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated under the Geneva Conventions to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. That includes war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants. The question they debated this week is whether their mandate should be extended to the virtual victims of video game wars.
During this week's 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva, Switzerland, members of the committee held a side event to discuss the influence video games have on public perception and action.
"While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL," according to the event's description. "Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games. In a side event, participants were asked: 'What should we do, and what is the most effective method?'
"While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action."
Reached for comment earlier this week, Alexandra Boivin, head of the Civil Society Relations Unit's Department of International Law and Cooperation for the committee, declined to discuss their findings yet.
"Unfortunately, it is too early in the discussion to share our views publicly," Boivin told Kotaku. "We will be posting some information on the ICRC's website in the weeks to come, with a view to stating and explaining our interest in the topic."
The International Committee of the Red Cross, which was formed in 1863 as the oldest organization of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and has since been awarded three Nobel Peace Prizes, isn't the first organization to look into whether video and computer games should operate free of international humanitarian law.
The idea to analyze whether video and computer games operate in a free legal zone, was initially an idea of TRIAL, a Geneva-based organization that helps with international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
In 2007, TRIAL published a report examining whether and to what extent international humanitarian law is respected in computer and video games. The Playing By The Rules project won a prize in 2007 from the Forum for Human Rights in Lucern.
The project looked at the actions of players and non-players in 19 games, including top shooter franchises like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Rainbow 6 titles., examining whether the developers established or followed the international humanitarian laws set forth in the Geneva and Hague conventions.
"In computer and video games, violence is often shown and the players become 'virtually violent,'" according to the study. "However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics. It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law. They limit excessive violence and protect the human dignity of members of particularly vulnerable groups."
The study found that those rules are often not taken into consideration within game development. Violations they found in games included shooting unarmed combatants (technically prisoners of war), torturing and using weapons that inflict unnecessary injury. While the group said they weren't surprised by their findings, since games are meant to be entertainment, they said they were surprised by how absent the rules were in games.
"The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated," they wrote.
They also pointed out that since a few games do punish the killing of civilians or reward strategies that aim to prevent excessive damage, that including such rules is possible.
Their recommendations?
"It is regrettable that game producers hardly ever use this possibility to creatively incorporate the rules of international law or even representatives of such rules (such as the ICRC or the international criminal courts etc.) as specific elements in the course of the game," they wrote. "Pro Juventute and TRIAL call upon the producers of computer and video games to use their strong creativity and innovation for this purpose. It would mean a wasted opportunity if the virtual space transmitted the illusion of impunity for unlimited violence in armed conflicts."
The purpose of this week's examination of the topic by the International Committee of the Red Cross was to present the committee's position on the trivialization of international humanitarian law violations in video games and discussing it with their wider members.
"In line with the Conference's aim of strengthening IHL, the event aims at achieving a common understanding of the problem and outlining a course of action whereby the Movement could help reduce these 'virtual' — yet very realistic — violations of IHL," according to the group. "One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers/producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry."
While the International Committee of the Red Cross is a private humanitarian institution, the Geneva Conventions have given the committee the authority and mandate to oversee international humanitarian law.
Historically, the committee works quietly and behind the scenes to influence policy makers and push for change, often to great effect.
Reached for comment today, the Entertainment Software Association said they hadn't yet seen the details of the committee's findings, though they were aware of the meeting.
"We cannot comment on the merits or specifics of the International Committee of the Red Cross proposal because we have not discussed this with them directly or seen any specifics of their meeting," said Rich Taylor, Sr. VP for Communications and Industry Affairs, Entertainment Software Association. "However, we are immovably committed to developers' rights for creative freedom and in achieving their artistic vision."
Well, this is certainly an interesting take on an age old debate.
How the Red Cross can theorize that making virtual war "nice" will enable civilians on the outside looking in to perceive it in the context of a pro-humanitarian struggle is beyond me.
Virtual environments allow for the sort of abstraction that isn't possible on a live battlefield. True, while you can penalize a someone for friendly fire or harming civilians, in the eyes of a gamer however, the Geneva convention will always be an afterthought in the rush to achieve what matters most - maximizing entertainment value for their time.
Further, the exclusion of atrocities does a disservice to gamers and developers alike who demand historical accuracy. Would the Red Cross have the Eastern Front in WWII be sanitized? From all accounts it was anything but.
Also, which genres should fall under or be except from such regulations? Sci-fi? Survival horror? Or just historical? War has depicted in all of these categories - either as the main focus or as a backdrop.
Lastly, mandating the aims of the Geneva Convention on gaming, depending on how it is implemented, deprives everyone from the one single factor that separates gaming from other passive forms of entertainment: freedom in the decision making process. It should be left to the game producers to set the limits on player interaction; not an international body whose apparatus is far removed from the day to day concerns of entertainment industries.
My 2 cents.
-
Proper spelling of Libya might help some too.
Michael
Hmm, I wonder if I can deflect the blame for that on my current attempts to quit caffeine cold turkey (second day so far).
Sixxkiller:
I don't know what the Obama reference is about.
Data entry and file management errors are a science in itself under which the shipping and medical industries have spent small fortunes on studying in an attempt to mitigate their effects. The fact of the matter is that it happens to everyone regardless of occupation.
Most of us have the luxury to double-check documents prior to final approval. Personnel working in the live television business have to get it right on the first try - every time.
Under such time sensitive and high pressure conditions, I don't envy anyone working in the field of live broadcasting.
-
It's fairly safe to say that this is a case of "subconscious" human error rather the result of a geographically challenged graphics department.
It can be said that all of the visual aids we see, especially on news networks, are pre-baked graphical elements that have been made well in advance - or more likely culled from stock resources.
These are often prepared for special program segments or kept at the ready in anticipation of possible angles for news coverage. Very little other than simple bumpers and text is actually generated on the fly. Creating a complex overlay such as a vector map from scratch on the spot just doesn’t happen.
A possible scenario as to how this mistake was made could be traced back to something as minor as improper file naming conventions. The graphic designer who was called upon to bring up a map of Tripoli had a series of files containing the name “Tripoli” but lacked metadata detailing which Tripoli it was and consequently, he/she hedged the wrong bet. Proper naming conventions will call for using file name types such as Tripoli_Lebanon.tga and Tripoli_Lybia.tga. to avoid such mishaps.
One other possibility is that the maps used by CNN are generated procedurally with specialized geo-mapping software sourced from Google or elsewhere. The graphic designer may have input Tripoli in the software’s search engine but failed to key in additional data (i.e. not specifying Lybia as the country of origin). Software programs filter results in alphabetical order by default and since Lebanon comes before Lybia, that was the selection that went through.
Mistakes of this nature are very common in all forms of digital production. Ultimately though, the buck stops with the producer. As Bigduke6 suggested, pressure and lack of time probably impeded a second check before it aired.
-
So ... yeah. That's a pretty poor reading of the situation
The same, ironically enough, could be said here.
, I think. A couple of years ago when someone from 'the Black Bloc' tried to start something, it turns out he was an undercover cop sent to infiltrate the protest and get some violence going so the uniformed police would have a pretext to crack down. It didn't work - he was told to stop behaving like a fvcktard by the actual protesters, and was soon after outed
Quebec is hotbed of authoritarian mistrust and has been ever since the French lost the city during the battle on the plains of Abraham. Nothing new to see here.
The undercover officer's intentions was certainly out of line, but hardly a representative sample when contrasted to numerous other riots throughout Canada in which anarchists sought to actively goad police and the crowd into violent confrontations. Black Bloc tactics were frequently utilized by the anarchists during the G20 summit in Toronto that resulted in many stores throughout the downtown area being smashed open and looted. The video footage is evidence enough that these black garb miscreants played no small role in the violence.
Also, 'anarchists' aren't a monolithic entity, any more than 'christians' or 'lawyers' are. They believe all sorts of things across a very broad spectrum, and are primarily non-violent.
Perhaps.
Nonetheless, to ignore the actions of the more aggressive sects of the anarchist movement is, at best, disingenuous.
Still, cute pat answers blaming the poor and sort-of-identifiable ideologies are easy, so let's just run with that eh?
Under which context did I insinuate this?
-
Looters. If it were simply protest why are they stealing? Why destroy businesses that give jobs. Why burn flats?
Flexing their "gang" muscle is empowering, and getting stuff to use or flog on eBay is a nice bonus. Have they any genuine beef. Well if you don't work at school and you don't like to work anyway then you are likely to end up at the bottom of the economic heap. And whilst being a rapper/star looks good in the videos the odds against are higher than being struck by lightning.
I do know lots of working coloured folks both professional - doctors and dentists, and delivery drivers and refuse collectors. It is not impossible to be employed and to go up the ladder - its just some folk don't see the need to try.
Those who have a legitimate beef as you put it, aren't the only attendees to these riots.
Here in Toronto, during the G20 summit last year, a number of different factions presented themselves. Most notable were the radical anarchist sect; a collection of youth whose only agenda was to disrupt the G20 proceedings and cause general mayhem (which they did as evidenced by the burning wrecks of police cars strewn about Downtown Toronto).
My understanding is that England also has a fairly large anti-government anarchist movement of its own. These individuals often intermingle themselves with a larger crowd before donning black garbs and masks just prior to wreaking havoc. Looting, vandalism and arson are all common activities in which they engage.
What many anarchists fail to realize is that the very people they are hurting the most are the ones whom they claim to be standing shoulder to shoulder with. Their violent methodology more often than naught, takes center stage on the six o'clock news - effectively overshadowing the pleas for government reform by those with real grievances.
-
Gentlemen,
I wish you all the best of luck in convincing your significant other(s) with opting for this year's budgeting proposal which states all available funds must be allocated to the purchase of a replacement PC - for the purpose of running Microsoft's suite of office applications more efficiently, of course!
Military theme park for driving tanks, crushing cars, and shooting machine guns
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
It would be fantastic if there was an equivalent for firing artillery.