dieseltaylor

In the interests of coe I purchased Alfred Price's "Combat Development in World War Two: Fighter Aircraft" published 1976 and 1989. Full of detail I cannot rate it too highly in revealing information prviously unknown to me. nayone wish to hazard a guess as to the WW2 aircraft most able to approach the speed of sound in a dive? : ) Not incredibly relevant but interesting. He does compare all the major powers front line aircraft in September 1939 and rates the Spitfire I and the Me-109 as close. Nothing else in their league. Anyone wish to hazard a guess as to the fighter throwing the most lead? Moelders dissed the Spitfire I , perhaps rightly compared to the Me-109, but was shortly thereafter shot down by the MkII - a better plane. I'll get back to you on the Corsair ME : )

If you read enough war memoirs you will come across very similar inexplicable events. People make mistakes, gunners miss against all odds. In game I have had a T34 miss a stationery MkIV side on three times at I think either 80 or 120 metres - but as I know *** happens in RL then it must occur in game. I do tend to remember the good times also when you nail a SHerman at 201 metres on 1% chance .... etc..etc. But then I have probably played 300+ games [ignoring CMBO].

Great linky SO, particularly this one http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html BTW Credit to Sir Harry Ricardo : ) Man was a genius. I was mulling over the Corsair HP figures mentioned above and note that the production versions engine were less powerful. I assume that engine longevity and reliability were not achievable with maximum output figures. [i would also mention that the Corsair was approved by the British Navy for carrier work before it was approved by the US Navy] It is interesting how much engine output was boosted during the war with octane ratings, superchargers, water injection, nitrous oxide etc. And the flipside of that the limits to preserve the engine for a decent length of time. In the "Night Fighter" autobiography I have just finished reading it is noteable his remarks about engines becoming clapped out allowing fast raiders to dive away to France safely. A lovely anecdote is late war when RAF and USAAF forces were co-located on East Anglian airfields. The US pilots were very proud of the Lightning and after a disply by a test pilot the Yanks challenged the local Spifire squadron to a "dogfight". With the two pilots up the fight started and within seconds the Spitfire was on the Lightnings tail and could not shake it off. To gain a degree of pride the US pilot landed on one engine. Tricky for a Spitfire. "But the British pilot was not to be outdone. As he continued on his circuit around the aerodrome he rollerd over on to his back and flicked his wheels out into landing position. Still upside down he turned to make his final approach to land. At the last moment he neatly rolled back into the normal position just in time to to make a faultless touch-down" "Night Fighter" by CF Rawnsley and Robert Wright 1957 page 218 Goodall Edition 1998 Looking at Lightnings this viiual autobiography is interesting, the first bit, a memoriam not so but, the third has interesting shots of a Helicoptor and flyingboat.

The situation should not be seen as solely infantry versus infantry as artillery and where the respective cavalary were had a bearing on waht wass going on. Column is a denser formation and therefore a juicier target than a line to artillery. Enemy cavalary within charging distance meant a square was very advisable. And of course how many friendly formations were there that could assist, and did they out-number what was attacking, would also be factors. However in the heat and smoke of a major battle the PBI were not really in a position to make such a call. Then it came down to sheer bloodymindeness or espirit de corps. I do have a theory that the English/Scottish/Irish troops knew that they could not walk home and therefore were very bloodyminded and with a long tradition of not losing [naval] battles felt good about their toughness. I am sure many armies had phases of extreme pride, the Revolutionary French armies fought above their weight, the Prussians had a tradition, and the Russians are generally tough. However for detail you should really try one of the many extremely detailed Napoleonic sites. I have a modest libraryon the Napoleonics of perhaps a dozen or so very good books but I cannot regurgitate them all here!!

Culumn vs line. A whole industry rests on that point. As it happens most armies fought in line , there are instances of French column going into line despite orders! Over the length of the wars the French army evolved different tactics fro different enemy anyway so being categoric on any point would be useless. As for bayonet combat the chnaces of both sides wishing to close for bayonet practice in the open field is slight. Off-hand I cannot think of any but I am sure it did happen. Most bayonet work would have been close quarter work - town, woods etc. So in overall terms not occurring very often - and I suspect there may have been no column in the records for enemy clubbed by musket. Interesting to consider how they would have managed without the benefit of bayonets in close quarter situations, and of course most importantly deterring cavalry from getting uppity. So in my view the bayonets effectiveness was not by % killed but by its deterrent effect on the enemy and the morale boost for the infantry.

These guys do a lot on aero engines!! http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/country-designed-best-engines-wwii-8253-6.html I think at the beginning of the war it was close in aero. As for truck engines I have trolled through my 400page book on historic military vehicles and there are not huge differences between the truck engine output. The Germans and the US having perhaps more with a larger output - say 10 bhp. But against that remember Ford were building trucks in all three markets!. What is interesting is the huge number of manufacturers and the number that used their own engines. It makes any comparisons probably redundant as over the entire vehicle fleet I have no doubt lemons and good ones existed but all were pressed into use.

Funnily enough I can see the US right-wingers seeing this as a plot to bring 20 million lefties onto the electoral role. Or is it more a Puerto Rico thing? I will always maintain that the American secession was an error. How many WW's do think there would have been if the Commonwealth had included all of North America? I just cannot see any country wishing to take on a global commonwealth which has more resources, gdp, and effective manpower. Pax Britannica indeed.

This is an interesting article on what is happening in Afghanistan and why it costs roughly a million a year to keep a soldier there: http://www.alternet.org/world/147696/why_we%27re_bound_to_fail_in_afghanistan%3A_what_happened_when_i_spent_2_weeks_at_a_u.s._military_base/?page=entire

Its amazing to think how far the diesel has developed in the last two decades from being a dirty engine suitable only for trucks, ships etc. Now it powers over 50% of new cars in Europe and runs Le Mans winners. The largest diesel in the world gives 80MW+

From JC's post I omitted to mention that the Sherman did have two diesel variants. The Russians were solely supplied with diesel Shermans. They were popular : ) The British had diesel engine versions in the Mediterranean theatre. These ran on twin GM diesels rated at 187bhp - so 374bhp. Again popular as diesel is not as inflammable as petrol - though to be fair it was the Shermans poor ammo storage that got it a bad name., however this was not immediately realised hence the Ronson jokes - and simpler electrics. The first Shermans were powered by a radial aero engine of 480bhp [note the differnce in power to the diesel equivalent] and according to one site: "1. The Aeroplane engine is a constant rpm engine. When throttled in a vehicle it tended to backfire whick could be heard for miles." The Sherman was also powered by five 6 cylinder Chrysler engines mated together - an absolute nightmare to service with the engine needing to be lifted out to be worked on. Amazing that any were ever produced - the saving grace is that they were never shipped out of the US for US use - apart from being given to the British.. ....

I am impressed you can be so dismissive of torque. I am very aware that with gearing most things are possible. However gearboxes are complicated and the more gears in them the more complicated they become. That is why we do not drive around in 1 litre cars with 10 speed 'boxes though it is coming with 6 and 8 speed boxes becoming available in cars. They do however suffer from not knowing what gear is optimal and hunting for the right gear in auto-boxes is a problem where software has not necessarily been up to the task. Ford and I believe Lexus have suffered with the problem. Trucks have had multiple gears for many years because accelerating say 20tons of load from a dead stop to reasonable speed does require much gearing unless one has an enormous engine. Wikipedia says Power and torque For commercial uses requiring towing, load carrying and other tractive tasks, diesel engines tend to have better torque characteristics. Diesel engines tend to have their torque peak quite low in their speed range (usually between 1600 and 2000 rpm for a small-capacity unit, lower for a larger engine used in a truck). This provides smoother control over heavy loads when starting from rest, and, crucially, allows the diesel engine to be given higher loads at low speeds than a petrol engine, making them much more economical for these applications." . Perhaps the author of the piece should add that with sufficient gears torque is not an important trait anyway. However in 1940 multi- [teen]speed gearboxes were probably just a theoretical possibility.

Assuming that one can find 1000metres of clear level terrain one is left wondering what persuaded both sides not to have opened fire at longer range or sought advantageous firing positions first. The art of war is to make the fight as unequal as possible so that you lose nothing or minimally.

http://www.loc.gov/pictur...id&c=100&co=fsac I very impressed at the range, quality , and speed of this site. I imagine that US members will get plenty of fun from it. I did a search on tanks but found only 37 ..... Some very beautiful photos - it would probably take weeks to fully explore the site.

What I found unacceptable, and put me off, was that you can have tasnks of different nations on the same side. I do expect an element of realism! : ) PS I am also a little wary of Russian games in case they are laced with rootkit. I am not suggesting the games company is involved but someone might find it useful to insert code for later use.

Certainly GoldmanSachs need looking at. Being given Bank status has only aggravated a problem, this should be wound down and transitioned back to where they were - at least. I am reminded of the Knights Templar, another trans-national organisation which became too big for its boots. Bearing in mind all the positions filled by ex-GS staff in the US government etc, and the influence they exercise, it definitely would be salutory for people to see no company is TOO big. It does strike me as bizarre that in most countries there are organisations that are proscribed in certain ways. Freemasons and the British police being one example. I am sure Quakers were proscribed against, the Communist party in the US!, just because an organisation is a "company" does not mean it is harmless to the State.

Tank mobility is not a direct relationship to HP. Torque is more important in engines than BHP particularly so for land transport. Airplanes it is BHP because their is no need for huge torque. For instance I just saw a video for a 1970's Oldsmobile Cutlass which had a 7 litre V8 engine and produced about 225BHP. My car gives over 230BHP from a 2.6litre engine. If I was asked to tow a boat or a caravan I would want the Cutlass as its engine has more torque - more pulling ability. Diesels generally have more torque and were inherently more reliable and robust than petrol engines. This has to do with being built stronger because of higher compression and perhaps most importantly much less electrics to go wrong. The Russians, ignoring maintenance issues and poor workmanship, had the most efficient engine choice. Reverting to tanks. The Churchill had a very specific brief and that was mobility not speed. In that it succeeded and was able to get to places other tanks could not. This could be decisive. It also had numerous bogies because they could have several shot out without the tank being disabled. And as an infantry tank what need of speed? The Meteor engine was a de-rated Merlin and its use for tank engines was already under consideration in 1941. Other considerations that might have a bearing other than purely engines are the mechnicals for getting power to the tracks and the larger German tanks were notorious for clutch problems if used to their nominal potential. Alsobear in mind that German tanks, or at least some of them could turn in situ, not something the Sherman could do. I am not sure if you want detail on the Russian/German/French/Italian/Allied engines for trucks etc. But power in BHP is not shiftability in terms of cargo. Diesel engines have lower BHP than petrol engines but would shift the same amount of kit because they have greater torque. On the aero-engine front from my reading there was a steady escalation of outputs through the war and at any one time one nation may have had a more powerful engine than another. The Merlin obviously was outstanding from the off and perhaps that would be the benchmark. Power in itself ....... The B29 suffered because the powerful Wright engines had a tendency to overheat ... which would be the situation at low level taking off with a full bombload when max revs were required. So simply having a very powerful engine did not mean it was reliable and one you would actually use. In fact failed aero-engines occur quite frequently in the history of plane design. If you look at the Wiki article on the Merlin you will see how changes in coolant and octane of petrol wee alos important to engine outputs. Here are the WW2 variants, pre-war it started out as a 740 hp plane engine

Yout right on the money there, But the new flash trading and how it works is here: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/computerized_front_running.php

Really great idea. Ideal for people /children linking history and place to themselves. I love it - good find. http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/the-ghosts-of-world-war-iis I see one link shows an I app for London http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/streetmuseum-looking-into-the that links to a flikr group with over 1000 photos http://www.flickr.com/groups/lookingintothepast/

SOunds a little bit obsessive......

ASL Veteran: Sorry perhaps I should have made it clearerin my post. What is in the rule books is essentially having inside knowledge, as one would expect professionals aware of a trade should not be screwing their customers. Sad in a way that it actually needs to be written. What I wa referring too was generating lots of trades and cancelling them within seconds to sense deals. Now the effect is that of front-running but without having ANY knowledge of whose transaction it is. Therefore apparently "legal". The bum note is that certainly NASDAQ was allowing certain firms a second or so knowledge ahead of the general market. " http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Flash_trades So you have to ask yourself does that sound like it was a fair deal? And do you really think that the problem of flash trading has gone away or has one element of it, the most obviously unfair, has bit the dust. Anyway we do know that High Frequency Trading still exists - witness my first post. However lets see what Goldman Sachs thinks is dangerous: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFeyqdzYcizc And finally an article which highlights how flash trading works at working out the market. http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/flashing-high-frequency-trading/

Well 38 out of 403 is a start. But as it is not legally binding ...... Nice flag though

Kind of sickening in its way. Hypocrisy? Change of team? Realpolotik? On another discordant[possibly] note this article about heroism, and "our heroes" http://www.alternet.org/story/147610/figthing_wars_doesn%27t_make_you_a_hero?page=entire

On another thread we were talking of extreme wealth being used to provide a favourable climate to the wealthy. This week an old case raised its head - the Wyly brothers from Texas. They got caught about five years ago but returned what was thought to be the illegal gain and the Manhattan DA took no further action. Nice idea . if I get caught I return the value and avoid jail. That is a hell of a penalty. Anyway the SEC are now going after them. Change of administation removing their protection? What has this to do with $emocracy? Read Palasts 2005 blast on the close relationship with Bush http://www.gregpalast.com/give-it-back-georgernrndid-wyly-coyotes-ill-gotten-loot-buy-white-house/ As for the new prosecution http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/07/29/301721/wyly-brothers-accused-of-massive-insider-scandal/

Well , sell shares in Honeywell, Haliburton .... actually all the defence contractors also. Medical healthcare for veterans should be an earner. However all those extra unemployed could be a problem .... however if the Govt. plays it smart they buy less toys and use the manpower on civil projects. The inter-state system and bridges in general are in need of replacement so perhaps there can be a new generation of navvies - who knows they can graduate from shovels to driving tracked vehicles etc. Psychologically I think it would be smart to deploy the returness on positive work to make them feel good. Generous leave to see family but keep the cohesion for a few years. Anyway this is a 2008 article on costs - and more detail on how costs are calculated: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

Ah I remember my delight seeing all those old Citroens with the runningboards in Auckland in the 70's.