Merkin Muffley

Hard to know which one is deadlier: or

There was a thread with some previous vids by this lot, but I couldn't find it so here's a new thread. OK Go's latest

Corsair? (If you mean the boxes being integral to the wing and loaded separately).

On Radio 4 the interviewer asked Russell Crowe why he had given RH an Irish accent. That went down well. "You've got tin ears, mate". I've heard a few clips. Sounded oirish to me, via unknown northern English filter.

I think the chances of me finding a politician with whom I agree on 100% of issues are nil...unless I was that politician. That would be the case whether there were 3 or 30 different candidates. So obviously I have to make compromises in my vote. And I can be absolutely be certain that my elected MP will also make compromises when he votes in parliament, notwithstanding any genuine promises he made on election. Anyone would think that the parties themselves don't make compromises - compare and contrast Labour of 25 years ago with today's version; likewise the Conservatives or Liberals/LibDems. They changed their policies to be what they thought would be more populist so that they might have more chance of being elected. One of the reasons that the main parties get a smaller share of the overall vote nowadays is that they are all fighting in the middle ground. Minor parties now have 10% of the vote - it used to be about 1% in the 1950s.

I suppose it's too late for this regarding the original photo? Before the photo was taken, the driver was driving with great gusto, hitting the apex on curves, masses of gear changes to keep the engine in the sweet spot, generally having a great time. But he wanted to see what his limits were. So he grew a little bolder - and the rest is history.

The clip itself (5+ minutes long) says that it was filmed over several months. Presumably there's never more than 5 minutes decent weather OR it was hideously difficult to get right and had to be edited. The cycling along the railings, for example, took 8 hours to get right - or 7hrs 59mins going wrong, I guess. (These things are google-able). The video is fantastic; the guy's fantastic; the bike's fantastic. The idea that he knocks these stunts out without occasional grief - even when he knows how to do them - is Hollywood optimistic. The idea that there aren't kids trying to copy this and (unthinkingly) being a total menace to pedestrians, or breaking things other than themselves and their bikes, is unlikely.

He climbs onto MacDonalds Cycles, takes a run-up from BSM to MacDonald Cycles inclusive, takes off from the rather solid looking stone roof above the cycle shop and lands on the (edge of the) less imposing roof of CopyStop print shop. I reckon neither of you know for sure whether he had permission from all shops involved, but can make a reasonable guess that not all heroes who attempt to copy this particular death-defying stunt will be 100% rigorous in obtaining permission. Or, for that matter, 100% successful.

I pity any one coming here for the first time and thinking they were going to read about Brens on tripods.

HMS Victory's log in 1810 recorded that convoys were gathering in the Baltic at Hano and sailed "when they had accumulated to about 500". The final convoy leaving that season in October 1810 numbered in excess of 1000 ships.

None! Apologies for the slip of brain rather than slip of finger: the Atlantic HX convoys were "typically" (if there can be such a thing considering they ran practically the entire war) 40 - 80 ships. (There were some 100+ ship convoys - but comprising sailing ships some hundreds of years earlier).

There were huge advantages with a convoy system - and some disadvantages, but I think they were insignificant in comparison. As JonS said, a major advantage was getting maximum benfit from your scarce escort resources. If you run convoys, then the number of merchant ships in a convoy is a function of the convoy area, whereas the escorts are a function of its perimeter (broadly). So, large convoys are incredibly efficient in escort usage compared to smaller convoys. If you aren't running convoys at all, either your escorts are pootling about the sea on the off chance they encounter a U-boat, or they are escorting individual ships, or something else that I can't think of. Either of the first two options are pretty futile, as the former has a negligible chance of finding anything (and any U-boat encountered would have every reason just to lie doggo as it wouldn't be missing a killing opportunity) and the latter would mean any U-boat encountered would likewise forego the risk when it was likely to stumble on un-escorted merchant ships soon enough anyway. Of course, if you are the likes of RMS Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth then you really don't need to be in a convoy as you are travelling at least 3 times as fast and become an extremely difficult target. (In passing, wikipedia suggests that the QE transferred 750,000 troops during WWII...no figure for the QM, but it would be at least as many again. Coo.) The U-boats can only achieve victory if they reduce the amount of cargo arriving in the UK. Ultimately this can only be achieved by sinking merchant ships (although I'll come to a disadvantage of convoys that impacts here later). If merchant ships are in escorted convoys, then that's where the U-boats have to be too. Firstly, you have to find the convoy - which although easier than sighting a single ship, is significantly harder than sighting any one of 400 ships if they were not travelling in convoy. Having sighted a convoy your strategy requires that you then alert other U-boats so that a concentrated attack can be staged. This very communication introduces danger, as HF Direction Finding can pinpoint your position - which necessarily is in sight of the convoy. Notwithstanding that, a cat and mouse game ensues whereby the U-boats strung out in a patrol line now aim to congregate at a position they think the convoy will be, whilst the convoy attempts not to be there. If an attack does ensue then the U-boats have to operate in an environment that includes escorts - which typically means attacking at night. So there are a limited number of hours that an attack can take place. Compare and contrast with attacking an individual ship - if you can see it you can attack it more or less whenever you want to, and the likelihood of an escort turning up is minimal. A mention ought to be made here of the impact of aircraft, which was obviously hugely significant. Without convoys aircraft are more or less tootling around like surface escorts - hoping to stumble upon a U-boat, hoping to attack it before it submerges. But with a convoy, your aircraft can be concentrated around the convoy track. Success is now determined not by actually sinking a U-boat, but by forcing it to submerge - so that it has little opportunity to sight a convoy, or little opportunity to reach it even if it knows its location. The really big downside of convoys - strangely not often referred to - is their complete disfunctionality in terms of their formation and destination. Ports can only handle a certain number of ships at any given time, so a 400 ship convoy necessarily introduces delay until the last ships are loaded and form up. Likewise, at the destination port(s) 400 ships arrive more or less simultaneously and their is a mad excercise in getting the cargo off and transported away from the port so that warehouses aren't overflowing. The logistics are immeasurably more complicated compared to a steady stream of ships arriving if no convoy system was in place. I'd be extremely surprised if there were convincing evidence that the convoy system in WWII was overall inferior to a non-convoy individual passage system. Most of the benefits of convoys were realised by some of the first use of operational research, so are mathematically proveable rather than based on gut-feeling or conjecture. Anecdotally, of course, add the identification of the "Happy Times" of U-boats typically being when convoys weren't in use.

This time in North Africa with 51st RTR in Churchills. (Linked summary at end for more complete info, but the action first). [...] this bit is as related by the driver, Tpr John Mitton, of the first Churchill. He could see very little ahead on either side because his driving compartment was set far back from the forward track horns. But he saw enough to write a vivid account a few days later: "Dropping feet-first through the cupola and nearly massacring the crew, Capt. Hollands gave the order to advance. Moving forward, I found the ground pretty difficult, scrub, rock and very little if any cover. Moving on half-a-mile or so I stopped, not by an order, but because on passing through a patch of bushes the ground fell away, heavily-bushed, farther than I could see through the visor, and rising to the opposite slope, which seemed miles away. Clearly impassable. Could I get down? Over the intercom: 'No! Driver, reverse!' Inch by inch, I backed away. The German ants opened fire from across the wadi. I wished for four reverse speeds at that moment. 'Driver, right. Speed up, broadside on to the wadi and the ants.' I was told the next day that the German guners hit all around us. I didn't know it then, I just kept moving as fast as possible, crossing the road, round through the trees of a farm, then out into the open and on to a road. The road ran up hill then weaved left and sharp right. Taking this corner in third gear, I drove round and stopped dead. I appeared for a few seconds to be facing a barricade of greenery blocking the road, surmounted by a big black hole. It was in fact an 88 not more than 30yds away, if that, set up on the left verge. Peering through the visor, I saw a flash of white faces and the hole vanished in a red sheet of flame, blinding me for a moment. The tank rocked, a sound of falling kit in the turret. The right-hand junction box and roof fan had dropped as the shell grazed the turret, taking half the back bin with it. 'We're hit! Traverse right!' over the intercom, 'Right!' in a shout 'not left!' The turret was at 20-to-6 and Mick (the gunner) was struggling to free a jammed 6pdr round which had slipped out of its rack. Once again the hole vanished in another sheet of flame, but missing us completely this time. During these hectic seconds Hank Howson, the front machine gunner was calmly reloading a new Besa belt as though on range practice. Closing its rear cover carefully, he cocked the gun laid and fired. The tracer streaked into the greenery, then climbed lazily into the air and vanished. The gun crew ran. We had knocked out our first 88! The intercom was deafening as Capt Hollands shouted for the Bren gun, so I pulled past the 88 muzzle, just in case, and waited. The Bren fired one round and stopped. 'Tommy Gun!' - with which he fared no better, firing one burst and jamming. Hollands was now fighting mad. Throwing the Tommy gun after the fleeing Germans, he shouted for grenades, and stood half out of the turret throwing them. Again I moved forward as ordered. Directly in front was a running mass of grey figures. All guns fired, bowling them over and over until nothing moved." Makes CMAK/CMBB seem quite realistic - I've had the 'No way could that have missed at that range!' sulks before. Saving my typing, the summary is here: http://northirishhorse.net/articles/13-2.html Perhaps I'll continue his story when my finger tips have recovered.

On 24th April 1918 the first tank vs tank engagement took place. [...] the Germans employed tanks around Villers-Brettoneux. Wikipedia continues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Villers-Bretonneux#The_first_tank_battle But the punch-line (not in Wikipedia): The victor in this first tank versus tank fight was No. 1 Tank of No. 1 Section, A Company,1st Battalion, Tank Corps. See, there is a God, and He's a bit OCD.

Getting there is half the fun.

How topical: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8519246.stm

The typeface - Sans Comic?

Very cruel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Dtsx-VGG0

In case it isn't completely clear from context the cordials being referred to are UK usage which are (typically) fruit concentrates diluted to taste with water, rather than alcoholic drinks (which I believe is the normal US understanding). I discovered this when a visiting American raised an eyebrow at my bottle of Roses Lime Cordial on my desk. She thought it was rather brazen.

It all goes horribly wrong when you hug the edge of the bed and are accused of being gamey.

My favourite is where The Famous Five meet the Spanish Inquisition and they end up singing the Lumberjack Song with Noddy.

That's the one, 1914. Always started with good intentions - "this time it will be different" - and then, some few turns later, I am in a slugfest with neither side apparently having an edge. Very depressing.

This is fun. I miss playing WWI, but then whenever I play it am ground down by the size and number of forces involved. Can't even remember the Avalon Hill game...WWI?

If there's anyone who wants to see the gun/crest/kink/cheat/no-it-isn't/yes-it-is/pants-on-fire version of this thread from 3 years ago, then it is [thread=49374]here.[/thread] Worth a visit if you are very keen. But I add it here for any readers who are yet to be persuaded one way or the other, as offering further viewpoints and voices of reason. Note: It drifts off to start navel-gazing Tank Destroyers at some point. I can't tell you if it ever returns to guns and crests, as life is too short.

I've edited mine now to show that when I said guns in trenches could be "controllable" I meant easy to identify on setup and therefore don't do it rather than anything else. I can't find the reference to hand, but the trench increases protection doesn't it? Definitely having your cake and eating it if used behind a crest.