If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched successfully from land. The guns were mounted there to defend against surprise attacks from surface raiders. They swung around to fire at the Japanese, but they had little idea of where the Japanese really were and a lot of shells went into empty jungle. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case you didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there. And in Singapore a British captain serving as an Air Liasion Officer was passing secrets to the Japanese. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" == B2431 writes:
B2431 /../ Singapore's B2431 defenses were directed seaward since the British didn't B2431 think an attack could be launched successfully from B2431 land. That is a myth: there were large guns with full 360 degree traversal, and many others also covered the land angles. However, the mind-set of assuming a naval attack, coupled with inadequate funds, resulted in only (or predominantly) AP (and maybe SAP) shells in stock, with no HE available for use in anti-ground actions. -- G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Eunometic" wrote in message Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used as agressor subs in exercises. Actually not, only U-3017 was commissioned and then only for a short period of trials Presumably untill the Porpoise and Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to them untill they had something of their own. Your presumption is incorrect. Post war the RN depended on the A-Class submarines The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long Do you know for how long? Yes - the only boat put into service by the RN was scrapped in 1949 and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way they worked and used ballast tanks. Dont be silly. The hull form is entirely different and all submarines use ballast tanks. Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats. Only one of those vunderveapons ever went on patrol with no kills. Compare and contrast with the record of the US Fleet submarines. The list of ships sunk by this type follows Start of List End of List Not for lack of capabillity: Not being able to put to sea is usually considered a sign of a lack of capability Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit your opinions. Only one boat made a patrol - that is no exaggeration. Keith |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Mark wrote:
From: Guy Alcala What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero? I have a vague memory of reading 30-35gal./hr. somewhere, but don't hold me to it. The A6M2 had the Sakae 12 engine, which was only rated at 950 hp or so. So by using the standard procedures outlined by Mr. Stickney, they were cutting normal fuel consumption by about a third, which sounds right. There used to be a belief in the long ago that low rpm and high manifold pressure would wreck an engine, but everybody seems to have discovered that wasn't so as soon as they needed to extend range. My dad taught me to value overdrive gears and shift early for the same reason, many years ago. I seem to get far better mileage than most people I talk to with the same car do, and I don't drive around at LOL from Pasadena speeds. Come to think of it, my first car, handed down from my Dad, was a '65 Chevy Impala SS with 3 on the tree and an overdrive; it also had an MP gauge, but I confess I rarely paid any attention to it. Barring the need for a rapid accel, I was in 3rd by 20 and 3rd Over by 28-30, and the engine (283 V-8) was perfectly happy to do that. 240,000 miles and never had the head off, although it did leak oil pretty badly towards the end of its 23 year career in my family. Compression was still within normal limits, though. USN numbers interesting. Thanks for posting. Ah, found something, a note from a fellow who flew P-40Ns in the Pacific, saying that he regularly flew combat missions of 800 miles, cruising to and from the target area at 170IAS at 8,000ft., 30gph. This would get them over the target with nearly empty 75g belly tanks, which they would jettison, do their thing and head home, landing after about 5 hours in the air. Yeah, that was the other advantage in the PTO, you could cruise most of the way to the target at low to medium altitudes. While the air miles per gallon are better at higher altitude, you aren't burning all the extra gas in the climb up to altitude at high power settings. B-29s also benefitted from moderate outbound cruise altitudes when bombing Japan. It was a lot easier on the engines, you didn't need to be on O2 the whole mission, and you saved a bunch of fuel thatcould be instead used to up the bombload. That was generally the case in the Med too, but not in the ETO where you were potentially in danger the moment you went feet dry over the continent, so you had to cruise at high power settings at high altitude to avoid bounces. That's probably the main reason why the P-38's Allisons worked well everywhere _but_ the ETO. Guy |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:51:08 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote: If you've chosen the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance will be whether the relief tube's plugged. I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them. I don't know if this is relevant, but when Glen Edwards flew from Goose Bay in Canada to Bluie West One in Greenland, he remarked how uncomfortable it was, flying at the edge of a stall with his nose high and his tail low. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Cub Driver writes: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:51:08 -0400, (Peter Stickney) wrote: If you've chosen the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance will be whether the relief tube's plugged. I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them. I don't know if this is relevant, but when Glen Edwards flew from Goose Bay in Canada to Bluie West One in Greenland, he remarked how uncomfortable it was, flying at the edge of a stall with his nose high and his tail low. Quite relevant, I'd say. Ernie Gann wrote about it in "Fate is the Hunter", as well. Apparently it went against every gut feeling they had. Even today, you'll find people who'll tell you that running an engine "oversquare" (More Manifold pressure in Inches Hg than RPM in 100s - say, 30" vs 3000R) is Absolutely Evil. (Again, you'll only get there with a controllable pitch prop - with a fixed pitch, set for takeoff power at sea level, you'll generally run out of torque defore you;ll reach the RPM redline at any sort of altitude). While its true that yo can overboost an engine if you aren't careful, thw Handbook numbers are solid - the Manufacturer can't get them past the FAA without proving them. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
From: Cub Driver
Americans are certainly economic colonialists, even today. I don't understand what that means. Could you explain? And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Neither Mexico nor Canada need fear US territorial aggression. And, of course, you intended to say "Mexico" rather than "Spain," as Mexican independence long preceded the_Mexican_-American War. Cuba and Puerto Rico; I was lumping them in with the whole Spanish-American War, which was what i was referring to when I said "one brief infection." I should have made that clear. Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we liked so much that we incorporated it, Mr. Alcala had already mentioned Hawaii in his post, and as I agreed with his comments I didn't bring it up again. The Hawaii annexation is also a part of the S-A War "infection," because Hawaii was a fine staging base for operations in the Philippines, although probably even without that war, annexation was inevitable sometime during the McKinley administration. Had Bryan been elected in 1896 it would not have been annexed and it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Spanish-American War. Grover Cleveland, who refused to consider annexing Hawaii during his administration, wrote at the time, "Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair." o much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have done with Puerto Rico. yep. But it is a legacy of that one infection. It was only in the 1930s that we developed an aversion to colonialism, You have to throw huge qualifications on that. There was major domestic opposition to US colonialist or colonialist-like actions from the get-go. Just as there has been opposition to the current US adventure in Iraq. Again, I quote Grover Cleveland: "I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality...and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weaker one of its territory." This is quite an amazing thing for an American president to say in a era that was the height of European Imperial land-grabbing. Cleveland was emphasizing that America was _not_ like Europe and we would not stoop to do the dirty things the Europeans did. The McKinley administration, under the influence of the Boston imperialists (Henry Cabot Lodge and his crowd), turned away from that view, and their first target was Hawaii, despite the many difficulties acquisition would cause. As Alfred Mahan wrote to Theodore Roosevelt: "Take the islands first and solve the problems afterward." Gee, that sounds like advice somebody must have given Bush about Iraq. Like they say, history doesn't repeat itself--but it rhymes. perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism . True, indeed. And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment. I'm not sure about that. I suppose it depends on how you define "colonial." They could be described as wars of self-defense. But then, broadly, that was how the Boston imperialists described their expansionist policies: acquire a defensive cordon of outlying territories to fend off the expanding imperialist powers; if we don't take Hawaii, Britain will; if we don't take the PI, Germany will; etc. We certainly don't intend to annex Afghanistan and Iraq after the fashion of Hawaii and Puerto Rico. One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing. But that, again, was a defensive action. We certainly had no plans to do that before the Soviet threat became clear. In fact, at Yalta, when Stalin specifically asked Roosevelt how long the US would maintain troops in Europe after the fighting ended, FDR responded two years at most. This fact was one of the reasons that it was agreed to rehabilitate France as a "great" power and give it a zone of occupation in Germany. People look at the events of history from different perspectives. I do believe the words "colonialism" and "imperialism" are bandied about too freely these days, now that most have forgotten what _real_ imperialism and colonialism were. US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful, prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination. Since we have de facto been in charge of the planet post 1945 we have bungled badly at times, but compared to how the world was managed in the half century before we took over, we've done very well, indeed, for ourselves--and for the world. Chris Mark |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Mark" wrote in message ... From: Cub Driver Americans are certainly economic colonialists, even today. I don't understand what that means. Could you explain? And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Not to mention the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and a significant number of islands in the Pacific such as Wake, Guam, Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc and there's the panama canal zone of course Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening in various central and south american nations to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in 1933 comes to mind. See Banana Wars. The fact is the US went through a colonial period too. Keith |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35 Is it? Why? If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of your plans,I guess o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing. Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the time. Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR, (Council on Foreign Relations). Does CFR really exist? Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music source located inside Great Britain? The British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the majority of the population is concerned. Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc. You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than Britons ruled Indians. But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies. This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural Assertiveness". Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented cultural highpoint of their era. Confident cultures need not be assertive.period. Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now. Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course) Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any body in empire to use their language. Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of events is concerned. Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to create the Empire accidental . sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make Henry Ford rich? You've been In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course. A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers. Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in real world. nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is. -- Does it matter? Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 0 | December 7th 04 07:40 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |