tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post1052934620199401334..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: Lowered expectations.Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-64706023556702571772011-03-03T03:12:13.272-05:002011-03-03T03:12:13.272-05:00P.s. Bean was a corporal in the 47th North Carolin...P.s. Bean was a corporal in the 47th North Carolina in the novel, and also in the real world.Justthisguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277333206171756636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83859538543490896732011-03-03T02:45:34.314-05:002011-03-03T02:45:34.314-05:00I still think his best, and most romantic one, was...I still think his best, and most romantic one, was "The Guns of the South." I mean, right there on the cover is a "photograph" of R. E. Lee holding a Kalashnikov!<br /><br />To be even more romantic, without spoiling things, Corporal "Melvin" Bean, N. C. Volunteer, really did have a heart of gold.Justthisguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277333206171756636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-54422572784619806172011-03-01T16:59:31.551-05:002011-03-01T16:59:31.551-05:00"I just went to the Minneapolis Federal Reser...<i>"I just went to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve inflation calculator and put in $51,000 in 1944 dollars. Today that P-51Mustang would cost us $639,920. Ya can't even buy a cheap congressman for that price today, let alone a functioning aircraft."</i> <br /><br />I did this last night, and I also googled the cost of various things in 1945 and today, a house, a car, gas, bread Coca-cola, minimum wage, and average salary. All of it fell in the range of 14-20 times more expensive. So I would say it would more likely cost about 1,000,000$Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-4142215588754542022011-03-01T15:47:04.394-05:002011-03-01T15:47:04.394-05:00So long as they launched aircraft capable of hunti...So long as they launched aircraft capable of hunting u-boats, they worked to protect the Liberty Ships, which in turn kept the large, unsinkable aircraft carrier that was Brittain from capitulating due to starvation and hopelessness.<br /><br />As carriers, they sucked, sure, but in the land of the blind, the guy with one good eye is king. And as evidenced by TF Taffy 3 at Leyte, well used crappy escort carriers, DD's and DE's beat empty fleet carriers, cruisers and battleships. Hard to argue with that scoreboard.jimbob86noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-25067445690125368372011-03-01T13:56:04.766-05:002011-03-01T13:56:04.766-05:00Oh, and I'm not having it both ways, Jim.
Tha...Oh, and I'm not having it both ways, Jim.<br /><br />That CVE was like putting metal plates and a 2-pounder on a Model-A Ford truck and calling it a tank.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-36417553449376682112011-03-01T13:42:49.640-05:002011-03-01T13:42:49.640-05:00I still think the Liberty-based CVE were a mistake...I still think the Liberty-based CVE were a mistake. Too damned slow, and too easy for real ships to kill.<br /><br />A CVE based on a destroyer hull would have been a better idea.<br /><br />Just my opinion.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-91259098764648205752011-03-01T13:39:23.552-05:002011-03-01T13:39:23.552-05:00I like Harry Turtledove's books a lot.
But . ...I like Harry Turtledove's books a lot.<br /><br />But . . .<br /><br />IMHO some of his stuff, the World War, (Alien invasion in WWII) and the alternate American Civil War novels went on waaaaaay to long. Great ideas, great books, but they ended up with me screaming "End! Please, end!!!!"<br /><br />I am enjoying having fun with his "Crosstime Traffic" stories. Long enough to have fun exploring an idea and tell a story, but not so long you lose the will to live.Fruitbat44https://www.blogger.com/profile/07936337681244266258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-45664965639817258502011-03-01T13:23:17.441-05:002011-03-01T13:23:17.441-05:00"Problem with modern technology rather than 1..."Problem with modern technology rather than 1940s technology, is you have to pay modern prices, not 1940s prices."<br /><br />Well, then, how come they're giving away computer hardware now compared to what it cost a decade ago?<br /><br />IOW:a general assertion that modern technology necessarily means higher prices is at variance with certain facts.Billy Beckhttp://www.two--four.net/weblog.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-45207490466308781462011-03-01T12:50:26.065-05:002011-03-01T12:50:26.065-05:00How many "Easy 8's" were in the ETO ...How many "Easy 8's" were in the ETO in 1945, vs. T34/85's? (IDK, just guessin' the Rus had far more, as they were making them for far longer).... the Easy 8 probably had as much effect on combat ops as the Japgepanther: 400 units is a drop in the bucket when the other side has 15-20K t-34/85's rolling... Numbers are important in these matters: The side w/ Shermans beat the side w/ the various Panzers, despite heavy losses, due to numbers, both sheer numbers, and the the number of combat ready (maintenance/recovery failures vs. successes) tanks... that, and the fact that Allied Tac-Air killed quite a lot of the Panzers....<br /><br />How many Pershings were there to match up against the JS-2's? Artillery tubes? Divisions? The Rus did the bulk of the fighting in the ETO, moving from Smolensk to Warsaw and destroying the German's Army Group Center in the time it took the allies to get out of the coastal areas of Normandy and Provence .... it would have been a small thing for them to just keep rolling..... unless we nuked them, but that gun was empty....<br /><br />"(...and as you can see there are some topics from which I do derive guilty pleasure arguing on the intertubes. :o )"<br /><br />There are worse ways to spend a morning than drinking coffee and talking tanks of 1945, but alas, few less productive: I've work to do..... If I were independently wealthy, I'd love to hit one your blogmeets....jimbob86noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-72497613263709189042011-03-01T11:22:05.262-05:002011-03-01T11:22:05.262-05:00(...and as you can see there are some topics from ...(...and as you can see there are some topics from which I do derive guilty pleasure arguing on the intertubes. :o )Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-17562767283667042032011-03-01T10:44:00.310-05:002011-03-01T10:44:00.310-05:00Every time the T-34/85 has gone into battle agains...Every time the T-34/85 has gone into battle against the M4A3E8, the floor has been mopped with the Russian tank (which was known for going into battle with a spare transmission carried on the deck...)<br /><br />The M4 was hardly one of the great tanks of all time, but it was certainly adequate, and its faults are as exaggerated (and for the same reasons) as the M16 rifle's.<br /><br />Ask any GI (or Tommy or Poilu or Landser or Digger...) how their stuff stacks up against the enemy's. I mean, the Garand rifle we revere today was the Jammin' Jenny to the guys who carried it.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-20910940200136240832011-03-01T10:24:49.213-05:002011-03-01T10:24:49.213-05:00The fact that the M1A1 tank cannon had better pene...The fact that the M1A1 tank cannon had better penetrating power does not make it a better gun than the Russian 85mm..... it had poorer performance than the Rus 85mm with HE, and the 85mm would do what it needed to do: penetrate the armor of it's opposite number, AND support the infantry in assaults.<br /><br />Specialization is a fine thing for insects. Tanks must be, of necessity, a compromise of Firepower, Armor, Mobility (Speed, Manueverability, and Range), Maintainability, ..... Crew Survivability and Comfort are also considerations for many designers (not the Rus). The American TD's of WWII sacrificed most other considerations to Speed, with Firepower being the second consideration. <br /><br />As much as I liked O'l Blood and Guts, it was either a fortunate accident, or .... a foul (but probably necessary) murder that kept him from taking on the Rus in 1945..... The Iron Curtain would have extended to Calais, methinks.jimbob86noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-58596966260418115572011-03-01T08:51:53.387-05:002011-03-01T08:51:53.387-05:00jimbob86,
"...the Hellcat ended up with a gu...jimbob86,<br /><br />"<i>...the Hellcat ended up with a gun the T-34 started the war with (after being upgunned twice)...</i>"<br /><br />To suggest that the fairly low-velocity F-34 on the original T34/76 was in any way comparable (other than having a similar bore diameter) to the high-velocity M1A1 mounted in the Hellcat shows a lack of information.<br /><br />The M1A1 had, in fact, superior penetrative power to the ZiS-S-5.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-66173052042362823742011-03-01T08:16:01.517-05:002011-03-01T08:16:01.517-05:00I just went to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve inf...I just went to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve inflation calculator and put in $51,000 in 1944 dollars. Today that P-51Mustang would cost us $639,920. Ya can't even buy a cheap congressman for that price today, let alone a functioning aircraft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-65023993690545375792011-02-28T23:22:07.745-05:002011-02-28T23:22:07.745-05:00Randy: Fair cop.
Also, I just realised that I thi...Randy: Fair cop.<br /><br />Also, I just realised that I think I read Sigivald wrong. He was saying that with the R&D costs of all of that stuff plus the scratch cost of designing the plane itself, amortized out across the whole fleet, $200M doesn't seem like that bad of a price.<br /><br />Whereas I first thought he was saying "If you started with a $150M Boeing 767, it's cost you $50M to turn it into a good military air tanker."<br /><br />Which, again, to my very limited knowledge, seems like a reasonable plan: let Boeing amortize most of the dev costs across it's much larger output, and then take an actual production 767 and stuff the military commo gear, fuel stuff, etc, inside of it. Which is why I was confused at a $50M per unit cost to do that.<br /><br />Maybe I just don't have a really good grasp of what airplanes cost. :) Being as I'm a really ground based guy, that seems like a good explanation, too.<br /><br />And, yeah. I was "stationed" on Oahu from mid-4th to mid-7th grade. Even high school (here back in the US) was better than that. Heh. My wife is there on vacation right now, visiting some friends. I told her to have fun. But there was no way in hell I was going back myself.perlhaqrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-66504490591728224042011-02-28T21:51:28.489-05:002011-02-28T21:51:28.489-05:00"CVE's did just fine at what they were de..."CVE's did just fine at what they were designed for: Transporting A/C to fleet task forces of CV's and CVL's, and providing air cover platforms for ASW and CAP for merchant ship convoys."<br /><br />I did not say they didn't do a fine job at the tasks they were designed for (Kristopher?) ... they were crucial to winning the "Battle of the Atlantic".... hell at Leyte, TF Taffy3 gave better than they got.... I was just pointing out that the large number of escort carriers seriously skewed your numbers ....<br /><br />"jimbob86, the US Army did design their own version of the T-34. They called it the M18 Hellcat. It was the synthesis of the failed US Army "Tank Destroyer" doctrine."<br /><br />By the time they got done screwing it up, it was not recognizable as a Christie: torsion bars, cast bulbous turret, inadequate gunand armor.... the Rus had a 9 year head start on them and the Hellcat ended up with a gun the T-34 started the war with (after being upgunned twice), while the Rus upgunned to an 85 mm ....jimbob86noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-43045620190650864062011-02-28T20:42:52.702-05:002011-02-28T20:42:52.702-05:00perlhaqr, I don't know the specifics on the KC...perlhaqr, I don't know the specifics on the KC-X, but a few considerations:<br /><br />Design of the boom and supporting machinery and how to install it on that airframe. Ditto for the drogues used for refueling Navy type birds. Strengthening the airframe as necessary to handle it all.<br /><br />Additional plumbing, pumps and control gear for same to allow the fuel to be offloaded in a safe manner for the receiver while not messing with the tanker's CG and balance.<br /><br />Military grade communications gear and supporting antennas<br /><br />Navigation equipment that does not totally depend on NAVAIDs and GPS<br /><br />EMP hardening<br /><br />Counter measures<br /><br />Making sure the mil-spec commo, navaids, EMP hardening and counter measures don't interfere with each other and minor things like flight controls.<br /><br />Etc Etc. All has been done before, and we know the basics of the what, but the how for each airframe is different and to be approached with great care.<br /><br />I've been involved (more like victimized) with field modifications and aircraft "upgrades" that were nightmares since the contractor's test facility was not in the airspace we operated in.<br /><br />Should it take $50? The electronics alone could probably take a big chunk of that, but then the question is should those components be that expensive.<br /><br />Oh, having been station in Hawaii, not sure I totally disagree with you on that subject.Randynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-45126582600535702942011-02-28T18:21:40.759-05:002011-02-28T18:21:40.759-05:00Sigivald: Knowing next to nothing about aircraft, ...Sigivald: Knowing next to nothing about aircraft, essentially, why does it take $50M to turn an existing empty plane into a flying gas can?perlhaqrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-2237761815333986782011-02-28T17:45:34.188-05:002011-02-28T17:45:34.188-05:00On the tankers: That's about $200M per plane.
...On the tankers: That's about $200M per plane.<br /><br />The normal commercial price of a 767 seems to be around $150M, from various internet sources.<br /><br />Given the R&D and extra crap necessary for making it a tanker and military craft rather than a stripped commercial chassis, the price actually seems about right.<br /><br />Problem with modern technology rather than 1940s technology, is you have to pay modern prices, not 1940s prices.<br /><br />(Same with health-care, it turns out...)Sigivaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152366541957466049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-80636838071696333272011-02-28T17:32:11.571-05:002011-02-28T17:32:11.571-05:00And when the alternative to a CVE is having to dit...And when the alternative to a CVE is having to ditch your catapult launched fighter into the North Atlantic...Joe in PNGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-34039262130023211002011-02-28T17:22:37.694-05:002011-02-28T17:22:37.694-05:00jimbob86,
CVE's did just fine at what they we...jimbob86,<br /><br />CVE's did just fine at what they were designed for: Transporting A/C to fleet task forces of CV's and CVL's, and providing air cover platforms for ASW and CAP for merchant ship convoys.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-30280627772780447382011-02-28T17:08:47.538-05:002011-02-28T17:08:47.538-05:00jimbob86, the US Army did design their own version...jimbob86, the US Army did design their own version of the T-34. They called it the M18 Hellcat. It was the synthesis of the failed US Army "Tank Destroyer" doctrine. The crews did not care for it much, some TD units resisting converting from the makeshift M10 TD to it. But it was popular as an addition to recon task forces due to its high speed.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05699652902909032781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-87438398847972370312011-02-28T16:17:34.236-05:002011-02-28T16:17:34.236-05:00JimBob86: Numbers alone were enough.
"Part o...JimBob86: Numbers alone were enough.<br /><br />"Part of Germany's problem was Hitler poking designers and insisting on bigger guns and more armor than the design could handle. All of those Panther transmissions failed for exactly that reason. They had less tanks and they had all sorts of mechanical problems with them."<br /><br />True.... <br /><br />"As for CVs ... The US was they only nation that fully learned the lesson at Pearl Harbor. I agree that the Liberty-ship based CVEs were a mistake."<br /><br />Seems you have it both ways Kristopher.... Numbers and simplicity of construction and maintenance were the big idea behind the American tanks, the escort carriers and the Liberty ships... Logistics and communication is what the Americans did well..... numbers, along with ample supplies of everything, and better communications than everybody else, were enough for the Americans.<br /><br />The Wehrmacht suffered from an insane absolute megalomaniac ruler.... he believed that Germany could take on the world and win, just because he believed in that Nietsche Will-to-Power BS. He'd done just as well to believe he could fly by jumping off a cliff and flapping his arms real fast: it'd saved the world millions of deaths, maybe .... or maybe Stalin would have killed more without him.... <br /><br />"as did the T-34 christy based tank on the Russian side."<br /><br />Another weapons procurement debacle! We had the prototype of the best tank of the war and we declined it!<br /><br />Then again, what would the T-34 looked like if the American army had designed it?jimbob86noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-58477839794349549842011-02-28T15:39:31.965-05:002011-02-28T15:39:31.965-05:00jimbob86,
"....ummmm..... and 70-80% of that...jimbob86,<br /><br />"<i>....ummmm..... and 70-80% of that number were escort carriers capable of holding what? a couple dozen aircraft? Too slow to keep up with the fleet, they spent most of the war riding herd on Liberty ships.....</i>"<br /><br />...and 18 <i>Essex</i>-class fleet carriers, and nine <i>Independence</i>-class light carriers, plus a brace of <i>Midways</i> launched in 1945, one of which was still launching F/A-18's in support of Desert Dust...Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-47388845304954216092011-02-28T15:32:36.754-05:002011-02-28T15:32:36.754-05:00JimBob86: Those Ronsons won the war for us, as did...JimBob86: Those Ronsons won the war for us, as did the T-34 christy based tank on the Russian side.<br /><br />Numbers alone were enough.<br /><br />Part of Germany's problem was Hitler poking designers and insisting on bigger guns and more armor than the design could handle. All of those Panther transmissions failed for exactly that reason. They had less tanks and they had all sorts of mechanical problems with them.<br /><br />As for CVs ... The US was they only nation that fully learned the lesson at Pearl Harbor. I agree that the Liberty-ship based CVEs were a mistake.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.com