Slashdot Mirror
US Military Orders Less Dependence On Fossil Fuel
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that it can cost hundreds of dollars to get each gallon of traditional fuel to forward base camps in Afghanistan, so with enemy fighters increasingly attacking American fuel supply convoys crossing the Khyber Pass from Pakistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. 'Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,' says Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary, 'and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.' The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, bringing portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment replacing diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment."
Atomic Humvee
Nothing spurs innovation like trying to kill the other guy.
Living With a Nerd
Look at the loss rate on getting fossil fuels where they are needed. I want 5K gal of diesel at a far-FOB in the Afghan mountains. How many K gal am I going to burn just to get it there? It's awful. How about some compact nuke power cells a la submarines. Safe? No. Effective? Very. Generally speaking, war isn't very safe either.
...pedal-powered tanks!
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Nothing spurs innovation like trying to kill the other guy.
What about trying to stop the other guy from killing you? I think the US military has the luxury of being the hunters that occasionally succumb to attrition. You can still lose that way (Vietnam) but we're not afraid of every single person in America being killed or captured. I'd argue you saw more innovation come out of World War II when we actually faced a threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants (and really one very bad tyrant). Sure, Hitler's V1 and V2 Schneider Programs were innovative but look at what the work of the Polish and, later, British at Bletchley Park did to start us into the computer age. When you're striving to solve a problem and the fate of your entire country rests on it ... I think you forgo sleeping, eating, playing video games, etc. The guys 'innovating' in Afghanistan still go to sleep at night. The guys calling the shots probably don't live any differently than you or I and that is quite comfortably.
My work here is dung.
Yes. The oil's a gushing over there in Afghanistan, isn't it? Fucker.
Let's hope that, with so many other technologies developed by the military, some of it finds its way into everyday use.
There are many plans to build oil pipelines in Afghanistan, so yes, oil is a significant factor in the current conflict in Afghanistan.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
On the other hand, totally self-reliant (though not "renewable" by any stretch of the imagination) armies without supply lines have been done to death.
Female horses : transport, self-replicating, meat, milk and cheese. And a lot of fun at parties too*.
Incidentally, the Afghans will probably find all about them in their history books. Well, the history books that haven't been burned (yet) by those muslims, taliban and otherwise.
* I mean mongol horse contests, not ... euhm ... muslim late-night activities.
The US military is responsible for all sorts of amazing technology that makes like better. GPS would be a good recent example. Any civilian company would have said you were nuts to try and build a GNSS. WAY too expensive and really, how useful would it be? Not enough to justify the funds for sure. The military said "Wait we could locate every craft, every vehicle, maybe even every soldier, every bomb? Yes please." The result? The most amazing advance in navigation and location since, well, the theodolite probably. Everything is now GPS for primary navigation (and sometimes only these days). The world now navigates by GPS and is safer and more efficient for it. In fact hte EU recognized the problem in relying on a system owned by the US military and has talked about their own, but despite having already seen the need and the system working, they've yet to launch a single satellite (it was supposed to be up and running by now). For the moment, a military built system is the only option (the Russians also have a military GNSS).
In some cases, the military really gets shit done. This is in part because they have such a large budget, and are used to expensive, long term projects. They are ok with an outlay of large amounts of money for something that will take a long time to develop and deliver. That is something hard to find in the corporate world. Another useful thing is they are public, they are owned by the government. Means anything they do can be made available to everyone. Of course not everything will be, things that are national security related won't (like the weapons themselves) but something like better solar technology? Sure.
So maybe they will lead the way to better renewable power.
Good pop culture reference :) Anyway, I was thinking that maybe hemp could be used to fuel diesel machines since it grows quickly, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp. Since I've been hearing about hemp diesel for years but have seen nothing come from it (so far), I assumed it is either burdened with legal issues or is otherwise unviable.. Does anyone know about this?
I wonder if they use this https://powertraveller.com/iwantsome/primatepower/solargorilla/. I have one of their portable batteries and it is a pretty neat piece of hardware. They say somewhere that some military are using their equipment.
There are serious proposals to use battlefield fission power plants. Bad idea.
The panels were on display at Modern Day Marine. Basically two standard cell panel integrated into a box that is "Marine resistant". Up to eight plug into a HD box housing the charge controller.
The problem is that personnel need electricity for their gizmos. HMMWV's have 200A 24V alternators from the factory now (which are so big the original 6.5L alternator mounting holes need extensions). If you don't have a vehicle handy, charging items becomes more interesting since you already have 80+ lbs of gear on your back [adding extra / bigger batteries usually exceeds single person weight limits]. Solar is especially nice because you don't have to ship fuel and generator parts around--a base actually becomes more self sufficient. Simply using a green alternative for dino JP-8/5 doesn't do this.
Another solution solution being heavily looked at with larger vehicles is diesel-electric propulsion, coupled with a renewable carbon sourced fuel (WVO conversion, algae, Fischer Tropsch, etc.). The hybrid drive provides electrical generation without needing a dedicated generator (stationary use) or an oversize alternator (mobile use).
- Sig
The US military is responsible for all sorts of amazing technology that makes life better.
Sure, but at what cost. What was the opportunity cost?
This is in part because they have such a large budget, and are used to expensive, long term projects. They are ok with an outlay of large amounts of money for something that will take a long time to develop and deliver. That is something hard to find in the corporate world.
This is the "missing strawman" fallacy, if you will. You're comparing an actual something to a virtual nothing. Not fair. Is there not a possibility that if all those resources were spent on something else we would now have something much more life-enhancing than GPS? Think flying cars... no, scratch that... world peace perhaps?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Some of the world's largest untapped oil fields are in central Asia. In fact, I once heard the Taliban were willing to turn Bin Laden over to the US if they could do so discreetly and in exchange for a deal to sell their oil. Instead of oil, they're now selling opium.
So in a way, I think the Afghan war is actually not about oil, but rather about vengeange or being pissed at the Taliban, or using an opportunity to get rid on a really oppressive, conservative regime there. It could have been finished cheaper, quicker, and the US would have gotten Bin Laden and oil out of it. I hope the alternative is worth it.
Now that the military wants to use less fuel, we'll have alternatively-powered vehicles within a few years. Seriously, every huge technological innovation of the past 30 or 40 years began with the military. Even the Internet was originally a military project.
Oorah Devil Dogs of 3/5!! The most decorated Regiment of the Marines charging forward once again! Though I am curious what the boat company is doing in the desert... ;-) Shouldn't this be Kilo or Weaps out there?
HM3 STA 3/5 93-97
This may be an absolutley crazy idea, but why not bring in small (50mw) nuclear reactors into afghanistan, and wireup a small, perhaps microwave grid, with backup generators. Bury it and pour concrete over it to make it terrorist proof.
That will take care of electrical.
And as for liquid fuels, it might be possible to setup a plant based around the fischer tropsch process which takes hydrogen and carbon monoxide to create gasoline. Run it off an electrolysis station and a carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide converter. Then generate it in the field. It should be more economical than paying hundreds of dollars a gallon to truck fuel in.
If you made each fischer tropsch module about the size of a semi trailer, that's a fairly simple thing to drag into a base camp, which could then produce liquid fuels from the nuclear powered grid fairly easily.
However, as a more reasonable stopgap, research could be done into hybrid electric turbines. Being able to turn the turbine off in low power would save drastically on fuel. Having enough power to get going under a combat load and still have enough juice to start the turbine might be a bit tricky, but I think it can be done and would probably double if not triple the mileage of those tanks.
It might be that less dependence on fossil fuels would mean less dependence on war.
I realize this is going to be a minority opinion in this all-male, all-tech geek environment, but still...
I wonder how quickly the taste for war would fade in this population if there was a draft? And if you couldn't get out of it by being too fat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Over this summer I've refitted my old car with solar panels to charge the battery when its parked and replaced all low-energy incandescent bulbs with aftermarket LED replacements. on this one car its lead to a detectable reduction in liquid fuel use. I imagine the fuel savings from even minor adjustments like this, applied to the whole service fleet, could make a noticeable saving on fuel... even before they start retiring portable generators in favour of panels.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I fought in WWII, and mainland America never faced the "threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants".
Right, I'm sure that once Germany had taken all of Europe and Russia they'd have just sat on their hands contented. They wouldn't have used those extensive resources to make a push to conquer the world. Tell me, since they fought everyone around them to the bitter end, where would have Germany and Japan halted? What borders could have possibly satiated their thirst for power and resources?
I guess my understanding is 'blatantly wrong' and my opinions are 'bullshit each and every way' but I do know that there were divided opinions in America at the time. The isolationists who thought that all Hitler wanted was to conquer a few surrounding countries and the other people who thought that Hitler would stop at nothing until he controlled the world. After reading Winston Churchill's account of the Second World War, I'm in the latter camp. It appears you're confident Hitler would have stopped had he won the Battle for Britain and overrun the Eastern front. He sure didn't stop after the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France. The German war machine excelled at turning conquered territories into another cog in the war machine. Hitler didn't shut down all the factories producing munitions and arms once he overtook a country.
I appreciate all you did for your country and I'm sorry you are dismally appalled at my attempts to learn and understand the part of history you influenced. I'd be happy to listen to another point of view from anyone who fought in World War II but it would take a great deal of startling revelations to change my opinion on America's risk had the Allies lost.
As time goes on, each generation of youth born after 1950 adds their own layer of "understanding" to history, and usually this "understanding" is blatantly wrong. You're no exception.
And you wonder why your children and grandchildren never visit you ...
My work here is dung.
If the US Army replaced their fuel guzzling M1 tank turbines with modern diesel engines like the MTU engine used in the Leopard they would spend a lot less fuel to begin with. The same applies to the HMMWV.
If they switched to diesel-electric, the vehicles would spend even less power.
For Afghanistan this is useless, but for campaigns near the shore it would be useful to recharge the vehicles using the nuclear reactor in US Navy carriers.
If the infantry switched to caseless or cased telescoped ammunition, it would take less volume to transport the same number of rifle ammo rounds.
The B-52 uses ancient engines from the late 1950s which guzzle fuel but the Air Force cannot get Congress to pay for the upgrade because it is deemed uneconomic.
Solar can have its uses. The military could especially use flexible solar cells which could be more easily transported. However the military also needs reliability, something that works 100% of the time, which is something solar cells cannot provide.
We have come a long time since Genghis Khan. The Mongols could feed their horses by grazing and drinking water along the way. They were nomads, so they brought cattle as food supply along with them, as well as their families etc. Present military hardware requires too much power for this to be feasible anymore.
"and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people."
I'm all for honesty, but I suspect that PR isn't that guy's strong point.
Well, the military might help to make Stirling engines cheaper. Those engines are already used for transforming solar heat into electricity and seem to have a good effectiveness into doing so. The main problem of this way of capturing power is that the engines are quite expensive to make. This could be an opportunity for the military to make the world a better place.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
If the US military manages to become independent of fossil fuels, allowing the civilian sector to take advantage of the technology they develop, they could effectively work themselves out of a job, since their primary function is to secure parts of the world where fossil fuels are found.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Political-correctness be damned, it's just a GOOD IDEA. It's an old saying that 'amateurs discuss tactics; professional soldiers talk about logistics'.
The vulnerability of our fighting forces (or any modern military) to attacks on their fuel/supply trains is staggering, and was proven in Iraq. If the opposition in Iraq or Afghanistan was anything close to a peer-level opponent, it would have been catastrophic.
The ability to thin the supply lines also multiplies the effectiveness of the logistics assets you have, as well.
This is a great idea, and the fact that the military is addressing is extremely encouraging for our society. Not that the DoD is magical, but due to their requirements and hard field-testing, their solutions to things tend to be far more pragmatic and practical than the "political" solutions of politicians. Take "integration" as an example - the politicians talked themselves blue in the face about it for decades, but AFAIK there is no more color-blind, racially neutral employer today than the US military.
I'd argue that what the military develops in terms of robust, practical methods of reducing energy consumption will translate into civilian systems relatively quickly.
-Styopa
Hm, this could be another military innovation that trickles down to the sub-society of well educated, capable men and women who will use it to better the whole of society.
It reminds me of an innovation developed for the exclusive benefit of the dogs of war called Internet Protocol.
Let's hope they get excellent solar panels, energy cells, clean water and whatnot.
Right, I'm sure that once Germany had taken all of Europe and Russia they'd have just sat on their hands contented.
Without US involvement, Germany still wouldn't have taken Europe - much less Russia. It's the Soviets who would have been the big winners and "liberated" Western Europe had the Americans stayed at home. Whether you think that America would have ended up at risk of coming under the rule of tyrants depends on what effect you think that this would have had on the cold war. Perssonally I don't think that even Soviets emboldened by the conquering of Europe would have tried to invade the US after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Perssonally I don't think that even Soviets emboldened by the conquering of Europe would have tried to invade the US after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
You are aware the Nazis had their own nuclear program, correct? It was only canceled due to the fall of Berlin -- something the United States did play a part in. To assume the US would have been the only ones with a nuclear weapon is not sound logic.
The US military openly admits that their mission is to fight or engage local people? How did that one slip past the censor?
Jetpacks coming next year. Warp drive in two, tops.
Stop using supply depots and start using pylons.
Sure, I don't like our empire, or the fact that we still think we can build nations and bring democracy to every corner of the earth. I do, however, like the technological progress that results from military spending.
It's the closest thing we have to real publicly funded research that most politicians can support.
The private sector has been dragging its feet on alternative energy for 30 years (yes Government does share the blame here). If the military decides it needs to be energy independent, and the physics/chemistry allows it - it will get done.
One can hope that any resulting innovations trickle into civilian life.
-ted
One of the crops native to Afghanistan is safflower, safflower oil could be readily made into biodiesel.
Also its a premium grade food oil so any surplus could be sold on the world market. It can also be used for
dyes and paints. Of course it would be better for a native safflower processing industry to develop but
that takes time. The army could build a processing plant and start buying safflower crops right away
and then when they leave turn over the processing plant to a native company.
The army gets cheaper diesel to fuel trucks and tanks and the native people actually make money and develop industry.
Of course that makes too much sense.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
Entitlement programs? You mean like the bank, where you put money in and are entitled to ask for it back?
Or social security, where there's a bankroll of 2.5Trillion people have paid in and these people are therefore entitled to take it out?
But in either case, entitlement programs save lives. Military destroys lives.
That's quite a big difference and I ask why you'd rather end a life than continue it?
You are aware the Nazis had their own nuclear program, correct? It was only canceled due to the fall of Berlin -- something the United States did play a part in.
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Or have they changed the number in Civ5. Oh those tricky rules of civilization.
Yes. The oil's a gushing over there in Afghanistan, isn't it?
Oil, opium, same song, just a different verse of it.
The thing is more or less unstoppable. It is the most powerful tank, well, ever. It is agile, accurate, and extremely hard to kill. The "hard to kill" part accounts for much of its inefficiency given its obscenely heavy armor. The M1A2 variant is almost 70 tons. Efficiency wasn't in the design parameters. Being the baddest motherfucker on the battlefield was.
A better idea when talking redesigns is to build a new tank. This is something the military has been talking about, but isn't getting around to doing and maybe they need to move it up. Never mind the cost of an M! moving under its own power, the things are impossible to airlift. A C5 can lift a whole one of them at a time. Also, while you might need to roll out the M1 against Russia, it is overkill in many situations. A lighter battle tank would work fine. that could of course have a smaller, more efficient engine and so on and so forth.
That would seem to be a more sensible course of action if you are going to spend time and money to rebuild a tank. Build and use those, keep the M1s hanging out if they are needed.
The engine has to recharge the battery. Now, where do you think your engine gets the energy for the battery from?
The AC (needed in hot weather) takes its energy from the battery, which depletes it. Why do you think it doesn't run out?
The radio takes its energy from the battery. And so on.
In-town there are a new set of cars that use regenerative braking to charge up the battery rather than waste all that stored energy. It does make quit a bit of difference in fuel consumption. E.g. 1.5ton cars getting 84mpg (UK) on motorways.
But the point is that the Soviet Union would have most likely defeated Germany long before Germany would have had any chance to develop the capability to actually deliver a nuclear warhead to the U.S. The fate of Nazi Germany was decided in Stalingrad in late 1942 and Kursk in mid 1943. I think VJ42 is right - the U.S. entering WWII in Europe prevented the Soviet conquest of Western Europe, not a rather unlikely German victory.
You make a nuclear powered tank the size of a battleship, with enough armor and firepower to fend off any attack. Add a self-aware computer brain.
German tanks ran on gasoline. Russian tanks ran on Diesel. Less dangerously flammable, much lower fuel consumption, and if you can get the fuel to the injector and turn the engine over it will ignite. These were among the decisive factors at Kursk, possibly the turning point of WW2.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Before oil became an important resource to the Western World, we didn't give two shits about anyone in the Middle East.
I think everyone can agree that oil became important as it displaced coal as the primary energy source for vehicles, navies, and all the new military tech that depended on it. So let's set the change date at 1900.
British military interventions in the Middle East before 1900:
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839)
Anglo-Persian War (1856)
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878)
These were part of the "Great Game" of trying to control central Asia so Britain could protect India from Russia. Before 1900, the United States had never had troops in the Middle East, excepting a few skirmishes mostly involving the protection of our commercial fleet. Most US colonial activity was directed at the rest of the mainland (wars with Mexico), Florida, Hawaii, Central and South America, and imperialism in Japan, Hawaii, China, the Philippines and other parts of the Pacific.
WWI established the West as the colonial owner of the Middle East, and the US and Britain have had troops stationed there ever since. Western powers also established political lines in the Middle East that still haunt us today, as the spoils of war from defeating the Ottoman Empire. The first deployment after the Ottoman Empire entered the war was to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline - later to become Anglo-Iranian and finally British Petroleum in 1953.
Here's a snippet from a BBC piece:
So, no, we didn't give a shit about that particular region of the world until they had something we wanted. Unless you have resources that we want, or you present a security threat by proximity, we don't care what happens to you. Just ask any citizen of Africa.
"keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people."
Well, at least they're finally being honest about it. None of this "To bring democracy" crap.
The military *HAS* been infiltrated by dirty commies!
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Here is the new concept of 'sustainable war'...
Replacing the camp generator is small stuff. They should do a fuel budget and worry about the big stuff.
IIRC, a helicopter uses approx. 45 gal. per hour. So, one hour of helicopter use burns the same fuel as one week of diesel generator use.
I can't recall the fuel consumption of a battle tank but it's bad.
Although they aren't as thirsty as helicopters and tanks, even LAVs are pretty thirsty.
If you need the fuel, don't bother with trying to get it in overland. Fly it in. ie. quit screwing around and do the job right.
Having said the above, if you're in a forward base, you don't want to worry about running out of fuel. It would be nice to be self-reliant. It removes one problem. It doesn't relieve you of the problem of re-supply though. Solar panels do not produce food and bullets and they are somewhat fragile and an easy target.
I think I would rather have them sling in a barrel of diesel once a week along with the other supplies.
Even the Russians themselves weren't as confident as you seem to be. They were convinced they would never be able to deal with fighting on two fronts, against Germany and Japan. They relied on the Chinese to hold off the Japanese. They even pushed the communists in China, who they were supporting, to aid the Nationalists in fighting the Japanese.
The Soviet Union might have made things tough for Germany but I doubt they'd be able to fend them off forever. They were successful specifically because of American involvement.
The one place that I thought was safe from this politically correct, hippy BS HOAX, is the US Military! So now the obama regime is going to further HOBBLE our military! We need to stop this green movement before it takes us back to the stone age. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING or whatever is the cliche phrase of the day! WE, humans, ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF IT!
Fusion and nuclear fuel cells are the way of the future, not wind and/or solar.
Unfortunately, hemp is marijuana's cousin, so growing enough industrial hemp to create enough fuel for a diesel truck will never happen unless marijuana is legalized. There are trace amounts of THC in hemp, but smoking it will only give you a headache, not get you high. Congress fails to see the difference (forestry lobbyists do not help - what would happen to forestry if we could make paper out of hemp? We'd have to stop cutting down the trees, man!)
I find the whole situation ironic. We are allowed to import enough hemp to make as many hemp necklaces as we want, but we can't grow it and contribute to help solve energy problems.
I'm not sure on this one, but there may be more THC in chocolate than there is in hemp, but of course chocolate is perfectly legal. I may be mistaken, but I know at least it's pretty comparable.
Whatever your opinion on marijuana is, hemp should be separated from that and be allowed to grow. A whole new industry, wouldn't that be nice?
Exactly.
GP is assuming the Americans would have gone on to create the bomb. That is not certain.
The Germans were also working on their heavy water experiments at the time. Without US involvement the European war would have definitely lasted longer and could have possibly allowed the Germans to perfect the atomic bomb that the Americans might not have been even trying to create since they would not be involved in the war. The Americans were working hard for it primarily because they feared Germany would get it first. Germany *would* have achieved the atomic bomb, it is hard to speculate how long it would have taken, but it would have eventually happened and it also hard to know if the Americans would have had it or not. By the end of the war Germany did have bombers that could hit New York so if Germany achieves it first, game over.
That aside, without US involvement Germany *would* have taken Britain, then with only a single front to worry about they could have focused the entirety of their forces on Russia. It is not a forgone conclusion that Russia would have won that fight. Even with Germany's forces split between two fronts they almost were overrun. If Hitler had not been so obsessed with taking Stalingrad he could have bypassed it and hit Moscow before winter set in, especially if he had the resources from the Western front at his disposal. Germany had the finest military in the world at the time. I am not taking anything away from the Allies, but the fact is, the German military was the best. Efficient, professional and deadly.
If Germany was able to get the bomb....a Nazi regime with a nuclear arsenal is not something I would like to think about.
If the US had remained truly non-involved, Britain might have made peace (Halifax vs. Churchill as PM, etc). If this had happened, it would have been a race of numbers vs. technology. Given this forum, I think most people would have bet on technology.
Every time I refill I do so from the same pump, always to the brim, and record the exact volume of fuel pumped and the mileage. I have a high-accuracy fuel-economy record going back 3 years.
the improvement in fuel efficiency from my conversions is between 2% and 2.5%
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I think the definition hinges largely on what you consider the US "entering the war". If it is only US troops in Europe, then sure.
Then you're ignoring the massive amount of material support to all Allied nations from the US. US naval activity in all theaters. Strategic bombing, which was focused on industrial sites in 1942 and forced the Germans to spend resources countering it. The US operations in the Pacific, diverting Japan's efforts (whom the Soviets were also fighting).
I'm not trying to take anything away from the Soviet. They fought and suffered greatly. But they were on a thin edge until the end of 1942. And the Nazis already had their solution to a guerrilla war in the East... were fine with murdering everyone and repopulating.
Without US involvement, Germany still wouldn't have taken Europe - much less Russia. It's the Soviets who would have been the big winners and "liberated" Western Europe had the Americans stayed at home.
Completely wrong. Period.
Russia had their asses completely kicked. The only reason they were able to push is because of the US. Most people don't know but the US was supplying weapons and support long before the US even declared war. US merchant ships had been sunk by German U-Boats long before the US entered the war.
Many of the planes flown by China, Briton, and even Russia were supplied by the US. Small arms and munitions were also provided, along with food, and raw materials. If you've ever heard of the famous Flying Tigers, then you'll understand. Those were US built P-40s being flown by US and Chinese pilots.
The ONLY reason the allies won the war was because of US involvement on a "third and forth front". Remember, despite having a front with the British in Europe, including a theater in Africa, Germany completely kicked Russia's ass. The only reason the British were able to hang on as long as they did was because of the steady stream of supplies received from the US, including fuel, food, raw materials, small arms, munitions, ships, planes, tanks, trucks, man power, so on and so on.
While US forces did frequently integrate with British forces, such as in Africa, many US forces stood completely alone and effectively created that third and/or forth front on Germany. This drew massive pressure off of the Russians (not ignoring the British efforts which did more of the same). This in turn allowed Russia to come back swinging with technological wonders like their T-34, which allowed many shells and man portable AT rounds to largely ricochet right off.
To say WWII would have been won without the US' active involvement is nothing but a wet dream.
The problem with it is that it's difficult to properly monitor production. While hemp can't be used for pot, it's fairly easy to sneak a few pot plants into the mix and tough to monitor for.
You can still sell it in the US, you just can't grow it here, and the DEA has a zero tolerance policy. There are a few states that have legalized production, but I'm not aware of any actually doing so, and since it conflicts with federal law, I'd expect lawsuits if they ever do start production.
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
It happened only because of US involvement requiring Germany to split between two fronts, which is completely ignoring the pressures placed elsewhere because of directly US involvement.
For the most part, the German scientists were stonewalling their own government, taking their own sweet time developing the superweapon - fast enough to avoid some sort of purge, but as slow as they could manage. Nor was heavy water a particularly good direction. From what I've heard, the Germans also had an intercontinentaly nuclear bomber under development, except it was designed around a bomb 10 times the weight of ours.
After V.E. day the Brits had the German scientists on ice, and kept them under observation as they let them see the Hiroshima/Nagasaki coverage. It only took a few hours for them to figure out the critical bits from "general coverage." They were sandbagging in Germany.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Unfortunately, hemp is marijuana's cousin, so growing enough industrial hemp to create enough fuel for a diesel truck will never happen unless marijuana is legalized. There are trace amounts of THC in hemp, but smoking it will only give you a headache, not get you high. Congress fails to see the difference (forestry lobbyists do not help - what would happen to forestry if we could make paper out of hemp? We'd have to stop cutting down the trees, man!)
I find the whole situation ironic. We are allowed to import enough hemp to make as many hemp necklaces as we want, but we can't grow it and contribute to help solve energy problems.
I'm not sure on this one, but there may be more THC in chocolate than there is in hemp, but of course chocolate is perfectly legal. I may be mistaken, but I know at least it's pretty comparable.
Whatever your opinion on marijuana is, hemp should be separated from that and be allowed to grow. A whole new industry, wouldn't that be nice?
To correct you on your THC in chocolate statement: Chocolate does not contain THC, but it does contain Anandamide which is a chemical that can bind to cannabinoid receptors in your brain. It produces a very weak, barely noticeable effect because it is broken down quite quickly.
All that aside, yes the potential for hemp is amazing. Fuel, food, paper, textiles, even whole houses can be made from hemp! It's a tragedy to see such a valuable resource go to waste.
But really, how do they plan to keep the panels clear of dust?
You are aware the Nazis had their own nuclear program, correct?
It was nothing much, and not oriented toward building a bomb. Michael Frane's play "Cophenhagen" gets it right: if Heisenberg had wanted to build a bomb he wouldn't have needed a week to work out a reasonable estimate of the mass of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
There is simply no plausible case that the NAZIs were working on viable a nuclear weapons program.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Less efficient and less robust than Diesels, don't scale so well, and when the priority is weight and portability, solar PV is better than solar concentrators. This is why they are driving around on the road near you.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Arguably, you could say one of the primary reasons Russia was able to successfully defend against the Germans was the fact that the Germans beat themselves, independant of the americans. Combine the ill-planned 'Operation Barbarossa' with a tenacious, motivated, well-led enemy, the Germans really had no chance.
Some factors of the German defeat:
1. Germany sent in a field army, not completely comfortable in urban environments
2. Germany was ill-prepared, both men and equipment for the cold environment
3. Germany was fighting a multi-front war (the only relationship to the americans)
4. Too long of supply lines, later succeptible to air attack (sturmavik)
In conclusion, I won't take anything away from the american involvement in WW2, they did their part, but to attribute any part of the German defeat in the Russian campaign to the americans, would be, in my opinion, disingenious to the Russian people who fought and died to save their homeland. Not to mention revisionism.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
I agree. Too many rich warhawks believe wars should be fought by someone else's son.
Right on.
I seem to observe these days that the civil liberties we fought for in the 60s and won are slowly being eroded. The only thing missing was the type of opinion voiced by the grandparent:
Actually, no. Education does that. A civil society does that.
"to fight or engage local people".
Now that's a PR fail.
The soviet union was so close to defeat several times that any change to history puts a soviet win into doubt.
I've been advocating for an energy independent military for a long time. Supply lines are the vulnerable backside to any campaign. Reducing the material that flow through should be a number 1 concern of logistics.
Not that one or two of those proposed 25MW nuclear generators wouldn't be out of line either.
25MW, $25M
Assuming that's ONLY for the reactor, not the steam plant to actually produce the electricity, say $50M for a power plant
Let's assume that $100/gallon is a worst case scenario for a short period of time of intense fuel convoy attacks, and that it averages closer to $10-20/gallon.
Diesel is 37.3 MJ/L, $2.64-5.28/L, Assuming 30% efficiency*, 1 MJ = .278 kWh, 3.11 kWh per Liter, or $.85-1.70 per kwh, using diesel. Ouch.
A $50M 25MW plant, assuming a 90% capacity factor, should produce 197 Million kwh a year. Assuming it lasts 5 years, that's closer to 5 cents a kwh. Even if we double the cost AGAIN to $100M, that's still only 10 cents a kwh before operation expenses.
$800 for 200 watts of solar panel doesn't seem out of line right now. Figure once we're done militarizing it, adding extra components like inverters, and shipping, $1600 for 200 watts. Being fairly generous, that 200 watt panels should produce ~ 788 kwh/year. Figure on 5 year timeframe**, that's 41 cents a kwh.
Either way I see potential for major savings. I'm forced to agree that for bases that are large enough, a suitable nuclear generator would probably be the best solution. For the small ones, solar power looks like a good solution, but you'll still need a generator.
*A GW scale plant can get over 50%, but we're looking at big IC diesel engines.
**Both the reactor and panels should last longer, but I'm being paranoid here. Diesel generators are easy to move and clean up after, relatively speaking.
I don't read AC A human right
From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
All of your points only go to show how important the muti-front war was to the Russian victory.
With a single front:
1. Germany is able to send in the bulk of their forces, not just a field army. The forces that took France can now be dedicated to Russia and they are well versed in urban combat.
2. Not having to split resources they can then send in a fully quipped army. They did have cold weather gear but the bulk was in the west. That gear can now be dedicated to Russia.
3. Since they do not have the second front they can send more air support to their supply lines in the east and provide better protection. In fact most of the Luftwaffe could be diverted to Russia since Britain would have fallen and there would be no need for them there. With the full force of the German army and air force I seriously doubt Russia even makes it to that first winter in the first place.
The Russians mounted a heroic defense, but if they had to face the full force of the German machine, I'm sorry, they lose. The Russians were out maneuvered, tactically, from the start. The only reason they were able to counter was due to the mistakes of the Germans and their lack of resources due to the multi-front war. Without the pause at Stalingrad and the onset of winter the Germans take Moscow and Russia is done. They almost did it anyway which you should take serious note of.
Because of this, we will see many more improvements in available tech soon for the regular population, which is always the case once military sets in on something....except weapons of course, but how many times did we see the army boots, before doc martins came out, especially all the camping gear which is always about 2 years behind technology wise...
Um, no. You may have a shred of a point with lend-lease supplying materiel in the first years of the war, but US involvement in Europe, while important, was more about saving England and liberating France/Italy before the communists did than materially affecting the course of the war.
The Soviets sacrificed nearly 15% of their population in World War 2, and had 8-10 million military deaths to our .5 million and Germany's 5.5 million - the eastern front was World War 2 and everything else was a sideshow by comparison. The Soviets were quite capable of crushing Germany singlehandedly, albeit with losses the western powers would have considered unacceptable. Had the German divisions at the Western front been up against Russia, England would still have bombed out their industrial base, and the Soviets would have simply crushed the Wermacht beneath a pile of Russian bodies. Besides, they only needed to get as far as Berlin, not all the way to Dunkirk and Sicily.
Do you think this announcement has anything to do with todays news about Another 20 oil tankers burned as Pakistani Taliban claims responsibility for third attack in three days?
"We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels."
really means:
"We want to find a politically correct way to funnel money to defense contractors and earmarks for corn subsidies."
I would bet large sums of money that they will be buying new equipment to make more use of ethanol (from corn), in spite of the fact that the numbers just don't support ethanol as a fuel.
If they were serious, they'd be converting to using more diesel - it is far easier to make a diesel-fuel substitute than it is to make a gasoline-substitute.
Haven't you ever played the Axis & Allies board game? All Russia can do on its own is churn out 5 or 6 infantry and maybe a tank or two every turn, tops. Germany would be able to steamroll them without American intervention, while still using all their fighters and bombers to keep the British navy down.
If there is one thing the bulk of Americans rally about, it is maintaining and growing our military strength. The military attempting to move away from fossil fuels is the most positive development to ever occur in the so called "alternative energy movement", which should never have been trivialized. Petroleum distillation is simply not viable over the long haul.
Boom goes the dynamite. What better pitch do they need other than "Solar equals stealth" Insurgents can hear a diesel generator like a googol miles away, am I right brosefs!?
I'm sorry, I don't think you've ever actually studied WW2 in any detail. Frist, Japan did take on the Soviet Union and got their asses handed to them both times in battles of Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol . They sued for peace and turned their eyes to China. Second, the European theater was completely decided on the Eastern Front. The Germans failed to win at the Battle of Moscow. The Russians had turned everything around by Stalingrad. By time the Battle of Kursk happened, the end of Nazi Germany was written. D-Day and the Western European Front dealt with a forth of the resources that the Germans were throwing at the Eastern Front. If the Allies had not landed in Europe, the Soviet Union would have gone all the way to the sea.
While it may be arguable that the Soviet Union might not have been is such a good spot without Lend Lease and things were touch and go in the early part of the war, they still did the brunt of all the fighting against the Nazis.
I have been writing Senator Udall (my senator) for 2 years to get him to create an X-prize. The prize would be for energy beaming as well as ultra-caps. The right way to do this is to have staged prizes for each.
.25 miles, then .5 miles, then 1 mile, then 4 miles, then 20 miles, then 300 miles. Now why do the above? Because .25 mile allows for providing power to robots and electric weapons. Likewise, it can be used in civilian to provide power to mining equipment such as gravel pits. A .5 mile is about the same use for DOD, but now, it provides for power for ag use (electric tractors). Then a 1 mile, allows for some useful operations for the military. Basically, a small balloon, helicopter, or plane can fly over an area and provide power to loads of areas. This is useful to reflect power various groups in the DOD, but it is also useful for rescue. Imagine if Haiti, or New Orleans had say 10 MWs of power within 4 hours after the event being beamed around? That would have saved NUMEROUS lives in Haiti. And after hurricanes, it would allow for getting power going very quickly. At 4 miles, it allows for use over most battle fields (hard for AQ/taliban to hit it, but Iran could). OTH, 20 miles would give a height of 80-100,000 K altitiude. THat will be on the edge of what Iran could hit. Finally, 300 puts it in space.
The beaming would be at
And ultra-caps make the most sense for storage. Their issue is lack of energy density and high costs. However, the DOD would gladly pay to ramp up production if it brought down prices. Ability to take a charge fast and give it up, allows for quick re-charge, and the ability to provide electric weapons power.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To say WWII would have been won without the US' active involvement is nothing but a wet dream.
You make many good points, but my post was made assuming lend-lease and other other indirect cooperation and help remained the same. The USA could have kept troops out of the Western front. Berlin would have fallen to the Soviets because Hitler made the classic mistake of trying to invade Russia in the winter - The Eastern front was lost when Operation Barbarossa failed. Once the Eastern front had failed, it was only a matter of time before the Soviets beat Hitler, the final years of the war and Allied liberation of Europe were almost as much about keeping Western Europe out of Soviet hands as liberating it. I'm not trying to take anything away from the American war effort - as a Brit, I'm profoundly grateful for it - I'm just pointing out that I think that US troops in Western Europe changed post-war history far more than it changed the direct outcome of WWII.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
It happened only because of US involvement requiring Germany to split between two fronts,
I'm sorry, I disagree. In my opinion once Operation Barbarossa failed, Berlin's fate was sealed. US support was far more vital in terms of lend-lease and other indirect help than actual troops on the ground; the final years of the War in Europe were just as much about keeping Western Europe out of Soviet hands as they were about liberating it.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Maybe many of those German scientists "knew", and were fighting the systme form the inside with the stonewalling.
That was my point.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Berlin would have fallen to the Soviets because Hitler made the classic mistake of trying to invade Russia in the winter -
Had it not been for the Allies (materially backed by the US) putting pressure on Germany's other fronts, come first thaw, the Germans would have simply re-enforced their Russian fronts and finished the Russians. And that's ignoring the forces which were not committed because of the British front which was completely sustained by US resources.
Bluntly, without the Allies receiving massive direct and indirect support from the US, its extremely unlikely the Russians would have won. Even with massive support and as you point out, the harsh Russian winter, Russia was barely able to turn the tide. With any less support, its extremely unlikely Russia would look anything like it did post WWII.
After the Japanese lost the battle of Khalkhin Gol they were not very interested in fighting the Soviet Union. Regardless of whatever the US did. Japanese naval power was formidable, and they had a decent air force, but their tanks and infantry were inferior to the ones fielded by the Soviet Union. They would not have lasted in a protracted land battle. It is one thing to win against Chinese using obsolete weapons, a different thing fighting against the best armored vehicles of WWII.
The big difference, of course, is that if the UAE (to pick an example) decides to have a civil war, or invade Oman, or whatever - we won't necessarily have to intervene. Which would save us quite a bit of money and trouble.
Right, because people just love being on unemployment. If what you're saying here is that the government ought to start paying a bunch of unemployed people to do productive work, I'm with you there. We'd get economic stimulus plus make a dent in our giant backlog of needed infrastructure work.
Everyone seems to think that the object of the game here is to 1) save money or 2) be green. Well, I guess there are some elements of that, but the real issue is logistics. It's really, really hard to get fuel to some of the places where the services need to use it, so if they can remake their forces so as to use less, they can be more operationally effective.
Also, as a minor but related point: on the other side of the cost ledger, you've left out the costs involved in transporting said fuel to said locations. I've heard price quotes of something like a hundred bucks a gallon by the time you finally get it to where it needs to be. Further: you wouldn't necessarily want to retrofit the M1s. It would probably be more effective to build the next tank with energy efficiency in mind.
Even if Moscow had been taken Germany would not have won the war. Just like Napoleon did not win by taking Moscow either. Most Soviet manufacturing plants had either been moved, or were in the process of being moved behind the Urals. To win the war decisively the Germans needed to smash the Soviet Union's military and capture their industrial production facilities. Germany stretched their supply chain over the limit. That was why they lost.
Regarding Allied bombing impacting production capacity, German war material production actually increased at the height of the campaign. While this bombing campaign did take away some manpower from German industry, most of the work done constructing underground facilities was done by slave labor from the occupied regions, something the Germans had in large quantity. I think the Allied blockade was far more effective as it reduced Germany's access to strategic materials which eventually caused their war machine to collapse. The strategic material shortage ranged from specialized metal alloys, to petroleum, and even food.
The Soviet Union would have had an even more costly victory, but I still think they would have won.
You are correct, but that occurred in 1939. The Japanese knew they couldn't take on the Soviets and the USA, so they made peace with Stalin and turned to the South Pacific. By 1942, many of the Soviet units and commanders had been redeployed against Germany.
The original point was whether the US had any impact on the eventual outcome of the war. I think its likely the Japanese would have taken a more aggressive approach to the Soviet Union if they didn't have to worry about the US Pacific Fleet. Especially when Germany appeared to have Russia up against the wall.
The original post seems to argue that, because the US wasn't on the ground at Stalingrad, there was no impact. This totally ignores the resources that the Axis committed against even potential US moves. What would an additional 60 full-strength divisions have done for Germany on the Eastern Front?
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Two problems with that. Firstly the United Kingdom "purchased" its war materials from the USA, they where not free. Just like we did in WWI. This massive transfer of wealth is what made the USA so rich so quickly and conversly why we have no empire anymore. We have only recently finished paying the loans off. The whole "lend lease" program happened because Wall Street bankers where rubbing their hands in glea with the thought of all the money they could make.
The second problem is that the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain signalled the end of Germany's plans to invade permantly, and thanks to Ultra we knew this to be the case. This all happened long before the USA actually got involved. Even if they had won they where struggling to put together a suitable naval operation to actual make the invasion work. Remember it took years of preparation for the reinvasion of mainland Europe, so the notion that Germany could have done the opposite without similar preparation is somewhat laughable.
.. that the mileage I do is heavily urban and this holds down my net economy - on long runs I've occasionally recorded more than 55mpg, and have to carefully note when I've done them or it also skews my figures.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
First: No said otherwise, so its simply not a problem, nor does it have any bearing on the subject.
Second: You're completely ignoring the time line.
None of your points place into contention any of the counter points I've previously provided.
'Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,' says Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary, 'and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.'
Excuse me, but first of all it would only take a limited number of troops to guard a couple of trucks, less if you have drones circling around. Second of all, it appears that they would have had plenty of opportunity to "fight or engage" some of the local people (i.e. the ones throwing the molotov cocktails).
natural hemp rope and hemp oils would have quite an appeal.
They didn't have to fend them off for ever. Germany was over stretched and undersupplied (it’s a tiny country that was crippled by WW1) they needed to win the whole lot quick hence Blitzkrieg the lightning attack. Nazis had to win before the 11th hour, Russia just had to wait it out (easier said then done). The war was essentially over when the 'German war machine' ground to a halt in Stalingrad.
Rocket Surgeon.
And you wonder why your children and grandchildren never visit you ...
Whoa man. No one attacks the fact you never have any girls visit you. Leave the veteran alone, each generation after an event is never going to understand it, because they weren’t there, and cause history is RE-written by the winners (like Winston Churchill where you seem to get all your info from).
Rocket Surgeon.
World War 2 was won by the allies from the day the British (and French) navies imposed their naval blockade on Germany. Most discussions of World War 2 just take the blockade as a given and fail completely to realise or analyse its importance. Lifting the blockade was the real reason Hitler needed to conquer Britain, although I think even he did not realise this. I suggest you start with Mahan's 'The Influence of Seapower upon History'.
Just one example; German fighters' supercharged engines were not as effective as the supercharged and turbocharged engines in Allied fighters at high altitudes for technical reasons related to the use of fuel injection. The Germans attempted to develop turbochargers but failed because they did not have access to the strategic materials that would allow them to develop alloys that could withstand the extreme temperatures of the turbochargers. The reason these materials were not available was the naval blockade. Thus, the Royal Navy won the Battle of Berlin.
I still don't understand what they're actually doing being in Afghanistan in the first place. Haven't they got enough problems at home to deal with?
Just like the current focus on fuel transport will cause enormous problems that cannot be solved by any of the (long-term) solutions here (today there was another large-scale burning of fuel trucks).
Houston, we have a problem...