They were called Ronsons by the British, they were not more commonly called that by all the allies. Of course the British really had no room to talk, the Soviets called Lend-Lease Churchill tanks "Tomb for Five Brothers."
From TFW on flammability of the Sherman.
"Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded that a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank’s armor; in comparison they also concluded that the Panzer IV would catch fire 80% of the time following an average of 1.5 penetrations, the Panther would light 63% of the time following 3.24 penetrations, and the Tiger would catch fire 80% of the time following 3.25 penetrations. John Buckley, using a case study of the 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades found that of the 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, only 94 were burnt out; 56.6%. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burnt out after being penetrated. United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks."
Even Albert Speer commented on the power to weight ratio of the Sherman and it's mobility.
But overall, yes US and British armor was inferior in protection and firepower to German armor. Good thing the M-1 Garand, Lancaster, B-17, Mosquito, Window, LST, centimeter wave radar and B-24 were superior to what Germany built
Except that in armor the bulk of new armor development is done by NATO nations or nations that are allied with NATO so anything better than the M-1A2 is never going to fight an M-1A2 or Russian.
The new and outstanding Russian armor isn't built in large numbers and isn't exported widely and all the older Russian and Chinese armor on the export market brews up nicely.
Better engines in HP to weight ratio, more reliable, easier to build, easier to maintain.
Yes the US used gasoline and it burned when hit, they did that to simplify logistics, similar to how everything the US uses now is running on JP-8 to simplify logistics.
Launch booster, to get it up to speed so that when the engine comes on it has enough lift and thrust to fly.
Like on the MGM-1 Matador the engines are - 4,600 lbf (20,000 N) thrust Allison J33-A-37 Turbojet sustainer engine; 55,000 lb (25,000 kg) thust Aerojet General solid fuel rocket, 2 second burn.
So the main engine is classed as a "sustainer" and the thing that comes off is the rocket. Alot of cruise missiles and some drones use that configuration.
Engine technology has really taken off since the late 1950s.
F-4E, so a late 1960s aircraft powered by J79-GE-17A - 11,905 lbf (52.9 kN) dry; 17,835 lbf (79.3 kN) with afterburner and weighs 3,850 lbs.
Now F-22 has a F119-PW-100 - 23,500 pound feet of thrust 35,000+ lb with afterburner (156+ kn) weighs 3,900 lbs.
So more then double the thrust at the same weight.
F119 allows for supersonic flight up to Mach 1.35 without afterburner, the J79 required afterburner for supersonic flight.
Materials used in aircraft have also advanced quite a bit, more advanced steels, titanium alloys, composites as well as RAM have increased the durability of the aircraft and reduced the cross-section.
The Germans were impressed with the T-34, especially the gun and suspension. They were not impressed with the build quality and never did wrap their heads around volume over quality.
The Americans too built inferior tanks in greater numbers which overwhelmed them in Africa and the Western Front.
American tanks had better radios, higher speed and better engines. Germans had good guns, good optics and really good armor.
Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times, I was going by what they'd said on July 16, 2008.
So I take back that he used campaign funds to pay for rooms.
But not that he cheated on his wife and blew over 80,000 on hookers.
If he was the governor of my state, I'd care that he "got down" with some hookers. But he never was and the Gambino crime family has no power in any state I've lived, so his taking them on really doesn't sway me either.
If you read your own link, Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
"The case will be prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Frederick J. Whelan III, who is an Assistant Deputy New York State Attorney General in the AG’s Organized Crime Task Force, and Assistant US Attorneys Andrew M. Genser, Katya Jestin and Arthur Hui. The Task Force is headed by Deputy Attorney General George Quinlan, and supervised by Chris Prather, Assistant Deputy of the AG’s Criminal Division."
He was banging a hooker for a 1000 dollars an hour, the Feds were investigating and got him on a wiretap. He'd been doing it too as AG of New York, and had spent at least 80,000 on hookers.
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
A year or two from now and no one will be pushing it aside for accessibility cheaply. Windows and LINUX custom hardware is out there and will be out there but it costs a ton.
iPad at 500-600 dollars with apps is replacing 5-8000 custom solutions right now.
Like I posted elsewhere, I have an iPad (through work) because I do accessibility work.
We are going to iPads because they are lighter to take out into the field than a laptop, and come with a good warranty, they are a laptop replacement in some areas.
I don't have an iPad for a web server/ftp server/irc server or USENET leech because I don't need those things running for when I do work.
Its the go to device for accessibly right now, can your Linux install claim that?
The powered airplane had it's first flight in December 1903, first military application in combat was 1911, mass use in warfare was 1914, so 11 years for it.
Atomic weapons, patented 1934, first test July 16 1945, first combat use August 6 1945, mass production 1946.
Radar, first operational radar system 1935, widespread use 1940.
Slashdot Mirror
They were called Ronsons by the British, they were not more commonly called that by all the allies. Of course the British really had no room to talk, the Soviets called Lend-Lease Churchill tanks "Tomb for Five Brothers."
From TFW on flammability of the Sherman.
"Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded that a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank’s armor; in comparison they also concluded that the Panzer IV would catch fire 80% of the time following an average of 1.5 penetrations, the Panther would light 63% of the time following 3.24 penetrations, and the Tiger would catch fire 80% of the time following 3.25 penetrations. John Buckley, using a case study of the 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades found that of the 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, only 94 were burnt out; 56.6%. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burnt out after being penetrated. United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks."
Even Albert Speer commented on the power to weight ratio of the Sherman and it's mobility.
But overall, yes US and British armor was inferior in protection and firepower to German armor. Good thing the M-1 Garand, Lancaster, B-17, Mosquito, Window, LST, centimeter wave radar and B-24 were superior to what Germany built
Except that in armor the bulk of new armor development is done by NATO nations or nations that are allied with NATO so anything better than the M-1A2 is never going to fight an M-1A2 or Russian.
The new and outstanding Russian armor isn't built in large numbers and isn't exported widely and all the older Russian and Chinese armor on the export market brews up nicely.
Alot of the 1940s, 50s and 60s drones and cruise missiles were launched from rails, even the ground based ones.
Better engines in HP to weight ratio, more reliable, easier to build, easier to maintain.
Yes the US used gasoline and it burned when hit, they did that to simplify logistics, similar to how everything the US uses now is running on JP-8 to simplify logistics.
The airframe isn't that big, it's obviously subsonic from it's wings and design.
So it's going to have a more advanced autopilot than something from the 60s, and it'll have GPS, but it won't be a Predator or Reaper class UAV.
Yea, it does, I'd forgotten about those.
Now if the Iranians built a D-21/Tu-123 clone, that'd be something.
Launch booster, to get it up to speed so that when the engine comes on it has enough lift and thrust to fly.
Like on the MGM-1 Matador the engines are - 4,600 lbf (20,000 N) thrust Allison J33-A-37 Turbojet sustainer engine; 55,000 lb (25,000 kg) thust Aerojet General solid fuel rocket, 2 second burn.
So the main engine is classed as a "sustainer" and the thing that comes off is the rocket. Alot of cruise missiles and some drones use that configuration.
It's being launched like a V-1/Loon or a MGM-1 Matador, but yea, I see no inflight chase plane video.
So its a V-1 with hardpoints and can be landed by an operator remotely.
There have been alot of break throughs.
Engine technology has really taken off since the late 1950s.
F-4E, so a late 1960s aircraft powered by J79-GE-17A - 11,905 lbf (52.9 kN) dry; 17,835 lbf (79.3 kN) with afterburner and weighs 3,850 lbs.
Now F-22 has a F119-PW-100 - 23,500 pound feet of thrust 35,000+ lb with afterburner (156+ kn) weighs 3,900 lbs.
So more then double the thrust at the same weight.
F119 allows for supersonic flight up to Mach 1.35 without afterburner, the J79 required afterburner for supersonic flight.
Materials used in aircraft have also advanced quite a bit, more advanced steels, titanium alloys, composites as well as RAM have increased the durability of the aircraft and reduced the cross-section.
The Germans were impressed with the T-34, especially the gun and suspension. They were not impressed with the build quality and never did wrap their heads around volume over quality.
The Americans too built inferior tanks in greater numbers which overwhelmed them in Africa and the Western Front.
American tanks had better radios, higher speed and better engines. Germans had good guns, good optics and really good armor.
The UAE, Qatar and Saudis are all leery as hell about Iran right now too.
Video of a test launch and production.
http://vodpod.com/watch/4282312-iranian-karrar-drone
Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.
You mean 1944? That's when UAVs became commonplace.
That's why the US has the GI Bill.
Is facing? Corruption, especially in Chicago and New York has been widespread for generations. Look up the Chicago Machine for example.
Crime in the US overall continues to fall 4-8% depending on the type.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0524/US-crime-rate-is-down-six-key-reasons
Excluding Detroit and New Orleans, what cities are suffering from urban decay?
National debt is up, but personal saving rates are up.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Savings-Rate-zacks-3817749700.html?x=0&.v=1
The fact that Spitzer got caught doing the same illegal things he was against isn't up for debate though. He was just another shady politician.
Eliot Ness didn't lose his job for blowing 80000 dollars on hookers a thousand dollars an hour.
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times, I was going by what they'd said on July 16, 2008.
So I take back that he used campaign funds to pay for rooms.
But not that he cheated on his wife and blew over 80,000 on hookers.
If he was the governor of my state, I'd care that he "got down" with some hookers. But he never was and the Gambino crime family has no power in any state I've lived, so his taking them on really doesn't sway me either.
If you read your own link, Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
"The case will be prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Frederick J. Whelan III, who is an Assistant Deputy New York State Attorney General in the AG’s Organized Crime Task Force, and Assistant US Attorneys Andrew M. Genser, Katya Jestin and Arthur Hui. The Task Force is headed by Deputy Attorney General George Quinlan, and supervised by Chris Prather, Assistant Deputy of the AG’s Criminal Division."
Winer has been this way since, what, about 1999?
That was the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.
He was banging a hooker for a 1000 dollars an hour, the Feds were investigating and got him on a wiretap. He'd been doing it too as AG of New York, and had spent at least 80,000 on hookers.
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
A year or two from now and no one will be pushing it aside for accessibility cheaply. Windows and LINUX custom hardware is out there and will be out there but it costs a ton.
iPad at 500-600 dollars with apps is replacing 5-8000 custom solutions right now.
Like I posted elsewhere, I have an iPad (through work) because I do accessibility work.
We are going to iPads because they are lighter to take out into the field than a laptop, and come with a good warranty, they are a laptop replacement in some areas.
I don't have an iPad for a web server/ftp server/irc server or USENET leech because I don't need those things running for when I do work.
Its the go to device for accessibly right now, can your Linux install claim that?
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/06/01/the-ipad-could-be-the-best-mobile-accessibility-device-on-the-ma/
We aren't talking about your netbook, we were talking about the 17" dual drive laptop.
No, the other 15% of surfing are not because of flash, shocking but I'm not a Farmville/Mafia Wars player.
If I'm not surfing on the iPad I'm on a laptop because someone else has the iPad and won't give it up.
Like the airplane?
The powered airplane had it's first flight in December 1903, first military application in combat was 1911, mass use in warfare was 1914, so 11 years for it.
Atomic weapons, patented 1934, first test July 16 1945, first combat use August 6 1945, mass production 1946.
Radar, first operational radar system 1935, widespread use 1940.
I have an iPad because it's the most accessible device out there.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/06/01/the-ipad-could-be-the-best-mobile-accessibility-device-on-the-ma/
And I work in disability support, so we are getting iPads for specialists while blind, deaf and Autistics are getting iPads by the truck load.
But keep thinking it's all about status.