When tobacco was introduced to Europe the average life expectancy was 45 years, it is now about 82 years, therefore smoking almost doubles the life expectancy of a nation. This how we should use and deal with facts to become better informed.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When tobacco was introduced to Europe the average life expectancy was 45 years, it is now about 82 years, therefore smoking almost doubles the life expectancy of a nation. This how we should use and deal with facts to become better informed.Hey ljadw,
re "It was the same for NA : in November 1941 the Italians sent 79000 ton of materiel to NA of which 30 000 ton arrived (37 % ) ,in December 1942 they sent 13000 ton of which 6000 arrived ( 47 % ) ,what was better :47 % or 37 % ? It is obvious that 37 % was better ,and if in December 1942,100 % arrived (13000 ) , it is obvious that 37 % was better ,because more was sent in November 1941 ."
This is actually a quite irrational argument. It is akin to saying "It does not matter if 47% of an artificial heart arrives at North Memorial Hospital or only 37% of a bigger artificial heart." The important aspect is that you have enough parts to construct a working artificial heart.
This type of argument is similar to "If you move toward the door, and with every step you reduce the length of the step by 1/2, you can never reach the door." In real life this could happen only if you do not want to reach the door.
Remember, the universe is based on the laws of addition, not multiplication.
But it was impossible to know, because as we've been told (by an authority no less) that code-breaking was a myth.Hey, I bet they had a real laugh when they got the news in the papers about who was in that plane, that would be worth a round of drinks.
Yep, my Uncle Jimmy and the other guys were all hanging around, stealing money from the Navy guys during a crap game when all of a sudden, someone said "hey, let's strap those long range tanks on our crates and go for a ride!"
Everyone thought it was a good idea because you can only drink so much warm beer while depriving the Navy guys of their pocket change, before things get boring.
And so off they go, fooling around when all of a sudden, some G4Ms and A6Ms interfere with their jaunt.
Being irritated, they shoot them down because Army guys are like that.
The fact that out of the all the expanse of the Pacific, Yamammoto *just happened to be there* is irrelevant...
Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.But it was impossible to know, because as we've been told (by an authority no less) that code-breaking was a myth.
They would have had to wait until the end of the war to find out.
Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.
Agreed.Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.
Its the same with all that gun sight and bomb sight malarkey, and dont get me started on "training" who needs it, it just didnt work.Those old geezers need to get over themselves. We've got someone here who knows exactly what happened, and will happily explain to them what they experienced.
Apart from the operation itself which was a great piece of planning and execution, the whole thing was taken to FDR himself for approval, so it was planned and performed from the president down and yet the world believed it was a chance encounter. That takes some type of genius somewhere. I am very disappointed no one got my "vengeance" joke. Operation Vengeance - WikipediaAgreed.
Sending groups of P-38s out to rendezvous points in the Pacific Ocean took a great deal of effort.
From the Intel people figuring out who/what/when/where, to the logistics guys figuring out how to effect an intercept and how to find the right guys, get them what they need and point them in the right direction and finally, the pilots who flew oit to the right spot and made the kill.
This is really one of the lesser known victories of the war, which was a morale-booster for the Allies and a huge blow to Japan.
And the entire chain of events was put in motion by breaking the IJN's code.
from June to December bomber command lost 330 aircraft and 1,400 aircrew.
Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.Indeed. I was specifically speaking about the Battle of Britain, and it also doesn't change the original intent of the post to demonstrate that Bf 109s with long-range drop tanks would have changed the outcome, which has little, if anything to do with Bomber Command.
Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.
Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.
Yes it does, read again what you posted. You said the British only had to replace fighters, the numbers I quoted were only in operations, a substantial number were also lost on raids on BC airfields and factories, the British also had to replace bomber losses, which they did. I wasnt contradicting what you posted just adding something that is often forgotten or deliberately wiped from history. 300 to 500 twin engined bombers is not small beer.Yes, I know this, thanks for pointing it out to those who don't, but again, none of this changes the original point of what I posted and has nothing to do with the original point of what I posted.
Its the same with all that gun sight and bomb sight malarkey, and dont get me started on "training" who needs it, it just didnt work.
Look man, I'm not gonna do this again. It's pointless and adds nothing to the discussion at hand except you trying to score points. Just let it go, Elsa...Yes it does, read again what you posted. You said the British only had to replace fighters, the numbers I quoted were only in operations, a substantial number were also lost on raids on BC airfields and factories, the British also had to replace bomber losses, which they did. I wasnt contradicting what you posted just adding something that is often forgotten or deliberately wiped from history. 300 to 500 twin engined bombers is not small beer.
Agreed.
Sending groups of P-38s out to rendezvous points in the Pacific Ocean took a great deal of effort.
From the Intel people figuring out who/what/when/where, to the logistics guys figuring out how to effect an intercept and how to find the right guys, get them what they need and point them in the right direction and finally, the pilots who flew oit to the right spot and made the kill.
This is really one of the lesser known victories of the war, which was a morale-booster for the Allies and a huge blow to Japan.
And the entire chain of events was put in motion by breaking the IJN's code.
No!I personally would use P-39s, because Reasons®.
I am very disappointed no one got my "vengeance" joke. Operation Vengeance - Wikipedia
No!
Naughty!
(said while waving a rolled up newspaper)