Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
March across the sea ice in January.
How hard can it be?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
March across the sea ice in January.Well, does the Canadian Army plan to invade the US or do they make plans in 1920s/30s to invade somebody else using the Canadian Navy to transport them to the Invasion site?
September 1939, however, the RCN still had only six River-class destroyers, five minesweepers and two small training vessels,[21][22][23] bases at Halifax and Victoria, and altogether 145 officers and 1,674 men. And this was it's high point after the end of WW I. they had 366 men in 1922.
At least you can make and criticizes plans to invade the US, they know they would lose but it is training. Just saying march to dock, get on board the HMCS Nonexistent and sail to Norway doesn't even provide that.
They still have a plan for invading the US. Their undercover agents are in Florida and Arizona all winter, laying the groundwork for when they strike.In the 1920s and 1930s, the Canadian army actually planned an invasion of the USA.
If you are an army planner and it is peacetime, you have to practise planning stuff.
And seeking to overwhelm US health care facilities everywhere. Not to mention trying to debase our economy with near worthless Canadian coins.They still have a plan for invading the US. Their undercover agents are in Florida and Arizona all winter, laying the groundwork for when they strike.
The English comment:The Canadians are planning to invade here claiming to "protect" the English speaking Americans.
Why not send a taxi to get them all out?The Canadians are planning to invade here claiming to "protect" the English speaking Americans.
Taxi? What century are you living in, we modern hipster types are using UBER and LYFT to send them Canucks packing...Why not send a taxi to get them all out?
Gas is not as effective a weapon as often portrayed. You need lots of it and the weather has to cooperate. To kill a soldier in WWI required a lot of gas. I had calculated it at one time and it was tons.I agree in part, but heres a slightly contrarian view from me.
Guernica had a massive impact on global political thinking that merely confirmed a lot of the fears evolving in Europe during the 20s and 30s. Were the 'Bomber Mafia' and doomsayers like Stanley Baldwin, Lidell Hart etc. wrong only in as much that as poor as the aircraft proved as accurate delivery systems, it was the nature of the conventional the bombs they carried that was insufficient without total air superiority?
In that context, Stanley Baldwin's statement that 'the bomber would always get through' has a potentially different nuance. I think he *was* essentially right, wasn't he? There was no complete protection from a bomber attack at a strategic level. In fact, I'm unaware that any major attack on a civilian target by a bomber force was ever completely turned back by fighters and AA. The best any defence could do was nullify its effectiveness and make it a costly and uneconomic exercise in the long term. But bombers did indeed almost always 'get through'.
That retrospectroscope seems to be being used whilst forgetting that these guys had been through WW1 only two decades before. If biological and chemical weapons had been advanced as far as the aircraft that could carry them had since WW1 and had actually been widely used over densely populated areas, then perhaps we'd have a different take? What if Germans had chosen to make a maximum effort raids that included large amounts of the new nerve agents such as sarin, tabun or soman? Or even some other more deadly chemical agent, from a nation renowned for its world beating chemical and industrial capabilities? What if the Germans had been as unscrupulous as the Japanese in China in their use of biological weapons? These were known and feared potentialities. Look at any newsreels of British civilians in 1939 and 1940 carrying gas masks for the proof
I think we often forget the context of the times in our judgements. And of course, just six years after the outbreak of war, only one bomber had to get through to destroy an entire city, and two to end resistance from one of the most fanatical warrior nations of the 20th century. I'd say that made them correct, to be honest.
This has been posted previously on this website:I recall reading that over the war about 50% of UK industrial output was spent on BC. Which is really a staggeringly high fraction if you think about it. With a heavy bomber lasting on average something like 10 missions before being shot down, it took a lot of production effort not only to expand the force but just to replace losses.
So it's quite clear the opportunity cost of that was huge. I think a good case can be made on spending part of those resources on something else with a better cost-benefit ratio. Though of course in addition to the damage from the bombing itself, it also extracted a big cost from Germany in terms of night fighters, flak, radars etc.
#1 Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant to the prevailing fears and understanding of the time.Gas is not as effective a weapon as often portrayed. You need lots of it and the weather has to cooperate. To kill a soldier in WWI required a lot of gas. I had calculated it at one time and it was tons.
The Tokyo sarin attacks were not that effective.
I don't think WWII bombers could achieve the concentrations necessary to launch effective gas attacks
If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.If I was a pilot then I would fly P47 above all given the protection and indestructible nature of the beast.
However most people forget that the P47 cost the same as two P51s. So as a commander it would never be the greatest fighter...
Relatively indestructible. Radial Engine. Turbo in the Rear. Tight cowling. Plenty of armour compared to others given 2800hp.If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.
Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...If they just fitted rear tanks and plumbed them for DT's from the factories the Spit would have been the best overall in my opinion.
A wingless version would not be combat effective as the armament of a P-47 was located in the wings.If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.
The wingless fuselage is purely for protection, you can bounce 50 Cals off the turret of a tank in the same way P-47s bounced rounds off the ground to knock tanks out hitting them underneath where they have no protection.A wingless version would not be combat effective as the armament of a P-47 was located in the wings.
An airborne battery of .50s is a bit more effective against tanks than a ground based one because turret roof and engine deck armor tended to be a lot thinner than hull and turret front and side armor.
.50 caliber AA guns did knock down their share of low flying aircraft.
[citation needed]Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...
The RAF was and is first of all there for defence of the UK. It was also responsible for defence of USA assets in UK. It may be possible in hindsight to say that the UK was over protected, but to not have any air defence in 1943/44 could have been a massive mistake.Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...