|
|
T-34
Dec 10, 2019 9:58:25 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Dec 10, 2019 9:58:25 GMT -8
Aviation gas is generally high-octane. The US had an advantage during World War II in using 100-octane gas (Jimmy Doolittle was one of the people involved in developing it), which they supplied the British during the Battle of Britain and probably after that as well. (I don't know if they supplied it to Russia, which had plenty of fuel of its own via the Caucausus -- especially Baku -- and new fields being developed in the upper Volga and the Emba basin (north of the Caspian Sea and east of the Ural River).
Jets used even more fuel, but it didn't have to be as high-grade. The B-36 had 6 prop engines (pusher rather than the more usual puller engines). I think it also had some jet engines, though the picture doesn't show them. Incidentally, another plane using the pusher principle was the German Do-335 fighter, which had an engine in front and another in the rear and could go 500 mph. Needless to say, this was another end of the war plane produced in tiny numbers (perhaps even just prototypes).
I just checked wikipedia, and it turns out that the jet engines were added to the B-36D and retrofitted to the B-36B. No doubt that photo was taken before that was done.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 10, 2019 10:23:17 GMT -8
Nice videos of B-52s taking off. You can imagine how loud they are when they start the run to take off.
I have flown on literally hundreds of planes, and it is always amazing to lift off from mother earth. But there is something about military planes which takes the romance of flight to a different level.
I might have mentioned it before, but in the summer/early fall of 1990 I was out in the Nevada desert on some mining business. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and everyone wondered what was going to happen.
One day I was out in the desert some thirty miles from the nearest town. All of a sudden two jets came out of nowhere flying about 1-200 hundred feet above me. I knew then that hell was about to break loose on Saddam and his armies.
The Fallon Naval Air Station was relatively near by and jets were practicing bombing runs with dummy bombs. It was impressive to watch.
|
|
|
|
T-34
Dec 10, 2019 11:02:58 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Dec 10, 2019 11:02:58 GMT -8
It wouldn't be that far west, but didn't B-52s take off from somewhere out west? I know that they took off fro Guam to hit North Vietnam during that war, and vaguely recall them taking off from the US during one or more of the bombing campaigns of the past few decades. I would imagine there are very few airfields suitable for B-52s.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 10, 2019 11:23:04 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 10, 2019 11:23:04 GMT -8
Gas prices on the West Coast, as you can see by this map and list, are higher than average. So “regular” in Washington State is already beyond the price of Premium in Texas. The exact type of fuel it burns, I don’t know However, if this chart is accurate, jet fuel goes for $1.80 per gallon at the moment, thus the cost for a fill-up for the B-52 would be about $55,080, certainly a more reasonable amount than the $99,786.60 I had originally calculated. And think of what you could buy with the Green Stamps. I think I like the idea of the B-36 with prop engines. More old-school that way. Wouldn’t you love to see a 747 fitted with propellers? I’m sure it could be done.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
T-34
Dec 10, 2019 12:21:29 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 10, 2019 12:21:29 GMT -8
I was checking on Wikipedia regarding B-52 bases and it looks like the base I drove past in 1980-81 (it was on a drive from Dallas to Los Angeles after Christmas of 1980) was March Air Force Base. One year later, the base use was changed and it became a base for a refueling squadron.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 10, 2019 13:30:42 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 10, 2019 13:30:42 GMT -8
Seriously, Mr. Kung, nothing says Christmas to me like a B-52 flying overhead or taking off.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 10, 2019 13:52:47 GMT -8
For some reason, that reminds me of Robert Duvall's character in "Apocalypse Now."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 9:52:28 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 11, 2019 9:52:28 GMT -8
I watched Decisive Battle of Hitler’s War: Stalingrad which you can find free on Tubi TV or you can watch it for $2.99 via Amazon Prime. It’s not particularly fine-grained detailed (it’s only 48 minutes). But it does make very good use of the time it has. I think the characterization of the problems of the Germans is superbly cast. The only downside is that there are few (or no) maps that give you a sense of place and the location of forces. But overall this is a pretty good program. |
|
|
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 11:06:34 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Dec 11, 2019 11:06:34 GMT -8
One thing to note is that by the time Operation Uranus began in mid-November, 1942, the Germans held almost all of Stalingrad, and had already established a foothold on the Volga. Whether or not they needed to continue tying down their troops in a major urban battle while leaving their flanks to Hungarian, Italian, and Romanian troops (the Italians were there to keep the mutually hostile Hungarians and Romanians apart) with hardly any reserves to back them up was most unwise, as they eventually learned the hard way.
For that matter, if some of those panzer divisions had been sent to assist the invasion of the Caucasus, maybe Hitler would have taken Grozny, and with enough more Baku and Batumi. Those were far more important than Stalingrad at this point.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 21:37:26 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 11, 2019 21:37:26 GMT -8
This highlights something that most Americans have no understanding of, which applies to today's situation in the Ukraine. Eastern Europeans, very often, have a deep and abiding hate of each other. The Ukainians hate the Poles, they both hate the Russians, who look down on other Slavs. The Romanians and Hungarians are the odd men out as neither are Slavic, but they have fought each other over territory for a thousand years, which gave them plenty of time to build up ancient antagonisms.
What is happening in the Eastern Ukraine is something over which we have no control, no history and no national interest. Before Khruschev gave it to the Ukraine in the 1950s (when the USSR was still in existence so the gift meant little) the Crimea had belonged to Russia or been under its influence for hundreds of years. Take a look at the map and you will see that there is no way Russia is going to give it back to the Ukraine.
When asked if Russia would give the Crimea back to the Ukraine, Stephen Kotkin put it in the correct perspective when he said something like, "You can expect Russia to give back the Crimea to the Ukraine at the same time the U.S.A. gives Texas back to Mexico." It ain't going to happen and we should keep from getting involved in the mess.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 21:47:43 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 11, 2019 21:47:43 GMT -8
The documentary frames the failure due to the ineptness of Von Paulus and the triumph of ego and bluster over hard military strategy. Had Hitler been killed a year or more earlier, who knows how far the Germans would have gotten. With all the advantages they had, they blundered very badly….to the benefit of the Russians and a lot of people.
Perhaps the real story is twofold beyond Hitler’s obvious ineptitude: The harsh Russian winter that the Germans were ill prepared for and the Soviet frontline troops (in Stalingrad and elsewhere) buying enough time for the Russians to equip themselves. When the Soviets started their massive counterattack (which culminated in the encircling of Paulus’ army), the Germans were on the decline. That it took the Russians another two full years to make their way to Berlin is an astonishing fact of Germany’s ability to delay the inevitable.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 11, 2019 21:54:56 GMT -8
There is the story of de Gaulle gazing over Stalingrad and the battlefield saying something like, "What an amazing people", to which someone replied, "Yes the Soviets fought hard here." De Gaulle then said, "I was not referring to the Soviets, I was referring to the Germans who could actually make it so far."
I have long thought that had Hitler died in 1941, the French would today be speaking German. Even the English might have had to learn it as a second language.
|
|
|
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 22:08:02 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Dec 11, 2019 22:08:02 GMT -8
There's a reason the concept of Balkanization developed in Europe. The term comes from the Balkan Mountains, but the idea comes from the rivalries of eastern and southeastern Europe. It has been note that the further a southern European ethnicity was from Russia, the friendlier they generally were with Russians. The reciprocal nature of this relationship had a lot to do with events in 1914.
Robert Wolff, in The Balkans in Our Time, traced the historical arguments used by Hungarians and Romanians over Transylvania as far as the Emperor Trajan. The Romanians argue that they're descended from a fusion of the surviving Dacians after Trajan defeated them and the Roman settlers, or at least those who stayed behind when Aurelian abandoned Dacia. The Hungarians claim the Dacians were annihilated (a dubious proposition) and then the Romans all pulled out 2 centuries later (much more difficult to evaluate).
Kind of makes you think of the dispute Sunni and Shiah Muslims, doesn't it? Of course, the Magyars were late-comers to the scene, many centuries after the actions of Trajan and Aurelian.
I think a good deal with Putin would recognize the loss of the Crimea in return for Putin abandoning the Donbas rebels. That's an area that has been part of Ukraine from the beginning, and its large Russian population comes from forced emigration (something we also see in the Baltic states).
When Hungary declared war on the US in 1942, Count Ciano confided a joke to his diary about how a US State Department official reacted to it. He learned that Hungary was a kingdom, ruled by an admiral (Horthy) rather than a king despite being landlocked, and that their main quarrel was with their "ally", Romania.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 11, 2019 22:48:13 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 11, 2019 22:48:13 GMT -8
That's an interesting quote from De Gaulle. I'd never heard it.
|
|
|
|
T-34
Dec 12, 2019 0:34:42 GMT -8
Post by artraveler on Dec 12, 2019 0:34:42 GMT -8
Seriously, Mr. Kung, nothing says Christmas to me like a B-52 flying overhead or taking off. I lived and worked out of Sacramento for a long time. There were two AFB, McClellan was an ALC (air logistics center) and Mather was SAC (strategic Air Command). When the 52s were operating out of Mather you could stand in the parking lot of a nearby shopping center which was about a mile from the end of the runway and watch the 52s scrambling. The ground shook from the rumble of the engines, black exhaust filled the air and the heat from the engines was frying chicken in the barnyards, it was a wonderful sitght to see. That is all gone now, McClellan is private with coast guard flying and some civilian air freight. McCellan has some of the old officer housing and a wonderful officer's club. Mather is now a few national guard units and UPS. Sacramento also had an Army supply depot, now closed and most of the buildings, 1940s construction, are also gone with the wind. When McClellan closed in 2000 my wife at the time worked for the Air Force and we PCS (permente change of station) to Utah, (Hill AFB). I worked for the county of Salt Lake. By that time CIA was not interested in officers, of my type anyway. That changed dramatically on 9/11/01. Now I write my memoirs, take my wife to dinner, and harras the professorate at the University of Arkansas who not only don't know much about the real world but seem to never learn. Back in the 80s when Carter signed one of the START treaties I took a KGB officer around Sacramento. Last I heard from him he was an American operating a K-Mart in South Dakota. I doubt Putin is one of his fans. |
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
T-34
Dec 12, 2019 8:02:14 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 12, 2019 8:02:14 GMT -8
From the KGB to K-Mart. That has a lyrical ring to it.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 12, 2019 8:54:10 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 12, 2019 8:54:10 GMT -8
Wow. Pretty cool. And speaking of cargo cults, the B-52 — perhaps combined with the Lockheed Martin C-5M Super Galaxy — could certainly carry the cargo.   Here's a groovy photo of the interior. I couldn't get it to embed. Bigger isn’t alway better. Just usually. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 12, 2019 9:06:35 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 12, 2019 9:06:35 GMT -8
Yes. And a possible title for the memoirs.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
T-34
Dec 12, 2019 11:54:17 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 12, 2019 11:54:17 GMT -8
Last night I watched Fury for free on Crackle. This is the second time I've seen this. I don’t know why, but there were only three commercials at the start and then not one commercial interruption thereafter. I watched something else on Crackle (a TV series about a rogue nuclear sub) and between the frequent commercial breaks (five commercials each) and the somewhat mediocre material, I gave up. So use Crackle at you own risk if you have a smart TV and add it as a channel. But I still don't understand why Fury was more or less commercial-free. Fury is a rather violent movie. But it’s probably no more violent than the real thing. Brad Pitt is the American commander of a tank who is sent off on a couple different missions. They run into a Tiger and the results aren’t good. Later they are tasked with defending a crossroads that leads to an undefended American supply base. The results are mixed but exciting. Logan Lerman is both horrible and excellent as the normally desk-bound typist who is thrust into Pitt’s tank crew because they are short a man. I guess he’s horrible because he’s such an unlikable character in the early going (such a snowflake…portrayed well to his credit). But Pitt and circumstances quickly toughen him up. Shia LaBeouf is in this. Let’s just stop there and say that he is adequate. If there is anyone on screen I like to watch less than Sean Penn, it is this guy. However, after reading the trivia section, at least I can see he is no snowflake. Still, maybe I’m cutting him too much slack: What surprised me is that the main actors basically underwent a type of boot camp. It’s a good movie with one blaring cinematic (not logical) error: They spend way too much time in the German house on a little R&R after a tough battle. After 30 seconds we get it: Grady ‘Coon-Ass’ Travis is a barbarian who just happens to be in an American uniform for this war. Why they run this scene on for so long is anyone’s guess.  I definitely agree with one reviewer who said there was too much unrealistic hocum. But not having been a soldier in WWII, I don’t really know. And although the climactic scene is good entertainment, one reviewer is surely correct when he writes: Well…uhh…they were just poor shots? Also: Beats the hell out of me. Another shortcoming is the kind of (I would presume) realistic tank action that you see once or twice in Kelly’s Heroes. But I think the point of this movie was to show how fragile Sherman tanks were. And from what I’ve read, they have a point. The film is ultimately not about making sense. It’s about Big War Machines blowing up A Lot of Stuff. And it’s about seeing the horrors of war as well as how men can come together in order to handle the insanity of it all. There are plot and logical holes galore. But for the most part, it’s an entertaining movie. |
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
T-34
Feb 2, 2020 14:46:10 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 2, 2020 14:46:10 GMT -8
I just finished Fury and recalled that Brad had reviewed it sometime back. One of the people he quoted said;
I tend to agree, but I have two points.
1. In April of 1945 the German Army, including the SS, was at the bottom of the barrel. I am not so sure that "Crack SS soldiers" can be considered. They were short of everything needed to fight a war and were worn down to the bone. The majority of German casualties were taken in the last 12 months of the war. The war in Europe ended during the first days of May.
2. I feel sure the scene showing Pitt on the tank's .50 caliber machine gun, in silhouette, was a tribute to Audie Murphy. Murphy did exactly what Pitt is shown doing and held off a force as large as that in the movie. Only Murphy did it when the tank was on fire and in danger of exploding. I have spoken to a few old WWII vets who saw combat and they confirmed that strange things happen in war.
I found the most ridiculous scene to be the one where the young German soldier finds Lerman under the tank and doesn't say a word.
Another thing which I wondered about was the very harsh depiction of American soldiers. While I am sure there was cruelty on our side, it must be noted that one of the reasons for the collapse of the German Eastern Front was that everyone, including soldiers, wanted to surrender to the Americans, not the Soviets.
I agree with Brad's overall review and can recommend the movie if one has a strong stomach for the violence and crudity of war.
|
|
?