|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2015 20:42:20 GMT
not in Vietnam. there, they just drive where the opening is. Oncoming traffic might be in one side of the road at one moment and the other side the next, but if you don't avoid it, you crash. So the rule still holds. They drive where there's no oncoming traffic. but not necessarily opposite.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2015 20:45:50 GMT
Oncoming traffic might be in one side of the road at one moment and the other side the next, but if you don't avoid it, you crash. So the rule still holds. They drive where there's no oncoming traffic. but not necessarily opposite. If they don't want to crash into the oncoming traffic, they'll have to switch to the other side of the road eventually. How close they get before they do that, well... I guess that's a question of temperament
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 10, 2015 11:27:13 GMT
Let's put this argument to rest once and for all. No matter where in the world you are, the right side for you to drive on is the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Done. Bone, you certainly have been. Try that in Rome.... the white lines are just a bit of paint. France is terrifying, that arc du triumph thing, if it wasnt for the fact they all go round sort of the same way, I wouldnt even walk past it. Last time I drove there, I took a spotter... riding shot-gun was not just the job description, it was bring your own shot-gun... The Indian sub-continent and asia, get to you-tube and have a look, some of it is madder than you can watch, I have decided there is no reason on earth I would ever try any of it. And I (think?) I know what I am doing on the roads?... Over there, there is no left or right, there is forwards and fail, go or crash. Or Both, or all, ....
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 10, 2015 17:05:52 GMT
Let's put this argument to rest once and for all. No matter where in the world you are, the right side for you to drive on is the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Done. Bone, you certainly have been. Try that in Rome.... the white lines are just a bit of paint. France is terrifying, that arc du triumph thing, if it wasnt for the fact they all go round sort of the same way, I wouldnt even walk past it. Last time I drove there, I took a spotter... riding shot-gun was not just the job description, it was bring your own shot-gun... The Indian sub-continent and asia, get to you-tube and have a look, some of it is madder than you can watch, I have decided there is no reason on earth I would ever try any of it. And I (think?) I know what I am doing on the roads?... Over there, there is no left or right, there is forwards and fail, go or crash. Or Both, or all, .... Right, so you go where you don't crash. Which, coincidentally, is usually the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Never mind the fact that oncoming traffic might be on one side one moment and the other side the next. You still try to avoid it, so "the right side of the road" in those places is the side where you're less likely to die in the next 10 seconds. Easy
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2015 5:11:00 GMT
Bone, you certainly have been. Try that in Rome.... the white lines are just a bit of paint. France is terrifying, that arc du triumph thing, if it wasnt for the fact they all go round sort of the same way, I wouldnt even walk past it. Last time I drove there, I took a spotter... riding shot-gun was not just the job description, it was bring your own shot-gun... The Indian sub-continent and asia, get to you-tube and have a look, some of it is madder than you can watch, I have decided there is no reason on earth I would ever try any of it. And I (think?) I know what I am doing on the roads?... Over there, there is no left or right, there is forwards and fail, go or crash. Or Both, or all, .... Right, so you go where you don't crash. Which, coincidentally, is usually the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Never mind the fact that oncoming traffic might be on one side one moment and the other side the next. You still try to avoid it, so "the right side of the road" in those places is the side where you're less likely to die in the next 10 seconds. Easy an we're saying, its not always opposite, sometimes it's between.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2015 11:11:12 GMT
Right, so you go where you don't crash. Which, coincidentally, is usually the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Never mind the fact that oncoming traffic might be on one side one moment and the other side the next. You still try to avoid it, so "the right side of the road" in those places is the side where you're less likely to die in the next 10 seconds. Easy an we're saying, its not always opposite, sometimes it's between. And the moment you go in between, you're creating a "new lane" that goes in the opposite direction of oncoming traffic. Honestly guys, I don't see why you're not getting this
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2015 14:00:16 GMT
an we're saying, its not always opposite, sometimes it's between. And the moment you go in between, you're creating a "new lane" that goes in the opposite direction of oncoming traffic. Honestly guys, I don't see why you're not getting this maybe because you keep moving the goalposts? you said opposite side, before, now you're saying opposite direction. ;D
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2015 19:57:57 GMT
And the moment you go in between, you're creating a "new lane" that goes in the opposite direction of oncoming traffic. Honestly guys, I don't see why you're not getting this maybe because you keep moving the goalposts? you said opposite side, before, now you're saying opposite direction. ;D And saying "opposite direction" was actually a brain fart on my behalf, seeing as that's usually how a head-on collision occurs. Two cars on the same side of the road, going in opposite directions. So, yes, I did say "opposite direction", but I still meant "opposite side of the road". Which in the case of places like Thailand is to say ANY side of the road that isn't currently occupied by someone going in the opposite direction
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 12, 2015 4:20:33 GMT
As far as folding wings go, it appears that this had been a requirement for carrier based aircraft since the very early days of naval aviation. In fact it seems that it is one of those things that was and is taken for granted so much no one bothers to mention anything about them. 'Modern' carrier aircraft, as in (this case) fighters designed specifically for carrier use rather than being modified from land-based designs were around long before the Corsair, Hell or Wild Cat fighters of the US Navy. The Aichi D3A (The Japanese Val dive bomber of WW2), Douglas SBD Dauntless and Mitsubishi A5M (Precursor to the famous 'Zero' fighter) were all aircraft designed from the start as carrier aircraft. The Dauntless was in fact modified for land service by removing the tail hook. Based on the dates these aircraft entered service, and assuming a few years for development, it appears that Navy's were issuing specifications for carrier-only aircraft since at least the late 1920's if not earlier. Given that aircraft carriers were included in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921/22 it is more than possible that naval-only* aircraft were in existence or development by this date. (Even if at this point they were considered and used as scouts for the big guns of the fleet rather than as an offensive force). (*Naval only as in designed for carrier operations first, and used on land by happy accident) As far as I can tell the need to have folding wings, tail hook and heavy duty undercarriage was well known and doesn't seem to have been something that needed to be spelt out to designers. They've been doing that since WW2, as they flew Spitfires from carriers to Malta twice. The limitation is that the aircraft need to be capable of actually taking off from the carriers. For RAF fighters landing back on the carrier was not usually something that was attempted or required. The difference this time around is that the RAF and Fleet Air Arm will be using the same type of aircraft, which is capable of carrier landings. I'd guess that the same held back in the days when the Navy had carriers operating F-4 Phantom jets, and the Air Force was also using the F-4. Landing on a carrier, or any warship, isn't just a case of pointing the aircraft in the right direction. You have to be capable of coordinating your landing with the LSO on the ship which requires additional training - even for helicopters. It is possible (I suspect that the RAF harriers that took part in the Falklands war didn't have the time to get more than a very basic training course...which probably included 'if you crash and damage the ship pray that you die in the process...') for someone to do this with little or no specific training. But its not easy and in fact VERY dangerous as unlike landing elsewhere there are very few visual clues as to wind direction, strength and distance from target and lots of things you could fly into if you mess up. (And a lot of people who are not going to be happy at you hitting anything other than the sea). The USS Forrestal was not a small carrier. She was some 1067 feet long and 238 feet wide. Compare to the Nimitz-class carriers which are 1092 feet long and 252 feet wide and as far as a pilot coming in to land is concerned the extra landing area is nether here nor there. A further comparison can be made with the British Invincible class carriers, which were 686 feet long and 118 feet wide and hence practically half the size. (This is actually shorter than the US Navy's Yorktown class of carriers, which were 824 feet long and 109 feet wide; In fact I *think* the Yorktown class was even slightly heavier. The last ship of this class, the USS Enterprise, was decommissioned as she was too small for jet aircraft to operate from). Keep in mind the US spent much of that era entering each war with the best hardware available for the last war. in the beginning of WWII, we were sending troops out with open circuit water cooled black powder machine guns while the germans were using closed circuit smokeless powder machine guns. our tanks were infantry support vehicles, rather than antiarmor vehicles. we basically won wars by overwhelming the enemy with force of numbers, determination, and front line innovation. the more I think about it, the best innovation for carrier work was tricycle landing gear. that would significantly reduce the hardware needed for the catapult connection AND let the pilot see better while taxiing and such. What black powder rounds are you referring to? The standard US rounds in WWII were 30-06 and .50 BMG for rifle/ machine gun. None of which are BP rounds.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2015 4:30:16 GMT
Keep in mind the US spent much of that era entering each war with the best hardware available for the last war. in the beginning of WWII, we were sending troops out with open circuit water cooled black powder machine guns while the germans were using closed circuit smokeless powder machine guns. our tanks were infantry support vehicles, rather than antiarmor vehicles. we basically won wars by overwhelming the enemy with force of numbers, determination, and front line innovation. the more I think about it, the best innovation for carrier work was tricycle landing gear. that would significantly reduce the hardware needed for the catapult connection AND let the pilot see better while taxiing and such. What black powder rounds are you referring to? The standard US rounds in WWII were 30-06 and .50 BMG for rifle/ machine gun. None of which are BP rounds. perhaps I'm a world war off. the book that details what weapons were actively used in what era and why is on my "I used to own..." list.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 12, 2015 17:28:08 GMT
The .30 designed in 1906 (30.06) is smokeless and used in the Springfield 1903 during WWI (and WWII). The 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle also fired the 30.06. The .30-40 Krag developed in the 1890's was also smokeless and developed for the M1898 Krag-Jorgenson rifle. I believe it replaced the 45-70 black powder cartridge. The M1917 Enfield was also 30-06 smokeless
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 0:18:48 GMT
The .30 designed in 1906 (30.06) is smokeless and used in the Springfield 1903 during WWI (and WWII). The 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle also fired the 30.06. The .30-40 Krag developed in the 1890's was also smokeless and developed for the M1898 Krag-Jorgenson rifle. I believe it replaced the 45-70 black powder cartridge. The M1917 Enfield was also 30-06 smokeless but those were developed during the war...
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 13, 2015 1:21:42 GMT
The .30 designed in 1906 (30.06) is smokeless and used in the Springfield 1903 during WWI (and WWII). The 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle also fired the 30.06. The .30-40 Krag developed in the 1890's was also smokeless and developed for the M1898 Krag-Jorgenson rifle. I believe it replaced the 45-70 black powder cartridge. The M1917 Enfield was also 30-06 smokeless but those were developed during the war... What was developed during which war? The cartridges were before WWI M1906 for the 30-06. Both the Krag-Jorgenson and the Springfield M1903 (with a Mauser K1898 based action) rifles were before WWI. The American Enfield of 1917 outnumbered the 1903 as issued to soldiers in WWI and still was chambered in smokeless 30-06. I know of no black powder rifles issued by the armed forces to American Soldiers Sailors or Marines. The pistol of the time would have been the Browning Designed 1911. Chambered in .45 ACP. This is also a smokeless cartridge.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 1:40:04 GMT
I used to own a book that detailed what weapons were deployed in what numbers and at what times.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 13, 2015 2:10:35 GMT
Not trying to be a butt head,but you mentioned a U.S. Black powder machine gun. Do you know the Name/model to which you refer. I agree the U.S. Was ill prepared for both wars in many ways. From aircraft to tanks we were behind, but in other ways had some of the best Browning 1911 for example.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 3:09:54 GMT
Not trying to be a butt head,but you mentioned a U.S. Black powder machine gun. Do you know the Name/model to which you refer. I agree the U.S. Was ill prepared for both wars in many ways. From aircraft to tanks we were behind, but in other ways had some of the best Browning 1911 for example. They starter out using the Maxim, which I believe was the one commented on as marking its own position by smoke. (the first generation WERE black powder guns.)
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Aug 13, 2015 3:38:11 GMT
My reference has .303 British switching from BP to smokeless in 1891. So Maxims built until then would have used the BP round. The first U.S. Maxims were chambered in 30.03 until about 1908, then in 30.06 from then on. At least as U.S. Maxims go we should not have seen them in typical use with BP rounds during WWI. All BP rounds should have been out of military inventory well before the U.S. Entered WWI.
A Gatling shooting 45-70 BP rounds does make quite a bit of smoke!
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 3:49:19 GMT
My reference has .303 British switching from BP to smokeless in 1891. So Maxims built until then would have used the BP round. The first U.S. Maxims were chambered in 30.03 until about 1908, then in 30.06 from then on. At least as U.S. Maxims go we should not have seen them in typical use with BP rounds during WWI. All BP rounds should have been out of military inventory well before the U.S. Entered WWI. A Gatling shooting 45-70 BP rounds does make quite a bit of smoke! if I knew where that book went I could get more detail.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 14, 2015 13:48:44 GMT
From what I can tell modern armies switched to smokeless powders circa 1890. However it does seem that the confusion here might be because they were actually using the same round as before. The British .303, for example, was originally a black powder round.
It is possible that America's entry into WW1 resulted in pulling older ammunition out of storage for use, meaning blackpowder rounds either by design or just by accident. Providing such rounds could be physically loaded into a gun I don't see any reason they would not work, as long as the gun didn't rely on chamber pressure to cycle the next round; I'd suspect this would cause problems as BP rounds might not produce enough pressure to move the bolt and even if they did the crud that built up in the barrel would most likely cause a major jamb very quickly.
From what I can tell it seems as if the Maxim used the British .303 round, and entered service worldwide around the same time that the British moved to the smokeless version. While BP versions were probably built I can't see any being in the American inventory by 1917. They would either have been converted, sold to what we would call third world countries and in any case had probably never existed in any significant numbers anyway. Added to this is that the Maxim was a recoil operated weapon, and as I just noted I suspect that trying to use BP rounds would cause major problems very quickly. Rifles would be a different matter, as at that date they were bolt action and as such would probably not have had as many problems as a machine gun would.
Trivia; Blackpowder weapons were actually used in both world wars...just not by the major armies. They were sometimes found in the hands of gorilla-forces*. Especially the famous Black Bess Musket which could be found in use around the Adriatic as late as 1992.
(*Awaits for comments about 'monkeying around')
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2015 14:03:06 GMT
From what I can tell modern armies switched to smokeless powders circa 1890. However it does seem that the confusion here might be because they were actually using the same round as before. The British .303, for example, was originally a black powder round. It is possible that America's entry into WW1 resulted in pulling older ammunition out of storage for use, meaning blackpowder rounds either by design or just by accident. Providing such rounds could be physically loaded into a gun I don't see any reason they would not work, as long as the gun didn't rely on chamber pressure to cycle the next round; I'd suspect this would cause problems as BP rounds might not produce enough pressure to move the bolt and even if they did the crud that built up in the barrel would most likely cause a major jamb very quickly. From what I can tell it seems as if the Maxim used the British .303 round, and entered service worldwide around the same time that the British moved to the smokeless version. While BP versions were probably built I can't see any being in the American inventory by 1917. They would either have been converted, sold to what we would call third world countries and in any case had probably never existed in any significant numbers anyway. Added to this is that the Maxim was a recoil operated weapon, and as I just noted I suspect that trying to use BP rounds would cause major problems very quickly. Rifles would be a different matter, as at that date they were bolt action and as such would probably not have had as many problems as a machine gun would. Trivia; Blackpowder weapons were actually used in both world wars...just not by the major armies. They were sometimes found in the hands of gorilla-forces*. Especially the famous Black Bess Musket which could be found in use around the Adriatic as late as 1992. (*Awaits for comments about 'monkeying around') the point is that during the world war eras, the US was not in "we must be better armed than the rest of the world combined" mode, and in fact, was pretty danged casual about the idea of keeping up with ANYBODY in the arms race. after all, we were friends with the brits, and the french, and the Indians were more or less contained to their reservations; so who was there to fight with? therefore when we DID go to war, we had to pull the old stuff out of storage to cover the gap until our design and manufacture branches could catch up. you want a really valuable collectible, find yourself a Singer M1911 pistol. yes, made by the singer sewing machine company. they didn't make that many, but they made them to Singer tolerances; which means the front line troops didn't really want them because you couldn't abuse and neglect them. the company marksman, however, wanted it, because it was the most precise M1911 made, and good equipment wins competitions.
|
|