Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/09/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    This series was first broadcasted by Thames television in 1973.It was also shown unedited on WNET and WGBT American television. It was, and still is, regarded as one of the best documentaries ever made. It has been shown many times since then all over the world but unfortunately for me it is only the edited version[cut for tv commercials].There are many copies of the edited version on the internet[You tube etc] but not the original. When as young kids my brother and myself first watched the series in 1973 we recognised our grandfather in episode 4 titled "Alone" manning a small private craft going to help troops evacuate from Dunkirk. It was not until recently we realised each other had independently seen this footage. Unfortunately the footage has been edited out in the footage now shown on TV etc. Despite many attempts to get hold of the original footage it has not been kept in archives of Thames or the American channels. We would like to get a copy of this for our family archives-clearly he was a brave man as a civilian volunteering to help get our troops home. I just wondered maybe if anybody might have a copy of the original ORIGINAL episode4 or could point me in the right direction.I have tried all the web sights on the little ships of Dunkirk etc Any help anybody could give me would be gratefully received
  2. 1 point
    Hello! Anyone was/is playing Heroes and Generals? Well, if not...it's a free-to-play game, where you can play as a soldier of Soviet Union/Germany/United States. As a soldier or general. Which means the game have two "spheres". The FPS, when you can play as a tanker, pilot or an infantry with a wide range of weapons/machines on the same battlefield. The game have few modes, most interesting is the War Mode, where the resources vary on what generals send into the battle. So you can have a whole division of tankers while the enemy won't have even a motorcycles, but are defending the city. It can change at any moment though, as generals are still free to send in reinforcements (unless the battle is in a closed pocket). Usually, the battles are ~19vs19. If you think that tanks are invincible, check again, plenty of antitank weapons, including H3, Sticky Grenades, Soviet RPG-43 grenade and of course Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks/Bazookas. Or you can simply plant a mine on some crucial routes. If you think aircraft are OP - well, there is plenty of anti-air guns on the map, you can shot those down even with a tank, with tons of luck you can kill the pilot with anything. If you chose the Soviet Union as your faction you can always equip PTRD-41- excellent against every light vehicle, some tanks, and aircraft. The core of the battle is ALWAYS infantry. Generals gameplay is about strategy. Every faction starts the war with two major cities and the goal is to conquer 15 out of 23. It's a bit more advanced part of the game, so let's skip that for now. Gameplay: Website: https://heroesandgenerals.com/ Also available on Steam.
  3. 1 point
    I would like to know what everybody thinks was the most important plane of WW2. What plane had the biggest impact on the war considering everything from gliders to heavy bombers.
  4. 1 point
    You mean the game? War Thunder, without a doubt. Available on Xbox as well as Steam and standalone. The simulation mode is hard in War Thunder as a plane, out of 3 take-offs usually I crash once. Didn't play that mode too much though, not many players. The game offers quite a lot and is quite friendly for new gamers. If you mean which fighter I would pick... I played fighters already. I enjoyed British, American and Italian (few back then in German tech tree) aircraft, yet my favorite were Yaks with those massive 37/40mm cannons. Bombers nightmare. The thing with every machine in the game is that it doesn't include malfunctions. The only thing is the cannon that sometimes get jammed, but that's universal for all aircraft out there. Some Soviet aircraft were called "Flying Coffin's" not without a reason. So in theory, Soviet aircraft were quite awesome. In the game, where theory merges with an unflawed reality, those Soviet planes are kinda unbalanced. Spitfire for its roll rate. Hurricane for its firepower (and somehow I'm more lucky with Hurricane than Spitfires)
  5. 1 point
    Having just finished the book Grant by Ron Chernow, this seems like a good time to make some comments. First, my family did not fight on his side in the Civil War; we refer to our side as the guys who came in second. His name was Hiram Ulysses Grant and a member of Congress made a mistake on his application to West Point - the book does not say if Ulysses S Grant actually ever officially changed his name. President Grant was quoted as saying that his middle initial was S and he did not know what it meant. The book details how he was a successful cadet at West Point after having NOT wanted to go, but he was very at home riding horses and he was a natural at math. For a while he wanted to be a math professor at West Point. His Army career was not great, he spent a lot of time as a logistician and did see combat in Mexico (where he met Robert E Lee). After the Mexican War he floundered, finally resigning while he was unhappily stationed on the U.S. West Coast. That part of the country is now considered a great place to live but he was away from his family on a forgotten post. His civilian career was disappointing. He was rescued by the outbreak of hostilities of the Civil War and rejoined the Army. He rose rapidly through the ranks. Today many criticize him as a guy who was good with sieges, not a maneuvering combat commander. The book disagrees with that even though it talks about his victories, many of which were seiges such as Vicksburg. In open combat such as Shiloh he often did not do well. He has been criticized as being a General who benefited from having great resources, greater than his adversaries. The book also disagrees with that though it talks about many times when exactly that was the case. He does sound like he was very gracious in victory and that helped him begin to put the Union back together. General Grant served in an Army that composed mostly of draftees and people that were not often happy to be in the Army and in combat. Yet he was described as being very familiar with the ordinary soldier, very casually dressed most of the time. In my service in the US Air Force, with exclusively volunteers that were far better educated than his forces, that familiarity would not have been wise. So that part of the book does NOT sound realistic to me. The book talks about his part in Reconstruction and the time when President Andrew Jackson was impeached (but not removed from office). Also two Presidential terms. General Grant and then President Grant kept the Union together during a turbulent time but certainly made many poor choices in appointments. I would conclude that he was a person who functioned best at war, made the right decisions based on his circumstances. He was fortunate that he was given a powerful force. He won the crucial battles and that is what counts. He was not as comfortable at peace but there at least he did enough to allow the Union to come back together.
  6. 1 point
    Difficult question. You could quite easily put forward a case for various aircraft. The Hurricane did the bulk of the work during the Battle of Britain preventing Hitler from dominating western Europe and ensuring Hitler's, at that time, sole remaining opponent, was not defeated. Hitler's first major loss and ensured they would have to fight on multiple fronts and also gave the US a platform. Spitfire also for its performance against the fighters during the BOB and its continued successful service right through the war in 24 marks resulting in it being the most produced British plane and only one produced right throughout the conflict. Also a case for Lancaster, B-17, BF109 and the lethal Hellcat. Bf109 - the most produced fighter of the war, the top fighter aces flew them and they also served right throughout the war. I would say the Stuka though. Absolutely pivotal during blitzkrieg which led Hitler to conquering most of Europe and so close to defeating Russia. Despite being in theory obsolete towards the end of the war they were extremely successful culminating in Hans rudel - the most highly decorated German servicemen during the war. Not technically the best aircraft but very important in Germany's successful years and bleeding the Russians right up to 1945.
  7. 1 point
    The e-mail information is just a bit off. I did a lot of e-mail research back then and was an early user. ARPA, as it was called back then, was a DOD funding office, but it did not sharply focus on military weapons back then. It was a strong general source of early advanced computer science funding. Its initial networking focus was to provide Telnet access so that people in one organization could log into computer resources in another. (Computer operating systems were so different that running the desired software on a local system was rarely possible.) In addition, they just wanted to explore packet switching. Ray Tomlinson built the first e-mail system as a personal project outside of work. It took him a week end. E-mail was well established for users of individual mainframes. Your e-mail address was your username. Ray realized that on the ARPANET you would also need to add the host name. As the article points out, he saw that the @ key did not seem to be used a lot and used that to separate the two. ARPA was very cautious about e-mail. It might cause political conflict with the Post Office, and ARPA knew that providing wide-open e-mail among contractors was not part of its mission. But e-mail caught on like wildfire because employees in contractor already knew one another and because there was nothing like it. When I first logged into my account on Doug Engelbart's computer, I was notified that I had new mail. It turned out to be a colleague at MIT welcoming me to the ARPANET. It was amazing. While ARPA remained cautious, it gradually moved to support e-mail actively. Tomlinson's program was a mail sending program. Reading mail was rudimentary at best. The first real e-mail reading program was produced by Bob Taylor of ARPA, who needed a way to handle all of his e-mail. When I visited ARPA once, I asked if anyone knew the cost of an e-mail message. I was taken aside by a senior official who told me to stop asking, because it was about $60 per message and ARPA did not want to advertise that. But we sat down, and using civilian time-sharing data, it was clear that e-mail cost only about a half dollar per message and would soon be cheaper than a stamp. I think that helped break the ice. In any case ARPA went all-in with e-mail. These were not military e-mail addresses, by the way. For example, my e-mail address was Ra3y@office1. Office 1 was a computer at Stanford Research Institute. No .mil in the name. You did need to be working on a military contract to use the ARPANET, but that wasn't enforced much. Later, Vint Cerf got ARPA to permit the carriage of e-mail from civilian organizations. That really got things moving, although dealing with a bazillion "newbies" was a bit grating. Such poor etiquette! However, the experience did reveal one thing. You know the story that if thousands of monkeys sat at typewriter they would eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare? We now that definitive proof that the story was wrong. Ray (Ra3y) Panko ray@panko.com panko@hawaii.edu
  8. 1 point
    Can you write something abouth the Partizans in ex yugoslavia, abouth first free teritory in Europe under the nazis, ofcourse if you know something...
  9. 1 point
    As for me, it was both Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa as a whole. Starting so huge offensive on the second edge of Europe without securing the back was a risky idea. If Operation Barbarossa would end a success before 1944... the Battle of Britain wouldn't be so significant as a loss and no Normandy would be possible, while the Allies in Italy would have a hard nut to crack. Operation Barbarossa was not a battle itself so my vote goes to Stalingrad too as it was a start of unstoppable counter-offensive that stopped only in Berlin 1945. But again, if the UK would be somehow conquered - how many more German troops, supplies and machines could be moved toward Eastern Front? Scary to think, as the Stalingrad was won by a hair.
  10. 1 point
    The Dornier Do335 is my nominee. The fastest prop-driven aircraft of WW2 (sorry about that, de Haviland Mosquito!) The "Pfeil" ("arrow") as the plane was known had a propeller at each end, an ejector seat (first production aircraft to have one?) an an array of THREE different calibres of canon, ranging from an engine mounted 30mm firing through the engine, to a pair of fuselage mounted 20mm cannon, and two more wing-mounted 15mm ones. The plane suffered fro the Usual German indecision: with insufficient manufacturing capacity to produce everything that was wanted, the order would go out from on high to "STOP what you're doing, because for the moment we're ONLY making bombers." And then - too late, as manufacturing capacity was being bombed out of existence - "Stop what you're doing, because NOW we're only building Fighters!" The Luftwaffe was handed only a few dozens of these planes, at a time when the Western Allies had 100% air superiority, It doesn't matter HOW good you are in the air, if when you come back to base, you're in danger of being shot to pieces on the ground.
  11. 1 point
    Some might argue that the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, or even B-29 was the most important plane in WW2, but I agree the DC3 was used more than any other plane in the war, making it the most important.
  12. 1 point


×