I believe Kanada was a part of Auschwitz were all the valuables taken from those arriving were piled up and sorted. Sickening.
Murphy Siding- Hitler's train was called Amerika- I had no idea. There was a place called Kanada because of all the riches it contained. I guess you know where it was.
Today, Dec. 16 marks the 75th Anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge. My Uncle, a forward artillery observer took a bullet or schrapnel to the head and was captured by the Germans - a German doctor treated his wounds, and when the American counter attack overrun that position - the doctor left all the injured for the Allies to find. That was the end of my Uncle's war - he was subsequently sent to a hospital in England where a permanent plate was installed in his skull.
He passed away about a decade ago - having spent his working career as Principal at multiple schools in Maryland.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Interesting thoughts to ponder: The allies became quite proficient at train busting with airplanes. Hitler traveled a lot by train- his amoured train was named Amerika. And yet the two parties never crossed paths.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo BaltACD Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less. In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground. Greg's play list has many different comparisons https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg More to do with the rather narrow space betwen landing struts. Few fighters in WWII had tricycle landing gear.
BaltACD Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less. In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground. Greg's play list has many different comparisons https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself.
Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground.
Greg's play list has many different comparisons
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
More to do with the rather narrow space betwen landing struts. Few fighters in WWII had tricycle landing gear.
And don't forget railroadings effect on wars and the ability to fight them, and the peripherals to the fighting affected by railroads.
It's been said, and probably with justification, that the fact there was 21,000 miles of railroad in the North, in fairly close proximity to one another if not directly connected, versus 9,000 miles of mostly disconnected and separated by distance trackage in the South, that the eventual outcome of the Civil War was determined long before the first shots were fired.
Steve SweeneyThanks, all, for keeping the trains in Trains Forums. Tis the Season.
We employ multiple track, multiple technology principles - not Dark, Single track principles.
When you have been employeed IN the industry for over half a century, from a family whose ancestors were involved in the laying of the First Stone of the B&O on July 4, 1828 - you have observed 'railroading' having gone in multiple directions. Trucking and Airlines for a start. CSX purchasing Texas Gas Corporation that owned American Commercial Barge Lines as well as the SeaLand Container Shipping lines (the purchase of which hurt MY financial situation - and the sale of which did not benefit my finances).
Trains have affected ALL forms of human industry. This the season to celebrate all the things have have been involved in the industry from the time of its origin.
Railroading is so much more than talking about paint schemes and wheel arrangements.
Hi Mr. Steve! Good to hear from you, where ya been?
Listen, as long as I've got your attention are you aware that under the "Resources" heading on the website's masthead nothing is working except for "Communtiy," "Magazine Index," and "Webcams?"
"Resources" is a very valuable tool, it's kind of frustrating not to have it functioning at peak performance.
Thanks, all, for keeping the trains in Trains Forums. Tis the Season.
Steve SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
BaltACDVerbiage in the Liberty Ship video stated they were designed to haul 10K tons of cargo. During the war era, I think, 40 foot box cars had load limits of nominally 70 tons per car or less.
Weight-wise I was off by a factor of about 14.... That would be around 140 box cars, unless the cargo cubed out.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Also note how narrow the wheelbase was, which doesn't help the ground handling.
Flintlock76If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
charlie hebdo Flintlock76 BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings. Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D. That would depend greatly on which model 109: Emil, Franz or Gustav?
Flintlock76 BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings. Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D.
BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings.
Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom!
I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings.
Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D.
That would depend greatly on which model 109: Emil, Franz or Gustav?
If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long.
SD70DudeHow many 40' boxcars did it take to fill one Liberty Ship? And how many boxcars to a Flying Boxcar? Or a Skytrain?
Verbiage in the Liberty Ship video stated they were designed to haul 10K tons of cargo. During the war era, I think, 40 foot box cars had load limits of nominally 70 tons per car or less.
Short of finding the cubic feet capacity for each, I have no idea. Weight would also be a consideration for the aircraft, especially.
But, I can guess.
The Skytrain (Gooney Bird, C47, DC-3) probably wouldn't hold a full boxcar.
The Flying Boxcar (C119) might have held a railroad boxcar's worth of freight, or a little more.
As for the Liberty Ship - They were 441' long, had a beam of almost 57', with five holds. A WAG would put their capacity at 8-10 boxcars, depending on the commodity.
Corrections gladly accepted!
tree68 I spent several months aboard a Liberty ship one summer while in USAF (yes, I am a Shellback). It was reconfigured (slightly) as a research vessel. The round bottom was wonderful in big waves (not). And I understand they had the undesirable habit of breaking apart at a certain frame - I think it was due to being built in two halves and being joined there. Real speed demons, too. Eleven knots at 88 turns of the triple expansion steam reciprocating engine. And if she was doing that, the whole ship felt it... But, they did what they were designed to do - haul cargo in mass quantities.
I spent several months aboard a Liberty ship one summer while in USAF (yes, I am a Shellback). It was reconfigured (slightly) as a research vessel.
The round bottom was wonderful in big waves (not). And I understand they had the undesirable habit of breaking apart at a certain frame - I think it was due to being built in two halves and being joined there.
Real speed demons, too. Eleven knots at 88 turns of the triple expansion steam reciprocating engine. And if she was doing that, the whole ship felt it...
But, they did what they were designed to do - haul cargo in mass quantities.
How many 40' boxcars did it take to fill one Liberty Ship?
And how many boxcars to a Flying Boxcar? Or a Skytrain?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Flintlock76There's a good Wiki article that addresses the cracking issue. If I remember correctly the welded contruction of the ships didn't so much cause the cracking but it did exacerbate it. Earlier ships of the type built with conventional riveted construction methods didn't have the problem.
https://metallurgyandmaterials.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/liberty-ship-failures/
Flintlock76Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom!
There's a good Wiki article that addresses the cracking issue. If I remember correctly the welded contruction of the ships didn't so much cause the cracking but it did exacerbate it. Earlier ships of the type built with conventional riveted construction methods didn't have the problem.
I have to go back and look at this more carefully. In the alternate reality I remember, the problem with the brittle transition getting into the steel was connected with the HAZ in some way. I didn't know much about principles of practical welding then so didn't appreciate what the specific fix was -- but the impression was that the welding was where the propagation started, and that at least in early stages the cracking would propagate along the deflicted HAZ seam.
Naturally this was out of published sources, not firsthand exposure to authorities with distinctive competence directly, but I do wonder whether changes to the welding were not the most significant 'fix'.
BaltACD Erik_Mag Flintlock76 Yes, some of the first Libertys did break in two during rough seas. The design flaw was noted and quickly corrected. The flaw was that the welded steel had a brittle transition temperature about the freezing point of water, i.e. the ships' hulls fractured in freezing weather. Investigation into the cause of the failures was headed by Earl Parker, who was also instrumental in the development of the theory of dislocations in metal grains (plastic deformation as opposed to elastic deformation). What was the fix that eliminated 'cold embrittlement' of the weld?
Erik_Mag Flintlock76 Yes, some of the first Libertys did break in two during rough seas. The design flaw was noted and quickly corrected. The flaw was that the welded steel had a brittle transition temperature about the freezing point of water, i.e. the ships' hulls fractured in freezing weather. Investigation into the cause of the failures was headed by Earl Parker, who was also instrumental in the development of the theory of dislocations in metal grains (plastic deformation as opposed to elastic deformation).
Flintlock76 Yes, some of the first Libertys did break in two during rough seas. The design flaw was noted and quickly corrected.
Yes, some of the first Libertys did break in two during rough seas. The design flaw was noted and quickly corrected.
The flaw was that the welded steel had a brittle transition temperature about the freezing point of water, i.e. the ships' hulls fractured in freezing weather. Investigation into the cause of the failures was headed by Earl Parker, who was also instrumental in the development of the theory of dislocations in metal grains (plastic deformation as opposed to elastic deformation).
What was the fix that eliminated 'cold embrittlement' of the weld?
It wasn't that hard. Re-enforcement of the hulls and a re-design of the hatch assemblys (where a some of the cracks started) took care of the problem. Also, many of those early Liberty Ships were overloaded, which didn't help matters.
Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom!
One of the reasons that Liberty Ships were built with VTE engines instead of steam turbines was to deal with the expected shortage of experienced ship's engineers that would be manning these ships.
Does anybody know the fate of the "Cliffs Victory"? It was rebuilt into the oddest-looking ore boat I've ever seen on the Great Lakes.
One interesting YouTube Channel is 'Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles' where in Greg disects and explains many of the design considerations that were applied to WW II aircraft from all parties.
A example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqiG9VHuBbM
Re: P-51 vs Spifire, one huge advantage that the P-51 had over the Spit was range, there was no way that a Spitfire could fly to Berlin and back.
One interesting tidbit about the P-51, the laminar flow airfoil was picked for two reasons, one being a better L/D ratio (more range & higher speed), the second in having a high critical Mach number. The later was of great importance in a power dive as pursuing plnes would go into a Mach tuck when the airflow over the wing went transonic. The Grumman Hellcat would go into a Mach tuck at Mach 0.75.
Surviving Liberty Ships? There's four.
John W. Brown in Baltimore.
Jeramiah O'Brian in San Francisco.
Albert M. Boe. sold in 1964 and renamed "Star of Kodiak," now the headquarters of Trident Seafoods in Kodiak, AK.
Arthur M. Huddell, sold to Greece in 2008 and now a museum ship in Piraeus.
Surviving Victory Ships
American Victory in Tampa.
Lane Victory in Los Angeles.
Red Oak Victory in Richmond CA.
Spitfire versus a P-51? Well, the late Captain Eric Brown, distinguished British test pilot, flew them both, liked them both, but given the choice would have gone with the Spitfire, although being British he did admit toward a bit of favoritism towards the Spit.
When you come down to it, the victor in a dogfight, all things being equal, is going to be the better pilot and tactician.
By the way, Captain Brown's estimation of the Me-109, he test flew a G model, was it was a good fighter, not a great fighter, but it still could be a dangerous opponent in capable hands.
As long as we're on the subject, the late Frank Tallman comparing the P-51 to the F4U Corsair said that up to around 12,000 feet they were pretty much equal, but above 12,000 in his opinion the Corsair had the edge. He also admitted to a bit of prejudice toward the Corsair since he was a Naval Aviator.
Refreshing honesty!
I remember them tied up in the Hudson, also in Suisun bay in California. But they did show up at the navy base in Norfolk now and then.
P-51 vs Sptifire? That would be something to see! Much as I love the Spit, I would have to give the edge to the Mustang.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.