RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Son of a gun-ner wrote:The particular gas/chemical in question that was the cause of the hole all the way up high in the sky is actually a heavy gas/chemical, one that was used in the ground hugging mustard gas that sadly Saddam Hussein had used on the Kurds (for me, the main reason he had to go).

Not quite as simple as that, Mick. While it's true that chlorinated refrigerants are typically high-molecular weight and dense, the atmosphere isn't a static system. There's constant movement with the temperature differential caused by the combination of sunlight and gravity; warm air close to the Earth's surface (and any pollutants in it) gets dragged upward until it cools and falls again. This means that the composition of the atmosphere is pretty much homogeneous regardless of altitude, like having a ceiling fan running in a warm room.

"Follow the money" is usually a good rule of thumb, but there's really no scientific argument against banning CFCs. Ozone levels do fluctuate over time, but not as significantly as they did in the 50-odd years CFCs were in use. The current crop of HFCs and PFCs aren't as effective as CFCs, nobody would bother making them if the alternative weren't so harmful.

Jnewboy wrote:Its weird to think what would have happened if all those planes and pilots had been used on the Eastern Front. Even more so if they had not wasted all those men and equipment in Africa. If Germany and England had come to an understanding or at least agreed to a lasting cease fire the Eastern Front would have been very different.

It really wouldn't have been. Even if the Nazis' crimes against humanity hadn't made them pariahs to the rest of the world, their flawed economic model, lack of manpower/resources and general incompetence would have ensured a Soviet victory regardless. Having the British, Americans, Canadians, French, Australians and New Zealanders et al. on side merely sped things up.

Believe me I am no fan of hitler or their crimes. However I have to disagree with the assertion that the eastern front was unwinnable for Germany. If it was to be won it would have been in the first summer, Moscow could have been easily captured as it was practicly undefended but with the knowledge that Japan had no plans to invade the east and the order from hitler to turn south and surround a massive soviet army Moscow was reinforced.

Hitler failed to learn the lesson from Napoleon, who allowed his supply lines to become extended too far as the Russian tactic of 'scorched earth' strategic withdrawal left nothing for advancing armies. Neither Hitler nor Napoleon anticipated the winter warfare that followed.

I think Hannibal's campaign against Rome is a famous example of winning most of the battles, but still losing the war.

Just as an aside to the british use of air launched rockets as tank busters:
I used to work with an old guy who served as an armourer in the RAF at the end of WWII, who told me that they never really got the explosive warheads to work reliably, so often it was replaced by a 60lb concrete warhead.
I imagine that didn't make a lot of difference to the poor recipient - A 60lb lump of concrete arriving at several hundred MPH is going to make a mess of anything it hits.

I'm watching a documentary about the Battle of Arracourt. There is an account of an air strike against a group of 50 Panthers. The witness giving the account of the strike was a Panzer Grenadier. The strke took out 42 of the tanks. It was not with rockets but with napalm.