How the Brits won the Battle of Britain

The time is 1940, early in WWII.  The Germans have just crushed the French, now the Third Reich owns all of Western Europe, except Britain.  The Brits managed to get the bulk of their army back from Belgium at Dunkirk.  They evacuated better than 300,000 men.  But they had to abandon all the army's heavy stuff, tanks, artillery, trucks, ammunition, supplies, yuge  amounts of stuff.  When Operation Dynamo ended, the British army, although back in England, was in no condition to fight. 
   If Hitler had managed to get even a small army across the channel and onto English soil, he would have owned the place.  The Channel is only 20 some miles wide at Dover and Pas de Calais.  Trouble is, the Channel is deep enough to float real warships, and the Brits had plenty of them.  If the Germans had loaded the troops onto Rhine River barges and attempted a crossing, the British would have steamed up along side with destroyers, and a few rounds would put the river barge and all its troops on the bottom.  At this time the Germans had only a hand full warships, less than a tenth of what the Royal Navy had. 
   Air power, the Luftwaffe, could have countered the Royal Navy.  To do this, the Germans had to wipe out the RAF.  They could not  sink or drive off the Royal Navy when they had Spitfires on their tails.  And so, the Luftwaffe attacked all that late summer and early fall of 1940.  Both sides had good pilots and good planes, qualitywise it was a draw between them.  The Germans had somewhat more aircraft but not a decisive margin.
    Fighter units can only generate so many sorties a day.  For instance my fighter wing in the Viet Nam war could do about 110 sorties a day from an assigned strength of 90 F105 Thunderchief fighter bombers.  We would launch 60 aircraft on the morning strike which got off at first light.  They would return around 11 AM.  We had until 2 PM to turn as many birds as possible , finish fixing broken birds from yesterday, and put together the afternoon strike of 60 aircraft.  I dare say RAF fighter squadrons could do a little better, the sorties being shorted and the aircraft had less high tech stuff to break and demand fixing.  (No doppler, no toss bomb computer, no radar, no TACAN, no gyro compass)  But I am sure they had a fixed number of sorties they could generate in a day. 
   The battle winning weapon the Brits had was radar, and a command and control system (the sector centers they were called)  that guaranteed that nearly all RAF fighter sorties would engage the enemy.  No sorties wasted patrolling, looking for the enemy, few or no sorties wasted when the enemy was not found.  Each sortie flow under radar control would find the enemy and score some kills.  This gave the RAF the winning edge in the summer of 1940. 

Communism is Different from Socialism.

So said NHPR today.  A woman, (I think she was the moderator on the talk show) said repeatedly and with emphasis that Communism was not the same as Socialism.  Talking about classical socialism and communism, as was the breed up thru the 1950's, there was little difference.  Both parties read their Karl Marx and believed in government ownership of the means of production, so that government could set everyone's wages to the same low level. Eliminate "wage disparity" at a stroke.  And set up a command economy where the politbureau sets production targets for everything.  And collectivise farming.  The only different between Communists and Socialists was how the party would obtain the power to push thru their program.  Communists believed in seizing power thru revolution and force of arms.  Socialists advocated political action and the ballot box.  Once in power there wasn't much difference from the viewpoint of citizens, kulaks, business people, and nearly everybody else. 
   Today's "democratic socialism"  is probably a little different.  I doubt that many of them have read their Marx, know much about socialism's history, and their party platform is "more free stuff".  None of them talk about how all that free stuff will be paid for.  At least very few of them claim to be Communists, the decades long Cold War blackened the name of Communism too much for anyone to claim it today.
   Anyhow I am glad that tax payer funded NHPR feels there is a critical and important different between Communism and Socialism.

Can we trust the FBI anymore?

An organization run by James Coomey, with Peter Strvok, Lisa Page, Andy whats-his-face and who knows what other men of questionable judgement in charge.  An outfit that stonewalls the US Congress.  Can this outfit conduct a reasonable investigation of the hottest potato in DC, the Dr Basely Ford story? 

The crankshaft is the heaviest part of a piston engine

Which is why V8s and V6s are so popular for car engines.  A V engine crank shaft is only one half as long and half as heavy as a straight 8 or straight 6 engine of the same displacement  (size).  Back before the jets took over, there were two kinds of aircraft piston engines.  There was the radial engine with the cylinders arranged in a circle.  This design offered the shortest possible crankshaft, hence light weight.  And all the cylinders were right up front allowing air cooling.  All the cylinders in a radial engine got equal amounts cooling air.  The competing aircraft engine design was an inline V pattern which required water cooling, because the rear cylinders were far removed from free air flow.  For WWII warplanes both types of engines were popular.  The water cooled inline design offered lower air resistance (drag) and claimed higher power output.  It was vulnerable to any bullet holes in the radiator, coolant hoses, or engine block, which allowed the coolant the run out and the engine overheat and seize up.  The air cooled radial engine was more rugged, there are stories of radial engines continuing to work after an entire cylinder was shot off.  The later radial engines were as powerful as the best in line engines by the end of WWII. 
   But the shortest crankshaft in the radial engine made it lighter than the equivalent in line engine. 

The Kavanaugh hearing yesterday

Judge Kavanaugh got to testify in his own behalf about 3 PM yesterday.  He came on strong, calling it a witch hunt, denying all accusations, displaying sorry and anger.  He was as convincing, perhaps more convincing than Dr Basley-Ford's testimony in the morning.

   At the end of the day, I would call it a draw.  Both of them were convincing.  Neither was tripped up by what little cross examination took place.  Little to no evidence, save a calendar from Judge Kavanaugh was introduced.  The calendar suggested (but did not prove) that back in 1982 Kavanaugh was too busy to have attended that infamous party.
  Me, I tend to believe Kavanaugh based on his long federal service, many female friends testifying in his favor, and convincing manner.   Dr. Basley-Ford has no friends backing up her story. 

Words of the Weasel. Part 48

"Prioritize".  New word from Democrats.  I think they are trying to say "increase funding"   If that is what they mean, they ought to just say "increase funding" out loud. 
"Close tax loopholes"  is a Democrat phrase that means "Hike taxes". 

The Dr Blasey-Ford hearing

It got off on time, 10 AM, and ran until 2 PM.  I watched it all.  Dr Blasey-Ford was clearly uneasy about the whole thing.  Her voice was husky, on the verge of tears thru out.  Her hairdo was unbecoming, and served to hide her face behind  long locks of blonde hair.  I had to wonder if she, a senior college professor, looked and sounded that bad in front of a class.  She repeated the story about Brett Kavanaugh groping her and attempting (but failing) to rape her at a teen age house party in Maryland 35 years ago.  She didn't offer any new details.  I do think she believed what she was saying.  Cross examination did not expose any contradictions.  She made no goofs in testimony.
   On the other hand, the incident is 35 years old.  Everyone's memory is unreliable going that far back.
   A lot of Democratic senators were still calling for an FBI investigation.  I don't think that would prove anything.  No  physical evidence  has survived that long.  I would have my doubts about any witness testimony after all these years.
   Senator Diane Feinstein  did not offer any explanation as to why she sat on Dr. Blasey-Ford's letter until just two weeks ago.
   All of the witnesses Dr Blasey-Ford mentioned refused to back up her story.
   Judge Kavanaugh is next up.  We will see how he does.