Oh, I like that, I really like that.. :thumbsup:
Just hope you didn't peak too early though.... :worried:
Good Moaning Everyone. Comments Appreciated...
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Oh, I like that, I really like that.. :thumbsup:
Just hope you didn't peak too early though.... :worried:
Hi Jim
Sure Eric Broadley and Lola were involved with the initial Ford GT project (after Fords failure to buy Ferrari) and they were brought in because Ford needed their expertise in developing a car to win Le Mans. But although the MK6 Lola was used a a buck to test the suspension. It was not in agreement with Broadley who when altering suspension back to Lola specs that started the conflict with Roy Lunn. Broadly wanted a lightweight race car; Ford wanted a compromise of a steel race/road car. This is why Broadley and Lola seperated from the project (also they entered the relationship for much needed money).
Jim I think Ford when it comes the MKIV was not in need of Lola. It was the fine efforts of Phil Remington and his team of Ford Mechanics that turned the uncompetitive 'J' car into the successful MKIV in a couple of months.
As for the Mustang 1 concept car it had an imput into the intial 1963 Ford GT design buck which had an enclosed gearbbox and was only taken to a full size clay /wooden model stage.
I too have fallen out with sensitive about World War Two. When I visited the aircraft carrier Intrepid in new York and got talking to a veteran ex Vietnam as to why the US did not equip their carriers with armoured decks like the British. He took me by surprise when he went on the defensive. And said why did the British ships in the Falkland War use aluminum (burning). He completely missed the point. I was not attacking the the US war effort I was asking why in hindsight by implementing this would it have save lives? Like the armour and gun power on most allied tanks would more lives have been saved. Not just in the case of the Sherman the massive production line. But what about the men??
As for the World War Two. The line between success and failure is very thin. What if the carriers were at Pearl Harbour? What if Hilter never made an alliance with Japan? What about if Hilter never interfered with military decisions! Like turning the Me 262 into a fighter bomber. Like giving the Navies battleships a free hand.
Recently I said to a soldier that a bettered armour Sherman Flyfly would have been up to the Germans in armour and gun range (except against a Tiger II). He called me deorgatory an 'expert'. The only 'Experts' to me are the ones in all wars that fight and see their mates maimed and killed.
Regards Allan
Sure Eric Broadley and Lola were involved with the initial Ford GT project (after Fords failure to buy Ferrari) and they were brought in because Ford needed their expertise in developing a car to win Le Mans. But although the MK6 Lola was used a a buck to test the suspension. It was not in agreement with Broadley who when altering suspension back to Lola specs that started the conflict with Roy Lunn. Broadly wanted a lightweight race car; Ford wanted a compromise of a steel race/road car. This is why Broadley and Lola seperated from the project (also they entered the relationship for much needed money).
Jim I think Ford when it comes the MKIV was not in need of Lola. It was the fine efforts of Phil Remington and his team of Ford Mechanics that turned the uncompetitive 'J' car into the successful MKIV in a couple of months.
As for the Mustang 1 concept car it had an imput into the intial 1963 Ford GT design buck which had an enclosed gearbbox and was only taken to a full size clay /wooden model stage.
I too have fallen out with sensitive about World War Two. When I visited the aircraft carrier Intrepid in new York and got talking to a veteran ex Vietnam as to why the US did not equip their carriers with armoured decks like the British. He took me by surprise when he went on the defensive. And said why did the British ships in the Falkland War use aluminum (burning). He completely missed the point. I was not attacking the the US war effort I was asking why in hindsight by implementing this would it have save lives? Like the armour and gun power on most allied tanks would more lives have been saved. Not just in the case of the Sherman the massive production line. But what about the men??
As for the World War Two. The line between success and failure is very thin. What if the carriers were at Pearl Harbour? What if Hilter never made an alliance with Japan? What about if Hilter never interfered with military decisions! Like turning the Me 262 into a fighter bomber. Like giving the Navies battleships a free hand.
Recently I said to a soldier that a bettered armour Sherman Flyfly would have been up to the Germans in armour and gun range (except against a Tiger II). He called me deorgatory an 'expert'. The only 'Experts' to me are the ones in all wars that fight and see their mates maimed and killed.
Regards Allan
Alan, for sure the upgunned Sherman (Firefly) with the 17 pounder was indeed a match for anything the German had except, possibly as you say, the JagdTiger. But what were the chances of meeting those? In the Ardennes they couldn't get across the narrow bridges, they had to have special railway truck loading facilities because of the track width and were just too heavy and ponderous for close in fighting - IF they had enough of those at Kursk, the war MAY have been prolonged for another year and perhaps Germany would have tasted E= MC squared too!
(I love what ifs) BUT I would not have wanted to come face to face with anything the Germans had in heavy tanks or AT weapons even in a Firefly unless I got him first. Even the Sherman's later cast armour was no match for the L71, PAK 40, PAK 43 or the downright nasty PAK 44.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Allen,
Yes if the Lexington, Yorktown and Enterprise had been a Pearl, it certinally would have changed the first 10 months of the war, but would it have effected the final outcome in the Pacific?
Not really, on Dec 7 1941 the US had somthing like 11 fleet carriers building, with air groups and aircraft to man them. The Japanese could never have matched that.
With only two or three carriers (Saratoga, Hornet, Wasp) the Doolittle Raid probably would not have taken place, hence the Japanese probably would not have done the Midway thing. Before Midway screwed up their plans they were working south, Samoa and the Solomons would have gone and the US offensive would have been pushed back, but in the end the outcome would have been the same.
In Europe, I think the only big game changer would have been not invading the USSR. The other things would have made things more difficult and taken longer, but in the end the same result.
But if Hitler had kept Russia as a nutural or even an ally, who knows what would have happened.
Last edited:
I also like what if`s. What if this was true.
German the Official US Language?
I wonder what the outcome of ww2 would have been.:huh::huh:
Bob
That's relatively simple. There would be a liquid wall between us and Europe and we'd all be speaking 'Murican.
Oh... waaaaaitagoddamnminuyeholdthephoney'all.... :shifty:
