The point was anyhow not be taken too seriously as the little smiley should indicate.
Actually, according to the Wiki link, Lada is considered to be a pretty durable machine…
Nobody said they don’t last.
The only problem with them is that they don’t go. 
(Stand by for offended response by Chevan, who thinks every Mercedes built since 1946 is based on Lada plans stolen by the Germans during the war. :D)
Hahahahahahahahaha, thanks, you made my day.
If Canada had any car plants there being shut down because the Japanese competition is too tough to make Canadian plants operatable. Just last week GM announced layoffs in the thousands and Buzz Hargrove is calling on wild cat strikes to dispute GM’s decision. Its all partly because we didn’t send enough A-Bombs over to Japan when we had the chance and because of that Japan is building better cars and raking in the doe. If there were no Japanese competition then Canadians would still have their jobs at GM in Oshawa. This is the ripple effect of not nuking Japan with a dozen A-bombs and a weak Trueman who sent only 2. Can u imagine if we didn’t send any A-bombs?..then the Japanese would of put us all on the unemployment job!..Think of the ripple effects!
The survey from what I have gathered was an honest effort. It certainly discovered what most bombardieres already knew: so-called precision bombing using the Norden bombsight was anything but. The bombardier would have been lucky to get within a mile of his target. Only dive-bombers could achieve real accuracy and there were no long-range dive bombers, nor any that could carry any sort of payoad. Hence, Bomber Harris’ “carpet bombing” - indicsriminate and cruel as it was - probably achieved more accuracy by burning down the whole house in order to get of the rats. The US didn’t use carpet bombing much in Europe but used it with a vengeance against the Japanese. On the other hand, if your 'precision bombing" is imprecise, what’s the difference?
Curtis LeMay said, “We are all guilty of war crimes”, but then he was on the front lines trying to end a war he didn’t start against an enemy who wouldn’t surrender. And whose cities were made mostly out of wood.
Needless to say, the Strategic Bombing Survey produced disappointing results but probably spurred the US to make much better guidance systems which were later incorporated into missiles and smart bombs, not to mention Predator drones.
And thus we owe the defeat of Japan to the Soviets? I think not. Not even a tiny little bit.
Not bloody likely. If you listen to every word in Hirohito’s broadcast that ended the war, nowhere does he say “we have been defeated”, or “we lost the war”. Nor, afterwards, do the Japanese ever admit to having done anything wrong. This vexing inability of the Japanese to actually officially belly up to the bar and own up to having been a rapacious, evil empire cynically preying on other peoples and killing them without mercy for the crime of “not being Japanese”, makes me suspicious of the Japanese to this day. Talented as they are, they do not get my respect because they are incapable of admitting they have done wrong.
<Ahem> They did, they just kept very quiet about it. What do you think the USAAF was doing during the winter of 1944/45 when just about every target in Europe was covered by 8/8ths cloud? They just went ahead and bombed anyway, by radar on the lead of a master bomber.
Indeed, for quite some time during the war Bomber Command was achieving lower average miss distances area bombing by night than the USAAF was “precision” bombing by day. Furthermore, in an era when workers lived just over the road from their factory, it doesn’t take much of a miss to destroy their houses instead of the factory.
That is exactly why we should of sent a dozen A-bombs over to Japan to decimate them. Makes sense to me based on your comment. Now we lose our jobs because the Japanese auto makers are ruling the world. We should of bombed their auto plants more during the war to wipe out the emergence of Toyota and Honda. Its not fair they are staealing our jobs.If one is not capable of admitting wrong then decimating the country to a pulp is the answer.
Herman, you need help - and fast.
I second that !
Anyway, who would buy a GM ?
its not fair to get killed when youre just an eight year old.
Actually, Mazda HQ is in Hiroshima, you little ass****.
And Detroit is just as much at fault for stifling innovation and trying to drive the market towards heavier, more expensive pieces of crap that needed more repairs and parts…They never learn. The reason they’re in new trouble is the exact same reason the Japanese handed them their asses in the 1970s. They drove and fed the market of large gas-guzzling SUVs at the expense of smaller cars. Now they’re screwed as used SUVs are almost worthless with $4.20 a gallon gas…
And Tucker, designer of the Tucker Torpedo, how bad he would have felt for the big three now…
Well, since they’re now getting their marquee products from Europe and Australia, I would.
The only problem is the lack of imagination (only one engine in the Saturn US version of the Opel/Vauxhall/Chevy Astra and no 200HP diesel variant!)…
Well, you monomaniacal nuking genius, Honda didn’t produce a car until 1962. The company didn’t even exist during WWII. It got its start from a generator engine designed for an IJA radio. http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/text01/index.html
So, first, it’s a bit hard to nuke an auto plant that isn’t there and, second, nuking auto plants in Japan wouldn’t have changed anything as far as Honda is concerned.
So I guess I could safely say you think the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey was a load of old cobblers, or at the least, you don’t go along with it.
Did you have a gander at it?
Anyway, even though we ‘‘might’’ not agree, [I still have an open mind on it] at least you understood what I was getting at.
Not to mention the fact that the reason the Japanese are so good at car making is because they actually listened to a chap named Deming in the 1950s. Deming, of course, was an American and largely responsible for how efficient the US war production was.
Just wondering why you think that Allied bomber people were biased in some way.:o
No doubt there is often inter service rivalry, but I cant recall Allied bomber people claiming to have won the war single handily.
And speaking of inter service rivalry, I’ll try to find the link to the most savage attack from one branch of the service on a fellow service I’ve ever seen.
You have to read it to believe it, I have, and I still don’t believe what I read.:shock:
I was being hyperbolic. I realize the bomber generals do not claim to have won the War single-handedly, but they seemed to be on a quest to validate what was largely city-killing that was often commenced at what can be thought by some as at the expense of soldiers on the ground. There are some with the view like John Keegan that believe that the air generals tended to scoff at using their resources in direct support of armies and that the losses incurred and the German/Japanese civilians killed simply did not justify the investment of both (the best and brightest) blood and treasure into the strategic bomber. So the criticism is two-fold: from both a moral and practical stand point. There are some good arguments out there that strategic bombing wore the Reich down in terms of attrition – even if production soared in 1944 largely because Speer successfully dispersed German industry making concentrated bomber attacks impractical.
The counter-argument is based on the use of both strategic and tactical air assets in a coordinated assault on the Wehrmacht in France just prior to Overlord, in which Harris and his American cohorts of Spaatz and LeMay had to be directly ordered by Ike and his RAF subaltern, Air Marshal Tedders, to provide direct support of the coming landings by hitting rail-yards and fuel depots as well as command control and communications centers; this while simultaneously largely abandoning the raids on German cities. The results? The rail-based Westheer was paralysed soon to destroy itself as Hitler ordered them to stay and fight rather than attempt a fighting withdrawal and creation of defense lines. There was also virtually no more opposition left from the Luftwaffe. Ample evidence was also provided by the obliteration of either a Heer panzer or SS division by waves of both strategic bombers and follow on tactical fighter-bombers in one instance of experimentation. I forget the exact details, but the US Army division drove forward only to find dazed stragglers and overturned tanks! Even if they did suffer the fratricide of something like 128 dead. Still a better use of air power than to burn and suffocate mostly civilians to death…
IMO