"Experience vs Education"

 

The Cartoon above I had saved several years ago, something like 6 years ago, for me it was telling, you ever see a cartoon that really makes a mark? well that one did with me.  I had had discussions with people that argued with me pitting their education against my experience and thinking that my experience was inferior to what they were taught, that somehow what I had seen and experienced with communism and when the wall fell was somehow not as worthy as what some professor regurgitated and my experiences were somehow not valid when I talked what I had experienced in the communist countries because what i had experienced wasn't "real communism"  Really?  My Experiences during the Gulf War were irrevelant and what their professor told them about Saddam being a peaceful msn and the rape of Kuwait, and gassing the Kurds, not withstanding?0

        When I talk about the Soviets and what the Cold war was like, they immediately go with the United States was the aggressor and that the Soviets were only defending themselves....Really? then why were the Soviets exporting communism through the southern hemisphere and throughout the world, financed a bunch of terrorist groups like the "Baader Meinhof Gang", the "PLO", "Stasi" and any other communist or leftist groups out there.  Despite my family history of having maternal family members disappearing in the gulag systems of the communist countries of Eastern Europe. somehow my experiences don't matter, I was 8 years old when my mom took the oath of citizenship at the courthouse in Georgia in the early 1970's somehow my folks experiences going though the citizenship process don't mean anything compared to the illegals that jumped the border during sleepy Joe's presidency. My folks made sure that they did things the right way, but somehow that is now the wrong way, its bizarro world.    I am getting to the point that i don't want to talk to anyone anymore, people ask what has made me angry and not want to talk to people any more and this is what did it for me.

    I find myself not wanting to talk to people anymore.

    I clipped this from Michael Smith off farcebook

I've written a couple of essays that touch on the value of experience and the danger of lacking it.

It matters that people born after 2001 did not witness the Towers falling.

It matters that people born since the Berlin Wall fell only know what they have been taught, rather than living with the experience of a divided Berlin where the differences between communism and capitalism are only separated by a wall.

Graduate Student correcting the experienced due to his superior education

It matters that they didn't witness the violent takeovers of entire countries by the Soviet Union and the subsequent installation of puppet rulers.

It matters that they never experienced the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction.

It matters that there are no longer Civil Defense shelter signs in public and government buildings.

It matters that they weren't there to see the race to space between the US and the USSR.

The traditional vs the Modern college experience.

It matters they didn't see the spree of bombing, murder and mayhem of the leftists during the 60's and 70's.

It matters because even the best, most accurate, most complete telling of a story doesn't match the impact of witnessing the events.

Emirates Rejects Early-build Boeing 777X's

 

I had "Blogged" about the 777X before and apparently there are post production problems and it caused post assembly problems.  I recall blogging about the first few dreamliners having the same issues, apparently when the FAA decided to give Boeing oversight because of the 737 MAX issues, it moved to all the assembly lines. and all of them had a lot of "Revisions" as they say as the process worked down the line and they had to change the planes as they went.  So the early planes don't match the later planes and a lot of the commercial customers will not accept an early plane because of parts availability issues, and yes that is a big deal, if you can't get parts or having to rework parts to make it work for a limited run airplane is $$very$$ expensive in the commercial world as I "Posted" about it a couple of years ago.

FARNBOROUGH, England—Emirates is rejecting delivery of the first 10 Boeing 777-9s produced for the airline given the extensive rework the aircraft would need to bring them up to current standards.

 

“We are not taking them,” Emirates Airline President Tim Clark said on the sidelines of the Farnborough Airshow. “We have told Boeing.” 

 

Clark pointed out that he had been on the first of those aircraft that was fully equipped with a cabin and all systems in July of 2019 and the aircraft should have been delivered to the airline in April of 2020. “If we were to take it next year, they would be eight years old,” Clark said. “At some point I would have provisioned for the write-off if it was me.” He predicted that [the aircraft] “are not going anywhere, unless you give them away for $10 million or so. That is commercial reality.”

 

According to Aviation Week’s Fleet Discovery database, three of the Emirates 777-9s were built in 2019, followed by four in 2020 and another three in 2021.

 

Boeing is not commenting on Clark's comments, citing customer confidentiality. However, speaking earlier to Aviation Week, Boeing Commercial Airplanes President Stephanie Pope said: "Change incorporation has always been part of our plan. We have an entire team that's dedicated to it. It's separate from our normal 777 production.”

 

“We have a dedicated team, and there is a different amount of change on each airplane,” Pope said. “So, if you want to think about the very early build airplanes, they are going to have more change than the most recent build airplanes.” Pope said that the impact of the expected modifications has already been accounted for in Boeing's financials.

 

Issues affecting the early aircraft are with the airframe and engines, according to Clark. If Boeing had been able to stick to the original schedule, multiple modifications would have been necessary in the first few years of operations. But now Emirates decided it does not want to take that route. The airline has “high visibility” of the status of the aircraft given that it has teams at Everett supervising production of the 777. “There should be no surprises,” Clark said.

 

Clark expects Boeing to deliver the first, latest-standard 777-9 in the second quarter of 2027. One of the test aircraft is scheduled to come to Dubai in September to be tested. “It will be put through everything we need to put it through,” Clark said. Following the campaign, the GE Aerospace GE-9X engines will also be dismantled for deep checks after having operated in harsh conditions.

 

The Emirates president reiterated his interest in a larger version of the 777X, should Boeing offer one. “We do want a bigger one,” he said. Versions with higher maximum takeoff weight are already nearing, as are higher engine thrust options, Clark pointed out. He voiced confidence that the Boeing industrial system would be capable of building the larger variant. Clark is “kind of confident” that “this is the way it will go,” he noted.

Monday Music Wings "Let them In"

 

Sorry, I missed a couple of "Monday Music"  *Overcome by Events*  is all I can say.

I remember hearing this song when we were stationed in Germany in 1976 and this was one of the songs that Wolfman jack would spin up on AFN Frankfurt and I would listen to this late at night when I was going to sleep. (Yes as a kid, I thought that Wolfman was a DJ at AFN*Armed Forces Network*.  I realize much later that it was a syndicated show, but Wolfman would spin up the good rock from the 70's) I still catch it on my Sirius/XM on the 70's channel

               Wolfman Jack" From American Graffiti"


Wings, also known as Paul McCartney and Wings, were an Anglo-American rock band formed in 1971 by former Beatle Paul McCartney with his wife Linda, session drummer Denny Seiwell, and former Moody Blues guitarist Denny Laine. Wings were noted for frequent personnel changes as well as commercial success, going through three lead guitarists and four drummers. However, the core trio of the McCartneys and Laine remained intact throughout the group's existence.

    
"Let 'Em In" is a song by Wings from their 1976 album Wings at the Speed of Sound. It was written and sung by Paul McCartney and reached the top 3 in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. It was a No. 2 hit in the UK; in the U.S. it was a No. 3 pop hit and No. 1 easy listening hit. In Canada, the song was No. 3 for three weeks on the pop chart and No. 1 for three weeks on the MOR chart of RPM magazine. The single was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America for sales of over one million copies It can also be found on McCartney's 1987 compilation album, All the Best!
The song starts with the sound of a vibraphone, chiming the first eight notes from the Westminster Quarters, before the rhythm begins. The lyric name-checks several famous people as well as McCartney's paternal aunt Gin and his brother Michael. Phil and Don Everly (known as the Everly Brothers) are named along with Martin Luther. Uncle Ernie is named; this was the character Ringo Starr sang in the London Symphony Orchestra's recording of the Who's Tommy. "Let 'Em In" is noted for the false fade out, which, however, becomes loud for the last two notes of the song as it ends. The song makes use of the piano, drums, brass, including a trombone solo, and wind instruments, featuring flutes, plus backup vocals from Linda and other members of Wings.

I like to play the older songs live or if there is a video made, which some singers and bands did do for extra publicity or play time on late night TV.  Given the time-frame, I am glad to find a video of the song that was actually made when the song was released.   I have had to remove songs that I had done research on to find no video of the song existed except of an album cover and the lyrics superimposed on them.

Ode To the Wildcat

 

I figured I would do a post on a fighter that to my mind never really got it's accolades because she was overshadowed by her more powerful sibling the F6F Hellcat.  I always liked the simple lines of the Wildcat, and in the hands of a good pilot, she could hold her own against the newer fighters that the Japanese had and she went toe to toe with the most feared Japanese fighter, the legendary "Zero". 

This is a prewar/early WWII version.  The "Red" meatball in our national insignia  was removed shortly after the war started.  There was fear of target misidentification in the haze of combat since the Japanese used the "meatball" on their national insignia.

Despite its slightly odd origins, the Grumman F4F Wildcat was one of the most valuable fighter planes in the US arsenal of WWII.

 Go to the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, they will let you "touch" the airplane...The museum is well worth the visit.

The design for the Wildcat started out as a biplane, as they were still around for many years between the world wars. It was redesigned as a monoplane in 1936, but retained many of the features of its previous design, giving the Wildcat its distinctive, slightly squat look.

Another of the Wildcat’s visually distinctive features was its entirely riveted fuselage. It gave it an industrial look that was at odds with the canvas-covered planes of WWI. Welded or flattened rivets were beginning to be used to make the planes of the 1930s and 40s more aerodynamic.

 The Arrestor hook shown lowered was to snag the Arrestor cable that was strung across the deck of the carrier to show the plane down and stop it before it crashed into the other airplanes that were in front of the carrier

The Wildcat was designed and commissioned as a carrier-borne fighter. The relatively new and distinctive use of aircraft carriers was increasingly important, as the world’s most powerful militaries started to use air power for victory at sea. The limited space available for taking off and landing and storage of planes on ships created new design challenges. It meant a different sort of fighter was needed at sea.

Although the Wildcat would become a symbol of American air power, it was first purchased by the French, who placed an order in early 1939.

Later that year, the US Navy followed suit. In August 1939, they placed their first order for F4Fs with Grumman.

XF4F-3 prototype Wildcat in flight, 21 July 1939.

With the fall of France, the F4Fs destined to join the French Navy were diverted to Britain reaching Britain’s Fleet Air Arm in July 1940.

Like the Curtiss P-40, the F4F was given different nicknames by the British and Americans. Most people remember it by its more dynamic American name, the Wildcat. Initially known to the British as the Martlet, in January 1944, they too adopted the Wildcat name.

The F4F packed quite a punch due to its extensive arsenal. It carried six machine-guns in its wings and could also carry two bombs or six rockets. Its firepower made it popular with the crews flying it.

Less popular with pilots was the F4F’s handling. It was considered a tricky fighter to control both on the ground and in the air. For the pilot who could master it, the F4F was well worth the effort, as it was very maneuverable, a vital asset in the fast-moving action of dog fights.

One of the main features of the F4F-4 were the Sto-Wing-design folding wings, a Grumman patented design.

The F4F had a maximum speed of 332 miles per hour. It was not one of the fastest planes of the war, but neither was it the slowest.

The F4F could fly to around 34,700 feet, climbing at 2,000 feet per minute toward its top altitude.

The F4F was a tough plane to bring down. It had a self-sealing fuel tank and armor plating that gave it greater endurance than many of its opponents.
The self-sealing tank was particularly crucial to the survival of a plane. Without it, a bullet through the fuel tank could turn it into a fireball or force a plane to crash due to lack of fuel. Self-sealing meant that it took a cannon shot to inflict such devastation.

Capt Thatch had developed the "Thatch Weave" to help the Wildcat fighters in their dogfights against the more nimble, but much more fragile Zero.

Wildcat of VF-6 testing out machine guns aboard USS Enterprise, 10 April 1942.

The first Martlets in British service joined No.804 Squadron in the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland. They were used to control routes from the North Sea to the Atlantic. In December 1940, two Martlets shot down a German plane, making them the first American-built, British-piloted aircraft to do so in WWII

The first F4Fs to go to sea in wartime were Martlets of No.802 Squadron. Operating from on board HMS Audacity on September 20, 1941, they shot down a German Focke-Wolf 200 which was following their convoy.

Martlet fighters on the flight deck of HMS Formidable, 1940s.

The F4F was involved in the extensive action in and around the Mediterranean. The Royal Naval Fighter Unit deployed Martlets over the Western Desert in Africa, where they fought Italian planes in the fall of 1941. They tangled with the Italians again in August the following year while escorting supply ships around Malta.
Further south, Martlets fought against Vichy French planes over Madagascar in May 1942.

By the time America joined the war in December 1941, the F4F was the most common plane on American aircraft carriers. It was also popular among US Marine Corps units based on land. Until the arrival of the Hellcat in 1943, it was the US Navy’s only carrier-borne fighter. It played a critical role in many of the Navy’s most important actions.

One of the most important land bases that Wildcats operated from was Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. The site of the first offensive operations of America’s Pacific war, it was where many Wildcat successes occurred. One eight-plane flight achieved 72 aerial victories in the space of only 16 weeks.

The leader of the group, Captain Joe Foss, was one of the most successful pilots ever to get behind the controls of a Wildcat. During the fighting at Guadalcanal, he destroyed 26 Japanese planes, five of them in one day. For his remarkable achievements, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Watercolor of U.S. Marine Captain Joe Foss shooting down a Zero over Guadalcanal in October 1942.

Despite its many successes, the Wildcat struggled against Japanese Zeros. The US Navy phased it out in favor of the F6F Hellcat in 1943.

Wildcats of Taffy 3 taking off to strafe the Japanese fleet attacking it, the Japanese fleet included the IJN Yamato, the largest battleship ever built.  According to reports, the Japanese were stunned by the resistance and the Americans throwing themselves at the enemy with such abandon, the fighting spirit of the Americans forced the Japanese to withdraw thereby saving General McAuthur's beachhead in Leyte Gulf

The last Wildcat victory of the war took place over Norway in March 1945. Wildcats of the British No.822 Squadron shot down four German Messerschmitt Bf109s

The Different Opponents Faced By The British Victorian Army.

 

I decided to do some history stuff rather than political stuff.

I bought a book in the early 90's called "The Zulu Wars" and a bit later a book called "The khaki and the Red". These books were fascinating to read the different history and battles that the Victorian era British army faced in defending the empire and "PAX BRITANNIA".   Those books along with a book I used in college called "The Defense of Duffers Drift" which talked about small unit tactics during the Boer war.  Some of the stuff was no longer relevant but it encouraged critical thinking.  One of my favorite movies is "Zulu", having the British soldiers stand and fight the word I remember from the movie was "Get some good pikeman", for the use of the bayonet would be needed.

As I recall part of the British soldier to deal and adapt was part of the Victorian heritage that was prevalent at the time, the British soldiers and the culture believed that they were superior to everyone because they were British, it was part of the DNA.  For this reason they pushed the sphere of influence to a point where it was said that "The Sun never sets on the British Empire".  Also I remembered another movie with Michael Caine and Sean Connery "The man who would be King"

It is a different time and I wonder what a Britisher from back then would think about the empire today and the problems that the British are having from the E.U and the invasions of the "Kiffirs" from the subcontinents., They probably would be appalled

Maintaining your status as a global power is no easy thing. The British Victorian Army was one of the best equipped and most experienced in the world, its forces active from North Africa to the South Pacific. But while this gave many British soldiers useful experience, it also created unique challenges for them, their commanders and the politicians putting them into the field.
The British army was the same wherever they went, but their opponents were wildly different, each one presenting a new combination of skills, tactics, and weaponry for the British to overcome.

1. Egyptian Nationalists

By 1879, the Egyptian government was massively corrupt, inefficient, and favorable to Europeans over locals. Even the law gave better protection to wealthy Europeans in the country than its native inhabitants. France and Britain in particular held huge sway.
Egyptian nationalists led by Colonel Ahmed ‘Urabi seized control of the country, seeking to bring about democratic reforms that would take power away from the elite and reduce foreign influence. France refused to intervene. Britain, on the other hand, used the death of 50 Europeans in riots to justify an invasion in 1882, whose real purpose was the defense of economic interests.
The forces they faced were trained and equipped by Europeans and fought like a regular army. But the British proved superior, defeating ‘Urabi at the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir and taking control of Egypt.

2. Ashanti

The defeat of the Ashantees, by the British forces under the command of Coll. Sutherland, July 11th, 1824.

As in Egypt, the British fought the Ashanti Empire, located in modern Ghana, for control of economic resources. They wanted to control gold from the region, and ownership or favorable peace treaties could prevent other European powers from getting involved.
The Ashanti were primitively armed but experienced and smart at fighting in local terrain. Launching ambushes out of the hills and jungle, they gained the element of surprise and often outflanked their opponents.
The downside of Ashanti tactics was a lack of cohesion and close order discipline. In the face of increasingly accurate rifles, dispersed troops were more vulnerable than they had been a century before. Unable to break British formations, they were repeatedly defeated.

3. Zulus

Perhaps the most famous of Britain’s colonial opponents, the Zulu Empire was defended by warriors called impis. Tough and aggressive, they could run for miles before charging into battle and overwhelming their opponents with short stabbing spears. They were also highly disciplined, able to maneuver swiftly and coherently on command and willing to throw themselves in waves against the enemy.
To gather together various territories in southern Africa, the British needed to conquer the Zulus. They sent an ultimatum that triggered the war and then invaded Zulu lands.
The Zulus achieved an early victory at Isandlwana, where appalling leadership crippled the British  forces. The famous defense of Rorke’s Drift followed, in which 150 British and colonial troops fought off 3-4,000 Zulus in a desperate engagement.

Defense of Rorke’s Drift.

Despite these early events, the ferocity, tenacity, and courage that had served the Zulus so well were not enough to let Spears beat modern guns. By the final Battle of Ulundi, courageous charges were creating massive casualties for little gain. However, the war had shaken British confidence, teaching some not to under-estimate a technologically inferior force.

4. Maoris

Hone Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka.

A similar lesson was taught in the New Zealand Wars (1845-1872). With settlers spreading across New Zealand, and the colonial authorities backing them against the native Maoris, many locals took up arms to resist.
The Maori way of warfare was the polar opposite of that used by the Zulus. Impi tactics were flowing and aggressive, adapted to fight other African tribes. Those of the Maoris were stationary and defensive, adapted to counter European guns. Creating fortified earthen strongholds called pā, the Maoris held off British and then colonial militia troops, firing from well-prepared defensive positions, forcing the attackers into costly advances. Though the result was once again domination by white colonials, fighting was nowhere near as decisive as in the Zulu Empire.

5. Xhosa

Resistance fighters defend a stronghold in the forested Water Kloof during the 8th Xhosa war of 1851. Xhosa, Kat River Khoi-khoi, and some army deserters are depicted.

The Zulus were not the only natives the British fought in their attempt to unite southern Africa. Further, east, the Xhosa also resisted, triggering the Ninth Xhosa War (1877-9)
Unable to beat the well-equipped British in open battle, the Xhosa retreated to the Amatola Mountains. Here they fought a guerrilla war, making use of the terrain to launch a string of ambushes. By never presenting the British with a target and always withdrawing when put under pressure, they prevented the invaders from gaining an advantage. It was only by building a string of fortifications and creating an elaborate system of mounted pursuit that the British beat them.

6. Mahdists

The Battle of Omdurman.

The Mahdists in Sudan faced the British with a different challenge in the 1880s and 1890s. Believing their leader Muhammad Ahmad to be the Mahdi, a prophesied Islamic religious leader, they fought with fanatical fervor against foreign influence.
This religious fervor led to frontal assaults even more determined than those of the Zulus. Though these served the Mahdists well early on, they were no match for well-prepared troops equipped with the latest guns. It was such a force that broke them finally broke them at Omdurman in 1898.

7. Boers

Boer militiamen at Spionkop.

While many opponents used elements of guerrilla warfare against the British, the Boer version came closest to what we see in the modern world. The descendants of Dutch settlers, the Boers became caught up in the British attempt to unify southern Africa, and like the natives they resisted.
Smart, accurate marksmen with talented leaders who understood European warfare, they were foes unlike any others the British had faced. They were able to gain large armies and adapt elements of guerrilla warfare to the battlefield, defeating the British in bloody confrontations as well as small actions.
Ultimately, the Boers were undone not by their enemies’ superior tactics or leadership. Indeed, British leadership in the war was often among the worst in history. Yet even the tenacious Boers could not defeat the superior resources of the British Empire, and sheer weight of numbers eventually wore them down