Best Of

Biff Tannen is smashing down the East Wing of the Trump House to build his ballroom without planning consent.

https://news.sky.com/story/demolition-work-begins-on-white-house-east-wing-for-trumps-186m-ballroom-13454284

The US electorate should really have told Trump to foxtrot oscar this time last year.

The politicians should have spent 2021-3 making sure Trump couldn’t be a candidate in 2024.

Once they failed to do that result was inevitable

On the contrary, they should have all ignored him completely.

Trying to smother him with lawfare was never going to succeed and made him into a martyr.

What you're saying is that everyone except those responsible for putting Trump in office, are responsible for putting Trump in office.

No, I’m saying that trying to put him in prison for the most spurious of reasons made him more popular.

How do you feel about Comey, James and Bolton spuriously prosecuted on the instruction of Al Capone?

James was elected in a platform of getting Trump, she’s at the FO stage of FAFO

Boulton clearly has questions to answer, even the left w8ng US media says that.

Comey, probably innocent.

Even the left-wing US media? John Bolton is a right wing Neocon. His main policy difference with Trump (under whom he served in his first term) is that he is anti-Russia and wants to bomb everyone.

Even the Trump sceptical media, then.

There's certainly a case that can be made against Bolton - though it's massively weaker than the one against Trump for his reckless and lawless handling of far more classified material. But that the case was brought at all was very clearly as a result of presidential animus,

The cases against Comey and James would, in any other circumstances, be laughable, and laughed out of court.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

What actually happened was that by late 43, both had created the capability to hit an area a mile across with a goat shotgun. Reliably.

When this was turned on rail yards and fuel production, the German economy rapidly stopped.

Further, with Oboe, precision *blind* bomb in came into existence - guaranteed destruction of point targets.

Harris’s big mistake was not realising that the improvements he had masterminded and orchestrated had changed the strategic mission back to the “panacea” targets.

True. I also think he really wanted to destroy every German city he could.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.

Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.

That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.

What actually happened was that by late 43, both had created the capability to hit an area a mile across with a goat shotgun. Reliably.

When this was turned on rail yards and fuel production, the German economy rapidly stopped.

Further, with Oboe, precision *blind* bomb in came into existence - guaranteed destruction of point targets.

Harris’s big mistake was not realising that the improvements he had masterminded and orchestrated had changed the strategic mission back to the “panacea” targets.

@yarotrof

With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.

It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/

There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.

How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.

Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

Highlights

- Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
- The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
- The continued production of the Stirling
- the Rose turret saga
- Etc

We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.

I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?

Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.

D-Day couldn’t have been a year earlier. The landing craft and associated specialist vessels were emitter being built or designed.

Let alone the specialist vehicles (Hobart’s Funnies)

As it was there was barely enough.

James Holland and Al Murray make the point that the allies plans were usually 6 months ahead of what they could practically deliver. Six more months to build landing craft, tanks etc. Six more months of degrading the defences etc. To suggest D-Day could have gone in June 1943 is to fail to understand the logistics of the war, such as the long tail from US factories to the front. Besides, the 2nd front in Europe was opened in Italy, and the bombing war intensified throughout 1943 (Battle of the Ruhr, Battle of Berlin - into 1944).

Biff Tannen is smashing down the East Wing of the Trump House to build his ballroom without planning consent.

https://news.sky.com/story/demolition-work-begins-on-white-house-east-wing-for-trumps-186m-ballroom-13454284

The US electorate should really have told Trump to foxtrot oscar this time last year.

The politicians should have spent 2021-3 making sure Trump couldn’t be a candidate in 2024.

Once they failed to do that result was inevitable

On the contrary, they should have all ignored him completely.

Trying to smother him with lawfare was never going to succeed and made him into a martyr.

What you're saying is that everyone except those responsible for putting Trump in office, are responsible for putting Trump in office.

No, I’m saying that trying to put him in prison for the most spurious of reasons made him more popular.

How do you feel about Comey, James and Bolton spuriously prosecuted on the instruction of Al Capone?

James was elected in a platform of getting Trump, she’s at the FO stage of FAFO

Boulton clearly has questions to answer, even the left w8ng US media says that.

Comey, probably innocent.

Even the left-wing US media? John Bolton is a right wing Neocon. His main policy difference with Trump (under whom he served in his first term) is that he is anti-Russia and wants to bomb everyone.

Biff Tannen is smashing down the East Wing of the Trump House to build his ballroom without planning consent.

https://news.sky.com/story/demolition-work-begins-on-white-house-east-wing-for-trumps-186m-ballroom-13454284

The US electorate should really have told Trump to foxtrot oscar this time last year.

The politicians should have spent 2021-3 making sure Trump couldn’t be a candidate in 2024.

Once they failed to do that result was inevitable

On the contrary, they should have all ignored him completely.

Trying to smother him with lawfare was never going to succeed and made him into a martyr.

What you're saying is that everyone except those responsible for putting Trump in office, are responsible for putting Trump in office.

No, I’m saying that trying to put him in prison for the most spurious of reasons made him more popular.

How do you feel about Comey, James and Bolton spuriously prosecuted on the instruction of Al Capone?

James was elected in a platform of getting Trump, she’s at the FO stage of FAFO

Boulton clearly has questions to answer, even the left w8ng US media says that.

Comey, probably innocent.

Comey is innocent of the specific charges leveled at him, and that is now clear as the indictments have been unsealed.

He appeared before the Senate twice. In his first appearance, he was asked if he authorised or encouraged his Deputy Andrew McCabe to leak information. He denied it.

In his second appearance, Ted Cruz asks if he authorized or encouraged anyone to release information.

Comey says he stands by his earlier testimony.

Cruz moves on.

It now appears that Comey at least knew that his friend Andrew Richmond leaked information.

The problem is that (a) Comey is being prosecuted for lying to Congress, and (b) that Ted Cruz is not a great interregator, and didn't realise that the question Comey answered is not the same one Cruz asked.

What Comey said was misleading, but literally true. He was never asked about Andrew Richmond. He only ever denied regarding Andrew McCabe.

US law is very clear; perjury is not just being misleading, it requires actual lying. We can now see why so many Prosecutors refused to bring the case against Comey.

The second testimony is a very savvy Lawyer's answer.

Disingenuous? Absolutely, but no lie.