Quote from: Josquius on October 06, 2025, 02:06:49 PMClimate wise I think it's quite recognised France has the best going, with its large temperate north but also with a sizable Mediterranean area and then in between grape friendly terrain.Yeah. I think France is the ideal for me. Beer and butter and cream in the North, olives and wine and anchovies in the South, mountains and beaches.
It can grow basically anything in decent quantities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:52:38 AMThat's still 30-40 million US$ per unit, plus the payload and the support infrastructure.Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2025, 11:43:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:30:12 AMHow would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.
"The drone will always get through" (?)
No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers. The opposite of what is occurring now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:52:38 AMNo, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers. The opposite of what is occurring now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2025, 07:34:10 AMSaying our climate a great positive for Britain is the most depraved thing I've ever seen on Languish.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2025, 11:59:51 AMNot one of your windy and freezing Pacific Northwest beaches thoughI have no idea - but my impression is the only bit of North America I'd be interested in from a climate perspective are some parts of California.![]()
Anyway all you Brits who bitch about British Weather are welcome to come spend a summer in Texas or a winter in Minnesota. You'll be singing a different tune.
Quote from: Tamas on October 06, 2025, 01:02:32 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:52:38 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2025, 11:43:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:30:12 AMHow would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.
"The drone will always get through" (?)
No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers. The opposite of what is occurring now.
You are ignoring the main point (which has merit as an interesting trivia) and instead get hung up on minor details and semantics.
On this forum of all places.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2025, 11:58:53 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2025, 11:53:17 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 06, 2025, 11:44:17 AMI was about to say...people in the 30s suspected something like that. They just thought it would be bombers.
They just thought it would require something completely different. Yeah, sort of the point.
Something different sure.
Though the idea of remote controlled flying bombs was certainly a concept back then. The Germans experimented with them during the war. So not exactly a huge stretch. The basic concept of winning via bombing while the front line is static is similar.
Page created in 0.017 seconds with 11 queries.