If you can get the fuel, sure. That may be more an issue in Germany.The walk behind can be left in the shed all winter, and no need to feed and water it when not working
Mechanization on US farms freed up 1/3 of the acreage that had been set aside for fodder, and now could be used for crops that could be sold
Far more profitable to buy fuel monthly than have to grow hay and recover straw from the wheat for the draft animals
Funny enough, a "conservative" started this. Yes, the guy who was more proud of his aristocratic title than he was ever of his military rank.Collective farms? That'll go down well with the conservatives.
Nazis could have encouraged it, seeing as one of their own was pretty successful with his cooperatives.Cooperating to buy machinery was pretty common in Western Canada at least. It wouldn’t have to be a formal cooperative.
Better prospects? The early Waffen SS was a small, under equipped, under trained organisation with little prospect of ever being more than a couple of regiments. If you were looking for a future high level command the Army would have seemed the better option.Nazis could have encouraged it, seeing as one of their own was pretty successful with his cooperatives.
The Panzergraf joined the Nazis and SS in 1931.
My biggest question is why he didn't join the Waffen SS, instead choosing to remain with the Wehrmacht.
Ok good point, I forgot that the Waffen SS only became a de facto branch of the Wehrmacht in 1943, after their conscription efforts. (Which ironically also ruined the quality of the Waffen SS, because many of these conscripts would desert or mutiny in less than a year's time)Better prospects? The early Waffen SS was a small, under equipped, under trained organisation with little prospect of ever being more than a couple of regiments. If you were looking for a future high level command the Army would have seemed the better option.
Not the same.Collective farms? That'll go down well with the conservatives.
I mean, since they managed to make a woodgas powered Tiger I in OTL, I think a couple 1000 woodgas powered 20hp tractors shouldn't be too hard.Doing a Woodgas powerd IC engine, or external combustion Steamer isn't a problem. Germans had plenty of Coal
Using coal in place of wood is great for gasifiers, as there is less moisture than woodI mean, since they managed to make a woodgas powered Tiger I in OTL, I think a couple 1000 woodgas powered 20hp tractors shouldn't be too hard.
There goes the trees though.
Wonder if the Lorax is going to protest, though I would hope that he keeps his mouth shut for his own sake.
Some people were still doing it when I was farming. It is often pretty informal. They all put up money for the machinery and spend the life of it arguing over who gets to use it when. But it can work out alright. Especially when done by a couple of smaller guys.Not the same.
Cooperatives were popular in the Midwest, and that was filled with conservatives.
My Grandfather, who Farmed from the era Horses, to Steam, to Kerosene Tractor era- and his neighbors worked a deal like this.
Not every farmer could afford a big Steam Traction Engine, so a guy in the County who did get one, would plow and harvest his neighbors fields for a cut of the harvest.
So he thought that a great deal, until prices came down enough on gasoline tractors to buy his own.
Even though a Cooperative was in many ways, exactly like a Union, the Farmers didn't see it that way, as each Farmer was his own boss. His own Company, with him, the Wife, and his Kids as workers. Union? that for some foreign born City Slicker, not the honest, hard working Farmer
But a small company didn't have the same bargaining power with a manufacturer as larger ones, so you got Cooperatives so they could get better prices on Seed, Feed, Fertilizer and Gear.
Sure, very similar to LPG tanks, but that's a liquid.Is there any reason you couldn't use bottled Coal Gas?
There has been a design study for a CATOBAR version of the Queen Elizabeth Class.
It's not that the US can't design a medium carrier, it's that the USN fights tooth and nail against them and will do anything possible to sabotage the design.
So true!It's not that the US can't design a medium carrier, it's that the USN fights tooth and nail against them and will do anything possible to sabotage the design.
The USN doesn't always get what it wants, if it did the USS American and JFK would both be nuke powered and the massive Midway refit would have worked out better and cheaper for example. I don't know about 'sabotage' as much as loading up the ship so that it becomes so expensive that a supercarrier is a better deal.It's not that the US can't design a medium carrier, it's that the USN fights tooth and nail against them and will do anything possible to sabotage the design.
Big carriers are a more efficient use of tons and $. I am sure someone around here has the current aircraft/ton ratios.
You build medium because you aren't allowed to build big.
Big carriers represent better value for money and bang for the buck, that's why the British wanted the 54,000t CVA01 not one of the smaller study options. But that doesn't make it cheap.So true!
Look at the RAND article. It compared a Cold War CVN strike load and how small carriers could not match it.
The real question is a 40 plane alpha strike is “current” with the transition to full PGM loading starting the start of GULF War 1?
This is before drones, stealth and future IA pilotless wingman.
How often do CVN use the full potential of the system this century? What percentage of time does it use or need it?
Considering the shortage of carriers and the threat of anti-ship (cruise and ballistic, future hypersonic!), are mega CVN viable?
If you do need that traditional alpha strike, is it better to use multiple carrier groups, and have robustness against loss (enemy or self, eg deck fire / crash)
Why didn’t the RAND study look at a mid sized nuclear carrier and not slow STOL or hybrids?