Life takes us in many strange directions and wonderful discoveries. It never turns out the way we thought it would.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
My Uncle Charles D. Walters's Incredible Military Service In World War II
World War II
The 1st Marine Division was activated aboard the USS Texas on 1 February 1941.[3] The division's units were scattered over the Pacific with the support elements and the 1st Marine Regiment transported en route to New Zealand on three ships, the USATsEricsson, Barnett and Elliott from Naval Reserve Air Base Oakland to New Zealand,[4] and later were landed on the island ofGuadalcanal, part of the Solomon Islands, on August 7, 1942.
Initially only the 7th Marine Regiment was in garrison on British Samoa,[5] with the 5th Marine Regiment having just encamped at Wellington, New Zealand after disembarking from USAT Wakefield, and the 1st Marine Regiment not scheduled to arrive in New Zealand until 11 July.[6] The 1st Raider Battalion was on New Caledonia, and the 3rd Defense Battalion was in Pearl Harbor. All of the division's units, with the 11th Marines (artillery) and 75mm howitzer armed 10th Marines battalion would rendezvous at Fiji.[6]
Due to the change in orders and shortage of attack and combat cargo vessels, all of the division's 2.5 ton trucks, M1918 155-mm howitzers[7] and the sound and flash-ranging equipment needed for counter-battery fire had to be left in Wellington. Also, because the Wellington dock workers were on strike at the time, the Marines had to do all the load reconfiguration from administrative to combat configuration.[8]
After 11 days of unparalleled dockside logistic mayhem, the division, with 16,000 Marines, departed Wellington in eighty-nine ships embarked for the Solomon Islands with 60-day combat load, no tents, spare clothing or bed rolls, no office equipment, unit muster rolls or pay clerks. Other things not yet available to this first wave of Marine deployments were insect repellent and mosquito netting.[9] Attached to the division was the 1st Parachute Battalion which along with the rest of the division conducted landing rehearsals from the 28th to the 30th of July on Koro Island which General Vandergrift described as a "disaster".[10]
On 31 July the entire Marine task force came under command of Vice Admiral Frank J. Fletcher's Task Force 61. The division as a whole would fight in the Battle of Guadalcanal until relieved at 1400 on December 9, 1942 by Alexander Patch's Americal Division.[11][12] This operation won the Division its first of three World War II Presidential Unit Citations (PUC). The battle would cost the division 650 killed in action, 1,278 wounded in action with a further 8,580 contracting malaria and 31 missing in action.[11] Others were awarded for the battles of Peleliu and Okinawa.[1]
Following the Battle of Guadalcanal, the division's Marines were sent to Melbourne, Australia to rest and refit.[13] It was during this time that the division took the traditional Australian folk song "Waltzing Matilda" as its battle hymn. To this day, 1st Division Marines still ship out to this song being played.[14]
The division would next see action during Operation Cartwheel which was the codename for the campaigns in Eastern New Guinea andNew Britain. They came ashore at the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943[15] and fought on New Britain until February 1944 at such places as Suicide Creek and Ajar Ridge. During the course of the battle the division had 310 killed and 1,083 wounded. Following the battle they were sent to Pavuvu in the Russell Islands for rest and refitting.[16]
The next battle for the 1st Marine Division would be the bloodiest yet at the Battle of Peleliu. They landed on September 15, 1944 as part of the III Amphibious Corps assault on the island. The division's commanding general, Major General William H. Rupertus had predicted the fighting would be, "...tough but short. It'll be over in three or four days – a fight like Tarawa. Rough but fast. Then we can go back to a rest area."[17] Making a mockery of the prediction, the first week of the battle alone cost the division 3,946 casualties, during which time they secured the key airfield sites.[18] The division fought on Peleliu for one month before being relieved.[19] Some of the heaviest fighting of the entire war took place in places such as Bloody Nose Ridge and the central ridges of the island that made up the Umurbrogol Pocket.[20] The month of fighting against the 14th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) on Peleliu cost the 1st Marine Division 1,252 dead and 5,274 wounded.[21]
The final campaign the division would take part in during World War II would be the Battle of Okinawa. The strategic importance ofOkinawa was that it provided a fleet anchorage, troop staging areas, and airfields in close proximity to Japan. The division landed on April 1, 1945 as part of the III Amphibious Corps. Its initial mission was, fighting alongside the 6th Marine Division, to clear the northern half of the island – that they were able to do expeditiously. The Army's XXIV Corps met much stiffer resistance in the south, and in late April the Marine division was moved south where it relieved the Army's 27th Infantry Division. The division was in heavy fighting on Okinawa until June 21, 1945, when the island was declared secure. The 1st Marine Division slugged it out with the Japanese 32nd Army at such places as Dakeshi Ridge, Wana Ridge, "Sugarloaf Hill" andShuri Castle. Fighting on Okinawa cost the division 1,655 killed in action.
Following the surrender of Japan, the division was sent to Northern China as the lead combat element of the III Amphibious Corps with the primary mission of repatriating the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians still resident in that part of China. They landed at Taku on September 30, 1945 and would be based in Hopeh Province in the cities ofTientsin and Peiping with the Chinese Civil War between the Kuomintang and Chinese Communist Party raging around them. Most Marines in the division would be charged with guarding supply trains, bridges and depots to keep food and coal moving into the cities. During this time they increasingly fought with soldiers from the People's Liberation Army who saw the railways and other infrastructure as attractive targets to attack, raid and harass.[22]
By the summer of 1946 the division was suffering the effects of demobilization and its combat efficiency had dropped below wartime standards; however, its commitments in China remained. As it became increasingly apparent that a complete collapse of truce negotiations among the Chinese factions was apparent, plans were laid for the withdrawal of all Marine units from Hopeh. The last elements of the division finally left China on 1 September 1947.[23]
[edit]Korean War
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
![[info]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uq2286uOd-Gn3iPdhQZ-NMmNcO7XoUO--1pYVz8zXyQXcXOtYA67bepZTAe9fCESqbwnMRRDEdbTAzrFNIL1RZfBTFQE2wQOMTscQ2upk4VQ=s0-d){kind=small}
![[info]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uFXGn0CYuV8Dp7fwAeO5e6t89jfIn0NUD2_vfoh6NUFZHG9yYkaRWFMCwcBxTqiJ_k64WsoxE-ANCtEAac9tYknzqfMo6WCF8TCSLEBgnpPUdF=s0-d){kind=small}
Governor Schwarzenegger Blasts Excessive Public Pensions
Posted: 27 Aug 2010 01:31 PM PDT
Now that Schwarzenegger is a certifiable lame duck (dead duck may be a more appropriate term) Schwarzenegger sees fit to take on public unions in a major way. It's too late now (for him) even as he speaks the truth.
Please consider Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger drones on and on about who is to blame. He also acts as if he was fiscally responsible.
That is far from the truth. In Turn out the lights California, the party is over I blasted Schwarzenegger's fiscally reckless proposals.
Now in massive revisionist history he attempts to take credit for being fiscally conservative. Please, let's stop the charades.
While there is some truth he wanted concessions from unions, unlike Governor Chris Christie, he never fought for them very hard. Only now is he saying "All of these reforms must be in place before I will sign a budget."
He should have said that in 2009, 2008, and 2007. He is saying that now that he is a lame duck. While I commend the idea, the problems he was elected to fix are more broken than ever.
It will be interesting to see how this budget battle plays out, but no amount of hand-washing can absolve Schwarzenegger of his share of the blame.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.
Please consider Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Recently some critics have accused me of bullying state employees. Headlines in California papers this month have been screaming "Gov assails state workers" and "Schwarzenegger threatens state workers."Schwarzenegger Washes His Hands
I'm doing no such thing. State employees are hard-working and valuable contributors to our society. But here's the plain truth: California simply cannot solve its budgetary problems without addressing government-employee compensation and benefits.
Thanks to huge unfunded pension and retirement health-care promises granted by past governments, and also to deceptive pension-fund accounting that understated liabilities and overstated future investment returns, California is now saddled with $550 billion of retirement debt.
The cost of servicing that debt has grown at a rate of more than 15% annually over the last decade. This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education. Next year, retirement costs will rise another 15%. In fact, they are destined to grow so much faster than state revenues that they threaten to suck up the money for every other program in the state budget.
At the same time that government-employee costs have been climbing, the private-sector workers whose taxes pay for them have been hurting. Since 2007, one million private jobs have been lost in California. Median incomes of workers in the state's private sector have stagnated for more than a decade. To make matters worse, the retirement accounts of those workers in California have declined. The average 401(k) is down nationally nearly 20% since 2007. Meanwhile, the defined benefit retirement plans of government employees—for which private-sector workers are on the hook—have risen in value.
Few Californians in the private sector have $1 million in savings, but that's effectively the retirement account they guarantee to public employees who opt to retire at age 55 and are entitled to a monthly, inflation-protected check of $3,000 for the rest of their lives.
In 2003, just before I became governor, the state assembly even passed a law permitting government employees to purchase additional taxpayer-guaranteed, high-yielding retirement annuities at a discount—adding even more retirement debt. It's as if Sacramento legislators don't want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of the employees, by the employees, and for the employees.
For years I've asked state legislators to stop adding to retirement debt. They have refused. Now the Democratic leadership of the assembly proposes to raise the tax and debt burdens on private employees in order to cover rising public-employee compensation.
Much needs to be done. The Assembly needs to reverse the massive and retroactive increase in pension formulas it enacted 11 years ago. It also needs to prohibit "spiking"—giving someone a big raise in his last year of work so his pension is boosted. Government employees must be required to increase their contributions to pensions. Public pension funds must make truthful financial disclosures to the public as to the size of their liabilities, and they must use reasonable projected rates of returns on their investments. The legislature could pass those reforms in five minutes, the same amount of time it took them to pass that massive pension boost 11 years ago that adds additional costs every single day they refuse to act.
...
All of these reforms must be in place before I will sign a budget.
I am under no illusion about the difficulty of my task. Government-employee unions are the most powerful political forces in our state and largely control Democratic legislators. But for the future of our state, no task is more important.
Schwarzenegger drones on and on about who is to blame. He also acts as if he was fiscally responsible.
That is far from the truth. In Turn out the lights California, the party is over I blasted Schwarzenegger's fiscally reckless proposals.
Flashback March 2, 2007: Schwarzenegger wants $500 billion to rebuild CaliforniaThank God Schwarzenegger did not get what he asked.
Sound Bites
- $42.7 billion in general obligation bonds issued last year is "only the foot in the door, to whet the appetite."
- It will take $500 billion to "rebuild California the way it ought to be".
- $500 billion is "too big for people to digest, so you don't talk about that" even though he is talking about it.
- California needs $500 billion even though it has "done tremendously with the revenue increases".
- California will not issue less debt even if the economy slows.
- California "could face lower tax revenues" but he opposes tax hikes.
Well here we are, 9 months later and the $4.1 billion reserve went to a $14 billion deficit in the last 4 months.
Now in massive revisionist history he attempts to take credit for being fiscally conservative. Please, let's stop the charades.
While there is some truth he wanted concessions from unions, unlike Governor Chris Christie, he never fought for them very hard. Only now is he saying "All of these reforms must be in place before I will sign a budget."
He should have said that in 2009, 2008, and 2007. He is saying that now that he is a lame duck. While I commend the idea, the problems he was elected to fix are more broken than ever.
It will be interesting to see how this budget battle plays out, but no amount of hand-washing can absolve Schwarzenegger of his share of the blame.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The End Of Marriage As We Know It
| ||||
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ford's Fabulous New GPS System
show details 8:59 AM (2 hours ago) |
Ford adds fuel-efficient routing to Sync
My Ford Touch screen displays navigation data and offers choice of routes that, in addition to ones for shortest distance and fastest route, are most fuel-efficient.While current onboard navigation systems can provide a driver with the shortest and fastest routes to a destination, a new one can tell the way to get there while using the least amount of fuel. TeleNav Inc., the route-mapping provider for the new system, available through theFord Sync system with the My Ford Touch screen, has developed a sophisticated algorithm to produce that level of route guidance.
The algorithm takes a lot of computing power, but because the navigation system resides off board in cloud servers, it can continuously be updated with road changes and conditions. Further, it can accumulate other data, including some unavailable to the onboard navigation system, and do more with it all.
The company worked with Ford-supplied fuel consumption data, not only numbers for all steady speeds but also curves plotted for all other operating conditions monitored by the algorithm. The fuel-economy algorithm considers the following, explained TeleNav automotive business development manager James Grace:
• Speed limits for the entire route. The fuel economy and all three (shortest, fastest, most-efficient) time-to-destination calculations are based on the driver following the speed limits.
• Number of stops required by stop signs and traffic lights. With the latter, a probability factor is used to estimate number of times the car will "make" the light vs. having to stop for it.
• Amount of vehicle-stopped idling time. In this case there is a probability-based estimate of the time stopped at each traffic light. The algorithm uses a varying time frame for traffic light stops, from 20 s to about 2 min, Grace said, to better simulate real-world events. If a car were a hybrid equipped with engine stop-start, the algorithm would be adjusted to correct for this, Grace added.
• Traffic on the routes, both historical data and current, real-time traffic conditions. If necessary, the algorithm inserts a correction factor into the calculations for average speed that would likely be achieved.
The speeds are tied to the distances each speed limit is posted. The algorithm assumes moderate braking to each stop and a moderate acceleration from zero to the posted speed. The algorithm calculates the extra fuel consumed for both the brake-to-stop and acceleration-from-stop as well as fuel consumption during the idle stop itself.
Although the algorithm assumes all the roads are flat, Grace said, it does consider road curvature, and if the curvature is 30% or greater from straight ahead, it assumes the driver will apply the brakes to slow down and then accelerate to the posted speed. It adjusts fuel consumption computations for each road curve-induced event the vehicle would encounter.
The Ford data on fuel consumption is vehicle-specific, and if there is a significant difference from one calibration to another, TeleNav uses both, picking the specific one, such as turbo vs. nonturbo.
Although shorter routes—perhaps 11-12 mi (18-19 km)—show differences, they may not be dramatic. However, TeleNav produced an example for AEI that did.
With a start point in Nashville, TN, on a weekday afternoon, it calculated routes to a landmark barbecue restaurant in Memphis, a distance of over 200 mi (320 km). The shortest (and in this case, also the fastest) route was 204 mi (326 km), with a travel time of 3 h, 30 min. The most economical route was actually much longer at 228 mi (365 km), with a travel time of 5 h, 11 min.
Is it really possible that the much longer route actually will result in less fuel used, not just higher mileage? Why wouldn't the faster route, which is primarily highway, result in less fuel used?
The answer: although the faster route had an average speed of just over 58 mph (93 km/h), it was primarily at highway speeds of 75 mph (120 km/h). This compared with an average of 44 mph (70 km/h) for the economy route, with most mileage traveled at 50-55 mph (80-88 km/h), Grace said. The Ford fuel economy data for that vehicle calibration included 23 mpg for 75 mph and 35 mpg for 50 mph (over 50% higher), so lower speeds more than compensated for 12% greater distance.
TeleNav recognizes that people do not travel at exactly the speed limits, even if traffic is not a factor. They may go slower on high-speed highways, for example, and get better mileage than with the predicted eco-route, Grace conceded.
However, TeleNav ran a series of validation routes, using a closer-to-normal driving technique, in the San Francisco, CA, area. The testing, Grace said, confirmed that the eco-route was consistently better than the other routes. The tests were run on a fill-up to fill-up basis at the same gas stations, he said. Additional tests will be run to provide greater accuracy with the comparative fill-ups and provide a statistically valid number for the average improvement in fuel economy.
There is obviously room for improvement in the algorithm, Grace said, including use of available topographical data, to compensate for driving through hilly areas. But TeleNav and Ford are satisfied with the initial indications, he added.
The algorithm takes a lot of computing power, but because the navigation system resides off board in cloud servers, it can continuously be updated with road changes and conditions. Further, it can accumulate other data, including some unavailable to the onboard navigation system, and do more with it all.
The company worked with Ford-supplied fuel consumption data, not only numbers for all steady speeds but also curves plotted for all other operating conditions monitored by the algorithm. The fuel-economy algorithm considers the following, explained TeleNav automotive business development manager James Grace:
• Speed limits for the entire route. The fuel economy and all three (shortest, fastest, most-efficient) time-to-destination calculations are based on the driver following the speed limits.
• Number of stops required by stop signs and traffic lights. With the latter, a probability factor is used to estimate number of times the car will "make" the light vs. having to stop for it.
• Amount of vehicle-stopped idling time. In this case there is a probability-based estimate of the time stopped at each traffic light. The algorithm uses a varying time frame for traffic light stops, from 20 s to about 2 min, Grace said, to better simulate real-world events. If a car were a hybrid equipped with engine stop-start, the algorithm would be adjusted to correct for this, Grace added.
• Traffic on the routes, both historical data and current, real-time traffic conditions. If necessary, the algorithm inserts a correction factor into the calculations for average speed that would likely be achieved.
The speeds are tied to the distances each speed limit is posted. The algorithm assumes moderate braking to each stop and a moderate acceleration from zero to the posted speed. The algorithm calculates the extra fuel consumed for both the brake-to-stop and acceleration-from-stop as well as fuel consumption during the idle stop itself.
Although the algorithm assumes all the roads are flat, Grace said, it does consider road curvature, and if the curvature is 30% or greater from straight ahead, it assumes the driver will apply the brakes to slow down and then accelerate to the posted speed. It adjusts fuel consumption computations for each road curve-induced event the vehicle would encounter.
The Ford data on fuel consumption is vehicle-specific, and if there is a significant difference from one calibration to another, TeleNav uses both, picking the specific one, such as turbo vs. nonturbo.
Although shorter routes—perhaps 11-12 mi (18-19 km)—show differences, they may not be dramatic. However, TeleNav produced an example for AEI that did.
With a start point in Nashville, TN, on a weekday afternoon, it calculated routes to a landmark barbecue restaurant in Memphis, a distance of over 200 mi (320 km). The shortest (and in this case, also the fastest) route was 204 mi (326 km), with a travel time of 3 h, 30 min. The most economical route was actually much longer at 228 mi (365 km), with a travel time of 5 h, 11 min.
Is it really possible that the much longer route actually will result in less fuel used, not just higher mileage? Why wouldn't the faster route, which is primarily highway, result in less fuel used?
The answer: although the faster route had an average speed of just over 58 mph (93 km/h), it was primarily at highway speeds of 75 mph (120 km/h). This compared with an average of 44 mph (70 km/h) for the economy route, with most mileage traveled at 50-55 mph (80-88 km/h), Grace said. The Ford fuel economy data for that vehicle calibration included 23 mpg for 75 mph and 35 mpg for 50 mph (over 50% higher), so lower speeds more than compensated for 12% greater distance.
TeleNav recognizes that people do not travel at exactly the speed limits, even if traffic is not a factor. They may go slower on high-speed highways, for example, and get better mileage than with the predicted eco-route, Grace conceded.
However, TeleNav ran a series of validation routes, using a closer-to-normal driving technique, in the San Francisco, CA, area. The testing, Grace said, confirmed that the eco-route was consistently better than the other routes. The tests were run on a fill-up to fill-up basis at the same gas stations, he said. Additional tests will be run to provide greater accuracy with the comparative fill-ups and provide a statistically valid number for the average improvement in fuel economy.
There is obviously room for improvement in the algorithm, Grace said, including use of available topographical data, to compensate for driving through hilly areas. But TeleNav and Ford are satisfied with the initial indications, he added.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)