It would be easy to mark them, you could simply tip them on their sides like in revised / classic 2 hit battleships.

I think I'll try this, but I will still require that payment be made to repair them.

LT

Thanks IL.  I loved that definition.   

The question sums it up.  What's your rational?

Hey Dylan send me a PM if your still looking.  I'm the assistant director of a family history in my area.  I might be able to point you in the right direction based on where you live and where your family came from.

LT

I found this site a few minutes ago and had to post a link here.  Enjoy!   

http://gizmodo.com/5600260/photoshop-time-portals/gallery/2

Wow   It sounds lovely and I really have no idea on the sand.   The glue may work.  Are you thinking of mixing some sand in with glue and painting it on?   Im wondering if you would have to seal it with something.

I went to a hobby shop and found some that were intended for train models.

LT

Your typical WW2 tanker ran between 10,000 and 15,000 tons, with a few as large as 25,000 tons.  There is about 7 barrels of oil to the ton, so you are looking at somewhere between 70,000 barrels to 175,000 barrels per tanker.  Much of the oil in tankers that were sunk was refined products, chiefly gasoline (motor and higher octane aviation gasoline), diesel, and kerosene.  That tended to burn quite nicely when torpedoed.  The Japanese did use raw crude oil from some of the Indonesian fields that was of sufficient high grade to burn directly as boiler fuel, and did have problems with the accompanying vapor explosions, such as the one that destroyed the carrier Taiho.  Refined products are considerably less toxic than raw crude, which can range from high-quality West Texas oil to the high-grade sludge produced by Venezuela.  Raw crude contains the full spectrum of oil products in varying amounts, along with a host of contaminants such as sulphur, various metals, bromine, methane in solution, waxes of various kinds, etc.  A refinery is typically optimized to refine a given type of crude, and will actually produce more than a barrel of products from a barrel of crude as a consequence of the adding of hydrogen to the heavier high-carbon crude fractions to produce lighter fractions such as gasoline, kerosene, and diesel oil which take up a larger volume than the high-carbon fractions.

The tanker losses in WW2 were spread over the entire ocean area of the world, and over a period of 7 years, and occurred as one time events for the area the ship was sunk in.  Much of the oil was refined products.  What you have in the Gulf presently is a concentrated spill in both location and time, with continuous effects on the environment.  It is not a one-time event, but a continuous stream of oil hitting the wetlands, marshes, beaches, and ocean bottom.  Based on the Exxon Valdez spill, the long term effects are not going to be known for several years or possibly decades.  The Gulf ecosystems that are being effected by the oil are likely never to return to a pre-spill state, or if they do, it will be many decades in the future.

Very insightful thank you,

LT

Ok so the Allies still had a bad taste in their mouth from WWI and was busy being positive not wanting to rock the boat.

That certainly would have given the Axis more time to prepare even after breaking the treaty. 

Ah well perhaps I did.   Assuming Hitler had been smarter a few for instances.  Put Germany's economy on a war footing in 1938 instead of 1944.  Waited a few years before starting the war, many German planners figured 1945 would be a good start date.  A fleet of bismark class ships to escort fleet carriers along with a fleet of 100s of uboats rather than the less that 100? to start the war with.  Let's say jet power and heavy 4 engine bombers that Germany never really had.  Now let's say they beat England, then Russia.  No way they EVER build enough of a fleet to do an invasion anywhere in Pan-America.  They would still need atomic bombs to force a defeat.

You make a good point.  The only problem I see with that is according to the treaty that Germany signed and the end of WWI they were not allowed to have a standing army over a specific number of people.  They were not allowed to have air fields or ports.  At some point they wouldn't be able to hide a force like that.

LT

An odd turn of events left me (as Germany) holding London and Moscow and I lost Berlin to the US.

Needless to say I was overburdened with the size of my empire.  The US took Italy and the Caucuses on the same turn and started mass producing on mainland Europe.

MrmalachiCrunch

I think that you are taking the question out of context.  The question wasn't who had the resources to take the US.  I think that the US mainland was out of the scope of what Japan wanted. That simply leaves Germany as the only viable option left.

LT

Washington would never had been under threat. The only possibility would have been for the axis to fund a group within the United States.

Are you sure, like even if Germany didn't attack US, I bet Japan (if they could,) most likely would, at least of what I think.

I don't think so.  Japan was more concerned with building a buffer around their home island.  They didn't seem as interested in world domination like Germany.  If Japan did have grand plans of expansion I think that would have lead them deeper into Asia not North America.

As a utility contractor I can offer a few tid-bits on this matter.

Volume, pressures and depth are no where near the same now as they were then. As tech progressed we got better at all three.  When you go surveying for for oil (or natural gas like I have experience with) they tend to progress together fairly evenly.  Since that site is about two miles under water that puts the other two categories proportionately high as well.

Also worth noting they have a 22 inch drill casing bellowing "peanut-butter textured" oil (or so I have read in trade magazines recently) into the gulf.  Up until the 70' I think 2-1/2 or 3 inch casings were the standard.  Even if the casing was bigger say for example a five inch casing is was still reduces to 3 inches to go through the pump systems.  All fire engines still do this today.

(Not that this has come up so far but...)  I'm not sure when off-shore drilling became popular but even then we didn't need to because of the number of land based oil sites at the time. So this factor can totally be eliminated from this equation.

As far as transporting goes a U-haul size box truck was the standard method of travel on land then not the 53 foot tractor-trailers we commonly see today.  Your container ships have evolved in much the same way.  So each loss would be marginally smaller. To put things into perspective the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska was estimated at 10.8 million gallons. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

Lastly I think it should be worth noting that the demand for oil although great wasn't like it is today.  Most US tanks at the time ranged 3-4 gallons per mile (not miles per gallon) and ran off of a 8 cylinder gasoline engine. When the US entered WWII we only had 15 modern tanks.

So every thing was at a much smaller scale then as far as harvesting and consuming oil goes.

LT

I love this topic but I have a quick question...

Why doesn't the math work both ways?  What I mean by that is if you steepen the curve with your attack hits to get the "average" hits instead of the "expected" hits why doesn't the same rule apply when calculating the enemy defense hits?

That would make your estimate a lot more conservative.

LT

The Japanese Infantry can shoot down the allied fighter.

LT