Why didn't the allies go fully pallatised in WWII?

syrup

LE
Has anyone done a FOI request to see how many trees the RAF planted to off set carbon produced by fire bombing Dresden ?


No need they reduced Dresden's carbon footprint to zero.

By removing coal fires, coal powered power station, factories etc Bomber Command not only reduced Nazi Germanys carbon footprint but the Lancaster was almost zero emissions with the offset measured against it.

Sir Arthur Harris really was the Greta Thunberg of his day.

What's Hamburg's pollution like today/"
"Awful sir the factories are on overtime the chimneys at Krupp's are a disgrace"

"Reduce it we're robbing future generations of clean air"
 
download (1).jpeg
 
PS: 1200x1000mm= 48x40 inches.
Most trucks ( not fridges) have load beds 8 feet wide, = 2 pallets.


Fridges do.

Construction and Use regs allow fridges to be a little wider than other vehicles/trailers in order to accomodate two pallets width wise and allow for insulation.

It is arguable that the width allowance should be greater to allow insulation values to be increased which would be a bit greener.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I've been working my way through a lot of the US National Archives YouTube channels recently and it is well worth a gander (https://www.youtube.com/c/USNationalArchives) and I've been enjoying a lot of the D Day and Operation Overloard footage, much of which is new to me. Then the other day I came across these newsreels:


At about 05:50 they start to show lots of stores and munition dumps. Now, I was well used to seeing WWII stores being manhandled, but I also note that there are more than a few stores types on pallets as well as the means to move them mechanically. If we already had those technologies then why didn't we simply go full-on with pallatisation?
Given our expertise with logistics surely it wouldn't have been to big a leap to realise its potential to speed up logistic efforts whilst freeing up a lot of manpower otherwise used to manhandle them?
I can appreciate that there may have been issues with a lack of suitable rough terrain MHE, but given the amount of new equipement and inventions coming into service it couldn't have taken that much to design and produce them.
Or was this down to the allies not wanting to complicate matters when they had a system that worked, albeit with a lot of muscle power being used?
Genuinely baffled by this and if anyone does know why we didn't pursue this please let me know.

The High Command found the whole idea unpalatable.
 
My bold.

Your supply chain is only as wide as its narrowest point, something that people often forget - the pax airbridges to TELIC and HERRICK were sometimes constrained not by unserviceability of LAIRCM but by something as mundane as the lack of availability of TRI* steps.

Proper 'positioning' be it of aircraft, crews, ISOs or rolling stock is as critical as the equipment itself - see the global lack of ISOs referred to earlier, likewise the need to have equipment at the point of need often means inefficient movement of empty or near empty trains/planes - which is never good value for money.
one reason why military transporters tend to have ramps and are not dependent on mobile or manual steps or even airbridges. The Tristars and A330s of the world can't operate without them.
 
A fair amount of wood and wickerwork was used in the war. My Dodge WC had a wooden .5 cal ammo box bolted down as a spare locker. The Germans used wicker work to hold arty shells. Which is all very sustainable and should've pleased any XR types around at the time.

Certainly the French reckon their Plane trees are being infected with a fungus brought over from the US during the war in wooden ammo boxes:

'French agronomist Andre Vigouroux, who has been studying the fungus for years, says it's been traced to the munition boxes American soldiers brought over to Europe in World War II, which were made from North American plane trees.'

The article, The disease killing Europe's plane trees
well, I hope he appreciates the Californian vines that saved French vines after disease destroyed a lot of the old vines and a lot of famous vineyards were facing ruin until they sampled Californian vines and found them suitable for transplantation to France. The French tend not to mention it,when they are being snobby about Californian wine.
 
Saw a pic on facebook a picture of English dockers unloading a grain ship by scooping grain into pans & filling sacks, the sacks being craned out of the hold this is the 1950's

Anything which involves ports or rail, even in war time would involve trade unions ?

Hence problems making changes to working conditions
 

Chef

LE
well, I hope he appreciates the Californian vines that saved French vines after disease destroyed a lot of the old vines and a lot of famous vineyards were facing ruin until they sampled Californian vines and found them suitable for transplantation to France. The French tend not to mention it,when they are being snobby about Californian wine.
Mind you Phylloxera came from America too. Apparently the European vines were grafted onto the American root stocks. And as you say saved the European wine industry.

The French are a strangely ungrateful nation, yet suck up to the Germans, an odd race.
 

Awol

LE
If the girl you were holding hands with got a kicking of her husband in public would you like CCTV to be filming it?
No. CCTV intrusive and has thousands of unlicensed civilian monitors watching tens of millions of completely law abiding citizens every minute of every day, and every night, for that matter.

That level of Stalinist surveillance of the innocent just isn’t justified because just occasionally it catches a villain.

CCTV is a poor substitute for proper, traditional policing, what’s needed is more police on the streets, not more cameras being monitored by civilian lard-arrses who spend their days sniggering at someone’s dress sense while shoving even more cake into their mouths.

More police, less cameras. I’ve yet to hear of a camera arresting anyone.
 
D

Deleted 100463

Guest
No. CCTV intrusive and has thousands of unlicensed civilian monitors watching tens of millions of completely law abiding citizens every minute of every day, and every night, for that matter.

That level of Stalinist surveillance of the innocent just isn’t justified because just occasionally it catches a villain.

CCTV is a poor substitute for proper, traditional policing, what’s needed is more police on the streets, not more cameras being monitored by civilian lard-arrses who spend their days sniggering at someone’s dress sense while shoving even more cake into their mouths.

More police, less cameras. I’ve yet to hear of a camera arresting anyone.
What is your experience of police work and how CCTV is used within it these days?
 
No. CCTV intrusive and has thousands of unlicensed civilian monitors watching tens of millions of completely law abiding citizens every minute of every day, and every night, for that matter.

That level of Stalinist surveillance of the innocent just isn’t justified because just occasionally it catches a villain.

CCTV is a poor substitute for proper, traditional policing, what’s needed is more police on the streets, not more cameras being monitored by civilian lard-arrses who spend their days sniggering at someone’s dress sense while shoving even more cake into their mouths.

More police, less cameras. I’ve yet to hear of a camera arresting anyone.

Stalinist? Most CCTV isn't permanently monitored. It will only be viewed if something happens.

I don't remember a violence free utopia before we had CCTV.
 

Awol

LE
Stalinist? Most CCTV isn't permanently monitored. It will only be viewed if something happens.

I don't remember a violence free utopia before we had CCTV.
I’m not going to play Arrse Ping Pong with you Stacks. History shows it’s pointless.
 

Awol

LE
N
What is your experience of police work and how CCTV is used within it these days?
None at all.

Do police officers manage the millions of CCTV cameras in this country then?

Because if they do, that’s a shocking waste of police resources.

But they don’t, do they?
 

HE117

LE
My first posting was to Depot 90 in Sennelager in the early 70s. The depot had just gone through the palletisation process which, as I recall resulted in about a 20% reduction in capacity. The bunkers had been built before the war, and did not have the manouever room to accomodate pallets. I recall that the the great debate was whether we should have skipped pallets and gone straight to containers, particularly for bulk items such as mines and artillery natures.

It was only when the decision was made to rebuild the ammuntion depots at Kineton and close the Bramley and underground storage at Corsham that it became feasable to palletise ammunition. It also needed the development of field capable handling equipment like the Eager Beaver to cope with pallets off prepared surfaces.

Palletisation of packed fuel was never seriously considered. Packing Jerrycans on pallets is incredibly wasteful in space, particularly when moving packed fuel by rail, which was the main method up to the 80s. The decison was made to skip pallets and go for bulk fuel distribution, but this needed the development of unit bulk fuel handling equipment such as UBRE, which technically was pallet based, but not used in this way.

The issues of supplying fuel in the days of 3 armoured divisions using jerrycans was quite impressive. An annoyed armoured div could eat a belly stack of fuel cans 3m deep the size of a football pitch in a day.. all shifted by hand!
 

Latest Threads

Top