This narrative is part of a longer one of personal reminiscences of my experiences in the RCAF during the Second World War and only concerns my operational tour flying Beaufighters with 177 Squadron, Royal Air Force, in Southeast Asia from early March 1944 until the end of the year. Preceding the operational tour I had spent two years training and waiting in Canada and the United Kingdom. During operational training at East Fortune near Edinburgh flying Beaufighter lis, I was crewed with Flight Sergeant A.J. Aldham, a reserved, slim, blonde Englishman as Observer (i.e. Navigator-wireless operator-gunner). Alf quickly established his capability as a navigator and good companion in the as yet poorly understood game of war. Following a second stage of operational training of Beaufighter Is and Vis at Catfoss near Hull, Yorkshire, we picked up a new Beaufighter X from the factory at Filton, tested it, and then flew it to India on a reinforcement flight. We were surprised on arrival at Karachi on 1 September 1943 to find we were separated from the aircraft. We were then left to languish in an aircrew pool until December when we were assigned to the Southeast Asia Air Command Communications Squadron. Here we put in three months flying lesser VIPs about India until we were posted to 177 at the beginning of March
In Victoria, BC this August 2005, the 60th anniversary of the end of the War against Japan (VJ Day) was celebrated at a number of events. Included were a march to the Cenotaph by Veterans, Service Units and Air Cadets on Sunday, August l4th; a reception sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs at Government House on the actual day, August 15; a service the next day at Arakan Park in the forest on the Cowichan River followed by one at the Cenotaph in Duncan both arranged by the Burma Star Organization and, finally, a luncheon by the Vancouver Island Branch of the AirCrew Association at the Gun Room at Work Point Barracks. At all these events except the last, the role of the Commonwealth Air Forces in the victory over the Japanese Army in Burma was scarcely mentioned although some interesting brochures and talks were presented. From my own experience and research I believe the Air Force’s role was decisive
The battles of World War II in Southeast Asia started with a saga of repeated defeats and retreats by the Allies. Then in 1944, after they re-grouped during a stalemate in 1942–43, the Allies decisively defeated the Imperial Forces of Japan in the jungles of the Chin Hills, leading to a victorious advance down the plains to Rangoon. These campaigns included the greatest land battles and the soundest defeat of the Japanese armies during the war. They were engineered by the combination of sound Allied tactics and resolute jungle fighting that was facilitated by a most intensive and innovative use of airpower. In spite of Winston Churchill’s statement that the attack against Ceylon (Sri Lanka) by a Japanese naval task force in 1942 represented the most dangerous moment of the war, these campaigns have been slighted in subsequent general histories of the World War, as they were by the media of the time.
During the campaigns most of the Allied troops felt that their efforts and sacrifices were unrecognized and largely forgotten in the panorama of the war. They believed that they were poorly supported—they knew they were assigned inferior equipment in deficient quantity—and they suspected they were short-changed by remote leadership and inadequate strategic planning. Those feelings arose in 1941–42 during the defeats and retreats from Malaya, Singapore, the East Indies and Burma, and they hardened during the stalemate after the monsoon of 1942 when the 14th Army dubbed itself the “Forgotten Army.
An extensive experimental measurement program which evaluated the attenuation of sound for close to horizontal propagation over the ground was designed to replicate, under static conditions, results of the flight measurements carried out earlier by NASA at the same site (Wallops Flight Center). The program consisted of a total of 41 measurement runs of attenuation, in excess of spreading and air absorption losses, for one third octave bands over a frequency range of 50 to 4000 Hz. Each run consisted of measurements at 10 locations up to 675 m, from a source located at nominal elevations of 2.5, or 10 m over either a grassy surface or an adjacent asphalt concrete runway surface. The tests provided a total of over 8100 measurements of attenuation under conditions of low wind speed averaging about 1 m/s and, for most of the tests, a slightly positive temperature gradient, averaging about 0.3 C/m from 1.2 to 7 m. The results of the measurements are expected to provide useful experimental background for the further development of prediction models of near grazing incidence sound propagation losses
Various studies were conducted by NASA and others on the practical limitations of sonic boom signature shaping/minimization for the High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) and on the effects of these shaped boom signatures on perceived loudness. This current effort is a further part of this research with emphasis on examining shaped boom signatures which are representative of the most recent investigations of practical limitations on sonic boom minimization, and on examining and comparing the expected response to these signatures when experienced indoors and outdoors
Earlier studies have developed models of carrying capacity to predict the number of animals a certain area can support. These models assume that resources are not renewed after consumption (‘standing stock’ models), and that the initial number of prey and the rate of prey consumption determine the time a population of foragers can live in an area. Within such areas, foragers give up feeding at a sub-site or patch when intake rates no longer cover energy expenditure. To improve the success rate of the models’ predictions, we here change the existing rate-maximising models into fitness-maximising models, and include dynamics in the availability of patches. These new (conceptual) models show that the approaches used so far may over- as well as underestimate carrying capacity. We review empirical studies that have aimed to estimate carrying capacity, and discuss how concepts have been confused. We make explicit suggestions on how to proceed in predicting carrying capacities in future studies.
The preferred descriptor to define the spectral content of sonic booms is the Sound Exposure Spectrum Level, LE(f). This descriptor represents the spectral content of the basic noise descriptors used for describing any single event--the Sound Exposure Level, LE. The latter is equal to ten times the logarithms, to the base ten, of the integral, over the duration of the event, of the square of the instantaneous acoustic pressure, divided by the square of the reference pressure, 20 micro-Pa. When applied to the evaluation of community response to sonic booms, it is customary to use the so-called C-Weighted Sound Exposure Level, LCE, for which the frequency content of the instantaneous acoustic pressure is modified by the C-Weighting curve