The Audi A8: First Production Car To Achieve Level 3 Autonomy (ieee.org) 375
schwit1 shares a report from IEEE Spectrum: The 2018 Audi A8, just unveiled in Barcelona, counts as the world's first production car to offer Level 3 autonomy. Level 3 means the driver needn't supervise things at all, so long as the car stays within guidelines. Here that involves driving no faster than 60 kilometers per hour (37 mph), which is why Audi calls the feature AI Traffic Jam Pilot. Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. To be sure, the A8 also monitors the driver, even while the traffic jam persists, and continues to do so as the speed edges up over the limit. If the driver falls asleep, it'll wake him up; if it can't get his attention, it will stop the car. If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car. Audi said in a statement that it will follow "a step-by-step approach" to introducing the traffic jam pilot. It plans to sell the base model in Europe this fall for 90,600 euros, or about $103,000, and to enter the United States market shortly afterwards. A model having a longer wheelbase will cost a few percent more.
Of course, the utility is limited when... (Score:5, Funny)
... the Germans will *still* order it with a manual transmission.
Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.
You say this like it's somehow untrue... :^D
Re: (Score:2)
One up! (Score:2)
The volume knobs go to 11!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... (Score:4, Informative)
Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.
Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto. Now a well tuned DSG can even outperform the best drivers on gear changes.
Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you HAVE to have a manual transmission if you're a real driver.
Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto.
True for cars, but not for pickup trucks (big trucks with huge numbers of gears are a different story). There are significant advantages to having a torque converter over a clutch when starting a heavy load. As a result, pickups with automatic transmissions have higher rated towing capacities than the same model with a manual transmission. There are also a lot of advantages for off-road vehicles, where drivers may need to apply very precise amounts of power from a standing start and at low speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. I used to have a tiny little Suzuki 4WD with a tiny little engine but in the right gear it could get all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
Or driving on snow and ice. Being able to engine brake without the automatic upshifting at the worst possible moment is invaluable.
Or even controlled skids with RWD cars, which require precise wheel speed.
Modern double-clutch paddle shifters aren't too bad, except for in tight turns where you have to shift grip on the wheel and can't reach the paddle pointing down. Then it makes a lot more sense to keep one hand on top of the wheel and shift with the other.
Re: (Score:2)
if you are shifting down mid corner you have already fucked up.
Not if you're in a large decreasing-radius turn. Then you only have two other options, lose speed early so you can shift early, or lose speed late by not downshifting in the middle of the turn. But if you have a torque converter and a really brilliant TCM then you can shift in mid-turn without losing power, and therefore without upsetting the vehicle. A really good automatic transmission is therefore superior to all other types of transmission, in terms of driving experience. Unfortunately, they are spectac
That'll be why most semis have clutches (Score:2)
PIckups have automatics because most americans can't use a manual transmission. And off road if you need to quickly apply power you want a direct clutch, not a slushy torque converter.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto. Now a well tuned DSG can even outperform the best drivers on gear changes.
Actually, good automatics can do that now, too. Let's see, what car review was I watching recently where the vehicle had a traditional slush box, but shifted quickly anyway? Ah yes, 2017 Lexus LC 500.
Re:Of course, the utility is limited when... (Score:5, Interesting)
... the Germans will *still* order it with a manual transmission.
The Audi A8 has never been offered with a manual transmission, except under the S8 name, and even then only in the first generation and only in limited european markets (yes, Germany) and in very minimal quantity. Every other A8 has come with a slush box, either the ZF5HP19 if they are FWD, or the ZF5HP24A if they are AWD. Those few manual S8s came with the 6-speed 01E gearbox. You can also fit the 5-speed 01A.
All new A8s which are not fully electric will be 48V mild hybrids, and feature slush boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
....because the other thing the Germans are famous for?
A complete lack of a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
....because the other thing the Germans are famous for?
A complete lack of a sense of humor.
Well, I'm an American, but since that means I'm a mutt, I can also be German. And I am partly, on my mother's side. I promise not to try to kill all the Jews.
Re: (Score:2)
The first Generation 2.8 litre models had manual transmission. Getriebeart=transmission type
That's interesting data, have you actually ever seen one? Or are they as rare as 4.2s with 01Es? That might be an interesting source for a clutch pedal, they are hard to come by if you want to do a 01E swap.
I look forward to (Score:2)
having to deal with AI-driven cars with dozing drivers inside, as well as regular idiot drivers, when I commute with my bicycle. It may or may not be an improvement for cyclists...
Re: (Score:2)
Want to be driven into the city?
Select from a city approved van or car service that will do the driving. It will pick up the user who sent an app request at a location.
Along the way 5 or more random strangers will be collected to ensure the car or van is always been used and no seat is empty.
Re "improvement for cyclists"
Wait for a bike registration a
Re: (Score:2)
having to deal with AI-driven cars with dozing drivers inside
Sounds like a step up from the usual manually-driven cars with dozing drivers inside...
Re: (Score:2)
It may or may not be an improvement for cyclists...
It will be, because the cars will actually do their best to follow the law. It will also be awesome for drivers, because the system will flag cyclists who interfere with traffic by themselves not following traffic laws, and report them to the police as a willful obstruction to self-driving automobiles.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but for every time I've seen a cyclist take a short cut (and they do) I've seen ten cars do worse. There are the truly bad examples such as accelerating, full bore, while a pedestrian is right in front of the vehicle (usually taking a right turn with bad visibility and so going from looking left to flooring it). Then there are the things drivers probably think are slights like charging around a corner beyond the speed where they can stop, and crossing a pedestrian crossing. But if you're there and you
Re: I look forward to (Score:2)
We need an autonomous bicycle. Hmm not electric, that's an autonomous scooter. I am talking about a bicycle you still have to pedal but it steers and brakes itself. It would need a pedal powered GPS, sensors, and a fancy gear system that can engage and disengage the pedals from the drive train so you can keep pedalling when it brakes so that you can keep the GPS and other systems powered (maybe from a backup battery).
Re: (Score:2)
I am talking about a bicycle you still have to pedal but it steers and brakes itself.
I applaud your ambition, but that sounds terrifying. Keep in mind that steering a bike is largely accomplished by leaning your weight to one side, which means that with a self-steering bike you would have to be constantly on hair-trigger alert, ready to lean when the bike wants to turn -- and if your attention ever wanders, you're likely to get dumped off the bike the next time it tries to turn and you don't cooperate :)
It would need a pedal powered GPS, sensors, and a fancy gear system that can engage and disengage the pedals from the drive train so you can keep pedalling when it brakes so that you can keep the GPS and other systems powered (maybe from a backup battery).
This [volatacycles.com] bike might interest you; it's not self-steering but it has a lot of rest of the a
Re: (Score:2)
The way you lean on one side is by steering the opposite direction. Centrifugal force does the job. This is more apparent on heavy motorbikes.
Once you are at the correct angle, you can start turning the handlebars in the right direction and follow the curve.
Straightening up uses the same process, except this time you turn into the curve.
It is totally possible to have a self steering bike. It would be like riding as a passenger.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Yes, stop signs apply to you too.
Surprisingly : No !
Some European jurisdiction have accepted, under some circumstances, that cyclists behave like with a "yield" sign (= no need to fully stop and put on foot on the ground, only to slow down), on the ground that bicycles are lighter and that cyclist can stop nearly immediately compared to cars, and on the ground that the bicycles are un powered (yeah, this dates back a bit...) and require more effort to re-accelerate.
Some Swiss cities have started accepting this (in case of stop or a red lig
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you generalise a bit. Go on, do it.
I reckon more drivers break the law than cyclists going through red lights. What percentage of drivers for instance exceed the speed limit on the freeway/motorway?
Re: (Score:2)
I reckon more drivers break the law than cyclists going through red lights. What percentage of drivers for instance exceed the speed limit on the freeway/motorway?
That's a poor example, because speed limits are designed in some cases to save lives, and in other cases to generate revenue, and the signs aren't labeled to tell you which they are. (In California there is some indication, maximum speed vs. speed limit. There are very few maximum speed signs, compared to speed limit signs.)
Re: I look forward to (Score:2)
I didn't live in the US, but it seems pretty clear to me:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/... [ca.gov]
Why would the reason for the speed limit matter anyway? Surely the law's the law, or are you just trying to justify breaking it? A lot of drivers do, and they're often the same ones who complain about cyclists breaking the law.
That's not a real traffic jam... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't bullt for lardasses who gorge on all-you-can-eat buffets like yourself. You'll break the axle just by getting in.
Never had that problem when I owned a Pontiac Grand Prix and Ford Taurus. Of course, they're not delicate as European cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that 200 lbs ago as well?
My adult weight has always been between 325 to 375 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh... what a fat piece of shit you are.
Yet I'm slim enough to sit in a Smart car.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really much to brag about you disgusting human blob.
I'm not one of those skinny people who need a humongous truck to compensate for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who is only packing 2 inches fully erect.
Are you jealous that I don't need to compensate for something?
Re: (Score:2)
seems like your diet's not working then
Current weight is 350. I was 325 when I rode my bicycle 100 miles a week to work. I was 375 when I did weight training for a year.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't fit into THIS American car
That looks smaller than a Smart car. I've been thinking of getting a Smart cart. The downside is that it doesn't have any extra cargo space.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been thinking of getting a Smart cart.
You may wish to read this:
http://autoexpert.com.au/buyin... [autoexpert.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Sideshow exhibits - at best - the bearded ladies of the car industry.
Perfect! :P
Re: (Score:2)
"Acceleration is extremely slow at highway speeds, the ride is unforgivably rough, and its blind spots are wide. " - it's generally acknowledges as a shitty car that only an idiot would buy.
So it drives like a Pontiac Grand Prix? Sweet!
Re: (Score:2)
How do you plan to fit into the car then?
I wouldn't be driving to Home Depot in this car unless everything fits in the passenger seat.
Next level autonomy! (Score:5, Funny)
At level 4 the car decides on it's own where to take you. At level 5 it gets bored waiting for you in the parking lot and decides to leave you to pursue it's own life as a career movie stunt car and part time Uber drone.
Re: (Score:2)
So it will achieve the dreams of a 16 year old male?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Level 6 is when it kills you and fucks your wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Top Gear once joke about how Audi is the choice of a douche bags, or something similar.
Yes, the cocks have moved out of BMWs and into Audis. Just in time for my to get my 1998 A8 Quattro on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you mention the Uber drone part because I'll be holding out on autonomous cars until that is a reality. I'd love to be able to tell my car, "Hey, go buy me some beer" and it will be become an Uber whore until it makes enough fare to buy beer. I foresee entire new niche services popping up like liquor stores that will accept a remote ID card and "car stored credits" for the purchase of beer and just toss it in your autonomous car that will drive it back to you. It will be a glorious day for hum
The real question (Score:2)
Will this car have a manual transmission so the driver can take full control over his/her vehicle without having to rely on a computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Will this car have a manual transmission so the driver can take full control over his/her vehicle without having to rely on a computer?
Guess what? The ZF9 already won't work without a computer. It doesn't have a limp-home mode that will work without any computer intervention. TCM dies, major sensor dies, you're waiting for a tow. Pretty sure ZF8 does limp, though. My antique ZF5HP42A limps, of course. It's an automatic.
audi will not give a dam if you are in lock up and (Score:2)
audi will not give a dam if you are in lock up and you need the source code to prove you are not at fault.
So in what fantasy land can you actually use it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. (...) If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car.
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK it would be illegal to read a newspaper while "in control of a vehicle" (i.e. sat in the driver's seat with it in motion). In fact the current requirement for antonymous vehicles is to keep your hands on the wheel and pretend to be driving so as not to alarm other road users.
The law needs to change. I wonder what kind of liability Audi has here - presumably if there was an accident the insurance company would sue Audi on the driver's behalf if they had legal cover.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In Finland, driverless cars are completely legal.
A startup recently asked the ministry of transport whether it could conduct trials of selfdriving busses on public roads. After a month of delay, the ministry replied something along the line of "We have thoroughly studied the law text, and find no passage which would require the presence of a driver. All you need to provide is a statement of which person is responsible for the car's behaviour on the road."
Re: (Score:2)
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
Not total level 3. I'm not sure I'd call Audi's limited L3 as L3, as it still requires a human to take you in and out of the limited scenario of use. There are already cars that completely handle parallel parking, so that is another limited form of L3. Audi has expanded it to stop and go traffic. This is logically an easy step to take, and frankly its one of the features I've been thinking would be nice to have. I'd like to see a move to what I would call 'follow cruise' where you lock onto a vehicle in fro
Can I ride drunk? (Score:3)
Re:Can I ride drunk? (Score:5, Funny)
Does level 3 mean I can have it take me home while drunk
You can... but you might regret it the next morning when you wake up and see it laying next to you.
Re:Can I ride drunk? (Score:5, Informative)
Does level 3 mean I can have it take me home while drunk, or will I still get a DWI?
Nope.
At level 3 a competent driver is still needed. In conditions the car can handle, the driver can ignore what's going on, relying on the car to tell the driver when to pay attention take over, but the car may decide that at any time and you have to be competent.
At level 4 you could have it take you home while drunk, as long as the entire route is within the car's capabilities.
At level 5 the car is as good as a human driver in every possible driving scenario, including dirt roads, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
relying on the car to tell the driver when to pay attention take over
I wonder how long you have to take over. If you are reading a newspaper as they suggest, it might take you several seconds to finish the paragraph, fold it up and store it safely before taking in your environment and figuring out what is required of you.
The main problem I have with the Tesla system is that it suddenly starts beeping urgently at you, about 0.5 seconds before it hits something. If you were not paying full attention with hands on the wheel already, you are probably screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
it might take you several seconds to finish the paragraph, fold it up and store it safely
People with OCD will likely not be allowed to drive it. The rest of the world is able to stop reading a newspaper without having to finish the fucking paragraph, folde it up and store it safely. It's called putting the newspaper down, or tossing it onto the passenger (seat).
Re: (Score:3)
My point was that you can't really relax and read the paper in traffic if you have to be constantly ready to throw it aside and grab the wheel, making sense of your situation to avoid an imminent crash.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are reading a newspaper as they suggest, it might take you several seconds to finish the paragraph
Or if you're asleep, it might take you 30 seconds to figure out where you are and what's going on. I think this is a big deficiency in the definition of level 3, and one of the reasons I'm skeptical of level 3 systems. Tesla's level 2.5 is even worse... though they do have some pretty compelling data showing that their system, deficient though it might be, reduces accidents as compared with human drivers. A system doesn't actually have to be good to be viable, it just has to be better than people, and peopl
Re: (Score:3)
At level 4 you could have it take you home while drunk, as long as the entire route is within the car's capabilities.
I am fairly certain that if it is possible for you to control the vehicle, regardless of the vehicles capabilities, you will still be given a DUI/DWI ticket. I mean, you can get a DUI/DWI ticket for being asleep in your car with the keys not in the ignition if you have been drinking. It is a real witch hunt (not commenting on whether that is good or bad).
Zone out? Really? (Score:2)
Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along.
Of course, this is illegal in many states in the US. Probably elsewhere, too.
But the step by step approach is far, far better than Tesla's, which is apparently to design a car that will get you out of bed without waking you up, shower and shave you, drive you to work, make you lunch from scratch, and delivery your wife's baby along the way, all at once, and it'll be ready last week.
I would just commute at 60kph (Score:2)
Not production. Not autonomous. Max speed 37mph (Score:3)
This is just more hype from Audi. Every few years they have a big press event about a killer next generation car then go back to making the same old shit.
This car is not in production. It might be in a few years (but they've said that before).
Autonomy doesn't recognize stop signs, traffic lights, pedestrians, etc.
Max speed 37mph... going nowhere fast.
Wake me when I can actually buy one and test it.
Costs 100K? Imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
As someone who drives a 20 year old beater (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you shouldn't drive a car that's unsafe.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a better 20 year old beater. Say, a Subaru. I used to have a 1993 Impreza LS, which I deeply regret selling. I bought it for $1500, probably because it was purple and automatic. The transmission was shared with the Nissan 240SX and it has a manual mode in which you can select all the way down to first and hold it. In the Impreza that also locks the center differential. In the USDM GC5 (1993/1994) only the LS is offered with ABS, but the LS only came with the slush box. The base model came with either th
Quite a good move (Score:2)
The killer app (Score:2)
I am looking forward to the date where it becomes an issue (for others not for me) that sex workers are plying their trade out of their cars. Pick up a customer, program the car for a trip around the park or whatever, tint the windows, and conduct business in the reclined passenger seat.
No dangerous alleys. Or crappy rent-by-the-hour hotels. No walk-ins by the spouse. Minimum time wasted. Do it right and cops will have a hard time busting you other than with a decoy.
Sooner or later Level 3+ cars will
Hubris (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inviting the driver to not pay attention, fall asleep etc. is profoundly dangerous "feature" in a vehicle.
Too bad you didn't RTFA before you wrote your comment, son. In fact, the vehicle will also watch for distracted drivers, and harass them until they pay attention. If it detects they are sleeping, it will pull the car to the side of the road, where they can nap until the police arrive to bust them for reckless endangerment.
Re: (Score:2)
My Fusion (by Ford, a US manufacturer, made in Mexico, "designed in Dearborn":
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're also forgetting post ww2. You'd be living in a soviet nightmare if the US wasn't backing the idea of Europe as independent nations. A cold war sucks. A hot war followed by tyranny sucks worse.
Re: European cars...... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
European cars = so far ahead of the American cars it's not funny.
LOL...let's see...Volkswagen, Fiat, Volvo...these are all notoriously shit cars...the US doesn't make ANY cars that are as bad as these. Sure, Mercedes, BMW, and Porshe and a few others make cars that at best parallel many models of US cars, but overall, European cars are pretty bad. US cars aren't the best though, those are almost universally all Japanese cars. The US however does make the best trucks. Japanese trucks are a very close second, and European trucks...well...let's just say that nobody other th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: European cars...... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US played its part, after being dragged kicking and screaming into the war.
The idea the US "won the war" though is patently absurd. It's just Hollywood propaganda, up there with "We kicked out the Limeys" when in actuality it was the French who did all the real fighting and heavy lifting in the war in the colonies.
You don't even know your own history.
Still, can't expect too much from a nation of ignoramuses who elect a reality TV star as their leader.
Re: European cars...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.
This makes France the most successful European military ever, period.
You really should thank your lucky stars the French decided to take on the British on your behalf.
It's ironic that the people who coined the phrase "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" are the ones who have benefited most from French military prowess.
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually back during Cordoba Caliphate and Ottoman Empire.
Something that residents of young nations like US really don't understand. Civilizational warfare is measured in centuries and millenia. And right now, it's another time when muslims have the upper hand. We're still in a much better situation than, say, in 1500s.
You know, long before you nation ever came into existence.
Re: European cars...... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually the combat on the western front only started in summer 1944 - this is when the USSR arrived at the border with Poland and the allied were seriously concerned that the Soviets might win the war in Europe all by themselves. The vast majority of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the eastern front.
Oh, and the last fascist regime, Spain, was happily supported by Americans. And yes, you are lying. USSR was not doing its damndest to expand westwards. Stalin promised not to support Greek communists and he didn't. The Soviet army left Austria in 1955 right after Austria signed the neutrality pact. USSR wanted a buffer zone between their mainland and the West that invaded Russia several times and this is what the Warsaw Pact was all about. So you calling people little shits for telling lies is like the pot calling the kettle a nigga.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off yourself and take your non-sequitur with you.
Besides, USSR only took back the parts of Ukraine and Belarus that Poland had annexed in 1921. Considering this and the fact that Poland happily helped Hitler carving up Czechoslovakia, I'd say they had it coming.
Re: European cars...... (Score:5, Informative)
The US was absolutely critical to winning ww2. If the US hadn't supplied England and invaded the mainland, Hitler would have prevailed over Russia and Africa,
Absolute rubbish. The Battle of Britain was won in 1940, over a year before the US even entered the war. Germany's failure to destroy the RAF and Royal Navy made an invasion of Britain impossible.
The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942 - one month AFTER the second battle of El Alamein which is considered the turning point of the entire North African campaign. Once El Alamein was fought again, the Afrika Korps had no chance - it was under-supplied and out of fuel. All Rommel could do was slow down the Allied advance as much as he could with what he had left. What the US managed to do was trap the Afrika Korps from the other side, ensuring they had no escape route left to them. It was in no way a decisive action since Hitler had already written off the Afrika Korps - both men and equipment. A plan to evacuate the troops of the Afrika Korps by air at night from Tunisia was put forward and even approved by OKH however Hitler never signed off on it - that's how important he thought those experienced troops were.
The battle of Stalingrad began in August 1942, again before Operation Torch and USA's "official" entry into the war. Stalingrad is considered by all historians to be the major turning point of the war on the Eastern front.
The "Happy Time" of the battle of the Atlantic was over by 1941, long before the US entered the war. ASDIC (a British invention) as well as cracking the German Enigma codes (also by the British) played a major role in defeating Germany's interdiction efforts. The further invention (by the British) of the Leigh Light as well as airborne radar sealed the fate of German u-boats since they were now vulnerable to bombers while on the surface even at night.
While America loves to remind the world of its invaluable help in "winning WW2", Americans tend to forget that the course of the war was mostly decided by the time they finally made up their minds to enter the fray. Also it can be noted that lend lease was an exceedingly good deal for AMERICA, where they traded some obsolete equipment for permanent military bases all around the world. In fact it can be said that the gaining of bases in territories of the former British Empire is what helped put America on the map as a global instead of a regional power. Certainly that was worth a few WW1 destroyers and ancient trucks that had a doubtful outcome on the course of the war.
Oh let's not forget America's performance on D-Day, where they landed most of their troops in the wrong place and would have been driven back in the sea and possibly caused the entire invasion to fail if it weren't for valiant efforts on the part of outnumbered British and Commonwealth troops (as well as Free French and Poles) to mount an immediate attack to prevent the encirclement of the American beaches. That was the first time America nearly lost the Western front for everyone.
The second time was in the Ardennes during the battle of the bulge, where complacent Americans underestimated the Germans and very nearly got encircled the ONLY time the Wehrmacht decided to push for real. Once again Montgomery and the XXX corps saved America's butts by redeploying and counterattacking "just in time".
WW2 was a team effort. While America was an important participant it was in no way the only participant and some would say it wasn't even the most important participant - that honor belonging to the Soviet Union which managed to absorb a significant portion of both the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe so that they were never seen again. America was very good at daylight bombing which resulted in permanent fuel shortages for Germany. And America managed to keep Japan away from most of the British colonies and commonwealth members in the Pacific and southern Asia. However this "you would be speaking German if not for us" nonsense is just as valid for America - America would be surrounded by a German/Japanese empire if it weren't for the UK and it's commonwealth members, the Free French, the free Poles, and the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:3)
The US was absolutely critical to winning ww2. If the US hadn't supplied England and invaded the mainland, Hitler would have prevailed over Russia and Africa,
Absolute rubbish. The Battle of Britain was won in 1940, over a year before the US even entered the war.
Time for you to re-read the comment above, and also read up on the lend-lease program.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, as a good "ally", the US limited interest rates on the loans that the UK more than 50 years to repay.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the US sold fuel and other war supplies to the Axis while the war was still going on, and then highly selectively punished people for it after the fact. Regardless, without lend-lease, things would have gone very, very differently.
Re: (Score:2)
*) FDR negotiated the territories such to not be surrounded by German territories if Britain had fallen.
*) More allies would have fallen or ended in stalemate without supplies from the US.
*)Very much a team effort, but US supplies put the Allies in the winning category. (luck really in that no enemy was close enough to harm our infrastructure.)
*)Hitler was also big reason for the defeat, he was idiot for opening up a second front.
Re: (Score:3)
The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942
I'm sure this was just an oversight because you seem to know what you're talking about, but the US began unrestricted warfare against Japan in the Pacific within hours of Pearl Harbor. That's if you don't count the defense of Pearl Harbor itself as official for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3)
The major turning point actually happened even earlier, during the battle of Moscow. At that point (December 1941) the whole operation Barbarossa failed and the war on the eastern front became unwinnable. Stalingrad was the point where the German war effort wasn't sustainable anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: European cars...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Rolls Royce and Bentley are made in the UK.
The Ford Fiesta is the best-selling car in the UK. It has been for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm implying that the British auto industry hasn't been able to make an affordable car that people actually want to buy and drive.
Sure, a McLaren 12C would be lovely to drive, but for a quarter million dollars, I'll drive a Fiesta and buy a house. Or maybe I'll drive a Dodge Viper and have enough left over to pay for a few dozen Brits to get their teeth fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, a McLaren 12C would be lovely to drive, but for a quarter million dollars, I'll drive a Fiesta and buy a house.
You can't afford the insurance needed to drive the McLaren in the UK anyway, unless you've got it registered in some other country and you're driving it in. It's in group fifty. The very least of fiestas, on the other hand, the one with the 1.3 liter, is way down in insurance group three! Why, a high schooler could afford the dues on that!
Re: (Score:3)
They used to be able to. The Austin Mini was cheap and very popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Only Japan can make quality cars. The rest are mainly good for making boat payments for your mechanic.
That said, I drive a European car, and it's great. But my mechanic knows me well and gives me a volume discount.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
I can do that just fine by myself, thank you very much.
Darwin Awards (Score:2)
Remember:
if you kill someone else while crashing your car when driving completely pissed,
you're disqualified from the Darwin Award.
You'd like a Bus? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like a car that can drive me around while I drink beer
With this Audi you can drink beer in stop and go traffic. That's when you need it the most anyhow.