Alabama A 4 2000: Fill & Download for Free

“Will it be good idea to have Elon Musk running for 2020 US presidential election?”Sure we’ll take another face with no chance to fundraise for down-ballot candidates that are incapable of fundraising themselves. Because when it comes right down to it, the main benefit of a federal campaign is the idea that they can fundraise nationally to generate party revenues for local politicians to run for office that voters never heard about.Most voters don’t know anything about the local politicians they voted for other than that there was a name running unopposed in the popular party. Local offices are the easiest thing for any politician to win because they just need to be living in an area that supports the party that they want to identify with and get their name on the ballot. After all, ballot access rules are ‘state’ laws, not federal, but it doesn’t matter because even federal elections are held at the state level too.Alabama. A new party, or a statewide independent candidate (for all office except president) needs a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. No one has managed to complete this petition since it came into existence in 1997 except the Libertarians in 2000. Furthermore, if a party does get on, it needs to poll 20% of the vote for any statewide office to stay on. Furthermore, the petition deadline in presidential years is in March.Arizona. A long section of the election code, passed in 1961 and declared unconstitutional in 1973, bans the Communist Party from the ballot and also says no one has a right to try to persuade someone of the virtues of communism. The law describes the "international communistic conspiracy" and makes reference to Cuba. I have asked legislators to repeal this, repeatedly, for 10 years, and even though sometimes a legislator says they will introduce a bill to repeal it, they never do.D.C. requires exactly 3,000 signatures to get on the general election ballot for any districtwide partisan office except president. But president needs about 4,700 valid signatures. D.C. also provides that a write-in presidential candidate may file a declaration of write-in candidacy, and the names of three candidates for presidential elector. But if someone uses this procedure, D.C. still won't count his or her write-in votes! This appears to contradict Bush v Gore, but the US District Court and US Court of Appeals still upheld that policy.Florida has very tolerant ballot access for every type of candidate, and doesn't require any petition, with the sole exception of an independent presidential candidate, who needs about 110,000 signatures by early July.Georgia's petition for US House and state legislature, 5% of the number of registered voters, is so severe, no legislative candidate successfully used the procedure in 2012 except for one candidate for the State House, Bill Bozarth. Incumbent independents don't need to petition, so Rusty Kidd didn't petition in 2012. No independent has successfully submitted the 5% petition for US House since 1964, and back in 1964, the petition wasn't due until October, the signatures weren't checked, they didn't need to be notarized, and no filing fee was needed. In 1964 the law was made worse (effective 1965). The petitions are now due in July, and each sheet must be notarized, and anyone who notarizes any sheets may not petition himself or herself, and a fee equal to 3% of the annual office salary is also needed. No minor party has ever complied with the 5% petition, which was passed in 1943. In special elections no petition is needed. Billy McKinney got on as an independent for one US House in 1982 but because redistricting was late that year, he only needed a 1.3% petition.Hawaii requires an independent candidate (for office other than president) to poll 10% in the open primary (or else to outpoll the winner of one of the partisan primaries for the same office). Very few voters choose an independent primary ballot because generally that ballot has no candidates at all on it.Illinois requires newly-qualifying parties to identify their nominees on the petition before the petition can circulate. Furthermore, separate petitions are required for each district and county office. So a new party that wanted to run a full slate of candidates for all federal and state offices would need one statewide petition, and a separate petition in each US House district, and State Senate district, and State House district. The petitions can only circulate for 3 months and are due in June. The district and county petitions are 5% of the last vote cast. So a new party would need several hundred thousand signatures, and circulators would need to ask signers on the street to sign 4 separate petitions, if working in a district with a State Senate up that year. They would also need more signatures on county office petitions.Maine petitions for a member of a small qualified party to get on his or her own primary ballot are very severe: 2,000 signatures of party members for statewide office, even if the party might only have a few thousand members.Maryland requires four times as many signatures for a statewide independent as an entirely new party.Massachusetts has the same problem as Maine, but the statewide primary petitions for US Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, are 10,000 signatures. Only party members and registered independents can sign. Both Maine and Massachusetts are irrational for not taking a party's size (number of registered voters) into account.Montana requires a statewide non-presidential independent candidate to submit a petition of 5% of the winner's vote, which means up to 17,000 signatures are sometimes required. But an entire new party can get on with 5,000 signatures exactly.New Hampshire requires a party petition to be signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, and it is illegal to circulate such a petition in an odd year.New Mexico requires the nominees of small ballot-qualified parties to submit a petition, after they are nominated. This makes no sense whatsoever, but the petitions are 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. If New Mexico required the winner of a major party primary to submit a petition for general election ballot access after winning the primary, people would laugh at the very thought of such a law, but that is what New Mexico does to minor parties.North Carolina requires statewide independents to submit a petition signed by 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is about 90,000 signatures. The signatures are due in June. No statewide independent has ever qualified in North Carolina, except Ross Perot in 1992. North Carolina requires independent candidates for district office to submit a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters. No independent for US House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot in North Carolina.North Dakota requires a small qualified party, which must nominate by primary, to attract a large number of voters to choose its primary ballot, or it can't nominate anyone for state legislature. The formula is 1% of the population of the district (that includes children and other ineligible to vote). That sounds easy but in effect it requires about 15% of the actual primary voters to choose a minor party's primary ballot. There have been no minor party legislative nominees on the November ballot since 1976.Oklahoma requires a newly-qualifying party to submit a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast. No one has ever complied with this petition in a midterm year, when the petition burden is far greater because turnout in presidential years is so much higher than in midterm years. A party must poll 10% for President/Governor in order to stay on. No one can register into an unqualified party, except if a party ever does get on, and it fails the vote test and goes off, anyone can re-register into that party for the following two years. But all the party's registrants are removed when it fails to get 10% and must re-register.Pennsylvania requires a party to have a membership of at least 15% of the statewide registration to remain on the ballot. If this law were in effect in Rhode Island, DC, or Massachusetts, Republicans would be off the ballot. If it were in existence in Idaho and Utah, Democrats would be off the ballot. Also, Pennsylvania puts petitioning groups at risk of paying court costs of over $100,000 if they submit a petition that is found not to have enough valid signatures.South Dakota requires a member of a small ballot-qualified party running in a primary for Governor, US Senator, US House, or Lieutenant Governor, to submit a petition of 250 party members. If a party only has 500 or so registered members, that is virtually impossible. Also, a legislative candidate needs 50 signatures of party members.Texas requires independent presidential candidates to submit a petition of 1% of the last presidential vote, whereas an independent candidate for any other statewide office needs 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. The difference can be up to 40%. Independent candidate petitions are due weeks before the minor party petition is due.

Its a long long answer, but trust me, in the end, every word will be worth reading.In 1994, an unassuming eye doctor in London got a call to tell him that his brother had died unexpectedly in a car crash and that he had to move back in with his parents. Why? His father was Hafez al-Assad, the internationally reviled dictator of Syria, and our humble eye doctor was now commanded to prepare for his new inheritance - the Presidency of Syria.Bashar al-Assad became president upon his father's death in 2000. He married the charming British-born Asma Akhras in December. Hafez al-Assad's foreign policy had been against the Western powers, which he resented for the colonial occupation of his country, and pro-Soviet Russia, which had sent military assistance and arms to Syria. The Western-leaning young couple worked to thaw relations with the developed world.The Assads were invited to the capitals of Europe and forged friendly contacts with world leaders. By 2010, with the ruins of Saddam Hussein's regime smoldering in Iraq and a peace deal signed in Palestine, suddenly the path was clear from oil and gas producers in the Middle East, all the way to Europe. There remained just one last country to bring onside in order to get oil and gas piped through to a high demand region. That country was Syria.As oil-price.net reported back in 2012, Qatar needed to get its Qatar-Turkey" pipeline through Syria, and Europe looked forward to linking up with the world's largest gas producer because it was over-dependent on Russian supplies. Russia's unstable president Vladimir Putin had previously cut off gas supplies to Europe in the dead of winter 2009 after a dispute with Ukraine over gas royalties. The Russian military has since invaded Ukraine and given Putin's aggressive stance, Europe now urgently needs to find an alternate gas supply not controlled by Russia. This makes a middle-eastern pipeline coming through Syria a very attractive proposition.The Assads soon realized that they were in a position of power. They decided to up the ante by creating an alternative source of fuel for a trans-Syrian pipeline. Most of the countries in the Middle East, including Syria are majority Sunni Muslim. The post-Hussein regime in Iraq was dominated by Shia Muslims, The Assads are Alawite Muslims - a Shia creed that the Sunnis from Qatar and Saudi Arabia would like to see wiped off the earth. So instead of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, Assad stitched together a deal with the Shia administration in Iraq, together with Iraq's other neighbor, Iran - the largest Shia nation in the world. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline project was born.Syria's economy was underdeveloped and the Assads needed oil money to keep their people placated. Their alternative pipeline plan would carry Iran and Iraq's gas to Europe, instead of gas from Qatar, and that option pleased Russia's Putin, because he already had long standing agreements in place with Iran, who were more amenable to gas price coordination with Russia. Moreover, as a long-term supporter of Syria, Russia had built up influence within the administration and the armed forces. Also Russia's only military base in the Mediterranean is located on the coast of Syria which would strategically allow Putin to control a second gas pipeline to Europe. Naturally this Iranian pipeline to Syria quickly became a top priority for Moscow. Assad and the Russians worked their contacts to dissuade the Qatar deal and promote the Iranian plan. Bashar and Asma thought they had forced Europe and the Gulf States to up their offer. Instead, they had made some very dangerous enemies.Saudi diplomatic efforts and generous contracts to US and UK arms manufacturers gave the Kingdom an unwritten call on the military of Western powers to fight its war for it. And so the Saudi king merely needed to lift a finger for President Obama and Britain's Prime Minister Cameron to schedule air strikes against Syria in an effort to overthrow Assad. At the end of August 2013, however, the British parliament voted against the action. That put pressure on the US president who calculated that Congress would follow suit and block any attack on Syria as well. Russia raised the stakes by moving warships into the Mediterranean, ready to defend Syria. Saudi Arabia's friends backed down, and the Saudi king resolved to solve the problem of Syria himself.As Iran is liberated from US-imposed embargo, two power blocks have emerged in the Middle East - Iran, Iraq and Syria, which are all Shia-led, and the rest of the Arab world, which is Sunni and stands against the Shia. While America holds the alliance of the Sunni world, Russia is siding with the Shia-controlled nations.Saudi Arabia and Qatar's first move was to fund the Muslim Brotherhood, which intended to impose Sunni control on all Middle Eastern countries. The Saudis persuaded the United States to endorse this policy and western media put a marketing spin on the rebellions of these Muslim fundamentalists, by dubbing their power grab "the Arab Spring". Once the Brotherhood's intolerance started to emerge in power, the US backed out and the Saudis tried a different tack.The Saudis had another trick up their sleeve. Not only did the US refuse to overthrow Assad, but they then opened negotiations to loosen the oil embargo on Iran. The prospects of Iran coming back to the international oil market would heighten the growing over-supply of crude oil. Usually in these situations, OPEC was expected to cut its production to reduce oversupply in the oil market and make oil production profitable for all the other countries in the world. Saudi production quotas so exceed those of all the other OPEC nations that no production cut would be meaningful if the Saudis refused to cooperate.The Saudis came up with a new strategy that would punish Russia for their intervention in Syria, stall Iran from retooling its oil industry and cripple America's fracking production. They increased oil production and aggressively offered low oil prices to grab market share. The oil price fall conveniently stymied all the parties involved in keeping Assad in power.Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been heavily involved with fostering and funding Sunni Muslim insurgent groups in Iraq and Syria, including the much-publicized ISIS. Disaffected and experienced Sunni administrators and soldiers in Iraq poured into ISIS, who offered them wages and self-respect.ISIS are funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar donors, but not controlled by them. Their leaders found it easy to quickly grab the Sunni dominated areas of Iraq and Syria, aided by the downtrodden locals. However, they have shown an ambivalent attitude in their administration. The leaders of national branches of ISIS seek income opportunities to enable them to advance ahead of rival branch leaders and gain policy independence from Saudi Arabia. In northern Iraq, they run the oil refineries they take over to make a profit. In Libya, they destroy them as offenses to God. The Libyan branch of ISIS prefers the easy money of people smuggling. Established smuggling routes also serve the long-term strategic ambition to project fighters worldwide.ISIS-lead upheavals in Syria create a crisis that refugees are fleeing from, the ISIS-lead smuggling operations in Libya offer those refugees a route into Europe.It is no coincidence that Germany suddenly decided to offer very generous welfare rewards to any illegal immigrant who can make it over the Mediterranean from the Libyan coast to Italian islands. Germany needs guest worker labor from poorer countries in order to keep its manufacturers competitive.Germany's ability to continue exporting in the face of a high wage economy is hailed by their government as a tribute to the German education system. In truth, behind the scenes, the German government knows very well that their low wage, high output economy is a tribute to the Turkish education system. Despite objections from the general public, the German government has allowed unrestricted migration from Turkey since the 1980s. The low wage ambitions of migrant Turkish factory workers undercut the negotiating powers of German trade unions. German workers had to keep their wage demands low to keep their jobs from being handed over to Turkish unskilled labor.But the economic emergence of Turkey in recent years caused the flow of cheap labor to Germany to dry up. Now the German government finds itself scrambling for more migrant labor to stave off inflationary pressures.The new German policy of serving its own interests, in hindsight can be seen as a long-term movement from the country's hope for European harmony, to its hegemony of the continent. The Schengen Agreement removed all border controls between EU member states. This was a step towards Germany's original goal of merging itself into a wider country. However, the downside of borderless Europe is that any illegal migrant who can make it into Italy, Greece or Spain then has the whole of the EU to roam across unhindered. Germany turned that weakness to its advantage in its endeavor to source cheap labor. Their siren call to the downtrodden of the Muslim world has seen the countries of southern and eastern Europe overrun by ambitious economic migrants. Germany received twice as many asylum applications in 2014 than Turkey did.Towards the end of August 2015, Germany made matters worse by declaring that they would accept all refugees arriving from Syria. Unsurprisingly, the number of asylum seekers crowding into dinghies on the Libyan coast surged. The number that claimed to be Syrian went through the roof. By September, German officials estimated that 20 per cent of migrants arriving in that country are from Syria. The large majority is from other countries such as Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan.The German call for cheap labor worked well - too well. In 2014, 173,000 migrants applied for asylum. German officials estimate that this year, that number will be between 800,000 and 1 million. Their success has convinced many to follow suit - an estimated 20 to 30 millions are now considering migrating from the middle east to benefit from Europe's welfare system.Although the German government wants a lot of migrants, its neighbors plagued with double-digit unemployment don't and European countries started re-imposing border controls. The Europhile dream of a borderless continent was trampled underfoot by Germany's grab for cheap labor.In fact there is already ample statistical evidence that this "welfare migration" has significantly hurt European economies. In the Netherlands, 70% of Somalis live on welfare versus just 3 per cent for the native Dutch and 2 per cent for Polish migrants. According to Norway's Central Bureau of statistics, each non-European immigrant costs $660,000 over his lifetime.Britain's experience echoes the continental figures. Over the last 17 years Britain has spent $180 billion on immigrants from outside the EU, namely on welfare, while foreign workers from within the EU contributed $6.6 billion to the British economy.There is also an increased risk of terrorism - ISIS fighters are among migrants. According to Mike MCCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, "From a national security standpoint, I take ISIS at its word when they said, in their own words, 'We'll use and exploit the refugee crisis to infiltrate the West.' That concerns me." According to Lebanese officials, 2.2 per cent of Syrians crowding refugee camps are affiliated with ISIS. In other words, of the 10,000 migrants arriving in Germany daily, 220 are war-hardened ISIS fighters - though many others have comparable affiliations.Germany's neighbors were not the only ones complaining about the policy of attracting unfiltered migrants - the German electorate rose up in protest in the face of this unprecedented geopolitical risk.A similar geopolitical situation unfolded in Lebanon 40 years ago. Back in the 60s and early 70s, Lebanon was a very westernized and dynamic center of regional trade. It was a former colony of France with a strong Christian presence dating back to the crusades. Beirut was often compared to Switzerland or Hong Kong and earned the nickname of "the Monaco of the Middle East".At that time, nearby Jordan was housing 400,000 Palestinian refugees from the war with Israel. These refugees, embittered by their experience, turned fundamentalists. Their allegiance to the PLO was increasingly problematic so the King of Jordan evicted them. Homeless, and penniless Palestinians headed for prosperous Lebanon. Insisting on maintaining their traditional values, they created "a state within a state" under Sharia law against Lebanon's secular democratic model. Tensions increased as native Christians were soon outnumbered by Muslims and in 1975 a fully-fledged civil war broke out where countless were killed.Today no-one would seriously compare Lebanon to Switzerland as they once did. We should remember three key facts, though. First, it took 400,000 refugees to destabilize of a westernized country of 2.6 million, or a ratio of roughly 1 to 7. Second, is that Lebanese leftists perceived the war as a "class struggle" (the poor against the rich) so they fought alongside Muslim fundamentalists against Christians during the Lebanese civil war. Finally, demands for welfare and the draining expense of expanding an army, frittered away Lebanon's wealth as all commerce stopped and the tax base disappearedThe German government has found itself a clever formula. It has agreed to let in more than a million migrants this year, but it hasn't agreed to let them stay. This wordplay around the status of their visitors gives Angela Merkel a sufficient glow of piety to put her in pole position for the Nobel Peace Prize this year, but doesn't actually commit them to grant passports to anyone.Germany has implemented a nine month selection window to keep the brightest migrants, who will plug their labor shortage. That's right, keep the best, reject the rest, but what will happen to those who cannot assimilate to a western society and are rejected? They can't be sent back to a war zone, and they can't remain in Germany. The borderless Schengen area provides the solution. In fact Germany is already laying plans for where to send its rejects. They forced through an EU ruling in late September which obliges other EU countries to take a percentage of refugees off their hands.Some European leaders have been able to spot Germany's tactics and have already cried foul. The ensuing name calling and outright venom that flew between Berlin and Budapest, seat of the leader of the no-voting block's leader, Viktor Orban, shows cracks appearing in European unity.Economic need may force the refugees to move on. Cut off from the much advertised generous state benefits in Germany, they will merely up sticks and mob over the borders to Austria, Poland, France and the Netherland in search of more handouts. As they link up with leftist radicals and religious extremists of those countries, a Lebanon style rebellion could develop.While Germany, with 81 million people may be able control 1 million migrants (albeit not easily), it would spell doom for its smaller and vulnerable European neighbors, namely Denmark, Finland, Slovakia and Norway - each with 5 million inhabitants - much like it did in Lebanon 40 years ago.There will be a "domino-effect" among European nations re-introducing pre-EU strong border controls, as Hungary has already done. This will significantly reduce trade between EU countries. Fewer trucks on the road mean less energy consumption, less commerce and lower tax revenues, higher deficits and a weakening Euro.When the populations of Germany's neighboring countries get let in on Berlin's refugee filtering trick, the anger and mistrust between European nations that has been repressed for the last 25 years will resurface and may split the EU apart. Europe's competitive advantages will ebb away. We can expect that some strategic industries - those who can - flee Europe's geopolitical risk. Coincidently, Airbus SA recently announced its plan to relocate production of the upcoming A320 airplane to Mobile, Alabama USA instead of France. Going forward Europe's image will suffer irreparable loss while North America and Asia will remain stable and open for business.Crude Oil Price, Oil, Energy, Petroleum, Oil Price, WTI & Brent Oil, Oil Price Charts and Oil Price Forecast has a long track record of successfully forecasting geopolitical risks tied to petroleum. In 2012 we predicted that armed militias would seize oil fields in Sudan, Libya and Nigeria and warned of the potential disaster that factions can cause in that region. The unintended consequences of the US invasion of Iraq switched the dominant religion in that country and created a Shia corridor from the heart of Afghanistan through to the Eastern Mediterranean coast; and made Saudi Arabia feel threatened.The Saudi and Qatar plan to switch the Syrian government from Shia to Sunni promised the reward of a clear Sunni corridor from the gulf to the frontier of the European Union. However, their methods of achieving that goal drove Syria to plan a pipelinebenefiting Iran and unleashed the chaos of extremist control of large areas of Iraq, Syria and Libya.An unintended consequence of Europe's support for a Qatar-Syria gas pipeline free of Russian influence was the migrant crisis currently flooding Europe. The German government's idea to exploit the overwhelming tide of asylum seekers to gain cheap labor backfired into the de-unification of Europe.The blowback caused by Saudi policy over the past few years extends beyond the Middle East, and it still hasn't played itself out.The Saudis intended to cripple Russia, Iran and US frackers through lower oil prices. However, all of those countries have joined the Saudis in increasing production since the price of oil started to fall in 2014.If anyone is going to blink first, it won't be the USA, where some frackers have reduced their production costs from $70 per barrel to $20 per barrel.Vladimir Putin based his entire political strategy on the exploitation of oil and gas, both as an income generator, and as a weapon against his perceived enemies. Russia's long term answer to the Saudi punch of lower oil prices had been in the making since Putin scared off the USA and the UK from bombing Syria. He didn't move his battleship to the Syrian coast as a gesture. He set himself up as the military overlord of Syria and took control of the one access point common to both the Iranian and Qatari pipelines.The sudden revelation of the extent of Russia's involvement in Syria hit newsstands in early October 2015 when the Russian air force started bombing rebels in Syria. With international law on its side, Russia is defending the legitimate Syrian government against Saudi-backed terrorists.Putin needs the income that his oil industry brings his government. The oil price drop and the Western sanctions against Russia hurt. His favorite industry, however, is gas. Russia controls 70 per cent of gas supplies to Europe and that brings him political advantages, as well as the ability to set falsely high gas prices. Europe's resolve to block trade with Russia will soon weaken during the freezing winter. With no hope of a pipeline bringing Middle Eastern gas through Syria, German-lead Europe will be easier to deal with. Russia is well placed to become Iran's new best friend. Putin is sitting pretty.Saudi Arabia itself has a belligerent population and its government keeps the lid on dissent by being very generous with sweeteners for its people. Those subsidies are expensive and now that they are selling oil near cost price, the Saudi government is drawing down its saving.The Saudis are running out of money and Western governments are starting to realize that they would rather Assad survived in office to help them fight the Saudi-funded ISIS. The comfortable relationship between the governments of Saudi Arabia and the USA seems to have broken down. A growing awareness among the populations of the West that Saudi Arabia funds terrorist organizations makes it harder for those democratic governments to make moves to support the Saudi King. So, Saudi Arabia is losing its big military ally, while Iran, Iraq and Syria become more closely involved with Russia.Low oil prices have become the new normal. The only way they will ever change is if a large amount of world oil output gets knocked out. It turns out this may be in the cards.In booting ISIS out of Syria, Russian military planners most certainly will use a strategy called "funneling". Quite simply, with the assistance of allied Iran to the east, Russia will attack ISIS troops anywhere but south, forcing a retreat in that direction, thus "funneling" ISIS fighter south into rival Saudi Arabia. ISIS may find grassroot support within the kingdom and their natural target will first be -as always- oil fields. The resulting shortfall in oil and gas production will enable Russia and Iran to incease military spending and extend their strategical influence on the region, much like the US did.An unintended consequence of the Saudi attempts to overthrow the government of Syria, may be the overthrow of the government of Saudi Arabia with its own medicine. Should ISIS be pushed into Saudi Arabia, expect oil prices to surge.If you really don't want to read the entire answer, just read last 4 paragraphs, you will understand somewhat.

KThe US out produced the Axis.“Powerful enemies must be out-fought and out-produced,” President Franklin Roosevelt told Congress and his countrymen less than a month after Pearl Harbor. “It is not enough to turn out just a few more planes, a few more tanks, a few more guns, a few more ships than can be turned out by our enemies,” he said. “We must out-produce them overwhelmingly, so that there can be no question of our ability to provide a crushing superiority of equipment in any theatre of the world war.”Two years earlier, America’s military preparedness was not that of a nation expecting to go to war. In 1939, the United States Army ranked thirty-ninth in the world, possessing a cavalry force of fifty thousand and using horses to pull the artillery. Many Americans — still trying to recover from the decade-long ordeal of the Great Depression — were reluctant to participate in the conflict that was spreading throughout Europe and Asia. President Roosevelt did what he could to coax a reluctant nation to focus its economic might on military preparedness. If the American military wasn’t yet equal to the Germans or the Japanese, American workers could build ships and planes faster than the enemy could sink them or shoot them down.In the wake of Pearl Harbor, the president set staggering goals for the nation’s factories: 60,000 aircraft in 1942 and 125,000 in 1943; 120,000 tanks in the same time period and 55,000 antiaircraft guns. In an attempt to coordinate government war agencies Roosevelt created the War Production Board in 1942 and later in 1943 the Office of War Mobilization. To raise money for defense, the government relied on a number of techniques — calling on the American people to ration certain commodities, generating more tax revenue by lowering the personal exemption and selling government war bonds to individuals and financial institutions. All of these methods served to provide the government with revenue and at the same time keep inflation under control.War production profoundly changed American industry. Companies already engaged in defense work expanded. Others, like the automobile industry, were transformed completely. In 1941, more than three million cars were manufactured in the United States. Only 139 more were made during the entire war. Instead, Chrysler made fuselages. General Motors made airplane engines, guns, trucks and tanks. Packard made Rolls-Royce engines for the British air force. And at its vast Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, the Ford Motor Company performed something like a miracle 24-hours a day. The average Ford car had some 15,000 parts. The B-24 Liberator long-range bomber had 1,550,000. One came off the line every 63 minutes.The University of South Alabama ArchivesThe newly built U.S.S. Fort Laramie is launched in a Mobile channel.America launched more vessels in 1941 than Japan did in the entire war. Shipyards turned out tonnage so fast that by the autumn of 1943 all Allied shipping sunk since 1939 had been replaced. In 1944 alone, the United States built more planes than the Japanese did from 1939 to 1945. By the end of the war, more than half of all industrial production in the world would take place in the United States.Wartime production boomed as citizens flocked to meet the demand for labor. Tensions were often high between labor unions, which in spite of no-strike pledges felt the need to protect worker’s rights and could not stop strikes altogether, and citizens were outraged to hear of any work stoppages. In one instance when the United Mine Workers went on strike in 1943, newspapers condemned the miners as traitors. On June 25, 1943, Congress passed the War Labor Disputes (Smith-Connally) Act that authorized the President to take over plants needed for the war effort or in which war production had ceased because of a labor dispute.While 16 million men and women marched to war, 24 million more moved in search of defense jobs, often for more pay than they previously had ever earned. Eight million womenstepped into the work force and ethnic groups such as African Americans and Latinosfound job opportunities as never before.“Most of the people who got out of high school if they were female and didn’t go to the war, they went to Mobile,” said Emma Belle Petcher, who moved to the city from the tiny town of Millry, Alabama. “That was the place to go and get a job. And there were all kinds of jobs.”World War II utterly transformed Mobile and its economy. The explosion began in the late 1930s, when local companies such as Alcoa began producing war materiel for Japan and European countries. Local shipyards won contracts to build Liberty ships and destroyers in 1940, and by the time America entered the war in late 1941, Mobile was already booming. The Alcoa plant processed millions of pounds of alumina used to build many of the 304,000 airplanes America produced during the war; the Waterman Steamship Company boasted one of the nation’s largest merchant fleets, and Mobile became one of the busiest shipping and shipbuilding ports in the nation. In 1940, Gulf Shipbuilding had had 240 employees; by 1943, it had 11,600. Alabama Dry Dock went from 1,000 workers to almost 30,000.Like the shipyards in Mobile and plane-repair facilities near Sacramento, factories in Waterbury, Connecticut were transformed to keep up with the war. The Mattatuck Manufacturing Company switched from making upholstery nails to cartridge clips for the Springfield rifle, and soon was turning out three million clips a week. The American Brass Company made more than two billion pounds of brass rods, sheets and tubes during the war. The Chase Brass and Copper Company made more than 50 million cartridge cases and mortar shells, more than a billion small caliber bullets and, eventually, components used in the atomic bomb.Library of CongressRows of airplane propellors, ready for shipment from a Hartford, CT plant.Sign in the background reads “Every Minute Counts.”Scovill Manufacturing produced so many different military items, the Waterbury Republican reported, that “there wasn’t an American or British fighting man … who wasn’t dependent on [the company] for some part of the food, clothing, shelter and equipment that sustained [him] through the … struggle.”Many factories ran around the clock. “It was seven days a week,” said Clyde Odom of Mobile. “And during the war when it was so strong, it was twelve-hour days five days a week, ten hours on Saturday, eight hours on Sunday, you felt like you've had a week off. And that went in and out, over, over and over and over.”“Money seemed to be the least of the concerns,” Ray Leopold of Waterbury said. “The thing was to produce material that will win the war and bring their boys home.”With the economy booming, Americans felt their lives improving.“Things started getting better and better and better for the people who had to stay behind,” Sacramento’s William Perkins said. “People were doing real good economically. And it was a big boost from the end of the Depression up until the war ended and it just rolled on.”sModern TanksShopGame NewsGoodiesUSA (WW2)Light, medium & heavy tanks, armored carsMedium tanksMarmon-Herrington MTLS-1GI4Medium Tank M2Medium Tank M3 Lee/GrantMedium Tank M4 ShermanMedium Tank M4A6Medium Tank M7Medium Tank T23Medium Tank T26E4 “Super Pershing”Medium/Heavy Tank M26 PershingLight tanksLight Tank (Airborne) M22 LocustLight Tank M2Light Tank M24 ChaffeeLight Tank M3 StuartLight Tank M5 StuartLight Tank/Combat Car M1Marmon-Herrington CTLS-4TAMarmon-Herrington CTMS-1TB1Tank destroyers37mm GMC M6 Fargo3in GMC M10 “Wolverine”76.2mm GMC M18 Hellcat90mm GMC M36 JacksonSPGsHMC M7 PriestHMC M8 “Scott”Flame-thrower vehiclesE7-7 Mechanized FlamethrowerLight Tank M3A1 SatanSherman CrocodileHalf-tracksHalf Track Car M2Half Track Car M3Armored carsArmored Car M1Armored Car M8 GreyhoundScout Car M3Landing Vehicle TrackedLVT-1 AlligatorLVT-2 Water BuffaloLVT-3 BushmasterLVT-4 Water BuffaloLVT(A)-1Other vehiclesAssault Tank M4A3E2 JumboCanal Defence Light (CDL) TanksDisston Tractor TankHeavy Tank M6Heavy Tank M6A2E1PrototypesAGF’s ‘Improved Medium Tank’APG’s ‘Improved M4’E9-9 Mechanized Flame ThrowerFlame Thrower Tank T33Heavy/Assault Tank T14Light Tank T1 “Cunningham”Medium Tank T6 – The Birth of the ShermanSutton SkunkWrona TankUnarmored vehiclesCargo Carrier M29 WeaselGMC DUKWWillys MB/Ford GPW JeepUS tactics related articlesEffectiveness of Tactical Air Strikes in World War II – “Tank busting”US tech related articlesImprovised Armor on M4 Shermans in the PTORocket Launcher T34 ‘Calliope’US Army Tank Crew HelmetsUS work on anti-magnetic coatingsIntroductionAt the end of WW1, the US Expeditionary Force was given some 144 Renault FT French tanks, and a license for production in the US, as the M1917 tank. But production organization took time and only a few were shipped to France and were operational before the capitulation. Nevertheless, this new weapon proved its ground. Embryos of the Tank Force, the Tank Corps in France and the Tank Service in USA were set, the first by Samuel Rockenbach, assisted by Georges S. Patton, the second headed by Ira Clinton Welborn, assisted by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Patton had already gained some experience, directing a squadron of three armored cars during the punitive expedition sent against Pancho Villa’s insurrection. At the end of the war, one of these units, the 301st Heavy Tank Battalion, was equipped with British Tanks Mk.IV–V. This led to a cooperation on a new design, which ultimately became the Liberty (Mk.VIII) tank.Along with the lighter M1917 tanks, they formed the core of the US Tank Force during the twenties. Georges S. Patton and Dwight Eisenhower played a great role in formulating tactical doctrines and organization.US tank development in the interwarThe Tank Service retained the Mark VIII Liberty and M1917, with no intermediate medium model, until 1928, when a new directive was issued for a medium tank, and a new light model, usable by cavalry. At the same time, William B. Christie, an American car engineer, devised a new, revolutionary tank suspension system, with a dual purpose train, allowing the vehicle to also run without its tracks. However, his project, quickly dubbed the “flying tank”, was never produced in the US except as a prototype, because it never fulfilled all the requirements of the Army and US Marine Corps. The design was not lost and served as a basis for many successful models abroad, in Great Britain (the Cruiser tanks) and Soviet Union (BT series and the T-34).An important place for the American armor projects was the design bureau of the Mississippi’s Rock Island Arsenal(between Iowa and Illinois), which designed, produced and tested tanks for the US Army. Not only did it produced the Liberty Mark VIII tanks in 1919-1920, but also artillery, gun mounts, recoil mechanisms, small arms, aircraft weapons sub-systems, grenade launchers and weapons simulators… that is outside tanks.Light tanksThe M2s were the only operational US light tanks at the beginning of the war. The M2A4 was the sole among the four types which actually took part in combat, especially in the Pacific (like here, at Guadalcanal) with the USMC. It was removed from active duty in 1943. All the others, the pre-series M2A1, the M2A2 “duplex turret” or “Mae West”, and upgraded M2A3, were kept for training in the USA.M1 Combat Car113 built. This early development, along with the M2, was the basis of the M3-M5 “Stuart” lineage, which formed the backbone of US light tanks. The M1A2 was upgraded with a 37 mm (1.46 in) gun in 1940.M2 Light Tank700 built in four variants. Closely related to the M1A2. The most produced version was the M2A4, which saw service in the Pacific and Africa, before being replaced by the mass-produced M3.M3 Stuart13,860 built. The M3 was a replacement for the M2, and was mass-produced, forming the core of the US light tanks during WW2.M5 Stuart8885 built. Based on the M3A3 with a modified hull and new Cadillac engine and transmission. Armor was reinforced, but the armament did not evolve.M24 Chaffee4731 built (and 720+ variants). Last WWII US light tank developed, it was better armored and armed, serving from 1944-45 until the late seventies.Medium tanksM2 medium tank112 built. With the M2A1 wartime production series, this was the earliest US medium tank in service, in 1939. They were retained in the homeland as training machines.M3 Lee/Grant3258 built. This long awaited model entered service as fast as possible with British units fighting in North Africa, through Lend-Lease. It was phased out in 1942, but served until 1945 in Asia. It was mobile, well armed and protected, but the high silhouette and sponson main gun were serious flaws. It was a transition model.M4 Sherman49,234 built. This mythical machine replaced the Lee/Grant and remains the most prolific tank of the western world. But it was a compromise and has some flaws as well, especially when facing German late tanks of 1943-45.M26 PershingAround 2000 built. Only 20 were deployed in Germany a few weeks before the end of the war. The development of this tanks started in 1942, but delays and modifications delayed the production until December 1944. It was well protected and fitted with a 90 mm (3.54 in). It was the base for Cold War US tank development, including the early T29 and T30.Heavy tanksAs pragmatic planners, the US military never seriously envisioned heavyweight breakthrough machines, as tanks were traditionally attached to the cavalry. Speed and easy production were the main concerns at the start of WW2. After war experience in Europe started accumulating, the need for more penetrating power and increased protection came, advocating for all-better medium tanks, specialized tank-hunters and ultimately to the first wartime US heavy tank. The only U.S. Army super-heavy tank ever produced was the experimental T28.M6 Heavy Tank40 built in 1941. Considered obsolete by 1944, they never left home, serving as training machines, for propaganda movies and war bond shows.T28 super-heavy tankTwo built. Experimental machine fitted with a very long barrel 105 mm (4.13 in) gun, in order to deal with the most formidable German tanks in the western European theater. The first was ready when the war ended. The second was scrapped in 1947.Tank destroyersWar experience quickly showed the limitations of the Sherman when facing German armor, as early as the Tunisian campaign. This was epitomized both in Italy (after Italy surrendered) and in France (after D-Day). The main limitation was the lack of range and penetrating power of the regular 75 mm (2.95 in) Sherman main gun. The obvious solution was to choose the British 17-pdr (76.2 mm/3 in) (which was added later to the Sherman Firefly), and to develop a new vehicle based around this gun and specially designed as a tank-hunter.M10 Wolverine6706 built. Ordnance “3-inch Gun Motor Carriage, M10”. Based on a Sherman chassis and drivetrain, with an open top turret fitted with a high-velocity M7 76 mm (3 in)M36 Jackson1772 built, between 1943-45. Fitted with the 90 mm (3.54 in) M3 high-velocity gun, a very effective solution, one of the few fit to deal with German armor in 1944.M18 Hellcat2507 built between 1943-45. Conceived from scratch, with its new suspension and powerful drivetrain, it was lightning fast and fitted with the effective 76 mm (3 in) M1A2 AT gun.Howitzer Motor CarriagesThis part does not include M3 half-track GMC versions; HMC tanks only.M8 Scott1778 built. M5 based HMC fitted with a 75 mm (2.95 in) short barrel howitzer.M7 Priest3490 built, between 1943-45. Fitted with the 105 mm (4.13 in) M1/M2 howitzer, its tall silhouette earned this model the nickname “Priest”.Armored scouts & transportsM1 Armored car12 built (1931) by Cunningham and Rock Island Arsenal. Largely test vehicles used by the Cavalry Corps.M3 Scout car20,918 built. Main US heavy scout car. Was armed with 30 cal. (7.62 mm) and 50 cal. (12.7 mm) machine-guns.M2 half-track13,500 built (+3500 M9 Lend-Lease versions). Was used for towing the 105 mm (4.13 in) howitzer and its crew.M3 half-track43,000 built. Standard armored troop transport of the US Army and USMC. Up to 28 sub-versions and adaptations.M8 Greyhound8523 built. Standard issue 6WD armored scout car.Christie T3E2 prototype during trials. It was one of the last of a whole lineage of cavalry (convertible) tanks.Convertible Combat Car T7. An early attempt in 1937-38 to develop a convertible tank in the idea first approached by Walter Christie in 1928-29. Despite some interesting characteristics the US Army decided to develop its own slower, but more sturdy and better protected type. The Christies were just too extreme for the military thinking of the day.The M1 Combat Car, the first modern tank in US service, came into production in 1937. By 1941, they were all serving as training machines.After the M1 Combat Car, the M2 was the first model available in numbers when the war began in 1939. They existed in several variants.Here, an M2A2 “Mae West” twin turret on display at the Fort Knox museum.M2A3 light tank at the Army Day Parade in 1939.M2A4 light tanks being prepared for delivery in Great Britain. The M2A4 saw action in the desert with British Forces and the Philippines and Guadalcanal.Marmon Herriginton CTLS in Surabaya, in service with the KNIL (Dutch East Indies Army), 1942. Marmon-Herrington was one of the rare private companies developing tanks chiefly for export (although the USMC tested and bough some). The first customer was the KNIL.CTLS of the Navy in Alaska, from a colorized photo – probably the only blue tanks outside LVTsMarmon-Herrington CTLS in Alaska, 1942, some of the rare actions ever performed by these tanks for the USMC.M3 Stuart training at Fort Knox Kentucky. The M3 was the first truly mass-produced wartime American tank. With its 4-6 machine guns and 37 mm main gun it was still up to the job in 1941.M3A3 Stuart passing by Coutances, Normandy, France, summer 1944. M3A1,A2,A3s were produced until replacement in 1942-43 by the M5.Chinese M3A3 Stuart on the road of Ledo, 1944.The M5 Stuarts built by Cadillac were the workhorses of the US military light tank force in 1943-44.M22 Locust light tank at Bovington. Also produced by Marmon-Herrington, it was the only model mass-produced for the Army, tailored to fit inside a heavy-duty glider for airborne operations. Unfortunately, too many compromises led inevitably to a tank which was desperately outmatched by everything the Germans had.US M24 Chaffee light tank on display at Fort Lewis. This was a brand new design, improved in every direction and saw service until the 1960s and even 1980s in many countries worldwide.The M2 medium tank was the first of its kind in the USA. Only 112 were produced by the Rock Island Arsenal, but they were seen as obsolete by 1941 and phased out as training tanks for the duration of the war. They never left the territory.The M3 Lee (Grant in British/Commonwealth service) was the first medium tanks largely available to the Allies and USA during the first part of the war, from 1941 to 1943. The British used them extensively against Rommel’s forces in Africa, and they served well in several Asian and Pacific campaigns, until 1945. On the western theater they were replaced by the M4 Sherman by 1943.M3 Medium tank front viewThe M4 Sherman was the most prolific and best all-around tank the US industry could offer in 1942. The full force of the USA’s production capabilities became obvious in late 1943, when swarms of M4s were seen in action with the US Army, USMC, British and Commonwealth forces, fighting until the end of the war. A legend in itself, with many variants and countless derivatives, and a career which spans decades into the Cold War.M4A3R3 Ronson flamethrower tank in Iwo Jima.The T28 super-heavy tank was the only one of the kind ever built in the United States, at Pacific Car and Foundry. With 95 tons it was indeed super heavy, originally designed to carry an exceptional gun, the 105 mm T5E1. However it was given a Ford GAF V-8 500 hp (372 kW) barely capable to move it, at 8 mph on a good road (that can support its weight). Quite a mobile blockhaus with 300 mm (12 in) of armour on the glacis and mantlet it was impregnable not only to the German 88 L71 and 128 mm, but also potentially the Soviet 120 mm. To lower ground pressure, it had double tracks, with four 2×4 double roadwheels suspended on two sets of HVSS (horizontal volute spring). Autonomy was limited to 100 miles, and it was not compatible with any known railway carriage. Tested until October 1947, the project was terminated. Only one prototype, rediscovered in 1972 at Fort Belvoir, was transferred to the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor in Kentucky where it can be found today, in static conditions