Would they just not receive radio contact for a few weeks and then assume they'd been sunk?

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile, and I was wondering if anyone here would be able to help me!

Specific examples I was thinking of would be the P-47 Thunderbolt and the F4U Corsair, or the P80 Shooting Star and the F9F Panther, however this is something I've noticed to be fairly farther reaching than just these four. Why were these planes, which were developed roughly around the same time and used for the same purpose, so different? Is it solely because one was meant to launch from a Carrier? Was that one restriction really drastic enough to warrant a completely different design? Was political influence a major factor?

I know that today we're designing a single fighter, the F-35, to be used by both services with respective variants. Why wasn't this approach used back then? Wouldn't having one design to maintain make logistics easier?

I have been watching a program about beavers on PBS and started thinking about pre-colonial era America and the unchecked consumption of land and resources. When did the notion of conservationism come into play?

How did the players decide what to play? Were there set pieces that they improvised on as the scenes demanded (sad, rousing, suspense, ...)? Did they watch the movies a couple of times beforehand or did they jump right in? Were there training schools to become a movie accompanist?

Also: did some movies have official music scores?

youtube.com/watch?v=0Vf_gUvPVUU

Assuming she were among a somewhat higher class, would she be aware of any scientific advancements or happenings around the world? Would she be allowed to visit a theater or something?

Any and all points towards first and secondary sources for daily life of young women during this time would be very helpful.

And if they never even tried, why not? This has always intrigued me, Austria-Hungary was an economic and military powerhouse, but as far as I know chose not to jump on the bandwagon of European imperialism.

I've heard several explanations, including geopolitics, distancing them from the Ottoman legacy, and convenience. Are any of them true, and are there any larger reasons?

I know a lot of slaves became Christian for a variety of reasons, but did any become Jewish? Did they stay Jewish? I don't think there were a lot of Jewish slave owners but there were some.

Another question would be whether the slaves of Jewish owners were treated any better or worse than their Christian counterparts.

Given what occurred in WW1 and the British tactics evolving to the convoy system and their advice to the US for its use, I find it difficult to understand the delay in using it.

Been reading a lot about Mao recently and on first thoughts he seems very similar to Stalin, cult of personality etc, any thoughts?

I'm more interested in the period between 1800 and 1922 as i sort of understand the issues with Cromwell and such. Thanks!

Speaking of the collapse of the western roman empire in the 5th century, of course. What are the underlying changes occurring in western civilization and the world at that time that allowed this to happen? I know I'm opening a big door here, but this is the most reputable venue to pose this question outside of academic papers that are directed at other academics and assume a bit of prior knowledge.

This is probably the premier question in the study of history, and I don't mean to start a lot of arguments, but I'm interested in how catastrophic the collapse actually was, and what its causes were, the degree human agency played in the fall, and what basic social changes happened to make it happen.

The whole Holomodor is a huge mystery to me. I have no idea why we know so little about it. Moreover, according to my estimates, about half a million Jews died from this campaign, since about 10% of the Ukrainians were Jewish, and around 7M died in the Holomodor.

If I were a Ukrainian, I'd be extremely resentful of all things Russian, especially with the memory of '33 so fresh in my mind.

Right now I find myself very interested in Celtic history. I'm into everything- society, art, war- everything. Does anyone have a good book or podcast about the Celts to reccomend?

I was walking around the Art Institute of Chicago today and realized something. While what I was seeing was very nice and interesting, it was all sort of... pleasant. There was nothing disturbing or evil or dark or angry.

Obviously I see modern art that fits that bill, but is there any art that's older - say 19 century or before that depicts that kind of really negative or disturbing emotion?