The Mercator projection is so misleading. Russia is a lot smaller than it appears. Africa is huge:

https://www.thetruesize.com/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/geographical-misconceptions-mercator-projection/

Yes, the distortion you get with certain map types is quite severe indeed. Having said that, Russia is still the largest country in the world followed by Canada and then China.

And other projections just distort it in different ways. Turns out it's hard to take a 3D planet and put it on a 2D piece of paper. If you want accuracy, get a globe.

Are those still manufactured?

Russia is quite small

What amazes me about this is the base map they're using, I can literally zoom in and see MY HOUSE! I can in fact zoom in practically anywhere in the world (everywhere I've tried) and see building locations depicted. That map is linked to a lot of data.

but the globe is round, and its just the mercator printed over it. also this site is so wrong the distortion is as if earth was concave

Africa not a country

https://www.heifer.org/blog/africa-...ou-need-to-know-about-the-continent.html

Ever notice just how many countries could be lost in the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean?

Just makes you think what a monumental task it was to wage a major air, naval and land war in the Pacific during WWII.

Exactly.

^ That reminded me some interesting numbers are given in Dunningan's and Nofi's "The Pacific War Encyclopedia" on this subject. Average number of days it took cargo ships (which are slow by definition) to sail from Japan to Burma was 65, to Philippines - 28, to Dutch Indies - 52, to New Guinea - 48, Truk - 42. That's based on average 60-70 NM covered per day, plus stops in ports along the way. Allied sea freight was somewhat better organized and a little faster, but still, from Frisco to Brisbane - 28 days, Guadalcanal - 26. Makes you think. Between departure and arrival of the cargo/tanker ship, battles and campaigns could be won or lost in the meantime.

Yup. That's a great way of looking at it.

As for me personally, I know I would have been miserable stuck on a cargo ship for 28 days. Even with leisure cruises, one week is the most I can handle.

Imagine if those Pacific Islands were not there.

My father served as gun crew on freighters/tankers during the war (US Navy Armed Guard). Made numerous long voyages from east coast of US to Aruba oil refineries, through the canal several times to Hawaii and then later on to Kwajalein, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam and ending the war anchored off Okinawa.

Why yes they are.

Just got one a couple months ago. I was bothered by the distorted view provided by the 2D map on my wall.

so now that you see how many landmass fit in the pacific.........

Clearly that big, open space in the Pacific is where Atlantis was.

I was reading a book on warship design. The author was talking about US ships and that many of their design differences from the British was the distances in the Pacific. Affected a lot of things. He spent a lot of discussion on fuel tanks and crew quarters. Even the anchor systems were different since they would seldom be in good harbors and would be anchoring at deeper depths for longer periods of time. Had an impact on tonnage and space. He discussed that with the distances and heat in the Pacific there was more attention to ventilation and crew living quarters. Had to allow for larger freshwater tanks. All of it had impact on space, weight, ventilation shafts affecting armor and compartments, etc.

Lots of other little things that I can’t remember.

Can you imagine how tough it was for maritimers to make those journeys in the 1800's?