![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris wrote: On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander wrote: ... As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking ships that the comparison is ludicrous. ... Chris Manteuffel Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective as Wildcats at protecting the ships. jsw Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese were at bombing ships in the open sea. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins wrote: On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris wrote: On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander wrote: ... As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking ships that the comparison is ludicrous. ... Chris Manteuffel Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective as Wildcats at protecting the ships. jsw Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese were at bombing ships in the open sea. Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a comment about defending aircraft. You really must start reading the stuff you respond to. Peter Skelton |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 9:35*am, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 19, 8:22 am, Jim Wilkins wrote: On Mar 18, 11:45 pm, Chris wrote: On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, Alexander wrote: ... As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking ships that the comparison is ludicrous. ... Chris Manteuffel Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective as Wildcats at protecting the ships. jsw Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and *HMS Repulse how good the Japanese were at bombing ships in the open sea. Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a comment about defending aircraft. You really must start reading the stuff you respond to. Peter Skelton And the aircraft defending the Prinzu Walsu and Repulsu? I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: ... I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers. They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night, the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived. From "Guadalcanal Diary" "I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as they passed by." One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and lost. So you were a CIA analyst??? jsw |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum wrote: ... I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers.. They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night, the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived. From "Guadalcanal Diary" "I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as they passed by." One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and lost. So you were a CIA analyst??? jsw What does being a CIA analyst have to do with the ships that were sunk? I saw a movie at OCS on the superiority of the Japanese at night fighting that didn't bother to mention that a burning ship provided light for their attack and precluded the Allies seeing that attack as it developed. By the way, which of these battles featured Japanese aircraft sinking "shipping"? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum wrote: ... I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers.. They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night, the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived. From "Guadalcanal Diary" "I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as they passed by." One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and lost. So you were a CIA analyst??? jsw Atlanta, Chicago, Canberra, Quincy, Vincennes and Juneau were torpedoed. What is your expertise? The torpedoes were the Type 93, a six thousand pound bulk launched from a surface ship. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 19, 8:32*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins wrote: ... Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and *HMS Repulse how good the Japanese were at bombing ships in the open sea. No air cover. The Type 97 and 99 land-based bombers weren't nearly as effective on shipping in the Southwest Pacific if they were intercepted. Without air cover even Musashi and Yamato with their upgraded AA and escorts were sunk at sea by small carrier-based bombers without heavy losses. jsw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins wrote: On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris wrote: On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander wrote: ... As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking ships that the comparison is ludicrous. ... Chris Manteuffel Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective as Wildcats at protecting the ships. Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese were at bombing ships in the open sea. The answer, of course, is "far better than anyone expected, based on extensive experience against the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica"... And the Luftwaffe in 1940 was much, much less effective against shipping than the specialist anti-ship units in the Med' in '41 on which that assessment had been based. As witness their unimpressive performance during DYNAMO. -- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |