A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pearl Harbor Defense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old September 24th 04, 04:49 AM
Tom Cervo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
successfully from land.


The guns were mounted there to defend against surprise attacks from surface
raiders. They swung around to fire at the Japanese, but they had little idea of
where the Japanese really were and a lot of shells went into empty jungle.

As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
you didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.


And in Singapore a British captain serving as an Air Liasion Officer was
passing secrets to the Japanese.
  #122  
Old September 24th 04, 06:26 AM
Gernot Hassenpflug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"B2431" == B2431 writes:

B2431 /../ Singapore's
B2431 defenses were directed seaward since the British didn't
B2431 think an attack could be launched successfully from
B2431 land.

That is a myth: there were large guns with full 360 degree traversal,
and many others also covered the land angles. However, the mind-set of
assuming a naval attack, coupled with inadequate funds, resulted in
only (or predominantly) AP (and maybe SAP) shells in stock, with no HE
available for use in anti-ground actions.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan
  #123  
Old September 24th 04, 08:00 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

...
"Eunometic" wrote in message



Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used
as agressor subs in exercises.


Actually not, only U-3017 was commissioned and then only for a
short period of trials

Presumably untill the Porpoise and
Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of
anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to
them untill they had something of their own.


Your presumption is incorrect. Post war the RN depended
on the A-Class submarines



The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
were operational for very long


Do you know for how long?


Yes - the only boat put into service by the RN was scrapped in 1949

and certainly didnt
form the backbone of the submarine force. The
USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
RN built the O & P classes


The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the
British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way
they worked and used ballast tanks.


Dont be silly. The hull form is entirely different and all submarines
use ballast tanks.

Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way
could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme
diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth
charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats.


Only one of those vunderveapons ever went on patrol
with no kills. Compare and contrast with the record
of the US Fleet submarines.




The list of ships sunk by this type follows

Start of List
End of List

Not for lack of capabillity:


Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
a sign of a lack of capability


Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial
problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit
your opinions.


Only one boat made a patrol - that is no exaggeration.

Keith


  #124  
Old September 24th 04, 09:21 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris Mark wrote:

From: Guy Alcala


What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?


I have a vague memory of reading 30-35gal./hr. somewhere, but don't hold me
to
it. The A6M2 had the Sakae 12 engine, which was only rated at 950 hp or so.


So by using the standard procedures outlined by Mr. Stickney, they were cutting
normal fuel consumption by about a third, which sounds right. There used to be
a belief in the long ago that low rpm and high manifold pressure would wreck an
engine, but everybody seems to have discovered that wasn't so as soon as they
needed to extend range.


My dad taught me to value overdrive gears and shift early for the same reason, many
years ago. I seem to get far better mileage than most people I talk to with the
same car do, and I don't drive around at LOL from Pasadena speeds. Come to think
of it, my first car, handed down from my Dad, was a '65 Chevy Impala SS with 3 on
the tree and an overdrive; it also had an MP gauge, but I confess I rarely paid any
attention to it. Barring the need for a rapid accel, I was in 3rd by 20 and 3rd
Over by 28-30, and the engine (283 V-8) was perfectly happy to do that. 240,000
miles and never had the head off, although it did leak oil pretty badly towards the
end of its 23 year career in my family. Compression was still within normal
limits, though.

USN numbers interesting. Thanks for posting.

Ah, found something, a note from a fellow who flew P-40Ns in the Pacific,
saying that he regularly flew combat missions of 800 miles, cruising to and
from the target area at 170IAS at 8,000ft., 30gph. This would get them over
the target with nearly empty 75g belly tanks, which they would jettison, do
their thing and head home, landing after about 5 hours in the air.


Yeah, that was the other advantage in the PTO, you could cruise most of the way to
the target at low to medium altitudes. While the air miles per gallon are better
at higher altitude, you aren't burning all the extra gas in the climb up to
altitude at high power settings. B-29s also benefitted from moderate outbound
cruise altitudes when bombing Japan. It was a lot easier on the engines, you didn't
need to be on O2 the whole mission, and you saved a bunch of fuel thatcould be
instead used to up the bombload.

That was generally the case in the Med too, but not in the ETO where you were
potentially in danger the moment you went feet dry over the continent, so you had
to cruise at high power settings at high altitude to avoid bounces. That's
probably the main reason why the P-38's Allisons worked well everywhere _but_ the
ETO.

Guy

  #125  
Old September 24th 04, 11:13 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2004 15:49:24 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.


Well, Chris, I don't know if I agree with that. Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; Cuba and
Puerto Rico; Panama (okay, that was post-Spain), the Phillippines, and
Guam as you just mentioned. Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico. It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism, perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment. We are much nicer
about it in 2001 than we were in 1901, but it's still colonialism of a
sort.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing. It was a benign
sort of colonialism (France asked us to leave after a couple of
decades, and we went, a pretty rare event in the history of
colonialism) but still...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:
(put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org
  #128  
Old September 24th 04, 04:36 PM
Chris Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: Cub Driver

Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.


I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;


I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Neither Mexico nor
Canada need fear US territorial aggression. And, of course, you intended to
say "Mexico" rather than "Spain," as Mexican independence long preceded
the_Mexican_-American War.

Cuba and
Puerto Rico;


I was lumping them in with the whole Spanish-American War, which was what i was
referring to when I said "one brief infection." I should have made that clear.

Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it,


Mr. Alcala had already mentioned Hawaii in his post, and as I agreed with his
comments I didn't bring it up again.
The Hawaii annexation is also a part of the S-A War "infection," because Hawaii
was a fine staging base for operations in the Philippines, although probably
even without that war, annexation was inevitable sometime during the McKinley
administration. Had Bryan been elected in 1896 it would not have been annexed
and it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Spanish-American War.
Grover Cleveland, who refused to consider annexing Hawaii during his
administration, wrote at the time, "Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the
first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to
complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair."

o much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico.


yep. But it is a legacy of that one infection.
It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism,


You have to throw huge qualifications on that. There was major domestic
opposition to US colonialist or colonialist-like actions from the get-go. Just
as there has been opposition to the current US adventure in Iraq.
Again, I quote Grover Cleveland: "I mistake the American people if they favor
the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality...and
that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weaker one
of its territory." This is quite an amazing thing for an American president to
say in a era that was the height of European Imperial land-grabbing. Cleveland
was emphasizing that America was _not_ like Europe and we would not stoop to do
the dirty things the Europeans did.
The McKinley administration, under the influence of the Boston imperialists
(Henry Cabot Lodge and his crowd), turned away from that view, and their first
target was Hawaii, despite the many difficulties acquisition would cause. As
Alfred Mahan wrote to Theodore Roosevelt: "Take the islands first and solve
the problems afterward." Gee, that sounds like advice somebody must have given
Bush about Iraq. Like they say, history doesn't repeat itself--but it rhymes.

perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .


True, indeed.

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment.


I'm not sure about that. I suppose it depends on how you define "colonial."
They could be described as wars of self-defense. But then, broadly, that was
how the Boston imperialists described their expansionist policies: acquire a
defensive cordon of outlying territories to fend off the expanding imperialist
powers; if we don't take Hawaii, Britain will; if we don't take the PI, Germany
will; etc.
We certainly don't intend to annex Afghanistan and Iraq after the fashion of
Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing.


But that, again, was a defensive action. We certainly had no plans to do that
before the Soviet threat became clear. In fact, at Yalta, when Stalin
specifically asked Roosevelt how long the US would maintain troops in Europe
after the fighting ended, FDR responded two years at most. This fact was one
of the reasons that it was agreed to rehabilitate France as a "great" power and
give it a zone of occupation in Germany.

People look at the events of history from different perspectives. I do believe
the words "colonialism" and "imperialism" are bandied about too freely these
days, now that most have forgotten what _real_ imperialism and colonialism
were. US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination. Since we have de
facto been in charge of the planet post 1945 we have bungled badly at times,
but compared to how the world was managed in the half century before we took
over, we've done very well, indeed, for ourselves--and for the world.




Chris Mark
  #129  
Old September 24th 04, 05:10 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: Cub Driver


Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.


I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;


I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii.


Not to mention the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and a
significant number of islands in the Pacific such as
Wake, Guam, Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc and there's the
panama canal zone of course

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind. See Banana Wars.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

Keith





  #130  
Old September 24th 04, 06:47 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35

Is it? Why?


If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a
system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of
your plans,I guess

o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
time.


Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR,
(Council on Foreign Relations).

Does CFR really exist?
Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?



The
British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
majority of the population is concerned.


Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber
than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc.

You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than
Britons ruled Indians.

But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but
almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies.

This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural
Assertiveness".

Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented
cultural highpoint of their era.

Confident cultures need not be assertive.period.

Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.


Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course)
Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any
body in empire to use their language.

Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
events is concerned.


Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to
create the Empire accidental .

sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
Henry Ford rich? You've been


In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.

Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in
real world.


nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
--


Does it matter?
Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA Fitzair4 Home Built 0 December 7th 04 08:40 PM
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.