Pearl Harbor Defense

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed






Chris Mark

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed

Wake,

Ceded to the US by Spain as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War,
which has been discussed

Guam,

Discussed

Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc

Spanish possessions sold to Germany, seized by Japan, seized by the US.
Already discussed.

panama canal zone

Mentioned, not discussed

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.

Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing
as imperialism, although the more radical left (and libertarian right) loves to
obscure the difference. Lumping US actions in Central America into the same
box with what the US did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines is to make a false
comparison.

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

No one has disputed that. The proposition is that the US flirtation with
"classic" imperialism was brief in duration and limited in extent, largely due
to domestic opposition.


Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"



Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same
thing
as imperialism,

Of course it is, thats why Britain built an Empire fer crying
out loud.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Chris Mark

In article , Denyav
writes
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

Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?

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).

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.

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

More obscure thinking.


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.

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

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.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

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.

What has Italian got to do with it? The Romans didn't speak it.

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 .

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

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.

So the British Army occupied the Saar, concluded the Anschluss, occupied
Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland?

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

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

What?

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

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

And you do know what's happening? How?


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

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

Of course it matters! You're the one who is telling us all that we're
subject to an "Anglo" conspiracy. You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points
already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were
only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Evasion noted

Keith

(Eunometic) wrote in message

Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
22 nm away?

The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
torpedoes about 1800 at this time.

I expect a spread of torpedoes were fired such that at extreme range 6
or 8 torpedoes would be distributed every 100 meters or so for an
600-800 meter wide hit window. Don't forget a ship is likely to be
between 100 to 300 meter long.

In theory "yes," but in practice "no."

Torpedoes were/are VERY expensive weapons and were not carried in
large numbers. A prudent captain would not engage in this kind of
"browning shot" unless the target were VERY high value or there were
some other dramatic reason so do so.

It might also be well to consider that a sub in WWII would have a very
difficult time identifying an anchored target from 22,000 yards
(absent a good radar).

The Germans had torpedoes that could run various types of zig-zag and
circling patterns either aimed at individual ships or designed to run
through convoys. The patterns were becoming more sophisticated as the
mechanisms improved. So presumnably if the range measure was wrong or
the target evaded the torpedo it could turn around and have another
attempt.

These "fish" were developed to enhance the survivability of the sub,
not to increase the probability of a hit, which they do not do. As
the War progressed the effectiveness of the U-Boat was steadily
declining as its losses increased. With the Kriegsmarine looking at a
1-1 loss ratio they had to try something.

Far more innovative were their attempts at accoustic homing torpedoes.

The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which
could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets.
Hit rates of around 80% were common.

Was this the figure in '40 or in '44? Can you cite a reference for
these numbers?

A combination of German and Japanese technology would have been lethal
I expect though who knows how good the japanese torpedoe guidence was?

Good enough.

US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming
by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth.

No, not really.

U.S. tactics (as I understand them) required a visual approach and
shot. Sonar (and, later, radar) was (were) used to facilitate that
approach. This does not mean that "sound" shots were not used; but,
given the cost and limited number of weapons, there were not favored.

Also, the problem with early U.S. torpedoes was the exploder, not the
guidance system.

The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
periscope.

I have never heard this claim, before. Can you cite a source for it?

Bill Kambic

Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-30, FASOTRAGRULANT

Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?


Whats about 21st century US?

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.


As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

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

More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.
Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.
What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

See above

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

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

What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

Bill Kambic wrote:

(Eunometic) wrote in message

Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
22 nm away?

The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
torpedoes about 1800 at this time.

This is, of course, wholly inaccurate. The standard US DD torp, the 21"
Mk.15, had three speed settings: 15,000 yds/26.5 kts, 10,000 yds/33.5 kts;
6,000 yds/45 kts, the speed chosen depending on the circumstances. Night
attacks would normally be at short range (pre-radar), so the highest speed
was used then. Daytime attacks on a battle line would normally be at the
longest possible range, although the speed was considered a bit low, so the
intermediate speed was provided to allow a better chance of hitting if
conditions allowed so close an approach. Use of oxygen would have allowed
an increase in range and/or speed, but safety concerns, lack of funds and
inertia on the part of BuOrd delayed development of such torps for the US.
The US eventually went with hydrogen peroxide, but development wasn't in
time to get them into service during the war. The Mk. 16 for subs was rated
at 11,000 yds/46 kts, while the Mk. 17 for DDs was rated at 18,000/46 kts.

The 21" Mk. 14 submarine torp also had a choice of speeds: 9,000 yd/31.1
kts; 4,500 yds/46 kts. Aimed shots were only considered likely to have a
reasonable probability of hitting when fired under 2,000 yds. The extra
range gave a cushion and allowed 'cross your fingers and hope' shots to be
fired. I'm unaware of any warshots being taken at the lower speed setting.

The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which
could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets.
Hit rates of around 80% were common.

Was this the figure in '40 or in '44? Can you cite a reference for
these numbers?

Seems highly unlikely, since high hit rates (of the U-boat aces) were based
on them closing to very short range on the surface at night (ca.600-800m)
and taking single shots. At that range it was almost impossible to miss.
Unfortunately for them the allies got centimetric radar, and that approach
no longer worked.

US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming
by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth.

No, not really.

U.S. tactics (as I understand them) required a visual approach and
shot.

Prewar, the US planned to make pure sonar approaches and shots, owing to the
overrated effectiveness of sonar. This tended to breed very conservative,
risk averse commanders (indeed, those who weren't and tried periscope or
even night surface attacks in practice were slapped down), so in addition to
problems with the Mk.14 torpedo, it took a year or so of the war to weed out
many of the pre-war commanders who lacked the aggressiveness for combat.

Sonar (and, later, radar) was (were) used to facilitate that
approach. This does not mean that "sound" shots were not used; but,
given the cost and limited number of weapons, there were not favored.

Also, the problem with early U.S. torpedoes was the exploder, not the
guidance system.

They did tend to run a sinusoidal path, and typically about 10 feet deeper
than set. That was a separate problem from the exploders, and the one found
and fixed first.



The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
periscope.

I have never heard this claim, before. Can you cite a source for it?

GHG was a good unit, operating at subsonic frequencies, and copies/updates
based on it were used by both the British and US (and probably the
Soviets). The BQR-4 bow array for the postwar SSKs was the American
equivalent. I very much doubt passive ranging capability for fire control
in WW2; that takes far too long and is too inexact. Single-ping range would
be more likely.

Guy

In article , Denyav
writes

Another reply from the selective snipmeister, I see.


Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?


Whats about 21st century US?

Answer the question.

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.


As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said it
and we might get somewhere.

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

More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

What?

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.

Untrue.

Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Hardly a valid comparison.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

Rubbish.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

See above

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

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

What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

What?

You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

But WHO ARE THEY???

Despite my attempts at finding out what is behind your bigotry and
hatred of these "Anglos" and their alleged world domination, you still
refuse to justify your ravings or to tell us what the purpose of this
conspiracy is.

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!