Pearl Harbor Defense

In article , Denyav
writes
If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
tell us what he said?

Well,I thought that only Americans are not allowed to read serious books.(If
they get smarter,herding of them would become harder,you know).
But you are posting from UK ?.
You can find this book in any library.(at least in US)

It (the book) is actually the blueprint for the events that happened after 2000
and the event are going to to happen in next year.

If you read the book (published in 1997) carefully you could easily understand
that Anglos did not occupy or plan to occupy Eurasian countries because the
terrorists came from these areas,but other way around,terrorists came from
these areas because Anglos selected these areas as the playing ground for the
next round of the Great Game.

Wow.

Brzenzinki sheds also light why 9/11 was required not only for the realization
Anglo foreign policy goals but also for the solving of Anglo domestic policy
goals.

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

Is it? Why?

Quote:
"The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American
power has been much more ambivalent .The public supported Americas engagement
in WWII largely because of SHOCK effect of Japanase attack on Pearl Harbor."
page24

Quote:
"Moreover,as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues ,EXCEPT in
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived foreign threat" page235


This is the blueprint for 9/11 and the events prior after 9/11 not something
that necons (whatever or whoever they might be) did or said.


I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
comprehensible form.

OK, the words of Rhodes in 1877:

"Why should we not form a secret society with but one object of furtherance of
the British empire and the bringing of whole uncivilized world under British
rule for the recovery of the United States for making ANGLO-SAXON RACE but
ONE EMPIRE"

Still did not understand?


No. 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.

Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
have something to do with its history as an English colony?
Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
the major power there. Or even the Germans.

Well,I wonder in which part of Britain Latin,or at least Italien, is the
official language?

That's a poor argument. The Romans left Britannia in the 5th century,
but still left their mark on the evolution of the English language. 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.

In history there are several great empires and all of them used different ways
to maintain their superiority.

Most of them fell. The British gave theirs away/back.

For example the main chracteristics of the famous Roman Empire were superior
military organisation AND cultural appeal.
Main chracteristics of British empire was superior military organization AND
cultural assertiveness.period.

I hope you know the difference between "appeal" and "assertiveness",becuse
thats the reason why nobody in Britain speaks italian, wheras almost everybody
in US,India etc speaks English.

No it isn't. See above. The situations can't be compared. The social and
cultural conditions were very different in the 1st to 5th century Roman
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.

The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.

There is not much space for accidents in history,for example the creation of
Soviet Union was a road accident,but not British Empire.

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

Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?

You may never know it,I am pretty sure that neither Confederates nor Nazis ever
realized that they were indeed Anglo proxies.

Yeah, right. King George V sponsored Hitler. Get a grip, for goodness'
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 reading too many thrillers.

I said before several times,I admire Great Game playing skills.

The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.

That was the first chapter of the Great Game,The Great Game or if I use
Brzezinkis words "Grand Chessboard" never ended there,First and second WWs were
only another chapters of the Great Game now we see the most recent chapter.

leading? World domination by some
undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?

Anglos dominate the world for centuries already,struggle is to save Anglo
dominance.

Sounds OK to me. Problem is, the Queen's a German and the PM's more or
less a Scot. Rather messes things up.
Anyway, as I already asked, what happens then? Everybody is forced to
drink tea?

I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
them.

I am sure you wont see any of them in Britain,Australia or New Zeeland as all
of these countries are (still) Anglo countries,not an Anglo dominated country
like US.

There really is little to say in response to that one, except: ********!

I like having a laugh at a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but
yours seems a bit lacking in practicality. You need more detail (apart
from one quote from Cecil Rhodes and vague prattling from Brzenzinki).
Contemplating nebulous aspirations such as world domination doesn't
really appeal if there's no substance and no obvious purpose except the
idea for its own sake.

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

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article ,
Orval Fairbairn writes:
In article ,
ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

From: Guy Alcala

in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent
power.
Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption
figures?
What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?



Chris Mark


They achieved thos numbers by cutting back to 20%-30% power and
aggressive leaning. Lindbergh taught the same concepts to USAAF P-38
pilots -- this technique is part of what enabled the Yamamoto shootdown.
The P-38s were operating way outside their expected normal combat radius.

Y'know, that's been mentioned any number of times about Lindberg's
trip to the Pacific. But I have some doubts about it.
The Carbs used on the later model P-38s were Bendix-Stromberg PD 12
pressure carbs. IIRC, These didn't have manual adjustment - you had
settings of "Full Rich", Auto-Rich", "Auto-Lean", and "Idle Cutoff".
you couldn't manually lean the engines.

The secret to a low fuel burn is low RPM/High BMEP. To get this, you
need to crank the prop to the desired cruise RPM (Usually Full Decrease or
thereabouts, set the throttle to the maximum setting that maintains
that RPM, and pull the mixture back to Auto-Lean. If you've chosen
the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.

It's not a great condition to be in if you're bounced, however - you
can't just shove teh throttle forward & go. A Big recip can be
remarkably delicate at times, and just shoving the throttle forward at
low revs with a lean mixture is asking it to come apart. To spool
things up, you've got to do the hand-jive, shoving teh mixture to Full
Rich first, the prop to Full Increase, and then you can bring up the
power with the throttle. I can see somebody who's concerned about
being bounced keeping the mixture up in the AUto-Rich range and just
fiddling with the revs (Prop) and Manifold Pressure (Throttle).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
ost (Chris Mark) writes:
From: Guy Alcala

in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent power.
Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption figures?
What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?

They did it the classical way - Minimum RPM, Maximum Manifold Pressure
to maintain that RPM, as lean a mixture as the engine can stand, and
flying at the altitude where, with those conditions, they could
maintain the minimum drag spot on the airplane's drag curve. (Probably
around 15,000', in a Zero, maybe a bit lower.)
You can turn in some really impressive fuel burn numbers that way.
The low RPM means that the total volume of fuel/air mixture per unit
of time is as small as it can get. The High Manifold Pressure means
that you're getting the most out of that small volume.

Note that you can't do this unless you've got a fully controllable or
Constant Speed prop.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Chris Mark wrote:

From: Guy Alcala

I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas

Invasion, June, 1944. You are probably thinking of Guam.

Yes.

That was ceded to
the US by Spain as part of the Spanish-American War settlement. The Marianas
were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 (along with the rest of their Micronesian
holdings--the Carolines, etc.) Japan seized them from Germany at the onset of
WWOne in 1914 and was confirmed in her possession by the victors of that war.
The US acquired Micronesia by conquest during WW2 and was confirmed in
possession (as trust territories) by UNO after the war.

Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10
years

At one point at least a quarter of the entire US Army was engaged in supressing
the Filipino resistance. It was a major war.

I've seen figures of 75,000 U.S. troops in the Philippines at the time, but don't
know how accurate that is.

While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

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

Yeah, economic dominance turns out to be cheaper.

We did treat the Filipinos well (unlike the monstrous horrors imposed by the
Belgians on the Congolese in the same time frame), and by the 1920s were not
afraid to arm them and create a Filipino military force. The Filipinos were so
unafraid of their American "masters" that when the troops decided they didn't
like the pay scale the Americans offered, instead of grabbing their weapons,
revolting and starting a war, they went on strike.

Not that this was going to happen givenwhat japan was doing, and I have no idea
what the exact legal situation was then as the Philippines were called a
commonwealth, but I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
President Quezon had said to General MacArthur

"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases owned
and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to have
you come and visit from time to time."

Guy

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Orval Fairbairn writes:
In article ,
ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

From: Guy Alcala

in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent
power.
Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption
figures?
What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?



Chris Mark


They achieved thos numbers by cutting back to 20%-30% power and
aggressive leaning. Lindbergh taught the same concepts to USAAF P-38
pilots -- this technique is part of what enabled the Yamamoto shootdown.
The P-38s were operating way outside their expected normal combat radius.

Y'know, that's been mentioned any number of times about Lindberg's
trip to the Pacific. But I have some doubts about it.
The Carbs used on the later model P-38s were Bendix-Stromberg PD 12
pressure carbs. IIRC, These didn't have manual adjustment - you had
settings of "Full Rich", Auto-Rich", "Auto-Lean", and "Idle Cutoff".
you couldn't manually lean the engines.

The secret to a low fuel burn is low RPM/High BMEP. To get this, you
need to crank the prop to the desired cruise RPM (Usually Full Decrease or
thereabouts, set the throttle to the maximum setting that maintains
that RPM, and pull the mixture back to Auto-Lean. If you've chosen
the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.

Exactly right. They'd been cruising in auto-rich, low MP/high rpm. He told them to
put it in auto-lean, pull the prop back to 1,800 rpm and then advance the throttle
until they got 180mph IAS (they'd been cruising at higher speeds).

It's not a great condition to be in if you're bounced, however - you
can't just shove teh throttle forward & go. A Big recip can be
remarkably delicate at times, and just shoving the throttle forward at
low revs with a lean mixture is asking it to come apart. To spool
things up, you've got to do the hand-jive, shoving teh mixture to Full
Rich first, the prop to Full Increase, and then you can bring up the
power with the throttle. I can see somebody who's concerned about
being bounced keeping the mixture up in the AUto-Rich range and just
fiddling with the revs (Prop) and Manifold Pressure (Throttle).

The advantage of the late-war Pacific was that most of the time you were flying over
uninhabited areas or the sea, so really didn't need to worry about getting bounced
except in the vicinity of airfields. The Japanese lack of fuel also played a part.
The details are in Lindbergh's wartime journal, but IIRR the increased radii guarantees
he made to Kenney, or maybe it was Whitehead, included going to auto rich and (IIRC)
combat cruise speed in the combat zone, which I think he defined as 100 miles both in
and out, plus combat allowance, etc. The crews didn't necessarily believe him the
first couple of missions, but when they noticed he was returning to base with 100-200
gallons more fuel than they while flying the same missions, they paid attention.

Guy

Chris Mark wrote:

From: Guy Alcala

in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent power.
Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption figures?
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. When
they got the A6M3 Model 32 in the Solomons, which had the more powerful Sakae 21
engine of 1,130 hp (and slightly less fuel) plus clipped tips, they found that its
range was inadequate to make it from Rabaul to Guadalcanal and back (it was
pushing it for the A6M2), which IIRR was something like 550 sm one way. They
built intermediate strips down the Solomons (Buin, etc) so that it could get there
and back, and put the A6M3 Model 22 with increased internal fuel and the full
wingspan (non-folding, like the first production model, the A6M2 Model 11) into
production for land use.

The USN found that for carrier operations, overall they could plan on R-2600s
burning 45-50 gal./hr average per sortie (which includes lots of low speed loiter
for landing and ASW patrol) depending on whether it was in an Avenger or a
Helldiver, while the R-2800 in the Hellcat burned about 75 or so (same landing
loiter, CAP loiter). The exact mix of sortie types flown would affect the
average, but as far as planning for carrier AVGAS replenishment needs, that gave
them good numbers.

Guy

From: Guy Alcala

I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
President Quezon had said to General MacArthur

"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases
owned
and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to
have
you come and visit from time to time."

In 1935 congress passed theTydings-McDuffie Act, which created the Philippine
Commonwealth, with Quezon the first president, the Commonwealth status to end
after a decade, a which time the country would become independent.
Roosevelt asked MacArthur if he would like to become High Commissoner of the
new Commonwealth. But Mac would have to retire from the Army (he was CoS) to
take the job. He declined, but Quezon asked him to become military adviser to
the Philippine Commonwealth, a job he could take and still remain on active
duty.
Paul McNutt, former gov. of Indiana became PI High Commissioner and invited
Quezon to Washington, as FDR wanted to talk to him about the future of the
Philippines.
Instead of going directly to D.C., Quezon went by way of Tokyo and an audience
with Hirohito. When he finally arrived in L.A. Quezon announced to the press
that he had come to the US on behalf of the Filipino people to demand
independence from the US in 1938. He would insist on seeing the president and
having his demand met. Then he went to New York, took over the Roseland
Ballroom and partied, partied, partied.
FDR, who was considering speeding up Philippine independence to as early as
1940 at the suggestion of former Philippines High Commissioner Frank Murphy,
with the caveat that the Philippines declare themselves neutral and neither
maintain their own armed forces or host foreign forces, was furious with
Quezon, and also MacArthur, who had accompanied Q. FDR completely ignored
Quezon while he hung out in New York for months.
Finally MacArthur went to D.C. and asked to see the president on behalf of
Quezon. FDR gave him 5 minutes. He agreed to lunch with Quezon. But no
serious meeting.
At lunch Quezon demanded independence--and US guarantees of protection--in
such a rude and insulting manner that Roosevelt later told Harold Ickes of
Interior, which controlled administration of the Philippines, that as far as he
was concerned, the Philippines were not worth even attempting to defend. Let
the Japs take them and see how "the little weasel" likes taking orders from
them.
One immediate result of that lunch was when, shortly after, Quezon tried to buy
rifles from the US to equip the new Philippine Army, FDR blocked the sale. He
also ordered MacArthur recalled to the US and given another assignment.
MacArthur thereupon retired from the Army so he could stay on in the
Philippines with Quezon.
One reason the US was late in sending forces to defend the Philippines in the
face of the growing Japanese threat was the personal dislike by Roosevelt and
key membors of his government of Quezon, whom they considered a corrupt,
disloyal fop. McNutt described him as "the statesman as lounge lizard."
Goes to show just what a fiasco the whole Philippines episode was. We never
should have taken over the place, and, having taken it over, we should have
dumped it at the earliest possible opportunity, like maybe soon after the last
Moro fighting ended.


Chris Mark

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.

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.


Chris Mark

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

In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
service and only one ever went on patrol.

This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice
building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only
the post war German navy but were extensively used by others.

Some XXI's were for example a long time in use
by:

France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967)
Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514
USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515
USA: U 2513, 3008


There's a difference between evaulation and being
the backbone.

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



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?

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.

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.




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.

The Type XXI was able to demonstrate its abillity to opperate against
heavily defended British capital ships towards the end of WW2 and its
succesfull and extensive use for 20 years after the war by the German
and French Navy showed it was a solid designe with no basic problems.
It was used by the other navies as well: for how long I don't know.

The reality is that the type XXI was a breakthrough in concept.



Keith

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of
how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the
China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They
came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was
the better plane, or else that the American pilots were
extraordinarily fast learners.

The Wildcat didn't have the manoeverability of the zero however the
Wildcat pilots had radios. They developed something called a Thatch
weave to keep zeroes of each others tail. Also armour is worth
something.




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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com