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 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Gernot Hassenpflug writes: "Peter" == Peter Stickney writes: Peter Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial Peter Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough Peter ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../ Peter /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their Peter forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive Peter without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply Peter to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and Peter they'd be sitting ducks in the target area. Peter /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was Peter the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero) Peter fighter. /../ Peter Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key Peter to its success early in the war. /../ Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96 'Claude'. The existance of the Zero wasn't a secret - the fact that the Japanese had built a single-engine fighter that could fly from Taipei to Manila and back was. That was certainly not apparent to anybody, and the IJN wasn't advertising that fact. One reason was that the Japanese were unaware that they had the capability until sometime in 1941. Clark and Iba were over 450nm from the closest Formosan bases, Manila was 500nm away. They'd never made attacks at such ranges in China, and they were flying over land there, where navigation was much easier. They'd originally planned to use three small carriers (the big ones were going to PH), but that was inconvenient as they were slow and unable to operate sufficient numbers of a/c (only 75 vs. the 250 or so Zeros they had assembled on Formosa and believed to be necessary). So 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. Guy |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote:
From: "Guinnog65" lid Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm. And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near being an "empire" at the time. Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired as a result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino "freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much easier) and the 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. While the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we certainly had one. Guy |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Guinnog65 wrote:
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Guinnog65" lid Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: "Cub Driver" wrote in message news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65" wrote: And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event! Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City. Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1? Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack French-held North Africa. Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob, Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands. So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you go... 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. 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. I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by the way? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have ever encountered! My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm. These old Air Force guys aren't much for reading. Probably hard to do with his Rush Limbaugh's Greates Hits tapes roaring in the background. Cheers --mike Sheesh! |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Osman wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01... Ragnar wrote: "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53... The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept. While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft. Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu? Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers? Cheers --mike It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols. Then what were all those PBYs for? The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them to get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and didn't like to fly over water. No kidding. Maybe they should have hired a bunch of nannies to hold their hands. Cheers --mike Joe They also had better ships in many cases. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04... Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed, stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by a bunch of white folks." Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by white folks was exactly what WAS expected. Then why did they get caught jerking off in bed instead of at their duty stations? The problem was that while they believed attacks would take place at Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe the IJN had the capability to attack at PH They didn't do much thinking at all until it came time to come up with alibis. Cheers --mike Keith |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote:
From: "Guinnog65" lid Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: "Cub Driver" wrote in message news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65" wrote: And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event! Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City. Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1? Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack French-held North Africa. Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob, Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands. So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you go... 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. Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face. Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry. 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. Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to these guys. When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls? Cheers --mike Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
From: Mike Dargan
Date: 9/22/2004 7:19 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: tEo4d.87069$MQ5.83561@attbi_s52 B2431 wrote: From: "Guinnog65" lid Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: "Cub Driver" wrote in message news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65" wrote: And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event! Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City. Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1? Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack French-held North Africa. Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob, Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands. So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you go... 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. Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face. Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry. OK, as I said the defenses were pointed seaward. That means the British planned for a sea attack. They grossly underestimated the effect of infantry coming in from the woods. They DID turn the defenders around to face the attack. The defense was poorly led and under equipped for such a thing. Simply put the British failed to prepare for such an attack. 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. Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to these guys. How about the fishermen who took depth readings using fishing lines? How about the B-girls and bar men who picked up information? When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls? Cheers --mike I never said there were any saboteurs only that the fear of them was there. You might want to do some research on the subject. It's an interesting subject. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/22/2004 6:24 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: B2431 wrote: From: "Guinnog65" lid Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm. And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near being an "empire" at the time. Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired as a result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino "freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much easier) and the 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. While the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we certainly had one. Guy Good point. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 0 | December 7th 04 07:40 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |