Washington Named Britain's Greatest Foe

[grumbler]

It's even harder to put a flight deck on a ship-of-the-line.

Not as hard as imagining why you would want to do such a thing! 

Or make it water-tight and submersible. Torpedoes could probably be done, however.

Torpedoes would be harder than submersibles.  Not sure why this is an issue, though; torpedoes and submersibles far antedated strategic bombers.

[grumbler]

Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.

Why would you imagine that, in August 1945, the US suddenly no longer had any bombers capable of bombing Japan from bases in Alaska? 

[KRonn]

Interestingly, one of the most effective uses of US bombers in the Japan was mine laying.

Yeah, I've read of that. It was something I hadn't heard of before and was surprised at how effective it was.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I've read of that. It was something I hadn't heard of before and was surprised at how effective it was.

It makes sense when you think about it, though:

(1) Accuracy requirements are not high;
(2) Difficult to defend, since the bomber spends so little time in the target zone;
(3) Done from low level, so the deficiencies of high-altitude bombing (including the jet stream) don't exist;
(4) It attacks assets that are vital to Japan (ships and fishing boats) as opposed to factories that have already shut down.

Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.

[The Minsky Moment]

Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.

Any effect on specialized products like avgas?

[mongers]

Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.

Any effect on specialized products like avgas?

As Grumbler has noted the naval campaign, including the not insignificant submarine success, gutted Japan's ability to ship in raw material. 

IIRC the toll on Japans pre-war tanker fleet and the little they manage to build in the war was especially telling.

[grumbler]

Any effect on specialized products like avgas?

Not that I can recall.  He talks about German avgas production, and notes that Eisenhower controlled Eighth AIr Force and Bomber Command for four months before and during Operation Neptune, and his insistence on targeting avgas brought production to a near-halt, but that the Bomber geniuses dropped those packages when they got control of targeting again, and Germany quickly recovered.

For those who haven't read it, The Great Crusade is an excellent book.  Wilmott assumes the reader knew what happened, so doesn't spend much time on what happened, but a lot of time on why it happened and what it meant.  Even in the recent revised edition he spends too much time tilting at the windmill of "historians don't give the Soviets enough credit," but he seems otherwise quite balanced in his coverage.  It's pretty dense, though - not at all popular history.

One of his big themes is that the Germans and Japanese knew how to conduct campaigns but not how to fight wars, while the reverse was true of the US and Britain (except for the USN in the Pacific, whose campaigns he generally admires).  The Soviets started unable to do either but learned to do both, according to him.

[grumbler]

As Grumbler has noted the naval campaign, including the not insignificant submarine success, gutted Japan's ability to ship in raw material. 

IIRC the toll on Japans pre-war tanker fleet and the little they manage to build in the war was especially telling.

Indeed.  What is especially telling is that the Japanese knew what was going to happen to their merchant fleet from prewar wargaming, but changed the assumptions about both American effectiveness and Japan's ability to build, until they showed Japan's shipping surviving through 1944, and then growing.

They also ignored the fact that 1/3 of their peacetime shipping needs was met by the powers with which they were about to go to war.

Wilmott notes that, by 1945, the Japanese civilian caloric intake was, IIRC, only 5% or so above starvation levels.  That also had a huge effect on productivity.

[Martinus]

Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame. And he was a homo.

[grumbler]

Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame.

Not much of an invasion if you are invited.  "There was a party! Punch was served!"

[Martinus]

Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame.

Not much of an invasion if you are invited.  "There was a party! Punch was served!"

Well, England has its own sovereign at the time and William came at a head of an army to usurp him. I'd say this is technically a military invasion (and that's how it is referred to by historians, btw).

Some Iraqis also lobbied for the US to invade Iraq - that does not make it a non-invasion.

[Sheilbh]

That's a silly analogy.  Also William of Orange didn't fight a British army.  He fought the Irish Jacobites and the French.

[crazy canuck]

That's a silly analogy.

There's a shocker.

[grumbler]

Well, England has its own sovereign at the time and William came at a head of an army to usurp him. I'd say this is technically a military invasion (and that's how it is referred to by historians, btw).

Well, England had a Parliament which also claimed a share of the sovereignty and they deposed James II before William took the throne, so I'd say no one was usurped and the troops William brought with him (many of them English) were intended to ensure that the soon-to-be-ex-king stayed ex, so I'd say this was arguably not a military invasion (though I agree that it is often termed an invasion, and for good reason).  In any case, the requirement is that the leader "had to have led an army in the field against the British," which William didn't do (there being no field actions in the Glorious revolution).

If the former Edward VIII had opposed the US deployment of troops to Britain in WW2, that would not have made Eisenhower an invader, even to historians.  One bad analogy deserves another! 

[Razgovory]

That's a silly analogy.  Also William of Orange didn't fight a British army.  He fought the Irish Jacobites and the French.

They fought the army of the British King.  William the I was invited as well.  At least he said so.

There was also a battle in the Glorious Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Reading_(1688)  Not a big one, but a battle.