Naval Warfaretards/Churchillians, to me!

[Viking]

the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.

Im sorry, but what does that have to do with dropping a battleship from orbit?

Not only were the too stupid to actually try it, they were too incompetent to get the BB up there and drop it.

[Tonitrus]

The French already tried that, not with much success.

I didnt know the French tried to drop a battleship into DBP

the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.

Im sorry, but what does that have to do with dropping a battleship from orbit?

Not only were the too stupid to actually try it, they were too incompetent to get the BB up there and drop it.

That's because all of their battleships were under the harbour at Toulon. 

[11B4V]

the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.

Im sorry, but what does that have to do with dropping a battleship from orbit?

Not only were the too stupid to actually try it, they were too incompetent to get the BB up there and drop it.

Are you drunk bro?

[Viking]

The French already tried that, not with much success.

I didnt know the French tried to drop a battleship into DBP

the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.

Im sorry, but what does that have to do with dropping a battleship from orbit?

Not only were the too stupid to actually try it, they were too incompetent to get the BB up there and drop it.

That's because all of their battleships were under the harbour at Toulon. 

Dam pussies, the Jean Bart had already fought one land battle and the Richelieu was of the same class.

Edit: that fits, fighting for the nazis like the bulk of the legion etranger at dien bin phu.

[grumbler]

Yeah.  The Italians were worse than anybody (as was always the case in all aspects of war), and the Germans outsourced it to their air force.

The Italians had an excellent early-war torpedo bomber, the SM-79, but, being flown by the Chair Force, never had the tactics nor equipment to do their job properly.

Mind you, it's not like the US and Japanese would have been much more impressive in 1939.  All of the higher-performance planes that fought at Midway didn't come into action until late 1940.

The US and Japan had combined-arms carrier air wings by 1939, unlike the other countries, including Britain.  The Claude was an excellent aircraft for its time, as was the Kate.  The Susie dive bomber was better than the Skua, but that's no great shakes.  The US wing of Vindicators, Devastators, and Buffalos was better than the British wing, but not a lot.  The key, though, was that the US and Japanese had tactics for the use of their aircraft, and this made them more effective than an accumulation of aircraft like the British wings.  So, I'd argue that the US and Japan would, indeed, have been more impressive in 1939.

It is true that better planes came along during 1940 - again, unlike the British and the Italians.

[CountDeMoney]

Very cool.  Thanks.

I especially like the parts where he's talking about the B-58 like a new car.  IT'S JUST SO DAMNED COMFORTABLE.

I know, I thought the production value was awesome  ;  is it a B-58 Hustler, or a a '59 Bel Air? SEE THE USA IN YOUR CHEVROLET

[Neil]

B-58 just fucking plain cool. OOOOOzes with it.

In the air.  I always found it awkward-looking on the ground.

[Neil]

Already written. Yellow Eye by John Ringo and Tom Kratman stars anthropomorphic heavy cruisers.

http://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Eyes-Posleen-War-Series/dp/1416521038

John Ringo?  No.

[Neil]

Yeah.  The Italians were worse than anybody (as was always the case in all aspects of war), and the Germans outsourced it to their air force.

The Italians had an excellent early-war torpedo bomber, the SM-79, but, being flown by the Chair Force, never had the tactics nor equipment to do their job properly.

My point about the Italians wasn't so much about their machines as it was about the Regia Aeronautica.  I've been reading a book about the leadership of the Italian armed forces in the leadup to the war, and the the RA doesn't come off well, even compared to other air forces (who are generally quite foolish).

Mind you, it's not like the US and Japanese would have been much more impressive in 1939.  All of the higher-performance planes that fought at Midway didn't come into action until late 1940.

The US and Japan had combined-arms carrier air wings by 1939, unlike the other countries, including Britain.  The Claude was an excellent aircraft for its time, as was the Kate.  The Susie dive bomber was better than the Skua, but that's no great shakes.  The US wing of Vindicators, Devastators, and Buffalos was better than the British wing, but not a lot.  The key, though, was that the US and Japanese had tactics for the use of their aircraft, and this made them more effective than an accumulation of aircraft like the British wings.  So, I'd argue that the US and Japan would, indeed, have been more impressive in 1939.

It is true that better planes came along during 1940 - again, unlike the British and the Italians.

I was under the impression that a lot of Japanese and American bomber techniques were at least partially informed by early war experience by the combatants. 

I can't argue that both Japan and the US definitely made carrier aviation more of a priority than the UK, but I also feel that all three of them were correct in their approach.  Britain's fleet aviation approach was appropriate for a European general war with Germany and Italy as the enemy, whereas the American and Japanese carrier approach was well suited towards their Pacific rivalry.

[grumbler]

My point about the Italians wasn't so much about their machines as it was about the Regia Aeronautica.  I've been reading a book about the leadership of the Italian armed forces in the leadup to the war, and the the RA doesn't come off well, even compared to other air forces (who are generally quite foolish).

No doubt.  Chair Forces seem to promote the officers most inclined to be delusional about the abilities of aircraft.

I was under the impression that a lot of Japanese and American bomber techniques were at least partially informed by early war experience by the combatants. 

I can't argue that both Japan and the US definitely made carrier aviation more of a priority than the UK, but I also feel that all three of them were correct in their approach.  Britain's fleet aviation approach was appropriate for a European general war with Germany and Italy as the enemy, whereas the American and Japanese carrier approach was well suited towards their Pacific rivalry.

The USN and IJN had developed tactics of attacks on multiple axes and with different kinds of planes simultaneously.  That's the way to make air power count.  The Brits, Italians, Germans, et al didn't develop that prewar, and in fact didn't develop that during the war, to any great extent.

I don't question the British decision to build carriers that were designed for fleet support and not independent action:  the carriers suited their needs, even with the tiny air wings.  What the FAA didn't do was try to figure out tactics that maximized their chances for success; they developed the line abreast attack and pretty much stuck with that, as far as I can see.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" 

The Battleship That Was a Girl?  I think Tim's writing that novel.

Neil's already preordered.

I came?

Already written. Yellow Eye by John Ringo and Tom Kratman stars anthropomorphic heavy cruisers.

http://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Eyes-Posleen-War-Series/dp/1416521038

Hacks.

[Neil]

The USN and IJN had developed tactics of attacks on multiple axes and with different kinds of planes simultaneously.  That's the way to make air power count.  The Brits, Italians, Germans, et al didn't develop that prewar, and in fact didn't develop that during the war, to any great extent.

Did the British actually have a carrier aircraft that was as good as those of the Pacific powers, other than the Seafire?

[PDH]

That was my point.  Skuas just never cut the mustard.

[grumbler]

Did the British actually have a carrier aircraft that was as good as those of the Pacific powers, other than the Seafire?

Someone was arguing that

Mind you, it's not like the US and Japanese would have been much more impressive in 1939.  All of the higher-performance planes that fought at Midway didn't come into action until late 1940.

but I'd say no. 

My point was about tactics, not aircraft, though.

[CountDeMoney]

Someone was arguing that

Mind you, it's not like the US and Japanese would have been much more impressive in 1939.  All of the higher-performance planes that fought at Midway didn't come into action until late 1940.

but I'd say no. 

My point was about tactics, not aircraft, though.

I's say that not only were the Japanese more impressive in 1939, but with almost two operational years under their belt in China, their ground support results were very impressive.