Need to settle an argument, and I have had a hell of a time trying to find the primary source material to verify:
What was the name of the ship that, when informed of its sinking, Churchill was reported to have said, "That's why she was built."
Was it the HMS Prince of Wales? It certainly wasn't the Hood. Was it even Churchill? Does this quote even remotely sound familiar? I don't think it was even Churchill. I need to win this argument.
So I tried some google-fu to help you out and trying " sinking "That's why she was built" " produced just three results, with your OP top. :hmm:
SON OF A
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
Yeah I saw those couple of 'dodgy' ones and assumed ' hey CdM might well be into that as well' . :blush:
I'd never heard this before, and after checking my Hood references and Churchill works, I can't find any reference to this. It would be a surprising and uncharacteristic thing for Churchill to say, and the Prince of Wales would be just inappropriate, given the situation when she and Repulse were sunk. At that time, the only operational battleships that weren't escorting a convoy were King George V and Renown (although Duke of York was fitting out and carry Churchill around), so the RN was in pretty desperate straits.
Churchill was utterly devastated by the sinking of the Prince of Wales, I can't imagine that he could have said this about that ship.
Sorry Seedy, it was just a dream :(
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 07:42:19 AM
I'd never heard this before, and after checking my Hood references and Churchill works, I can't find any reference to this. It would be a surprising and uncharacteristic thing for Churchill to say, and the Prince of Wales would be just inappropriate, given the situation when she and Repulse were sunk. At that time, the only operational battleships that weren't escorting a convoy were King George V and Renown (although Duke of York was fitting out and carry Churchill around), so the RN was in pretty desperate straits.
I concur. He was from the Navy world after all.
Unless he was talking about like a practice boat that would be used for target practice.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:47:04 AM
Churchill was utterly devastated by the sinking of the Prince of Wales, I can't imagine that he could have said this about that ship.
My point exactly.
Could it have been from WWI? On of those ships they sunk to close a harbor toward the end of the war?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2012, 08:21:07 AM
Could it have been from WWI? On of those ships they sunk to close a harbor toward the end of the war?
I was curious about that as well, if it was a WW1 reference; and if not Churchill, someone else? I've checked Massie for Fisher quotes already.
And an American would never say that about a ship. Ever.
That wouldn't have been Fisher's style. If Churchill did say something like that, it would have been about one of the Fisher monstrosities. Repulse, Glorious, Courageous.
Maybe something sunk in Normandy to make an artificial harbour during The Big One?
If anyone would know, (or at least claim to know), it would be Grumbler. The closest I've found was a quote about the Lusitania "To me she's just another 45,000 tons of livebait." I'd focus on those raids late in the war where they scuttled ships in German waterways as those ships had been modified for the purpose of scuttling. Also I think they were neat operations.
Here's a possible answer, Seedy, from a newspaper account from after the Battle of Jutland:
QuoteTHE STRENGTH OF THE NAVY.
American journalists have asked the Admiralty officials what eftect [sic] the action will have on the strength of the navy.
They received the following reply : - "Beyond slightly affecting the strength of our battle-cruisers, absolutely none. We expect to lose ships; that's why we build them. Of course, the heavy loss of life is to be deplored, but in modem naval warfare that is inevitable. There is no time to pick up men."
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1045069
(look down near the bottom)
Since this was coming from the Admiralty, it could well have gotten morphed into coming from Churchill.
Knew I could count on you, G.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 12:32:48 PM
Since this was coming from the Admiralty, it could well have gotten morphed into coming from Churchill.
Yeah, although Balfour would have been First Lord at the time.
Cool find, BTW.
Is eftect an American word?
What'd ya win form the bet, CdM?
Gratuitous US Navy picture unrelated to the thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftest.axisofweevil.com%2Fnavynuke.jpg&hash=9794ee3e7958143a3bbcde1b15d310a08a2b1507)
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2012, 02:23:39 PM
Is eftect an American word?
It's an Aussie word, apparently.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2012, 02:23:39 PM
Is eftect an American word?
It's an Aussie word, apparently.
It's one of those words it's difficult to use eftectively.
Quote from: Jacob on May 24, 2012, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2012, 02:23:39 PM
Is eftect an American word?
It's an Aussie word, apparently.
It's one of those words it's difficult to use eftectively.
And the Aussies keep confusing eftect with aftect. They mean completely difterent things.
Quote from: Jacob on May 24, 2012, 02:58:39 PM
Gratuitous US Navy picture unrelated to the thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftest.axisofweevil.com%2Fnavynuke.jpg&hash=9794ee3e7958143a3bbcde1b15d310a08a2b1507)
I like, what are those Vigilantes, Skyhawks, Phantoms and Crusaders.
If all of those are nuke powered then in addition to Enterprise, might be be Long Beach ? And the smaller cruiser, no idea, perhaps Los Angeles ? no that can't be right.
USS Bainbridge
The center one is the Long beach. It's hull is here at Bremerton.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.murdoconline.net%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F07%2Fbremerton-subs.jpg&hash=adc6d7a078b123e829d2ea12dbf3e886b65f561c)
:cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2012, 07:40:16 PM
:cry:
The Constellation, Ranger, Kitty Hawk and Independence are Mothballed there too.
http://deanoinamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/mothballed-super-carriers/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdeanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fuss-carriers1.jpg&hash=c981b84abe8f463ca91cfc5d5391fa4160afe8f5)
Whats the grey stuff?
Gray stuff? You mean on the carrier flight decks? :unsure: That's just nonskid on steel. With, you know, rust and paint around/on it.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2012, 07:40:16 PM
:cry:
The Constellation, Ranger, Kitty Hawk and Independence are Mothballed there too.
http://deanoinamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/mothballed-super-carriers/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdeanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fuss-carriers1.jpg&hash=c981b84abe8f463ca91cfc5d5391fa4160afe8f5)
:cry:
It's always sad seeing a warship being broken up.
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
It's always sad seeing a warship being broken up.
They're not being broken up, they are waiting to be rebuilt to save Earth from the Gamelons. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 24, 2012, 08:23:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
It's always sad seeing a warship being broken up.
They're not being broken up, they are waiting to be rebuilt to save Earth from the Gamelons. :(
Not Japanese enough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 24, 2012, 04:12:08 PM
USS Bainbridge
grumbler has the conn.
True story: look at the superstructure behind the
Long Beach's bridge in Jake's picture. That flat area? That was originally the top of 4 ICBM launchers that went all the way to the bottom of the hll. The ship wasn't expected to survive the launch of the ICBMs, but would take out 4 cities in passing. It was later (maybe before completion) converted to a Regulus nuclear land attack cruise missile launcher plus reloads. Finally, it just became the boat deck.
Weird, weird ship. What with the planar radar arrays on the superstructure (the same as the Big E had) that never really worked because they were still tube technology (and I forget how many hundreds of thousands of tubes were involved, but the operational availability rate was truly crap), to having no guns whatsoever (later having a couple of 76mm bolted on on the newly designated "boat deck"), Long Beach qualifies as one of those white elephants before she even completed. But I will give her this: whan she came over the horizon, no one didn't know who she was. The only comparable ship was the
USS Chicago: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe5%2FUSS_Chicago_%28CG-11%29_underway_in_early_1970s.jpg&hash=7b9e944fb6f6b8fdec23f8451d2dfbb2b8fe4cc1)
What flat area?
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 08:57:02 PM
What flat area?
(https://languish.org/images/lb_highlight.png)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
The Battleship That Was a Girl? I think Tim's writing that novel.
Neil's already preordered.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
The Battleship That Was a Girl? I think Tim's writing that novel.
Neil's already preordered.
<_< There are many issues on which you can call "bullshit" on Neil, but his love of dreadnoughts isn't one of them.
Especially coming from a person, like you, who idolizes the most incompetent and wasteful military unit ever, the "strategic bomber." :contract:
And, yes, it was more wasteful than the paratroop force!
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Especially coming from a person, like you, who idolizes the most incompetent and wasteful military unit ever, the "strategic bomber." :contract:
Hey!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
The Battleship That Was a Girl? I think Tim's writing that novel.
Neil's already preordered.
I came?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:21:48 PM
Hey!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Surely you know enough to understand that the strategic bomber only came of age when it was already obsolete. Absent the nuclear bomb, it was impotent. With the nuclear bomb, it was a Dr Stragelovian anachronism.
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
The Battleship That Was a Girl? I think Tim's writing that novel.
Neil's already preordered.
I came?
Warspite isn't a girl's name.
Unless the poster is really good at hiding things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:21:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Especially coming from a person, like you, who idolizes the most incompetent and wasteful military unit ever, the "strategic bomber." :contract:
Hey!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Thats whats called a shit spew.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
Surely you know enough to understand that the strategic bomber only came of age when it was already obsolete. Absent the nuclear bomb, it was impotent. With the nuclear bomb, it was a Dr Stragelovian anachronism.
Like so much else, I blithely dismiss that logic. :mad:
Strategic bombers allow the political track to continue in the event of an escalating nuclear exchange. THE TRIAD HAS VALUE
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
The Battleship That Was a Girl? I think Tim's writing that novel.
Neil's already preordered.
<_< There are many issues on which you can call "bullshit" on Neil, but his love of dreadnoughts isn't one of them.
Especially coming from a person, like you, who idolizes the most incompetent and wasteful military unit ever, the "strategic bomber." :contract:
And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too. But we both know that. :contract:
QuoteSurely you know enough to understand that the strategic bomber only came of age when it was already obsolete. Absent the nuclear bomb, it was impotent.
Half of Tokyo begs to differ.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And, yes, it was more wasteful than the paratroop force!
Yeah, both were of pretty limited military utility, but the bombers were an order of magnitude more wasteful of resources.
Even the strike-back morale boost was negated by the horror of saturation bombing. I've heard stories of Bomber Command vets getting treated like they'd come back from Vietnam, with the baby-killing and all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:32:56 PM
THE TRIAD HAS VALUE
Only to the Chair Force. By the time nuclear bombers speak their piece, the war is over.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
Half of Tokyo begs to differ.
And yet they didn't manage to win the war, or really win any meaningful advantage.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too. But we both know that. :contract:
Strategic bombers are useless in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role. In fact, every ton of strategic bomber diverted to the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role saved more tonnage than the it would have as a "strategic bomber."
QuoteHalf of Tokyo begs to differ.
The destruction of "half of Tokyo" had no impact on the war. It was already lost, and the destruction eliminated factories already idled by the blockade.
it is possible that the strategic bomber could have shortened WW2, but the incompetent fucks running the strategic bombing campaign could never have done it. Strategic bombing seems to be a concept that, like "taxing the rich," eliminates in its adherents the capacity for thought. Strategic bombing is carried out only, it seems, by those inclined to magical thinking. Same for 'precision air warfare."
Poo poo on you both. From 30,000 feet.
LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMMBLE
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiovanniworld.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F05%2Frumble1.jpg&hash=0a458a5a0f1738faeb95070c3dce9a19e5cde57a)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 10:00:32 PM
Poo poo on you both. From 30,000 feet.
C'mon. You know, he's trolling. Hell, he's endorsed Strategic bombers on this very board. Although pointing out something like that might get you labeled a "gotcha poster".
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
Half of Tokyo begs to differ.
And yet they didn't manage to win the war, or really win any meaningful advantage.
Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... :rolleyes: made nice artificial reefs.
You know, objectively I know Neil and grumbler are right on this one.
But subjectively, I know my grandpa single-handedly defeated the Nazis by being a wireless operator on an RCAF plane.
So I know which side has my allegiance. :cool:
Fun thread. Dunno why I stayed out for so long :cheers:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 10:00:32 PM
Poo poo on you both. From 30,000 feet.
C'mon. You know, he's trolling. Hell, he's endorsed Strategic bombers on this very board. Although pointing out something like that might get you labeled a "gotcha poster".
SILENCE. WE'LL NOT HAVE ANY HIPPIE PEACEMAKERS HERE1
Paratroops single handedly saved multi-part semi-historically based wartime dramas on HBO. They kicked the Marine's ass, that is for sure.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2012, 10:07:48 PM
You know, objectively I know Neil and grumbler are right on this one.
Now grumbler is well aware of my pro-navy leanings; however, I will not allow a denigration or discounting of the need, use and impact of TEH STRATEGIC BOMBA, particularly one with nukes at its Fail Safe point, whether it's the glorious visage of a B-52, a sexy ass NOE B-1 or Batman flying around in his B-2.
And besides, the established reputation of firebombings of civilian/industrial assets with strategic bombers is gravy.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2012, 10:07:48 PM
You know, objectively I know Neil and grumbler are right on this one.
You know no such thing. :angry: Battleships have managed to do practically nothing since their advent--except get sunk by airplanes.
Well there was that one time they sunk each other then proceeded to never even leave port again till the war was over, and that one time Dreadnought ran over a submarine by accident, and OK there was
Glorious and Taffy 3, but otherwise.
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And, yes, it was more wasteful than the paratroop force!
Yeah, both were of pretty limited military utility, but the bombers were an order of magnitude more wasteful of resources.
Even the strike-back morale boost was negated by the horror of saturation bombing. I've heard stories of Bomber Command vets getting treated like they'd come back from Vietnam, with the baby-killing and all.
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too. But we both know that. :contract:
P-3 is a much better strike/recon platform.
Oh shit. We have some P-3 love in the thread! :cool:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigscalemodels.com%2Ftanks%2Ft34-85%2Ft34_1943_tank.jpg&hash=ba840668e09a9d1c100e8256d4a01fa393ce867c)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too. But we both know that. :contract:
P-3 is a much better strike/recon platform.
My bombers kicked your ass too, Moltke. Like grumbler, you permitted your prejudice to blind you to the power of the air.
While I saw clearly.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 24, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
Oh shit. We have some P-3 love in the thread! :cool:
Hells yeah.
One of my directors flew P-3s in the Pacific for the Golden Eagles back in the day; stalked Soviet subs out of Vladivostok.
Said the only time he was ever nervous flying was when they had to randomly patrol with nukes. :ph34r:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigscalemodels.com%2Ftanks%2Ft34-85%2Ft34_1943_tank.jpg&hash=ba840668e09a9d1c100e8256d4a01fa393ce867c)
And if they'd had more than 80 strategic bombers, and better bombers than the sort of crummy Pe-8, they'd have been in Berlin in 1944.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigscalemodels.com%2Ftanks%2Ft34-85%2Ft34_1943_tank.jpg&hash=ba840668e09a9d1c100e8256d4a01fa393ce867c)
Of course they're drunk as shit in that pic.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
The Red Army and the atomic bomb did that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 10:33:34 PM
Hells yeah.
One of my directors flew P-3s in the Pacific for the Golden Eagles back in the day; stalked Soviet subs out of Vladivostok.
Said the only time he was ever nervous flying was when they had to randomly patrol with nukes. :ph34r:
VP-9? Nice gig.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
You know no such thing. :angry: Battleships have managed to do practically nothing since their advent--except get sunk by airplanes.
Actually, it seems to me that aircraft were pretty ineffective against properly manned and screened battleships at sea, unless they attacked in gigantic numbers. They got the Prince of Wales, although they had huge numbers attacking in every direction against a lone ship (as the unmodernized Repulse had the military utility of a stick of gum). Hiei had already been crippled by gunfire. Yamato and Musashi were attacked by wave after wave of aircraft. Roma was manned by Italians.
Now, compare that to the havoc that Allied battleships wreaked on Axis aircraft throughout the war.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigscalemodels.com%2Ftanks%2Ft34-85%2Ft34_1943_tank.jpg&hash=ba840668e09a9d1c100e8256d4a01fa393ce867c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F01varvara.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fkonstantin-vasiliev-a-portrait-of-marshal-georgi-zhukov-19742-e1273979456389.jpg&hash=05fe2f0a2e8221c48f809d05170fe7a4d346b3db)
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... :rolleyes: made nice artificial reefs.
Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed. Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
You know no such thing. :angry: Battleships have managed to do practically nothing since their advent--except get sunk by airplanes.
Yep. Airplanes sank 1,391 battleships in the war, if you believe their pilots.
QuoteWell there was that one time they sunk each other then proceeded to never even leave port again till the war was over, and that one time Dreadnought ran over a submarine by accident, and OK there was Glorious and Taffy 3, but otherwise.
Well, they never left port like the bombers never took off, except when the bombers took off and missed their target cities by miles.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 06:50:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... :rolleyes: made nice artificial reefs.
Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed. Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.
I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies. I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.
If not one bomber ever flew against the German cities, the Soviets would have accomplished what they did (" transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies") anyway. Bombers helped by forcing the Germans to use up ammunition decimating the bomber raids, but the Sovs would have gotten there in the end without them. The money spent on bomber command and Eighth and Twentieth Air Forces would have been better spent on tactical and operational air power and getting more trucks to the USSR.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too. But we both know that. :contract:
P-3 is a much better strike/recon platform.
A pproperly equipped B-52 would put the P-3 to shame in this role. The P-3 was a great plane for the mission, but certainly was much more constrained by cost than the Buffs were.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:02:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 06:50:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... :rolleyes: made nice artificial reefs.
Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed. Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.
I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: I read it, and am agreeing with you that " battleships contributed greatly in WW2." Even an elementary examination of the war at sea would tell you that.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 07:12:28 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:02:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 06:50:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... :rolleyes: made nice artificial reefs.
Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed. Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.
I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: I read it, and am agreeing with you that " battleships contributed greatly in WW2." Even an elementary examination of the war at sea would tell you that.
No they didnt.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:13:37 AM
No they didnt.
Make up you mind!
In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 07:47:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:13:37 AM
No they didnt.
Make up you mind!
In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.
No reason for ad homs
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:48:26 AM
No reason for ad homs
Indeed, not. That's probably why there haven't been any.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 07:47:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:13:37 AM
No they didnt.
Make up you mind!
In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.
No reason for ad homs
:rolleyes: That is more of a demeaning metaphor than an ad hom.
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 08:37:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 07:47:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:13:37 AM
No they didnt.
Make up you mind!
In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.
No reason for ad homs
:rolleyes: That is more of a demeaning metaphor than an ad hom.
Well of course... :rolleyes:
Back to talking about Boats, damn it.
WOuld you say that defeat in Vietnam is a direct correlation of having no(or enough) Battleship engage?
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2012, 10:00:34 AM
Back to talking about Boats, damn it.
WOuld you say that defeat in Vietnam is a direct correlation of having no(or enough) Battleship engage?
Neither side had battleships in Vietnam, and probably for good reason. For the North, it would have been hard to get a battleship down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and for the South it would have been hard to prevent the ship's crew from selling it to a South American dictator.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2012, 10:00:34 AM
Back to talking about Boats, damn it.
WOuld you say that defeat in Vietnam is a direct correlation of having no(or enough) Battleship engage?
No BB engagements? Or no BB engaged during Vietnam? Or no BB's used?
Anywho the New Jersey was used during Vietnam for a short time.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 25, 2012, 10:00:34 AM
Back to talking about Boats, damn it.
WOuld you say that defeat in Vietnam is a direct correlation of having no(or enough) Battleship engage?
Neither side had battleships in Vietnam, and probably for good reason. For the North, it would have been hard to get a battleship down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and for the South it would have been hard to prevent the ship's crew from selling it to a South American dictator.
Maybe if the North had built one of those ridiculous Nazi landcruisers?
:lol: @ South Vietnam.
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
I would rather hear Ho Chi Minh discuss dropping the Iowa on Tim.
Quote from: sbr on May 25, 2012, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
I would rather hear Ho Chi Minh discuss dropping the Iowa on Tim.
Ho Chi Minh would have noted the absurdity of lofting the Iowa to orbital altitudes and speeds, only to drop it on Tim. A simple ballistic trajectory would be much easier and consume less of the Peoples' Republic's resources, and be just as effective.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 05:49:06 PMHo Chi Minh would have noted the absurdity of lofting the Iowa to orbital altitudes and speeds, only to drop it on Tim. A simple ballistic trajectory would be much easier and consume less of the Peoples' Republic's resources, and be just as effective.
What if they launched Tim at the Iowa instead?
Quote from: Jacob on May 25, 2012, 05:58:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 05:49:06 PMHo Chi Minh would have noted the absurdity of lofting the Iowa to orbital altitudes and speeds, only to drop it on Tim. A simple ballistic trajectory would be much easier and consume less of the Peoples' Republic's resources, and be just as effective.
What if they launched Tim at the Iowa instead?
That would be less of a triumph for the Party and the People, I would think.
Quote from: Jacob on May 25, 2012, 05:58:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 05:49:06 PMHo Chi Minh would have noted the absurdity of lofting the Iowa to orbital altitudes and speeds, only to drop it on Tim. A simple ballistic trajectory would be much easier and consume less of the Peoples' Republic's resources, and be just as effective.
What if they launched Tim at the Iowa instead?
the crew would have been infected with Tim's Aspargus syndrome.
Tim is a virus.
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 06:27:14 PM
Tim is a virus.
A nasty RSS feed repeating virus.
Retardicus Copyrightus Infrigmentus.
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
I'd like to see a map.
Would the soda/pop map do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 08:13:51 PM
Would the soda/pop map do?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.troll.me%2Fimages%2Fbertplunk%2Fwhat-is-this-i-dont-even-thumb.jpg&hash=cd76675df8eb24f37cfa529a794688edd0f05699)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 25, 2012, 08:02:05 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
I'd like to see a map.
:yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7da3iwxMUjU&feature=related
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
and torps from Ark Royal's
biplanes fucked it up. :blurgh:
Which allowed the other Brit ships to sink her.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
and torps from Ark Royal's biplanes fucked it up. :blurgh:
Which allowed the other Brit ships to sink her.
After it had already been damaged by gunfire from the Prince of Wales.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
and torps from Ark Royal's biplanes fucked it up. :blurgh:
Which allowed the other Brit ships to sink her.
After it had already been damaged by gunfire from the Prince of Wales.
and that damage did what in the scheme of things? hmmmm
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
and torps from Ark Royal's biplanes fucked it up. :blurgh:
Which allowed the other Brit ships to sink her.
After it had already been damaged by gunfire from the Prince of Wales.
and that damage did what?
Restricted the Bismarck's fuel supply, slowed the ship and prevented it from going after Atlantic convoys, as well as creating an oil slick that helped with the pursuit.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:39:04 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 11:20:07 AM
Today we celebrate the sinking of the Bismarck. By other battleships, and not by aircraft.
and torps from Ark Royal's biplanes fucked it up. :blurgh:
Which allowed the other Brit ships to sink her.
After it had already been damaged by gunfire from the Prince of Wales.
and that damage did what?
Restricted the Bismarck's fuel supply, slowed the ship and prevented it from going after Atlantic convoys.
didnt slow her enough. The rudder hit by the biplanes allowed King George V and Rodney to close and finnish her.
nite, nite
After the engagement you speak of. Bismark was heading for repairs. Eugen was released for raiding
Bismark was running for port.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:43:47 AM
didnt slow her enough. The rudder hit by the biplanes allowed King George V and Rodney to close and finnish her.
nite, nite
Exactly. The aircraft couldn't get the job done.
You have to admit, the Rodnol could not have caught her without the rudder being jammed.
Quote from: PDH on May 27, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
You have to admit, the Rodnol could not have caught her without the rudder being jammed.
This is true. Aircraft proved to be a useful adjunct to the battlefleet. But aircraft couldn't sink the Bismarck.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 01:45:37 PM
But aircraft couldn't sink the Bismarck.
Five O'Clock Charlie says otherwise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 01:45:37 PM
But aircraft couldn't sink the Bismarck.
Five O'Clock Charlie says otherwise.
Bismarck wasn't sunk by aircraft.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 02:24:33 PM
Bismarck wasn't sunk by aircraft.
They would've eventually.
I don't know, the Brits had the worst naval air arm until the US gave them real planes...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 02:45:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 02:24:33 PM
Bismarck wasn't sunk by aircraft.
They would've eventually.
Seems unlikely, unless they were able to attack an immobile Bismarck at dock.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 02:45:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 02:24:33 PM
Bismarck wasn't sunk by aircraft.
They would've eventually.
Seems unlikely, unless they were able to attack an immobile Bismarck at dock.
I read there's a documentary about find the wreck. Have you seen it? and is it worth seeing?
Quote from: PDH on May 27, 2012, 02:53:01 PM
I don't know, the Brits had the worst naval air arm until the US gave them real planes...
:hmm:
Not the best, but not the worst, by that stage of the war they'd already sunk the first significant warship by air attack alone in naval warfare and conducted the first strategic air strike against an enemy battlefleet in a defended harbour.
So given what they had to work with, the Fleet Air Arm did well in first two years of the war. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on May 27, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
:hmm:
Not the best, but not the worst, by that stage of the war they'd already sunk the first significant warship by air attack alone in naval warfare and conducted the first strategic air strike against an enemy battlefleet in a defended harbour.
So given what they had to work with, the Fleet Air Arm did well in first two years of the war. :bowler:
Well, let's see: their competition was the French, the Americans, some specialized German units, some specialized Italian units, and the Japanese. I'd say the Fleet Air Arm was tied with the French for last in terms of tactics, and behind them in terms of the quality of the equipment (for which FAA cannot take the blame, given that they couldn't develop their own aircraft).
The problem with FAA was that the RN didn't really "get" carrier warfare. FAA did fine when based ashore.
Quote from: mongers on May 27, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 27, 2012, 02:53:01 PM
I don't know, the Brits had the worst naval air arm until the US gave them real planes...
:hmm:
Not the best, but not the worst, by that stage of the war they'd already sunk the first significant warship by air attack alone in naval warfare and conducted the first strategic air strike against an enemy battlefleet in a defended harbour.
So given what they had to work with, the Fleet Air Arm did well in first two years of the war. :bowler:
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 08:30:16 PM
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.
Zero, Kate, Val, all those guys came on line in 1940?
The B5N Kate was older, but the A6M was the important part of that combination anyway.
For my pal, Strategic Ide Command:
An educational production film from Convair (a division of General Dynamics), displaying the awesome low-level capabilities of the exciting, new Mach 2 marvel, the B-58 Hustler!
http://youtu.be/yFPgur_cUmA
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
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
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2012, 01:59:10 AM
For my pal, Strategic Ide Command:
An educational production film from Convair (a division of General Dynamics), displaying the awesome low-level capabilities of the exciting, new Mach 2 marvel, the B-58 Hustler!
http://youtu.be/yFPgur_cUmA
Very cool. Thanks. :hug:
I especially like the parts where he's talking about the B-58 like a new car. IT'S JUST SO DAMNED COMFORTABLE. :lol:
I also liked the part where they pretend-nuked Edwards. :)
I wish we still flew these. The Hustler was fucking style. Can you imagine those flying over Tehran at 500 feet? Simply awesome.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2012, 03:16:00 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2012, 01:59:10 AM
For my pal, Strategic Ide Command:
An educational production film from Convair (a division of General Dynamics), displaying the awesome low-level capabilities of the exciting, new Mach 2 marvel, the B-58 Hustler!
http://youtu.be/yFPgur_cUmA
Very cool. Thanks. :hug:
I especially like the parts where he's talking about the B-58 like a new car. IT'S JUST SO DAMNED COMFORTABLE. :lol:
I also liked the part where they pretend-nuked Edwards. :)
I wish we still flew these. The Hustler was fucking style. Can you imagine those flying over Tehran at 500 feet? Simply awesome.
B-58 just fucking plain cool. OOOOOzes with it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richard-seaman.com%2FWallpaper%2FAircraft%2FMuseums%2FB58Hustler.jpg&hash=8635007f051f16d17058db7cf18f1dd995f2b412)
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:36:44 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
:huh: I didnt know the French tried to drop a battleship into DBP
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:42:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:36:44 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:49:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:42:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:36:44 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting. Tim, discuss.
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
:huh: 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.
:huh: Im sorry, but what does that have to do with dropping a battleship from orbit?
Jean Bart was used for specifically this purpose at Casablanca.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:49:29 AM
the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 05:00:02 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:49:29 AM
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
Quote
:huh: I didnt know the French tried to drop a battleship into DBP
Quote
the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.
:huh: 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. :P
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 05:00:02 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:49:29 AM
the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.
:huh: 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?
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 28, 2012, 05:02:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 05:00:02 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2012, 04:49:29 AM
The French already tried that, not with much success. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu)
Quote
:huh: I didnt know the French tried to drop a battleship into DBP
Quote
the cheap ass bastards used dirt ramparts instead of belt armor and field artillery instead of the main guns.
:huh: 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. :P
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.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 08:30:16 PM
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.
QuoteMind 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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2012, 03:16:00 AM
Very cool. Thanks. :hug:
I especially like the parts where he's talking about the B-58 like a new car. IT'S JUST SO DAMNED COMFORTABLE. :lol:
I know, I thought the production value was awesome :lol:; is it a B-58 Hustler, or a a '59 Bel Air? SEE THE USA IN YOUR CHEVROLET
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 03:33:37 AM
B-58 just fucking plain cool. OOOOOzes with it.
In the air. I always found it awkward-looking on the ground.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 28, 2012, 02:20:45 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2012, 06:07:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2012, 08:30:16 PM
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).
QuoteQuoteMind 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.
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 28, 2012, 02:20:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2012, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
The 4th search result from "That's why she was built." is an alt-sex story about a "Far Future Fembot" :huh:
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2012, 11:54:28 AM
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?
That was my point. Skuas just never cut the mustard.
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2012, 08:00:28 PM
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
QuoteMind 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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2012, 05:47:19 AM
Someone was arguing that QuoteMind 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.
Artillery sucked though.
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2012, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2012, 11:54:28 AM
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?
Sea Fury?
I had to look that one up. I have to say that the aircraft was almost certainly better then anything Japan had when it went into service. In 1948.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2012, 05:47:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2012, 08:00:28 PM
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 QuoteMind 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 was thinking late-war in that last post though. I was reading a book about Renown's career, and I found it interesting when they were operating in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia that the British were still using the Barracuda, and how much more capable the Saratoga's air wing was when it came to ground attack.