View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old June 17th, 2007, 06:35 AM
Balderdasher Balderdasher is offline
Dishonorably Discharged
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 91
Balderdasher is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Larger Japanese Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by tikilal View Post
Care to elaborate on this?
To the British including Canadians, the word 'Paschandale' was a foreboding term regarding the tens of thousands sent to deliberate slaughter because the inertia at the top to change minds on how to fight this new trench-warfare was too great. WW1 started with grand Napoleonic-yet strategies of whose rail network was superior to drop of which armies more mobile or quick-marched and hundreds of thousands of cavalry to turn flanks and exploit eachother's rear. That still happened on the Eastern Front and Middle-east, but on the Western Front the trenches and massive artillery and new machine guns completely changed the face of warfare. Yet month after month, year after year, no new tactics were accepted. Like butting your head against the wall over and over.

"It has to be this way because the manual says so."

The British invented the tank and although not really as successful as our propaganda made it out to be, both sides realized it was the end of static defenses. Or did they?

The French fell into the Maginot Line philosophy and their entire military planning was hinged on that one contingency. There was no 'Plan B'.

Despite the lessons of the Chinese and Spanish Civil Wars, all sides still believed that 'the bomber will always get through', despite the rise of new fighters like the Me109.

Despite watching what the RAF did to the Luftwaffe bomber formations throughout the first half of the war, the USAF refused to believe it needed fighters to escort its daylight bombers over Reich targets. The Fortresses in box formation were invinvincible even to the 109 and the Marauders and Baltimores were too fast to be detected, plotted and intercepted in time.

US Admiral King despise the British so much he refused to take their advice on even coastal black-outs, convoys, escorts and land-based recons and asw squadrons. It took a threat of dismissal from FDR for him to listen to his British advisors.

To this day, according to the American Ordinance Bureau and weapons lab records, the Goat Island monopoly on torpedos was never admitted a failure. Lobbied Congressmen prevented the diversification, outsourcing and independent testing by just American labs leaving American submarines and torpedo bombers working with what is still by American Weapons Testing Manuals 'the best torpedos in the world', when they were horrible, till replaced late in the war and even then, just adequate.

The M4 Sherman could have been replaced by a far superior tank had America the Will to do so. The argument for numbers is justified only if you accept that America didn't fully mobilize herself till almost 1944, by her choice.

Despite months of 'mercenary'(terrorists to Japanese) reports from Gen Chennault fighting the Japanese with American planes in China during that Civil War of superior Japanese fighters and bomber accuracy, the US State Dep't brushed him off saying such planes were assured by the US weapons experts to be 'impossible'. Then they met the Zero. Then 2 British battleships were sunk by 'near-sighted monkey people with no sense of balance because their monthers carried them on their backs as children'(quoting, no offense).

The list goes on and on, not only a Japanese or German or Italian failing, but every nation suffered these in some way or another.

Today we're spending trillions on a Star Wars program that still hasn't passed our initial test qualifications from 10 years ago.
We're focusing spending on a missile defense shield when we say we're in a war against terrorism.

We have leaderships out there that are conciously refusing even majority consensus advice on issues. Military or not.

The United States is still spending and planning for conventional even tactical and strategic nuclear war vs Russia even China and totally unprepared to deal with rogue states like North Korea and Iran.

It's like the British taking so long to figure out that the Colonial Revolutionists weren't playing by the rules anymore. Were't lining up as expected and pounding it out like 'gentleman', but instead firing from hidden positions even without uniforms. George Washington even had one of his few successes in attacking during the Christmas truce. But the thick-headed British leadership just couldn't learn in time.

That's some examples to go along with my criticism of Japan, Germany and Italy.

ok?
Reply With Quote