Your so right, from my own days as a grunt, I remember around early 1980's, a report from the Afghan war, one of the most feared weapons was the old WW1 vintage Britsh Lee Enfield.303 bolt action rifle.
Why was a bolt action rifle dangerous? The Afghans had a habit of putting a bullet through the head of tank crew commanders/officers at 1200 yds or more, the terrian was ideal for real snipers and Afghans were crack shots. No sound, no target and a man with no head, quickly curtailed armor. Tanks operating closed down lose much of their effectiveness and are soon limited to operating only with infantry support. The morale of the Russian infantry suffered to, the grunts with their AK's had an effective range of 300 yds, infantry machine guns perhaps out to 800 yds. Same scenerio, bullets from nowhere, no target to return fire and no effective means of reaching to the target anyway. In that kind of war, the formula for success was kill the radio operator first, so no support can be called in, kill the machine gunner next as he has the most dangerous weapon, then kill the officer, NCO's and whoever you feel like after that. When it happens day after day after day, troop morale falls, troops vent their frustrations on the populace and that in turn create more resistence. It is a vicious circle.
That's guerilla warfare in that terrian, shoot and scoot, soldiers want to lock horns in battle and get medals, guerillas just want to kill them and they will, if not today then tomorrow.
Having said all that, the situation now is not 20 years ago it IS different and success on the ground will hinge of use of tactical airpower, particularly gunships, they have the capability to nullify the nibbling tactics traditionally used to break occupying troops. The only worry is that some countries may pay lip service to what has happened and still quietly support the Afghans.
A resurrection of the British "goolie" chit may also be a good insurance policy, basically it said if you find one of our soldiers and return him with all his bits intact we will pay you a lot of gold.
History has shown that war in that region has always slide into barbarism and the treatment of prisoners will be a worry. For the unintiated "goolies" mean your testicles, for some reason, men are very attached to keeping them and Afghan women (in those days) skilled at removing them slowly.
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Go read the First Commandment, and then read the next two,, a pretty insecure God? why would THAT have to be said?
Christians burnt down the Library of Alexandra in about 300 AD, and have cheerfully butchered themselves and others for millienum. the Inquistion, The conquistadors, The Crusades, the cathars (where the saying kill em all let god sort it was utterd- in French, but remebered)
Oh and of course the infamous puckle gun, round bullets for christians, cubes for heathens.
yes Vietnam was a nightmare, tell that to the thousands of veterans exposed to Agent Orange by their own side and then sold out for compensation in 1989 by a deal between the Govenement and the Corporation manufacturing.
But why was Vietnam a nightmare for US troops? The Aussies were lethal and extremely effective, US troops were by and large misused and mishandled.
The US military had since WW2 brainwashed itself it would be fighting primarily in Eurpoe against Soviet forces. When confronted in an alien environment jungle, it found all its pet theories were of no value, its doctrines ineffective, the US Army had extensive jungle fighting experience in WW2 but shied away from it post war. Jungle fighting is mainly small squad actions (something the Aussies excelled in, they would turn and charge into an ambush, it shocked everyone! the VC, US troops, and it worked so well the VC High Command forbad ambushing of them) That was off topic lol, the point being armour, artillary etc isnt very effective and the mistake made was to try and change the environment to suit the tactics and not the tactics to suit the environment. Wanna be generals need battles to make their names, the nightmare was US made unfortunately.
Reducing sucess to body counts, was the way conventional military minds attempted to grasp what was to them unconventional, losing was inevitable.
mmmmmm I see above somone has answered your woman in space comment, I don't see any point adding more.
A free man? yes a military clone from McCarthy USA cicra 1950's was free to do exactly as he was told. The "Right Stuff" of the Gemini boys was straitjacketed just like their counterparts in the Soviet Union.
As for your wish to go into space, I hope it does happen:) just take the blinkers off and look.
anything falling on Australia is probably going to land within 25' of a pub anyway:))
But seriously you are spot on, Mir a success, Skylab a failure.
The first man in space was Russian. The first woman in space was Russian way back in early 1960's, NASA has always been vague as to why it took 20 years more it to allow a woman in space, methinks macho military elitism felt threatened.
Even the wonder of the moon landings degenerated into farce with golf clubs and dune buggies for the lil boys. Such a shame, the pinnacle of human science eroded by a boys own club.
Re:looking forward to the russian response...
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 1
This is brillant:)))
I'd add have they been convicted of road rage? if yes, hire them:) explusion from an anger management course would aso be viewed favourably.
If they can't recite Monty Pyhon verbaitim, they should be put down, it would be a mercy killing
Im glad to correspond to, I'm Graeme:) and my email addy is alfx@bigpond.com if you ever feel like chatting.
I will track down Perret, I will look forward to reading it, my knowledge of pre war doctrine is scanty, so I know I will enjoy reading to increase my knowledge. Like you I will add it to the list of unread books in my lounge room.
Just one item to continue the discussion:) The panzer doctrine developed in 1940 was unfortunately unsuccessful, the first experience the US Army had of blitzkreig was in North Africa at Kassarina Pass. The Germans showed the gap that exists between peace time theory and reality, the "shock of battle" is an apt term. Up to that time I think the only successful defence against a full blitzkrieg attack (albeit on a local scale) had been the Australians at siege of Toburk (Easter 1942?), they withstood Rommel and his Panzers, and Stukas, their doctrine was novel and effective particularily as they had minimal air cover. Rommel was shocked by the setback, his first major one. The effective use of tactical airpower in war in Eurpoe in 1944 was a telling factor to make up for the poor quality of the Allies armour. Ironically, a failed figher, the British Typhoon became such a deadly fighter bomber.
The use of airpower over Naval vessels had been demonstrated by Mitchell in the 1920's, then the British at Taranto disabling the Italian fleet in 1940, a forerunner to Pearl Harbour,(it was the Japanese who paid particularily close attention to that attack). But I think it was the Japanese sinking of the modern British battleship Prince of Wales )P.O.W.) and the elderly battlecruiser Renown of Malaysia on 10/12/41 that demonstrated beyond all doubt the effectiveness of airpower. This was the first time in history major capital ships at been sunk on the high seas by aircraft alone. I know Taranto was naval aircraft, the elderly Swordfish biplanes, but the P.O.W and Renown were sunk by land based bombers.
Macarthuer was not alone in being incompetent during the fall of the Phillipines, the Britsh General Percival was nearby, losing Malaysia and the fortress of Singapore by his stupidity. Norman Dixon deals a lot with him in his book, he defied a direct order by Churchill to allow his troops to fortify Singapore in December 1941 as it would be "bad for morale". His troop dispositions to defend the island for the final Japanese assualt beggars belief. Its sad, history is so consistently full of such examples.
Thankyou again for the web links, I will enjoy visiting them, I think as a final piece of triva, Iran was selling off their Mosquitos in the late 1970's, the last country to use them:)
Thankyou! I have so enjoyed this correspondence:)
King is still dammed, 6 months to admit a mistake that occurred, solely by his personality flaw. Admiral Sims during World war One recognised the threat of U-Boats and convoys as the only means to counter them, he advocated that to the British in 1917. Read John Terraine's "Business in Great Waters, The U-Boat Wars of 1915-1945". It is the definitive book and damms King and the Navy (and in fairness, the British Navy in early World war Two gets dammed as well). There is a flaw in much of military thinking, the cost is always paid in blood.
The first Zero, was captured in February 1942 and shipped to the US for evaluation. It crashlanded almost intact on Thursday Island off the north coast of Australia, following a bombing raid on Darwin (Feb 23 or 29th, 1942). It is easy to see why it has been overlooked historically, US forces didn't capture it, so it has quietly been forgotten. That Zero was used in the designing the Hellcat.
The Mustang is fscinating, it is the supreme piston engined aircraft of World War 2, but my point was, it was not designed as a long range fighter pre war, so no credit can be taken for it. It evolved almost accidently. Indeed the USAAAF prewar advocated the dogma of the self protecting bomber ie the B17. That dogma was persisted with despite its known fallacy, the ultimate dream was for an independent Airforce and bombing was the way the advocates saw to achieving it. The tradegy was in the pursuit of that dream, the planners condemmed thousands of young men to death, the lessons of the Britsh and the Germans were there, but ignored. Not until the second Schweinfurt did the USAAAF accept that their prewar plans were fantasy. As an aside the tactic used effectively by the Luftwaffe with head on attacks which rendered the B17's almost defenceless (till the G model) was copied from the RAF No. 111 Squadron, they first used it in the Battle of Britian to attack the German formations. Again a lesson was clearly there but ignored, the question is with almost 3 years to do something(1940-1943), that design flaw in the B17 should have been removed before crews were sent into combat. As for the Mosquito, it is an anomaly, so clearly superior to any other bomber be it British or American, fast, cheap to make, to maintain, less expensive in crews to train and man, the lists goes on and on. Were the lumbering fleets of four engined heavies necessary militarily or merely politically, Generals needs armies, without them their prestige is lessened.
I'll finish on that note, again thankyou for such concise and intersting correspondence, my initial point way back:) was to reply to the comment originally made that the US was planning way back in the 20 and the 30's. I still don't accept that, it is merely revisonist history at its worst. I can't accept your comments about poor decisons of King and Macarthur, they still equate to me to a lack of planning and taking Dixon's book in account shows a serious flaw in the military. Both men's command clearly failed when tested in battle. The mistake they both made was their egos could not accept they could learn from others, King from the detested Britsh and Macarthur from the enemy.
I look forward to seeing your corrsponence on other issues in slashdot and will happily mod for you.
I forgot to add a book for you to study and so thought I'd add a few more points if you don't mind:)
The book is "The psychology of military imcompetency" by Norman Dixon, a serious text book by an English military psychologist. Apply that book to Macarthur and King and the diasters they commanded.
Your reply gave the "party" reason for the failures but failed to explain the why itself. There is no excuse for King or the US Altantic Fleet, they allowed an individual's personal prejudice overide strategtic and operational necessarties and men died and ships were lost. King had a serious flaw in his personality that killed men and the Navy displayed a singular inability to override him, a damming judgement on their competency. As for the Phillipines, it merely demonstrates incredible inertia, timidness, an unwillingness to make decisons, the results speak for themselves.
Men do die because of incompetent yet charismatic peace time political soldiers and the only way a leader should be judged is how they deal when the forces they command come into direct contact with the enemy. From my own days as a grunt the doctrine ingrained was "proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance".
The why i am bothered to ask is, why were such men permitted to be in positions of power?
As for the revisionist history about detailed plans etc, I'll take that with a grain of salt, I mean there are even apologists for Haig (the Britsh Field Marshall of World War One infamy) publishing work, so i expect authors can be found proving that the miltiary planned everything and everything proceeded to the grand ineffable plan and all those early diasters, lack of equipment and men dieing to buy time were necessary. The world had been at war for over tweo years when the US came into it, 2 yeras of others people experience bought in blood was ignored and the poor GI's had to pay for it all over again.
A final thing about planes (I'm sorry they are a passion of mine:) ) the British Mosquito two seater bomber (1939) could carry more bombs, farther and faster than the B17 with its ten men and myraid of machine guns, which was the better bomber?
I will go and locate that book, thankyou for that:) Its always worthwile increasing knowledge. Your arguements are concise and a pleasure to study:)
I would still argue that wrong decisons smacks of poor prepardeness. The convoys lessons had been learnt in World War One and ignored by King an Anglophobe, when convoys were introduced with even meagre escort the losses fell. As for the Phillipines, I believe there were up to 5 seperate Congressional enquiries about Pearl Harbour but never one about the fall of the Phillipines. The fear of sabotage speaks volumes of unprepardness again, the reality of two years of war in Eurpoe seem to have been ignored, every country by 1941 dispersed their aircraft, only peacetime US did not.
As for the aircraft? The Mustang was a built to a British specification and was medicore till married with a Britsh Rolls Royce Merlin engine, so I fail to see how it can be claimed, it was by far the single most important aircraft of the war. Without it daylight bombing was a failure, the Schweinfurt raids of August 17 and October 17, 1943, doomed unescorted daylight bombing, a lesson the British had learnt in Decemeber 1939 and the Germans in July - Sept 1940.
The nemimis of the Zero the Hellcat was built after a captured Zero was examined in 1942, so it couldn't have been on the drawing board in 1941. The list goes on I'm sure, but its a side issue, my primary point was to respond to the statement made about the prepardness. Justifying why the military failed in their task when tested merely shows they were not prepared. Yes in war people die, i have been in combat and know, its a tradgey. Usually at the start of a war people die for 2 reasons (i) because of the paucity of politicians in peacetime in defense spending and (ii) because the military is itself not prepared, it usually hangs it hat on a theory and is shocked when in war it finds it is wrong, ie unescorted daylight bombing was a failure, "the theory of the day", escorted daylight bombing was a success, a hersey prior to Swheinfurt.
"Figure it out, guys - we're gearing up for a war with China, about 20 years down the road. Just like we started gearing up for a war with Japan, and Germany, in the 1920s."
If the US was gearing up for the war way back then, why were they so hopelessly ill prepared?
The classic is even after Pearl Harbour happened, eight hours later when the Japanese attacked the Phillipines they were shocked to find the US planes all lined up on the runaways, a bombers dream. So much for preparation.
Perhaps the massive shipping losses on off te East Coast of the US in early 1942, the UBoat "happy time" cos the US navy refused to implement convoys? Speaks volumes of prepardness again.
Never ever believe the military in peacetime and in war people die through their lack of ability.
that observation is spot on, American forces by and large in Vietnam were woefully trained for the style of war they had to fight, they were totally unskilled in small scale infantry patrolling, which is the essence of combatting guerillas, they were scared in anything less than company strength, meaning the VC simply melted away. Patrolling is boring, stressful and sometimes fatally dangeous but successful, Generals and wana be generals don't win medals or glory by doing that, they want a "final battle" to win glory, all those firebases they setup, to draw charlie out and for what?
I remember they did their basic training in the US and then their Corps training in Vietnam, so many were terrifed of the jungle and saw it as "the enemy". It wasn't about bravery or courage , they had heaps of that, it was the old french saying about "lions being led by donkeys", the US High Command were as incompetent as the Britsh staff of World War One, but have neatly side stepped the blame by perputating the myth of "we lost the war at home". Given the proper intelligent leadership, the war was always winnable. And before any prepubsecent little boy decides to take umbrage on me, i was there as an Austrlaian infantry soldier and we thought the bulk of the US forces were dangerous, more to themselves than anyone else. One in four names on that magnificant memorial in Washington is there because they were killed by their on side (25% killed by friendly fire). Spraying agent orange in an effort to "beat" the jungle so the airforce generals could feel they were contributing , then denying Veterans claims for compensation and interestly next year 2002 they are finally going back to Vietnam to investigate the effects of defoilants on the local populace. With new toys for the generals the resilts will still be same, a lot of body bags (hopefully some of the little boys here won't fill them, but its easier to scream insults and mouth mindless patroitic drivel when your the one NOT being shot at). Even today the US Marines, accept 18% casualities as ok, that is one in five dead kiddies, their aggressiveness is legendary, the brains, well? T he US people need to look at their military leadership, something is seriously flawed at a basic level and has been for a long time.
obviously your next will be your first. I exclude Mrs Palm and her her five daughters whom you seem to be intimately acquainted with. Bad writing, bad prose, you should to learn to read and write, does your mummy know your on the computer?
I'll watch and wait for NASA to do a backflip and start offering discount flights for one and all soon. Methinks soon the "Right Stuff" will equate to the "Right Bank Balance". I am concerned though where my baggage may end up,I seem to recall that NASA lost a Mars probe through being unable to differentiate between Metric and Imperial measurement systems, inspires faith NOT.
There is no need to use words like racist, bigot, hater, the most appropiate is xenophobic, all you have shown is that those that live in poverty and have been downtrodden by society react violently, its called human nature.
As for your love affair of that most truly xenophobic of races - the Japanese, take the time to track down an English Book "The Knights of Bushido" and learn how the Japanese behaved as victors to those they conquered, or you may prefer a more modern book "The Rape of Nanking" or even a more modern historical tit bit linked to the Pearl Harbour movie, the "Doolittle Raid" on Japan in 1942, the reprisals for that affront was the execution of over 200,000 Chinese by the Japanese, unfortuanately that involunatry sacrifice doesnt make good Hollywood viewing. Strangely the Japanese still refuse to accept or acknowledge any atrocities they commited during World war 2, their history books are blank and the polictical life of a politican who dares raise the subject is short, eg some have been shot in parliament. Perhaps you approve of the current (May 2001) "science" used by the Japanese to subvert a whaling embargo? As a race they have many strengths and many failings, they are not perfect, no one is. Try and take your blinkers off, you can see the symptons of so many problems but can't see the problem itself. An englishman once said "The difference between a first rate mind and a second rate one, is that the first rate mind can see two mutually exclusive viewpoints and know they are both equally true, a second rate mind is only capable of holding one arguement" Yours is truly second rate.
By the way I am not an American, but I don't lose any sleep over it, I come from a successful multicultural country where we enjoy throwing the odd prawn on the barbie.
Slashdot Mirror
why the anal retentiveness about body counts? Its an American hangup, even though we lost, We killed more therefore we are better. Yeah right
Its childish, and so easy to fake, any corpse becomes a kill, "lies, dammed lies and statistics"
Your so right, from my own days as a grunt, I remember around early 1980's, a report from the Afghan war, one of the most feared weapons was the old WW1 vintage Britsh Lee Enfield .303 bolt action rifle.
Why was a bolt action rifle dangerous? The Afghans had a habit of putting a bullet through the head of tank crew commanders/officers at 1200 yds or more, the terrian was ideal for real snipers and Afghans were crack shots. No sound, no target and a man with no head, quickly curtailed armor. Tanks operating closed down lose much of their effectiveness and are soon limited to operating only with infantry support. The morale of the Russian infantry suffered to, the grunts with their AK's had an effective range of 300 yds, infantry machine guns perhaps out to 800 yds. Same scenerio, bullets from nowhere, no target to return fire and no effective means of reaching to the target anyway. In that kind of war, the formula for success was kill the radio operator first, so no support can be called in, kill the machine gunner next as he has the most dangerous weapon, then kill the officer, NCO's and whoever you feel like after that. When it happens day after day after day, troop morale falls, troops vent their frustrations on the populace and that in turn create more resistence. It is a vicious circle.
That's guerilla warfare in that terrian, shoot and scoot, soldiers want to lock horns in battle and get medals, guerillas just want to kill them and they will, if not today then tomorrow.
Having said all that, the situation now is not 20 years ago it IS different and success on the ground will hinge of use of tactical airpower, particularly gunships, they have the capability to nullify the nibbling tactics traditionally used to break occupying troops. The only worry is that some countries may pay lip service to what has happened and still quietly support the Afghans.
A resurrection of the British "goolie" chit may also be a good insurance policy, basically it said if you find one of our soldiers and return him with all his bits intact we will pay you a lot of gold.
History has shown that war in that region has always slide into barbarism and the treatment of prisoners will be a worry. For the unintiated "goolies" mean your testicles, for some reason, men are very attached to keeping them and Afghan women (in those days) skilled at removing them slowly.
Go read the First Commandment, and then read the next two,, a pretty insecure God? why would THAT have to be said?
Christians burnt down the Library of Alexandra in about 300 AD, and have cheerfully butchered themselves and others for millienum. the Inquistion, The conquistadors, The Crusades, the cathars (where the saying kill em all let god sort it was utterd- in French, but remebered)
Oh and of course the infamous puckle gun, round bullets for christians, cubes for heathens.
yes Vietnam was a nightmare, tell that to the thousands of veterans exposed to Agent Orange by their own side and then sold out for compensation in 1989 by a deal between the Govenement and the Corporation manufacturing.
But why was Vietnam a nightmare for US troops? The Aussies were lethal and extremely effective, US troops were by and large misused and mishandled.
The US military had since WW2 brainwashed itself it would be fighting primarily in Eurpoe against Soviet forces. When confronted in an alien environment jungle, it found all its pet theories were of no value, its doctrines ineffective, the US Army had extensive jungle fighting experience in WW2 but shied away from it post war. Jungle fighting is mainly small squad actions (something the Aussies excelled in, they would turn and charge into an ambush, it shocked everyone! the VC, US troops, and it worked so well the VC High Command forbad ambushing of them) That was off topic lol, the point being armour, artillary etc isnt very effective and the mistake made was to try and change the environment to suit the tactics and not the tactics to suit the environment. Wanna be generals need battles to make their names, the nightmare was US made unfortunately.
Reducing sucess to body counts, was the way conventional military minds attempted to grasp what was to them unconventional, losing was inevitable.
mmmmmm I see above somone has answered your woman in space comment, I don't see any point adding more.
:) just take the blinkers off and look.
A free man? yes a military clone from McCarthy USA cicra 1950's was free to do exactly as he was told. The "Right Stuff" of the Gemini boys was straitjacketed just like their counterparts in the Soviet Union.
As for your wish to go into space, I hope it does happen
anything falling on Australia is probably going to land within 25' of a pub anyway :))
But seriously you are spot on, Mir a success, Skylab a failure.
The first man in space was Russian. The first woman in space was Russian way back in early 1960's, NASA has always been vague as to why it took 20 years more it to allow a woman in space, methinks macho military elitism felt threatened.
Even the wonder of the moon landings degenerated into farce with golf clubs and dune buggies for the lil boys. Such a shame, the pinnacle of human science eroded by a boys own club.
go bury my heart at wounded knee
This is brillant :)))
I'd add have they been convicted of road rage? if yes, hire them :) explusion from an anger management course would aso be viewed favourably.
If they can't recite Monty Pyhon verbaitim, they should be put down, it would be a mercy killing
Im glad to correspond to, I'm Graeme :) and my email addy is alfx@bigpond.com if you ever feel like chatting.
I will track down Perret, I will look forward to reading it, my knowledge of pre war doctrine is scanty, so I know I will enjoy reading to increase my knowledge. Like you I will add it to the list of unread books in my lounge room.
Just one item to continue the discussion :) The panzer doctrine developed in 1940 was unfortunately unsuccessful, the first experience the US Army had of blitzkreig was in North Africa at Kassarina Pass. The Germans showed the gap that exists between peace time theory and reality, the "shock of battle" is an apt term. Up to that time I think the only successful defence against a full blitzkrieg attack (albeit on a local scale) had been the Australians at siege of Toburk (Easter 1942?), they withstood Rommel and his Panzers, and Stukas, their doctrine was novel and effective particularily as they had minimal air cover. Rommel was shocked by the setback, his first major one. The effective use of tactical airpower in war in Eurpoe in 1944 was a telling factor to make up for the poor quality of the Allies armour. Ironically, a failed figher, the British Typhoon became such a deadly fighter bomber.
The use of airpower over Naval vessels had been demonstrated by Mitchell in the 1920's, then the British at Taranto disabling the Italian fleet in 1940, a forerunner to Pearl Harbour,(it was the Japanese who paid particularily close attention to that attack). But I think it was the Japanese sinking of the modern British battleship Prince of Wales )P.O.W.) and the elderly battlecruiser Renown of Malaysia on 10/12/41 that demonstrated beyond all doubt the effectiveness of airpower. This was the first time in history major capital ships at been sunk on the high seas by aircraft alone. I know Taranto was naval aircraft, the elderly Swordfish biplanes, but the P.O.W and Renown were sunk by land based bombers.
Macarthuer was not alone in being incompetent during the fall of the Phillipines, the Britsh General Percival was nearby, losing Malaysia and the fortress of Singapore by his stupidity. Norman Dixon deals a lot with him in his book, he defied a direct order by Churchill to allow his troops to fortify Singapore in December 1941 as it would be "bad for morale". His troop dispositions to defend the island for the final Japanese assualt beggars belief. Its sad, history is so consistently full of such examples.
Thankyou again for the web links, I will enjoy visiting them, I think as a final piece of triva, Iran was selling off their Mosquitos in the late 1970's, the last country to use them :)
Thankyou! I have so enjoyed this correspondence :)
King is still dammed, 6 months to admit a mistake that occurred, solely by his personality flaw. Admiral Sims during World war One recognised the threat of U-Boats and convoys as the only means to counter them, he advocated that to the British in 1917. Read John Terraine's "Business in Great Waters, The U-Boat Wars of 1915-1945". It is the definitive book and damms King and the Navy (and in fairness, the British Navy in early World war Two gets dammed as well). There is a flaw in much of military thinking, the cost is always paid in blood.
The first Zero, was captured in February 1942 and shipped to the US for evaluation. It crashlanded almost intact on Thursday Island off the north coast of Australia, following a bombing raid on Darwin (Feb 23 or 29th, 1942). It is easy to see why it has been overlooked historically, US forces didn't capture it, so it has quietly been forgotten. That Zero was used in the designing the Hellcat.
The Mustang is fscinating, it is the supreme piston engined aircraft of World War 2, but my point was, it was not designed as a long range fighter pre war, so no credit can be taken for it. It evolved almost accidently. Indeed the USAAAF prewar advocated the dogma of the self protecting bomber ie the B17. That dogma was persisted with despite its known fallacy, the ultimate dream was for an independent Airforce and bombing was the way the advocates saw to achieving it. The tradegy was in the pursuit of that dream, the planners condemmed thousands of young men to death, the lessons of the Britsh and the Germans were there, but ignored. Not until the second Schweinfurt did the USAAAF accept that their prewar plans were fantasy. As an aside the tactic used effectively by the Luftwaffe with head on attacks which rendered the B17's almost defenceless (till the G model) was copied from the RAF No. 111 Squadron, they first used it in the Battle of Britian to attack the German formations. Again a lesson was clearly there but ignored, the question is with almost 3 years to do something(1940-1943), that design flaw in the B17 should have been removed before crews were sent into combat. As for the Mosquito, it is an anomaly, so clearly superior to any other bomber be it British or American, fast, cheap to make, to maintain, less expensive in crews to train and man, the lists goes on and on. Were the lumbering fleets of four engined heavies necessary militarily or merely politically, Generals needs armies, without them their prestige is lessened.
I'll finish on that note, again thankyou for such concise and intersting correspondence, my initial point way back :) was to reply to the comment originally made that the US was planning way back in the 20 and the 30's. I still don't accept that, it is merely revisonist history at its worst. I can't accept your comments about poor decisons of King and Macarthur, they still equate to me to a lack of planning and taking Dixon's book in account shows a serious flaw in the military. Both men's command clearly failed when tested in battle. The mistake they both made was their egos could not accept they could learn from others, King from the detested Britsh and Macarthur from the enemy.
I look forward to seeing your corrsponence on other issues in slashdot and will happily mod for you.
I forgot to add a book for you to study and so thought I'd add a few more points if you don't mind :)
The book is "The psychology of military imcompetency" by Norman Dixon, a serious text book by an English military psychologist. Apply that book to Macarthur and King and the diasters they commanded.
Your reply gave the "party" reason for the failures but failed to explain the why itself. There is no excuse for King or the US Altantic Fleet, they allowed an individual's personal prejudice overide strategtic and operational necessarties and men died and ships were lost. King had a serious flaw in his personality that killed men and the Navy displayed a singular inability to override him, a damming judgement on their competency. As for the Phillipines, it merely demonstrates incredible inertia, timidness, an unwillingness to make decisons, the results speak for themselves.
Men do die because of incompetent yet charismatic peace time political soldiers and the only way a leader should be judged is how they deal when the forces they command come into direct contact with the enemy. From my own days as a grunt the doctrine ingrained was "proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance".
The why i am bothered to ask is, why were such men permitted to be in positions of power?
As for the revisionist history about detailed plans etc, I'll take that with a grain of salt, I mean there are even apologists for Haig (the Britsh Field Marshall of World War One infamy) publishing work, so i expect authors can be found proving that the miltiary planned everything and everything proceeded to the grand ineffable plan and all those early diasters, lack of equipment and men dieing to buy time were necessary. The world had been at war for over tweo years when the US came into it, 2 yeras of others people experience bought in blood was ignored and the poor GI's had to pay for it all over again.
A final thing about planes (I'm sorry they are a passion of mine:) ) the British Mosquito two seater bomber (1939) could carry more bombs, farther and faster than the B17 with its ten men and myraid of machine guns, which was the better bomber?
I will go and locate that book, thankyou for that :) Its always worthwile increasing knowledge. Your arguements are concise and a pleasure to study :)
I would still argue that wrong decisons smacks of poor prepardeness. The convoys lessons had been learnt in World War One and ignored by King an Anglophobe, when convoys were introduced with even meagre escort the losses fell. As for the Phillipines, I believe there were up to 5 seperate Congressional enquiries about Pearl Harbour but never one about the fall of the Phillipines. The fear of sabotage speaks volumes of unprepardness again, the reality of two years of war in Eurpoe seem to have been ignored, every country by 1941 dispersed their aircraft, only peacetime US did not.
As for the aircraft? The Mustang was a built to a British specification and was medicore till married with a Britsh Rolls Royce Merlin engine, so I fail to see how it can be claimed, it was by far the single most important aircraft of the war. Without it daylight bombing was a failure, the Schweinfurt raids of August 17 and October 17, 1943, doomed unescorted daylight bombing, a lesson the British had learnt in Decemeber 1939 and the Germans in July - Sept 1940.
The nemimis of the Zero the Hellcat was built after a captured Zero was examined in 1942, so it couldn't have been on the drawing board in 1941. The list goes on I'm sure, but its a side issue, my primary point was to respond to the statement made about the prepardness. Justifying why the military failed in their task when tested merely shows they were not prepared. Yes in war people die, i have been in combat and know, its a tradgey. Usually at the start of a war people die for 2 reasons (i) because of the paucity of politicians in peacetime in defense spending and (ii) because the military is itself not prepared, it usually hangs it hat on a theory and is shocked when in war it finds it is wrong, ie unescorted daylight bombing was a failure, "the theory of the day", escorted daylight bombing was a success, a hersey prior to Swheinfurt.
"Figure it out, guys - we're gearing up for a war with China, about 20 years down the road. Just like we started gearing up for a war with Japan, and Germany, in the 1920s." If the US was gearing up for the war way back then, why were they so hopelessly ill prepared? The classic is even after Pearl Harbour happened, eight hours later when the Japanese attacked the Phillipines they were shocked to find the US planes all lined up on the runaways, a bombers dream. So much for preparation. Perhaps the massive shipping losses on off te East Coast of the US in early 1942, the UBoat "happy time" cos the US navy refused to implement convoys? Speaks volumes of prepardness again. Never ever believe the military in peacetime and in war people die through their lack of ability.
that observation is spot on, American forces by and large in Vietnam were woefully trained for the style of war they had to fight, they were totally unskilled in small scale infantry patrolling, which is the essence of combatting guerillas, they were scared in anything less than company strength, meaning the VC simply melted away. Patrolling is boring, stressful and sometimes fatally dangeous but successful, Generals and wana be generals don't win medals or glory by doing that, they want a "final battle" to win glory, all those firebases they setup, to draw charlie out and for what? I remember they did their basic training in the US and then their Corps training in Vietnam, so many were terrifed of the jungle and saw it as "the enemy". It wasn't about bravery or courage , they had heaps of that, it was the old french saying about "lions being led by donkeys", the US High Command were as incompetent as the Britsh staff of World War One, but have neatly side stepped the blame by perputating the myth of "we lost the war at home". Given the proper intelligent leadership, the war was always winnable. And before any prepubsecent little boy decides to take umbrage on me, i was there as an Austrlaian infantry soldier and we thought the bulk of the US forces were dangerous, more to themselves than anyone else. One in four names on that magnificant memorial in Washington is there because they were killed by their on side (25% killed by friendly fire). Spraying agent orange in an effort to "beat" the jungle so the airforce generals could feel they were contributing , then denying Veterans claims for compensation and interestly next year 2002 they are finally going back to Vietnam to investigate the effects of defoilants on the local populace. With new toys for the generals the resilts will still be same, a lot of body bags (hopefully some of the little boys here won't fill them, but its easier to scream insults and mouth mindless patroitic drivel when your the one NOT being shot at). Even today the US Marines, accept 18% casualities as ok, that is one in five dead kiddies, their aggressiveness is legendary, the brains, well? T he US people need to look at their military leadership, something is seriously flawed at a basic level and has been for a long time.
obviously your next will be your first. I exclude Mrs Palm and her her five daughters whom you seem to be intimately acquainted with. Bad writing, bad prose, you should to learn to read and write, does your mummy know your on the computer?
I'll watch and wait for NASA to do a backflip and start offering discount flights for one and all soon. Methinks soon the "Right Stuff" will equate to the "Right Bank Balance". I am concerned though where my baggage may end up,I seem to recall that NASA lost a Mars probe through being unable to differentiate between Metric and Imperial measurement systems, inspires faith NOT.
There is no need to use words like racist, bigot, hater, the most appropiate is xenophobic, all you have shown is that those that live in poverty and have been downtrodden by society react violently, its called human nature. As for your love affair of that most truly xenophobic of races - the Japanese, take the time to track down an English Book "The Knights of Bushido" and learn how the Japanese behaved as victors to those they conquered, or you may prefer a more modern book "The Rape of Nanking" or even a more modern historical tit bit linked to the Pearl Harbour movie, the "Doolittle Raid" on Japan in 1942, the reprisals for that affront was the execution of over 200,000 Chinese by the Japanese, unfortuanately that involunatry sacrifice doesnt make good Hollywood viewing. Strangely the Japanese still refuse to accept or acknowledge any atrocities they commited during World war 2, their history books are blank and the polictical life of a politican who dares raise the subject is short, eg some have been shot in parliament. Perhaps you approve of the current (May 2001) "science" used by the Japanese to subvert a whaling embargo? As a race they have many strengths and many failings, they are not perfect, no one is. Try and take your blinkers off, you can see the symptons of so many problems but can't see the problem itself. An englishman once said "The difference between a first rate mind and a second rate one, is that the first rate mind can see two mutually exclusive viewpoints and know they are both equally true, a second rate mind is only capable of holding one arguement" Yours is truly second rate. By the way I am not an American, but I don't lose any sleep over it, I come from a successful multicultural country where we enjoy throwing the odd prawn on the barbie.