Pearl Harbor Defense

[Dave]

I have always wondered how the attack would have played out if the Americans
had correctly interpreted the reading from the Army radar site on the north
tip of Oahu.
The attacking Japanese planes were picked up at a range of 132 miles at 7
o'clock Sunday morning. The radar operators phoned the duty office, Lt.
Kermit Tyler and told him (paraphrase) that ".... a large formation of
planes is approaching from the north."
Tyler knew that eleven B-17s were due to arrive and assumed that the radar
operators were seeing the B-17s and told them "Well, don't worry about it."
The operators had interpreted the signal that they were seeing as
representing over fifty planes. They did not know about the B-17 flight. If
they had told Tyler that there were over fifty planes approaching instead of
saying a 'large number', Tyler might have sounded the alarm.

If he had sounded the alarm the Americans would have had about thirty
minutes to get ready for the attack. I don't know how long it would take
the sailors to get to their battle stations but I assume that 30 minutes
would give them enough time to get to their AA guns and get them loaded. At
least they would all be out of their bunks and all water tight doors and
hatches could have been closed. The AA defenses on the ships were nothing
like the late WWII batteries but there were dozens if not hundreds of 1.1"
quad mounts on ships in the harbor when one considers the number of
destroyers and auxiliaries present. The 1.1" had a lot of long term
reliability problems but put out a lot of firepower when they were working.
There were probably even more .50 caliber machine guns in addition to the
sixty or seventy 5'' dual purpose mounts. The Army also had substantial AA
batteries and the infantry and marines had .30 LMGs and BARs.
On the other hand, many soldiers and sailors might have been off base or
ashore.

Could the Army have gotten their P-40s and P-36s up in time? The P-40s were
more than a match for the Zeros (contrary to popular myth) and would have
been going after the Kates and Vals anyway. I don't know how many P-40s were
in Hawaii that morning of if there were any Navy or Marine fighters on Ford
Island or at Ewa air station.

I think the American carries were about 200 miles west of Pearl Harbor on
the morning of the attack. Could they have sent approximately 80 Wildcats
into the battle? They probably could not have gotten there by 7:55 but they
could have been there by the time the second wave arrived. The second wave
would probably have been canceled by the Japanese if surprise had not been
achieved.

Another twist I have wondered about is what would have happened it
anti-torpedo nets had been deployed at Pearl Harbor. I think more than half
the Kates in the first wave were armed with torpedoes. The Navy had not
completely discounted the possibility of torpedo attacks due to the
relatively shallow depth of the harbor. I also don't know how well the nets
would have worked but the possibility of neutralizing a large portion of
the first wave would surly have affected the battle.
Admiral Furlong, the day's Senior Officer Present Afloat ordered all ship to
sortie as soon as the attack began. If he had been given a 30 minute warning
would he have ordered the sortie if nets had been present? They probably
couldn't get steam up in 30 minutes anyway.

I looking forward to hearing the group's thoughts.

Thanks,

Dave Kennedy
Atlanta

[Keith Willshaw]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I have always wondered how the attack would have played out if the
Americans
> had correctly interpreted the reading from the Army radar site on the
north
> tip of Oahu.
> The attacking Japanese planes were picked up at a range of 132 miles at 7
> o'clock Sunday morning. The radar operators phoned the duty office, Lt.
> Kermit Tyler and told him (paraphrase) that ".... a large formation of
> planes is approaching from the north."
> Tyler knew that eleven B-17s were due to arrive and assumed that the radar
> operators were seeing the B-17s and told them "Well, don't worry about
it."
> The operators had interpreted the signal that they were seeing as
> representing over fifty planes. They did not know about the B-17 flight.
If
> they had told Tyler that there were over fifty planes approaching instead
of
> saying a 'large number', Tyler might have sounded the alarm.
>
> If he had sounded the alarm the Americans would have had about thirty
> minutes to get ready for the attack. I don't know how long it would take
> the sailors to get to their battle stations but I assume that 30 minutes
> would give them enough time to get to their AA guns and get them loaded.
At
> least they would all be out of their bunks and all water tight doors and
> hatches could have been closed. The AA defenses on the ships were
nothing
> like the late WWII batteries but there were dozens if not hundreds of 1.1"
> quad mounts on ships in the harbor when one considers the number of
> destroyers and auxiliaries present. The 1.1" had a lot of long term
> reliability problems but put out a lot of firepower when they were
working.
> There were probably even more .50 caliber machine guns in addition to the
> sixty or seventy 5'' dual purpose mounts. The Army also had substantial
AA
> batteries and the infantry and marines had .30 LMGs and BARs.
> On the other hand, many soldiers and sailors might have been off base or
> ashore.
>
> Could the Army have gotten their P-40s and P-36s up in time? The P-40s
were
> more than a match for the Zeros (contrary to popular myth) and would have
> been going after the Kates and Vals anyway. I don't know how many P-40s
were
> in Hawaii that morning of if there were any Navy or Marine fighters on
Ford
> Island or at Ewa air station.
>

There's a wealth of information on this at the Pear harbor hearings
website, the congressional hearing is rather useful

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html

In short there around 94 pursuit aircraft, including 30 obsolete
types available for combat. However its likely that not all
of those could have been got airborne since the
units were not on standby and the probablity is it
would not have been possible to get the aircraft
armed and fuelled let alone find the pilots and get
them ready in the time available.

The situation with regard to the army Anti-aircraft batteries
was little short of appalling and alone justifies the
sacking of General Short IMHO.

Of the 31 army antiaircraft batteries, 27 were not in position and
ready to fire until after the attack and in several instances not for
a considerable period of time after the attack. None managed
to engage the first wave.

The mobile units were not in field position and had no ammunition.
It was only through the intervention of General Burgin
who collared Short in person that the fixed sites had
any munitions and even these were boxed and with
ready use provision. It seemed the quartermaster was
unhappy about shells geting dirty !


> I think the American carries were about 200 miles west of Pearl Harbor on
> the morning of the attack. Could they have sent approximately 80 Wildcats
> into the battle? They probably could not have gotten there by 7:55 but
they
> could have been there by the time the second wave arrived. The second wave
> would probably have been canceled by the Japanese if surprise had not been
> achieved.
>

Not a good idea IMHO

The carriers were not operating together and their aircraft would
have arrived short on fuel and heaviliy outnumbered. Moreover
this would have left the only surviving naval assets in the
pacific wide open to air attack

> Another twist I have wondered about is what would have happened it
> anti-torpedo nets had been deployed at Pearl Harbor. I think more than
half
> the Kates in the first wave were armed with torpedoes. The Navy had not
> completely discounted the possibility of torpedo attacks due to the
> relatively shallow depth of the harbor. I also don't know how well the
nets
> would have worked but the possibility of neutralizing a large portion of
> the first wave would surly have affected the battle.

It wouldnt have affected the bomb attacks anyway

> Admiral Furlong, the day's Senior Officer Present Afloat ordered all ship
to
> sortie as soon as the attack began. If he had been given a 30 minute
warning
> would he have ordered the sortie if nets had been present? They probably
> couldn't get steam up in 30 minutes anyway.
>
>

A sortie would have been disastrous. The ships would have been lost
irretrievably at sea instead of being salvageable in harbour
and the number of lives lost much higher.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Carrier]

I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in Pearl
Harbor's shallow waters.

Buttoning up the ships and manning battle stations would probably have
helped to some degree. A combination of some opposing fire and some aerial
opposition would have had an impact on the success of the strike ...
probably more in line with Japanese expectations in terms of impact on the
fleet.

I don't think the returning CV's could have accomplished anything of
significance. Worst case would be have been to find the Japanese ...
because they in turn would have been found and likely destroyed.

I think 30 minutes lead time would be insufficient to sortie the fleet ... a
good thing considering the likely outcome had they been caught just clearing
Pearl and entering deeper water.

R / John

[John Mullen]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
> the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
> Pearl
> Harbor's shallow waters.

So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
reached Japan ok....

John

[Mike Dargan]

John Mullen wrote:
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
>>the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
>>Pearl
>>Harbor's shallow waters.
>
>
> So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
> reached Japan ok....

The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.

A good example of hubris.

--mike

>
> John
>
>

[vincent p. norris]

>So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
>reached Japan ok....

John, is the harbor at Taranto as shallow as the one at Pearl?

vince norris

[Steve Hix]

In article <i%42d.200183$Fg5.134891@attbi_s53>,
Mike Dargan > wrote:

> John Mullen wrote:
> > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
> >>the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
> >>Pearl
> >>Harbor's shallow waters.
> >
> >
> > So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
> > reached Japan ok....
>
> The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
> slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.

The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
Repulse, not to mention Singapore.

> A good example of hubris.

More than enough of that going around.

[Eunometic]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message >...
> I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
> the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in Pearl
> Harbor's shallow waters.

The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology. For
instance the IJNs Japanese Navy Long Lance Torpedo could manage 46
knots for about 22 knautical miles and 35 Knots for about 36 nautical
miles. It had 50% more speed and 10 times more range. It used pure
oxygen not air and didn't usually leave a trail. When under attack by
Japanese subs the Americans sometimes thought they were being attacked
from multiple directions when in fact a single Japanese sub had fired
through their fleet to the other side!

The problem was eventualy traced to the USN rotating its staff through
its torpedo division every 2 years or so thus it never developed any
expertise in developing torpedoes or envisaging what the enemies might
be capable of.

It must have been the same for aircraft lauched torpedoes. The
Japanese ones presumably being better in every aspect such as launch
height, speed, range and minimum depth.





>
> Buttoning up the ships and manning battle stations would probably have
> helped to some degree. A combination of some opposing fire and some aerial
> opposition would have had an impact on the success of the strike ...
> probably more in line with Japanese expectations in terms of impact on the
> fleet.
>
> I don't think the returning CV's could have accomplished anything of
> significance. Worst case would be have been to find the Japanese ...
> because they in turn would have been found and likely destroyed.
>
> I think 30 minutes lead time would be insufficient to sortie the fleet ... a
> good thing considering the likely outcome had they been caught just clearing
> Pearl and entering deeper water.
>
> R / John

[Mike Dargan]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <i%42d.200183$Fg5.134891@attbi_s53>,
> Mike Dargan > wrote:
>
>
>>John Mullen wrote:
>>
>>>"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
>>>>the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
>>>>Pearl
>>>>Harbor's shallow waters.
>>>
>>>
>>>So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
>>>reached Japan ok....
>>
>>The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
>>slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.
>
>
> The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
> Repulse, not to mention Singapore.
>
>
>>A good example of hubris.
>
>
> More than enough of that going around.

The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.

cheers

--mike

[vincent p. norris]

>..... the IJNs Japanese Navy Long Lance Torpedo could manage 46
>knots for about 22 knautical miles and 35 Knots for about 36 nautical
>miles.

Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
22 nm away?

vince norris

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...

>
> The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>

While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

Keith

[Ragnar]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>
> >
> > The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> > inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> > both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >
>
> While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

They also had better ships in many cases.

[Cub Driver]

On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
wrote:

>The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.

It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm

Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
defects.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Tom Cervo]

>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>

Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an attack
in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as the
base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?) about no,
they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.

[Tom Cervo]

>It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
>inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
>ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
>www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm
>
>Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
>went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
>the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
>defects.

The aircraft torpedos used by the TBD's were about as bad. There can be no
more harrowing thought than that of the TBD and TBF squadrons at Midway being
slaughtered making their runs to deliver torpedoes that tended to explode on
contact with the water.

[Marc Reeve]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>>..... the IJNs Japanese Navy Long Lance Torpedo could manage 46
>>knots for about 22 knautical miles and 35 Knots for about 36 nautical
>>miles.
>
>
> Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
> 22 nm away?
>
Sure, if it's at anchor. A common tactic on all sides was lying off an
anchorage and plinking the sitting ducks. The Japanese could do it from a lot
farther away, though.

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

[Marc Reeve]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
> wrote:
>
>
>>The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.
>
>
> It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
> inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
> ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
> www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm
>
> Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
> went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
> the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
> defects.
>
Until Dan Daspit gave them incontrovertable evidence...

While commanding USS Tinosa, Daspit came upon the Japanese oil tanker
(converted from a whaling factory ship) Tonan Maru #2. He fired two torpedos,
one of which exploded at the stern, leaving Tonan Maru dead in the water. No
escorts being evident, Daspit surfaced to finish her off. Torpedo after torpedo
was fired, with result varying from clean misses, to circular runs, to clean
hits that did not explode. In all, Tinosa fired 12 torpedoes at a stationary
target, of which none functioned as designed.

Fortunately, Daspit had a movie camera on board and filmed the whole operation.
The film caused some consternation back at Pearl.
--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

[Pooh Bear]

Steve Hix wrote:

> In article <i%42d.200183$Fg5.134891@attbi_s53>,
> Mike Dargan > wrote:
>
> > John Mullen wrote:
> > > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
> > >>the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
> > >>Pearl
> > >>Harbor's shallow waters.
> > >
> > >
> > > So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
> > > reached Japan ok....
> >
> > The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
> > slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.
>
> The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
> Repulse, not to mention Singapore.

From a UK TV programme I saw some years ago now, it was apparently no surprise at
all to some of their crew.

They should have been accompanied by a carrier.


Graham

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> >The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>
>
> Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an
> attack
> in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as
> the
> base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?)
> about no,
> they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.

Nope

Not a single Army AA unit was able to engage the first wave
of attackers and only 10% were able to engage the second wave.

Not only were the mobile guns not deployed the fixed
guns had no ready use ammunition as the quartermaster
thought it got too dirty in the field.

Thats pretty dammed inept when you have been issued
a war warning.

Keith

[Marc Reeve]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
>
>>In article <i%42d.200183$Fg5.134891@attbi_s53>,
>> Mike Dargan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets, but
>>>>>the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
>>>>>Pearl
>>>>>Harbor's shallow waters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
>>>>reached Japan ok....
>>>
>>>The US commanders were such bigots that they couldn't imagine the
>>>slanty-eyed nips daring to attack.
>>
>>The Brits were similarly surprised when the lost the Prince of Wales and
>>Repulse, not to mention Singapore.
>
>
> From a UK TV programme I saw some years ago now, it was apparently no surprise at
> all to some of their crew.
>
> They should have been accompanied by a carrier.
>
Wasn't HMS Illustrious slated to accompany them, until she grounded?

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

[Keith Willshaw]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear wrote:

>>
> Wasn't HMS Illustrious slated to accompany them, until she grounded?

HMS Indomitable which was carrying Sea Hurricanes of 880
squadron and Fulmars of 800 Squadron IRC

Keith

[Pooh Bear]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >>
> > Wasn't HMS Illustrious slated to accompany them, until she grounded?
>
> HMS Indomitable which was carrying Sea Hurricanes of 880
> squadron and Fulmars of 800 Squadron IRC

That's the one.

According to this link, it suggests that she might have been sunk too -
which is odd in view of how useful aircraft would have been in the
encounter - and the fact that the site claims to represent the fleet air
arm !

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Indomitable.html


Graham

[vincent p. norris]

>> Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
>> 22 nm away?
>>
>Sure, if it's at anchor.

Sorry, I'm extremely skeptical about that. What would be the angle
between the bow and the stern of a very large ship, from 22 msiles
away?

> A common tactic on all sides was lying off an
>anchorage and plinking the sitting ducks.

Can you cite some examples from a standard WW II history?

vince norris

[Mike Dargan]

Ragnar wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
>>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>>
>>
>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>
>>
>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?

Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?

Cheers

--mike

>
>
> They also had better ships in many cases.
>
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

Tom Cervo wrote:

>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>
>
>
> Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an attack
> in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as the
> base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?) about no,
> they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.

They were running the biggest base in the Pacific and couldn't imagine
that the squinty eyed Japs would be able to find them.

--mike

[Mike Dargan]

Tom Cervo wrote:

>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>
>
>
> Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an attack
> in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as the
> base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?) about no,
> they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.

And another thing, if they expected an attack in the Phillipines, why
was the "American Caesar" caught thumbing his asshole while the Japs
shot up his planes on the ground?

Cheers

--mike

[Mike Dargan]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
> wrote:
>
>
>>The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.
>
>
> It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
> inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
> ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
> www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm
>
> Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
> went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
> the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
> defects.

The problem was with the magnetic fuses. Again, the dimwits in charge
refused to do proper testing. The tests were expensive and the Navy
knew that their white engineers had innate superiority to gooks. This
oversight, along with some strange attack doctrine, extended the war and
cost us some sailors.

On the other hand, the Navy's analog computer (TDC), used for solving
targeting problems, was quite good.

Cheers.

--mike
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Denyav]

>Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>
>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
>for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
>warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>
>Cheers


Who ordered Kimmel to abort exercise and bring ships back to anchorage area
immediately?

Who ordered to abort Halseys planned search and destroy Operation and moved
precious carriers away from PH?

Who witheld information from Kimmel and Short even though they always know the
whereabouts and the intent of Japanase fleet?

Unlike Al-Queda Japan was not an US proxy they were real opponents so nothing
should be done to alert japanase.
Because if they were deterred from making the attack whole Anglo plan would
collapse.

Since our minority Anglos have no republican guard divisions like Saddam
to control and oppress majority ,they must depend on PSYOPs like USS
Maine,Pearl Harbor,Operation Northwoods and 9/11 for the same purpose.

Killing US citizens or allowing others to kill US citizens is a time proven
method of our minority Anglos.

BTW Stinnett and Tolands books shed light to the Anglo PSYOP known as Pearl
Harbor attack.

[Mike Dargan]

Denyav wrote:
>>Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>>against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>>depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>>
>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
>>for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
>>warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>>
>>Cheers
>
>
>
> Who ordered Kimmel to abort exercise and bring ships back to anchorage area
> immediately?

Neocons?

>
> Who ordered to abort Halseys planned search and destroy Operation and moved
> precious carriers away from PH?

George Bush?

>
> Who witheld information from Kimmel and Short even though they always know the
> whereabouts and the intent of Japanase fleet?

The mufdvr?

>
> Unlike Al-Queda Japan was not an US proxy they were real opponents so nothing
> should be done to alert japanase.

I prefer my japanase on the side, please. And hold the mayonese.

> Because if they were deterred from making the attack whole Anglo plan would
> collapse.

Indeed.

>
> Since our minority Anglos have no republican guard divisions like Saddam
> to control and oppress majority ,they must depend on PSYOPs like USS
> Maine,Pearl Harbor,Operation Northwoods and 9/11 for the same purpose.

Precisely!

>
> Killing US citizens or allowing others to kill US citizens is a time proven
> method of our minority Anglos.
>
> BTW Stinnett and Tolands books shed light to the Anglo PSYOP known as Pearl
> Harbor attack.

Hmmm. How many Tolands does it take to screw up a PSYOP?

Cheers

--mike

[Denyav]

>> Who ordered Kimmel to abort exercise and bring ships back to anchorage
>area
>> immediately?
>
>Neocons?
>

Stark


>> Who ordered to abort Halseys planned search and destroy Operation and moved
>> precious carriers away from PH?
>
>George Bush?
>
Stark

>> Who witheld information from Kimmel and Short even though they always know
>the
>> whereabouts and the intent of Japanase fleet?
>
>The mufdvr?
>

Marshall&Stark

>I prefer my japanase on the side, please. And hold the mayonese.

You can consider yourself lucky as long as they compete with US using
Toyotas,Lexuses Hondas ,Pioneers etc.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>
> >
> > The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> > inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> > both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >
>
> While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

And the training and doctrine to use them, at least for the short term.
(Their system for replacing existing pilots was inadequate, at best.)

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01...
> Ragnar wrote:
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
>>>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>
> Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
> against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
> depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>

Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the
morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's

> Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
> cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for
> a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings
> for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>

Because he was a peacetime admiral.

Keith

[Steve Hix]

In article <RCM2d.108318$3l3.12958@attbi_s03>,
Mike Dargan > wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.
> >
> >
> > It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
> > inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
> > ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
> > www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm
> >
> > Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
> > went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
> > the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
> > defects.
>
> The problem was with the magnetic fuses.

The contact fuses were no better.

[Mike Dargan]

Denyav wrote:
>>>Who ordered Kimmel to abort exercise and bring ships back to anchorage
>>
>>area
>>
>>>immediately?
>>
>>Neocons?
>>
>
>
> Stark

NAKED?!

>
>
>
>>>Who ordered to abort Halseys planned search and destroy Operation and moved
>>>precious carriers away from PH?
>>
>>George Bush?
>>
>
> Stark

Raving mad?

>
>
>>>Who witheld information from Kimmel and Short even though they always know
>>
>>the
>>
>>>whereabouts and the intent of Japanase fleet?
>>
>>The mufdvr?
>>
>
>
> Marshall&Stark

&Theobald?

>
>
>>I prefer my japanase on the side, please. And hold the mayonese.
>
>
> You can consider yourself lucky as long as they compete with US using
> Toyotas,Lexuses Hondas ,Pioneers etc.

Oh bubba, please stop! You're splitting me apart!

Cheers

--mike

[Peter Stickney]

In article <MtM2d.108280$3l3.81348@attbi_s03>,
Mike Dargan > writes:
> Tom Cervo wrote:
>
>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an attack
>> in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as the
>> base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?) about no,
>> they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.
>
> And another thing, if they expected an attack in the Phillipines, why
> was the "American Caesar" caught thumbing his asshole while the Japs
> shot up his planes on the ground?

Becasue of the weather over Formosa, the nearest Japanese air base,
was lousy on the morning of December 8 (That International Date Line
Thingy), the Japanese raids were delayed about 4 hours. Manila had
heard of the events at Pearl Harbor, and went onto an alert footing,
with fighters in the air. The weather delay paid off, since the
fighters were on the ground refuelling after their initial patrols
when the Japanese struck. That's not to say that there weren't
screw-ups. There certainly were. MacArther's Aviation Commander
wanted to use his B-17s to strike Formosa imeediately when they
learned about Pearl Harbor. MacArthur shot that one down. The
presence of Japanese fighters was unexpected, as well - No Carriers
had been reported in the Philippine Archepelago, (which covers a lot
of area), and the thought that a fighter could make the flight from
Formosa was considered laughable. The Zero, however, could do that,
and more. The lack of a warning and control network hamstrung the
Americans, the Dutch in the East Indies, and the British in Singapore
and Malaysia at the same time, as well. This meant that fighters
protecting these locations didn't take off until teh raids were
already in sight - just in time to have the fighter escorts drop on
them like a bucket of rocks. That was a big difference wrt the P-40's
performance in China, with the AVG, and their performance elsewhere at
teh same time. Chennault had, as part of his setup, built up a
network of agents and spotters to provide long-term warning of
incoming Japanese raids. So, instead of the Japanese meeting fighters
struggling to get their speed up and trying to climb to the bomber's
altitude, the AVG was, for the most part, waiting for them, with an
altitude and speed advantage. These days it would be called Energy
Maneuverability. In WW 2 it was Hit and Run. In WW 1, it was The Hun
in the Sun. In all cases, teh idea was to merge with the Bad Guys
with a significant speed advantage, bust through in a single pass,
without staying to turn, and, after blowing through, climb back to
height and do it again.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article <RCM2d.108318$3l3.12958@attbi_s03>,
Mike Dargan > writes:
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2004 23:25:48 -0700, (Eunometic)
>> wrote:
>>>The US Navy had fallen well behined in torpedo technology.
>> It was not just the performance specs, either. The USN torpedoes were
>> inacurrate, often running so deep that they passed under the enemy
>> ship. More than one American sub was sunk by its own torpedo. See
>> www.warbirdforum.com/okane.htm
>>
>> Dick O'Kane (the subject of that book review) recalled that when word
>> went back to Washington about the faulty torpedoes, the brass blamed
>> the sub skippers for their tactics rather than examing the torpedo for
>> defects.
>
> The problem was with the magnetic fuses. Again, the dimwits in charge
> refused to do proper testing. The tests were expensive and the Navy
> knew that their white engineers had innate superiority to gooks. This
> oversight, along with some strange attack doctrine, extended the war and
> cost us some sailors.

And, thanks to the Germans stealing the design from the Brooklyn Navy
Yard and copying it for the G7 series of torpedos, it helped to win
the Battle of the Atlantic.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[William Wright]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:MtM2d.108280$3l3.81348@attbi_s03...
> Tom Cervo wrote:
>
> >>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> >>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> >>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an
attack
> > in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as
the
> > base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?)
about no,
> > they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.
>
> And another thing, if they expected an attack in the Phillipines, why
> was the "American Caesar" caught thumbing his asshole while the Japs
> shot up his planes on the ground?

Because they had just landed to refuel.

>
> Cheers
>
> --mike

[William Wright]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> >>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> >>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an
> > attack
> > in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as
> > the
> > base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?)
> > about no,
> > they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.
>
> Nope
>
> Not a single Army AA unit was able to engage the first wave
> of attackers and only 10% were able to engage the second wave.
>
> Not only were the mobile guns not deployed the fixed
> guns had no ready use ammunition as the quartermaster
> thought it got too dirty in the field.

I believe they had just returned to depot after the war warning the week
earlier.

>
> Thats pretty dammed inept when you have been issued
> a war warning.
>
> Keith
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01...
> > Ragnar wrote:
> >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> >>>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> >>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> >>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> >>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
> >
> > Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
> > against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
> > depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
> >
>
> Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the
> morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's

Even they got some Japanese aircraft, though.

[William Wright]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>
> >
> > The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> > inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> > both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
> >
>
> While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

At Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. The most they got over the target at one
time was about 45. Just about any time P-40s or F4Fs took on Type 0 Kansen
on equal terms they did reasonably well with losses being pretty close to
one-to-one. When the Americans really got wacked they were usually out
numbered 2 or 3 to one. The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in
commission that morning. Even the Far East Air Force only suffered about
one-to-one loss ratio in air combat on December 8th. The problem was they
were only able to get about 12 of their 72 P-40s into combat against about
100 Type 0s.

>
> Keith
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Wright" > wrote in message
news:2LP2d.62556$MQ5.42514@attbi_s52...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused
>> > >by
>> >>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>> >>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly
>> >>inept.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting an
>> > attack
>> > in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack as
>> > the
>> > base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?)
>> > about no,
>> > they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.
>>
>> Nope
>>
>> Not a single Army AA unit was able to engage the first wave
>> of attackers and only 10% were able to engage the second wave.
>>
>> Not only were the mobile guns not deployed the fixed
>> guns had no ready use ammunition as the quartermaster
>> thought it got too dirty in the field.
>
> I believe they had just returned to depot after the war warning the week
> earlier.
>

They never left the depot.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...

>> Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the
>> morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's
>
> Even they got some Japanese aircraft, though.

But not enough to make a difference.

In the absence of a functional radar and fighter control
system they couldnt meet any attack with adequate forces.

The fact that such a system was not in existence despite
the presence of 7 radar sets is ample evidence of the
ineptitude of those in command.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Wright" > wrote in message
news:VVP2d.210921$Fg5.133498@attbi_s53...
>

>
> At Pearl Harbor? I don't think so.

I do, as did the congressional board of inquiry

>The most they got over the target at one
> time was about 45.

According to the joint congressiional committee findings
the Japanese had 81 fighter aircraft in the attack wave

>Just about any time P-40s or F4Fs took on Type 0 Kansen
> on equal terms they did reasonably well with losses being pretty close to
> one-to-one. When the Americans really got wacked they were usually out
> numbered 2 or 3 to one. The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s
> in
> commission that morning.

The had exactly 108 fighters of all type on strength but a full
59 of those were not available for flight leaving only 49
airworthy fighters.

> Even the Far East Air Force only suffered about
> one-to-one loss ratio in air combat on December 8th. The problem was they
> were only able to get about 12 of their 72 P-40s into combat against about
> 100 Type 0s.
>

You just said the IJN only had 45

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.

Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of
how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the
China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They
came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was
the better plane, or else that the American pilots were
extraordinarily fast learners.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

>The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in
>commission that morning

Every air force that is surprised is overwhelmed. Pearl (nor Manila
either) isn't an example of how the U.S. army and navy aircraft fared
against the Japanese versions, but of how badly you fight when the
ammunition is locked up and you have been partying all night and, more
important, your tactics are premised on peacetime conditions.

As posted, the Wildcat pilots fought the Zero pilots to a draw over
the first six months. In Burma, the AVG in P-40Bs did better than
that. Neither plane (Wildcat nor Tomahawk) was anything to be ashamed
of, and the Zero and the Hayabusa were far from being invincible.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Mike Dargan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01...
>
>>Ragnar wrote:
>>
>>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
>>>>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>>
>>Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>>against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>>depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>>
>
>
> Because they only had around 60 fighter aircraft in service on the
> morning of Dec 7th. This number included obsolete aircraft like P-36's

More like 108 P40s alone. If some of them weren't gassed up and ready
to go, whose fault was that?

>
>
>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for
>>a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings
>>for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>>
>
>
> Because he was a peacetime admiral.

As were Nagumo and Yammamoto before December 7. Kimmel, Short, and
MacArthur should have all faced the same squad.

Cheers.

--mike

>
> Keith
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>
> Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of
> how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the
> China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They
> came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was
> the better plane, or else that the American pilots were
> extraordinarily fast learners.
>

Problem is there were no Wildcats at Pearl Harbor and no carrier pilots
The defense of the naval base was the responsibility of the army.
On the day of the Japanese attack the IJN had more modern fighters
available for combat than the USAAF

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>>The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s in
>>commission that morning
>
> Every air force that is surprised is overwhelmed. Pearl (nor Manila
> either) isn't an example of how the U.S. army and navy aircraft fared
> against the Japanese versions, but of how badly you fight when the
> ammunition is locked up and you have been partying all night and, more
> important, your tactics are premised on peacetime conditions.
>
> As posted, the Wildcat pilots fought the Zero pilots to a draw over
> the first six months. In Burma, the AVG in P-40Bs did better than
> that. Neither plane (Wildcat nor Tomahawk) was anything to be ashamed
> of, and the Zero and the Hayabusa were far from being invincible.
>
>
>
Nobody is suggesting they were, its a sinple fact that the IJN
had more A6-M Zero's available for combat on the morning
of Dec 7 1941 than the USAAF had P-36 and P-40 aircraft.
Even had they not been caught on the ground the odds were
against them.

Keith

[John Carrier]

Taranto was relatively deep, on the order of 100' IIRC. Pearl was 40'. No
standard aerial torpedo would operate properly in that harbor. SOOOO, the
Japanese developed one that would.

R / John

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I think the single biggest undone defense would have been torpedo nets,
>>but
>> the reality was no one thought torpedoes could be used effectively in
>> Pearl
>> Harbor's shallow waters.
>
> So news of Taranto had not reached the US then? Because it had obviously
> reached Japan ok....
>
> John
>

[John Carrier]

>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>
> Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
> against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
> depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?

I doubt USAAC training addressed the vastly superior Zero turning
performance. Flying Tigers were successful because of tactics developed
(quickly) given the P40's few advantages versus the Zero.

> Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
> cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for
> a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings
> for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?

Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target. Given that he had
insufficient resources to mount a real patrol effort, he elected to do
(virtually) nothing instead.

R / John\

[Mike Dargan]

John Carrier wrote:
>>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>>
>>Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>>against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>>depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>
>
> I doubt USAAC training addressed the vastly superior Zero turning
> performance.

No kidding.

Flying Tigers were successful because of tactics developed
> (quickly) given the P40's few advantages versus the Zero.

P40s with a height advantage would have been a serious problem for Vals
and Kates. The few that did get off the ground, including some P36s,
more than held their own with the Zeros.

>
>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant for
>>a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with warnings
>>for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>
>
> Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.

Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell? What kind of military mind
would assume that his major base would not be a target?

Given that he had
> insufficient resources to mount a real patrol effort, he elected to do
> (virtually) nothing instead.

I'll agree that sitting on their butt's doing nothing was the best that
Kimmel and Short could do. Certainly better than their pathetic
conspiracy mongering.

Cheers

--mike
>
> R / John\
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Carrier" > writes:
>>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly inept.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>>
>> Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>> against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>> depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>
> I doubt USAAC training addressed the vastly superior Zero turning
> performance. Flying Tigers were successful because of tactics developed
> (quickly) given the P40's few advantages versus the Zero.

The FLying Tigers rarely, if ever, met up with Zeros. The Japanese
air effort in Western China was performed by the Army, not the Navy.
Be that as it may, I don't think it would have mattered. The Energy
Maneuverability "Blow through disengage, climb back, repeat as needed"
tactic goes back to the First World War. While dogfighting is fun
when nobody's shooting at you, it's like hand-to-hand combat. You
only engage in it if you have no other choice. (As in weaponless,
naked, and with at least one foot nailed to the floor.)
It does, however, require foreknowledge of an incoming raid, so that
the interceptors can take off, form up, and climb to their height
advantage. Once they've got that, they can blow through the escorts
and hit the bombers before the escorts can counter them.
That certainly wasn't something being newly re-learned - It was the
main thrust of Fighter COmmand during the Battle of Britain, after
all.
Chennault went to a great effort to build an early warning net, which,
even though it didn't have radar, allowed the Tigers to be ready when
the attacks came. That sort of warning/command and control network
didnt' exist in Hawaii, the, Philippines, Malaysia, or the Dutch East
Indies. The first warning that they got was when the Japanese came
over the horizon, and by then it was too late.

It still works, even in modern contexts. During Rolling Thunder,
F-105s shot down something over 20 MiG-17s, while losing 4. While teh
MiG-17 has astonishing maneuverability, it wasn't an actual advantage
in combat. Close to 20 105s were shot down by MiG-21s, using hich
speed pop up tactics to blow through the formation, fire their
missiles, and get gone before the Thuds could react.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[William Wright]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Wright" > wrote in message
> news:VVP2d.210921$Fg5.133498@attbi_s53...
> >
>
> >
> > At Pearl Harbor? I don't think so.
>
> I do, as did the congressional board of inquiry
>
> >The most they got over the target at one
> > time was about 45.
>
> According to the joint congressiional committee findings
> the Japanese had 81 fighter aircraft in the attack wave

43 in the first wave (+2 aborts), 35 in the second wave (+1 abort) and the
rest (27) for CAP over Kido Butai (108 total). Maximum number over the
target at one time was 43.

>
> >Just about any time P-40s or F4Fs took on Type 0 Kansen
> > on equal terms they did reasonably well with losses being pretty close
to
> > one-to-one. When the Americans really got wacked they were usually out
> > numbered 2 or 3 to one. The Hawaiian Air Force had 64 P-40s and 20 P-36s
> > in
> > commission that morning.
>
> The had exactly 108 fighters of all type on strength but a full
> 59 of those were not available for flight leaving only 49
> airworthy fighters.

According to the Operational History of the Seventh Air Force, aircraft in
commission were 9 P-40C, 55 P-40B, 20 P-36A, 7 P-26A and 3 P-26B (94 total)
and aircraft out of commission were 4 P-40C, 32 P-40B, 19 P-36A, 1 P-26A and
3 P-26B (59 total) for a total of 153.

Destroyed were 5 P-40C, 37 P-40B, 4 P-36A, 5 P-26A, 1 P-26B (52 total) and
in comission after the attack were 2 P-40C, 25 P-40B, 16 P-36A, 2 P-26A and
2 P-26B (47 total).

I think you might have misremembered.

>
> > Even the Far East Air Force only suffered about
> > one-to-one loss ratio in air combat on December 8th. The problem was
they
> > were only able to get about 12 of their 72 P-40s into combat against
about
> > 100 Type 0s.
> >
>
> You just said the IJN only had 45

This last paragraph refers to the attack on the Far East Air Force
(Philippines). That attack force got some thing like 100 fighters over the
target at one time.

>
> Keith
>
>
>

[William Wright]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Wright" > wrote in message
> news:2LP2d.62556$MQ5.42514@attbi_s52...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > >The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused
> >> > >by
> >> >>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel
had
> >> >>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly
> >> >>inept.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually, they were probably quite able. They were simply expecting
an
> >> > attack
> >> > in the Far East, and that PH might face sabotage or submarine attack
as
> >> > the
> >> > base for the response for that attack. That remark (from Frank Knox?)
> >> > about no,
> >> > they must mean the Phillippines, shows that it didn't stop with them.
> >>
> >> Nope
> >>
> >> Not a single Army AA unit was able to engage the first wave
> >> of attackers and only 10% were able to engage the second wave.
> >>
> >> Not only were the mobile guns not deployed the fixed
> >> guns had no ready use ammunition as the quartermaster
> >> thought it got too dirty in the field.
> >
> > I believe they had just returned to depot after the war warning the week
> > earlier.
> >
>
> They never left the depot.

This is what I had remembered:

3. ANTIAIRCRAFT ARTILLERY AND COAST DEFENSES.--General Burgin commanded the
Coast Artillery Command consisting of seacoast artillery plus all
antiaircraft artillery in the Hawaiian Department. He commanded the 53rd
Coast Artillery Brigade composed of the 64th Regiment, 251st Regiment, and
the 98th Regiment.

He testified that the Interceptor Command was being organized on a temporary
basis saying:



We had constant training and maneuvers, practice, where that particular
thing was stressed, and the antiaircraft was turned over to interceptor
Command . . . For at least six weeks or two months prior to December 7, we
had, every Sunday morning, one of these exercises with the Navy. Our AA
would go out in the field and take their field positions. They would know
that the Navy was coming in, with carrier-based planes, and they would
simulate an attack on the island, and we put our guns out mainly along the
roadways, sometimes in position, and practiced simulating fire against this
simulated attack made by the Navy. And we were out just one week prior to
December 7 . . . On Sunday; but, by some stroke, we did not go out on
December 7. The fleet was in the harbor.


On the other hand:
The artillery ammunition situation is summed up by General Burgin as
follows:



[178] They were all ready to go into action immediately, with the exception
that the mobile batteries did not have the ammunition. The fixed batteries
along the seacoast, those batteries bolted down to concrete, had the
ammunition nearby. I had insisted on that with General Short in person and
had gotten his permission to take this antiaircraft ammunition, move it into
the seacoast gun battery positions, and have it nearby the antiaircraft
guns. It was, however, boxed up in wooden boxes and had to be taken out.
The ammunition for the mobile guns and batteries was in Aliamanu Crater,
which you may know or may not, is about a mile from Fort Shafter, up in the
old volcano. In addition to that, the mobile batteries had to move out from
the various posts to their field positions. They were not in field
positions. (R. 2604- 2605)


>
> Keith
>
>

[John Carrier]

SNIP

>>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
>>>for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
>>>warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>>
>>
>> Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>
> Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell? What kind of military mind
> would assume that his major base would not be a target?

We all venerate Billy Mitchell now, he was considered a loose cannon back
when. A more appropriate example was the successful (training) raid on
Pearl by USN carrier forces in the mid-30's. I correct my statement.
Nobody in a position to influence the decision process in December 1941
dreamed Pearl would be the target.

R / John

[John Carrier]

SNIP

> The FLying Tigers rarely, if ever, met up with Zeros. The Japanese
> air effort in Western China was performed by the Army, not the Navy.
> Be that as it may, I don't think it would have mattered. The Energy
> Maneuverability "Blow through disengage, climb back, repeat as needed"
> tactic goes back to the First World War. While dogfighting is fun
> when nobody's shooting at you, it's like hand-to-hand combat. You
> only engage in it if you have no other choice. (As in weaponless,
> naked, and with at least one foot nailed to the floor.)
> It does, however, require foreknowledge of an incoming raid, so that
> the interceptors can take off, form up, and climb to their height
> advantage. Once they've got that, they can blow through the escorts
> and hit the bombers before the escorts can counter them.
> That certainly wasn't something being newly re-learned - It was the
> main thrust of Fighter COmmand during the Battle of Britain, after
> all.
> Chennault went to a great effort to build an early warning net, which,
> even though it didn't have radar, allowed the Tigers to be ready when
> the attacks came. That sort of warning/command and control network
> didnt' exist in Hawaii, the, Philippines, Malaysia, or the Dutch East
> Indies. The first warning that they got was when the Japanese came
> over the horizon, and by then it was too late.
>
> It still works, even in modern contexts. During Rolling Thunder,
> F-105s shot down something over 20 MiG-17s, while losing 4. While teh
> MiG-17 has astonishing maneuverability, it wasn't an actual advantage
> in combat. Close to 20 105s were shot down by MiG-21s, using hich
> speed pop up tactics to blow through the formation, fire their
> missiles, and get gone before the Thuds could react.

The Mig-17's maneuverability was only useful in a turning engagement. The
105's, once they delivered their ordnance were intent on DISengagement (at
very high speed). The guns-only (1500' range in rear quarter),
speed-limited (very limited G above 450KIAS) Mig-17 couldn't hunt in that
environment. You are correct, the missile carrying Mig-21 was far more
suited to the environment. But tactics had little to do with it.

It's always great to discuss the concept of blowing through an engagement,
extending out and then choosing whether or not to re-engage. But, if a
particularly bogey decides you're "It" that can quickly deteriorate into the
engagement you don't want. Been there, done that countless times on both
sides of the arena ... as adversary and as fighter.

R / John

[Leanne]

"> [178] They were all ready to go into action immediately, with the
exception
> that the mobile batteries did not have the ammunition. The fixed
batteries
> along the seacoast, those batteries bolted down to concrete, had the
> ammunition nearby. I had insisted on that with General Short in person
and
> had gotten his permission to take this antiaircraft ammunition, move it
into
> the seacoast gun battery positions, and have it nearby the antiaircraft
> guns. It was, however, boxed up in wooden boxes and had to be taken out.
> The ammunition for the mobile guns and batteries was in Aliamanu Crater,
> which you may know or may not, is about a mile from Fort Shafter, up in
the
> old volcano. In addition to that, the mobile batteries had to move out
from
> the various posts to their field positions. They were not in field
> positions. (R. 2604- 2605)

This is interesting as I knew an old gentleman, who has since passed, that
was a Pearl Harbor survivor that talked about that morning. He was assigned
to one of the truck mounted .50 cal guns and went over the road from Ft
Shafter to Hickam Field to take up a position on the perimeter of the field.
I had thought he had said that they were firing their guns when moving into
position. His unit spent some time on the perimeter of Hickam Field and then
moved on to the South Pacific.


Leanne

[Mike Dargan]

John Carrier wrote:
> SNIP
>
>
>>>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
>>>>for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
>>>>warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>>
>>Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell? What kind of military mind
>>would assume that his major base would not be a target?
>
>
> We all venerate Billy Mitchell now, he was considered a loose cannon back
> when.

He contradicted navy battleship dogma. Just like Yamamoto did.

Cheers

--mike

A more appropriate example was the successful (training) raid on
> Pearl by USN carrier forces in the mid-30's. I correct my statement.
> Nobody in a position to influence the decision process in December 1941
> dreamed Pearl would be the target.
>
> R / John
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Carrier" > writes:
> SNIP
>
>> The FLying Tigers rarely, if ever, met up with Zeros. The Japanese
>> air effort in Western China was performed by the Army, not the Navy.
>> Be that as it may, I don't think it would have mattered. The Energy
>> Maneuverability "Blow through disengage, climb back, repeat as needed"
>> tactic goes back to the First World War. While dogfighting is fun
>> when nobody's shooting at you, it's like hand-to-hand combat. You
>> only engage in it if you have no other choice. (As in weaponless,
>> naked, and with at least one foot nailed to the floor.)
>> It does, however, require foreknowledge of an incoming raid, so that
>> the interceptors can take off, form up, and climb to their height
>> advantage. Once they've got that, they can blow through the escorts
>> and hit the bombers before the escorts can counter them.
>> That certainly wasn't something being newly re-learned - It was the
>> main thrust of Fighter COmmand during the Battle of Britain, after
>> all.
>> Chennault went to a great effort to build an early warning net, which,
>> even though it didn't have radar, allowed the Tigers to be ready when
>> the attacks came. That sort of warning/command and control network
>> didnt' exist in Hawaii, the, Philippines, Malaysia, or the Dutch East
>> Indies. The first warning that they got was when the Japanese came
>> over the horizon, and by then it was too late.
>>
>> It still works, even in modern contexts. During Rolling Thunder,
>> F-105s shot down something over 20 MiG-17s, while losing 4. While teh
>> MiG-17 has astonishing maneuverability, it wasn't an actual advantage
>> in combat. Close to 20 105s were shot down by MiG-21s, using hich
>> speed pop up tactics to blow through the formation, fire their
>> missiles, and get gone before the Thuds could react.
>
> The Mig-17's maneuverability was only useful in a turning engagement. The
> 105's, once they delivered their ordnance were intent on DISengagement (at
> very high speed). The guns-only (1500' range in rear quarter),
> speed-limited (very limited G above 450KIAS) Mig-17 couldn't hunt in that
> environment. You are correct, the missile carrying Mig-21 was far more
> suited to the environment. But tactics had little to do with it.

Just so. Maneuverabulity, in the turning adn burning sense, isn't an
offensive tool, unless you can sucker somebody in. And, yes, nobody
expected an F-105 to turn with a MiG-17 at low EAS, so I don't think
anybody tried. What I found interesting was that despite the
relatively high number of engagements, (Indicated by the number and
spread-out nature of the F-105's kills, and, as you say, the F-105's
interest in getting gone after dropping their bombs, so most shots on
MiG-17s occurred in passing, as it were) The Frescoe had a fairly poor
record.

I'd say that tactics, although not at the ACM level had a lot to do
with the relative success of the MiG-21. They knew that at that
stage, their pilots were, in general, rather weak, in terms of
experience and training, and used their GCI system and preplanning
cleverness to load the dice in their favor. Using their GCI system to
place them low and behind (out off the view of the radar cover from
either Red Crown or the RC-121s - they'd only get 3 or 4 radar paints
as the MiG climbed out of the clutter - not enough to build a track or
issue a coherent warning) with a pop up into a slashing attack
and blow through was a tactic that minimized the difference in pilot
and airplane capabilities. Somebody on the PAVN staff had their
thinking cap on.

>
> It's always great to discuss the concept of blowing through an engagement,
> extending out and then choosing whether or not to re-engage. But, if a
> particularly bogey decides you're "It" that can quickly deteriorate into the
> engagement you don't want. Been there, done that countless times on both
> sides of the arena ... as adversary and as fighter.

If you can disengage and reattack, it's a better move. If you can't -
it's like a street fight - you run what you brung.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Keith Willshaw]

"Leanne" > wrote in message
...

>
> This is interesting as I knew an old gentleman, who has since passed, that
> was a Pearl Harbor survivor that talked about that morning. He was
assigned
> to one of the truck mounted .50 cal guns and went over the road from Ft
> Shafter to Hickam Field to take up a position on the perimeter of the
field.
> I had thought he had said that they were firing their guns when moving
into
> position. His unit spent some time on the perimeter of Hickam Field and
then
> moved on to the South Pacific.
>
>
> Leanne
>

There was dobtless some small arms fire but the heavy and
light guns of the AA command didng get into action.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>>> Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>>
>> Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?

Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.

Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
in December 1941.

(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
was, little good it did him.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Mike Dargan]

Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?
>
>
> Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
> was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.
>
> Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
> New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
> World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
> warning that *any fool* would have noticed.

Your straw man is hopelessly lame. There's no need to allege conspiracy
here, MacArthur, Kimmel and Short were asleep at the switch. They
ignored one warning after another. They should have hanged the lot of
them.

> It seems very obvious to
> us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
> in December 1941.

Then why was Pearl surrounded with gun emplacements? Were they figuring
to flock shoot pheasants? Why did they have interceptors based in
Hawaii? What were they going to intercept? How big would a P40's drop
tanks have to be to attack Tokyo and return? Do you think Hawaii was a
training base? Cheaper than Texas? Why base interceptors where you
don't expect an attack? What, if anything, are the Kimmel/Short
apologists thinking of?

>
> (What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
> the Philippines.

Don't forget Singapore. That surrender made Churchill pull the covers
up over his head. About 30,000 Japanese on bicycles rolled up a UK
garrison of 88,000. Turns out that the Gibraltar of the east was the
Tobruk of Asia times two.

Nobody there was prepared, either.

It wasn't because of lack of supply or other support from the states.
If they'd had twice the resources the Japanese would have had twice as
many targets. The problem was a lack of leadership. If you'd have
swapped Allied generals and admirals with those of the Japanese, the
outcomes would have been reversed.

And if somebody
> was, little good it did him.)

The notion that resistance to the Japanese was hopeless is what made it
hopeless. If the Allied heroes had gathered their wits and acted like
leaders instead of pathetic old geezers, the second week of December 41
could have turned out far differently.

Cheers

--mike


>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "John" == John Carrier > writes:

John> Taranto was relatively deep, on the order of 100' IIRC.
John> Pearl was 40'. No standard aerial torpedo would operate
John> properly in that harbor. SOOOO, the Japanese developed one
John> that would.

Not only did they develop a torpedo that would work, they also trained
their torpedo bomber crews to the extent that they could drop those
tropedos in the very restrictive envelope in which it would work. No
easy task, and it made the bombers very vulnerable, as witnessed by
Nevada's score of 5 downed as they flew past. As has been pointed out
in a different thread, the TB guys had big brass ones (not suggesting
the others didn't, but it's hard to concentrate when you know you're a
sitting duck).

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

John Carrier wrote in message ...
>Taranto was relatively deep, on the order of 100' IIRC. Pearl was 40'. No
>standard aerial torpedo would operate properly in that harbor. SOOOO, the
>Japanese developed one that would.


Be careful here, Taranto is two harbours, a near land locked
Mar Piccolo, the channel to which could handle cruisers and
below and the 12 square mile Mar Grande, an artificial harbour
formed by breakwaters that incorporated two islands out in
what was the bay, which is where the battleships were berthed,
amongst the barrage balloons and anti torpedo nets. All the
battleships were berthed near the main coastline on the night
of the RN strike, one was being sheltered by a further breakwater
the Diga di Tarancola. As far as I am aware the water depth
where the Italian Navy battleships were berthed was less that
the depth in Pearl Harbor, Taranto at 42 feet versus Pearl
Harbor at 45 feet.

By the looks of it at Taranto 5 of the 9 torpedo droppers actually
approached from over the Taranto urban area.

Battleships have the deepest draft, typically a WWII US battleship
was around 35 to 36 feet, at designed full load, before the wartime
overloading, the battleships end up in the deepest part of the harbor.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Guinnog65]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:gaK3d.128016$3l3.43395@attbi_s03...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>>Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?
>>
>>
>> Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
>> was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.
>>
>> Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
>> New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
>> World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
>> warning that *any fool* would have noticed.
>
> Your straw man is hopelessly lame. There's no need to allege conspiracy
> here, MacArthur, Kimmel and Short were asleep at the switch. They ignored
> one warning after another. They should have hanged the lot of them.
>
>> It seems very obvious to
>> us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
>> in December 1941.
>
> Then why was Pearl surrounded with gun emplacements? Were they figuring
> to flock shoot pheasants? Why did they have interceptors based in Hawaii?
> What were they going to intercept? How big would a P40's drop tanks have
> to be to attack Tokyo and return? Do you think Hawaii was a training
> base? Cheaper than Texas? Why base interceptors where you don't expect
> an attack? What, if anything, are the Kimmel/Short apologists thinking
> of?
>
>>
>> (What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
>> the Philippines.
>
> Don't forget Singapore. That surrender made Churchill pull the covers up
> over his head. About 30,000 Japanese on bicycles rolled up a UK garrison
> of 88,000. Turns out that the Gibraltar of the east was the Tobruk of
> Asia times two.
>
> Nobody there was prepared, either.
>
> It wasn't because of lack of supply or other support from the states. If
> they'd had twice the resources the Japanese would have had twice as many
> targets. The problem was a lack of leadership. If you'd have swapped
> Allied generals and admirals with those of the Japanese, the outcomes
> would have been reversed.
>
> And if somebody
>> was, little good it did him.)
>
> The notion that resistance to the Japanese was hopeless is what made it
> hopeless. If the Allied heroes had gathered their wits and acted like
> leaders instead of pathetic old geezers, the second week of December 41
> could have turned out far differently.

Great post. I still suspect there was more than a hint of racism in the
assumptions that were made about the warmaking abilities of the Japanese.

[denyav]

Cub
>
> Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
> New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
> World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
> warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
> us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
> in December 1941.
>
> (What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
> the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
> was, little good it did him.)

Yeah Right,a conspiracy but a very typical Anglo conspiracy.
They got first definite warning about that in case of hostilities with
Japan Pearl Harbor would be the first target on Jan.27,41.
Afterwards they received hundreds more including intercepted JN-25B
messages.

BTW do the names like Roosevelt,Stimson,Marshall,Hull etc sound like
German-American,Irish-American ,Italian or Hispanic-American names?


"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion on foreign policy issues except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external
threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997.


The creation of such truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threats is the job of the Members of the Anglo minority who
govern US .

It was true in 1941 it was also true in 2001.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, denyav
> writes
>Cub
>>
>> Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
>> New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
>> World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
>> warning that *any fool* would have noticed. It seems very obvious to
>> us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
>> in December 1941.
>>
>> (What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
>> the Philippines. Nobody there was prepared, either. And if somebody
>> was, little good it did him.)
>
>Yeah Right,a conspiracy but a very typical Anglo conspiracy.
>They got first definite warning about that in case of hostilities with
>Japan Pearl Harbor would be the first target on Jan.27,41.
>Afterwards they received hundreds more including intercepted JN-25B
>messages.
>
>BTW do the names like Roosevelt,Stimson,Marshall,Hull etc sound like
>German-American,Irish-American ,Italian or Hispanic-American names?
>
>
Your ignorance transcends your idiocy and racism. "Roosevelt" is a Dutch
name, like Stuyvesant, Van Buren, Brooklyn (Breukelen), Yonkers
(Jonkheren), etc., etc. How does that fit in with your batty theories of
"Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.

What is it with you, anyway? Some good-looking Englishman steal your
girl friend?

>"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
>it more difficult to fashion on foreign policy issues except in the
>circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external
>threat"
>
>Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997.
>
>
>The creation of such truly massive and widely perceived direct
>external threats is the job of the Members of the Anglo minority who
>govern US .
>
>It was true in 1941 it was also true in 2001.

Do you mean it was as true in 2001 as it was in 1941, i.e. not at all,
except in your fevered little brain cell? I wish I had an imagination as
active as yours.

Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Denyav]

>Do you mean it was as true in 2001 as it was in 1941, i.e. not at all,
>except in your fevered little brain cell? I wish I had an imagination as
>active as yours.

You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.

Anglos were both in 1941 and 2001 a minority in US population.(if you are
interested German-Americans make up biggest single ethnic group in US,ffollowed
by Irish-Americans)but fully dominated decision making platforms both in 1941
and 2001.

So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the impression that
the US under massive external threat.

>Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
>--

Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to Anglos in
Anglo homeland and in Australia.

>Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.
>

Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
Statesman Lord Rhodes.

You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
Boston Brahmins.

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>Date: 9/21/2004 12:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
>Boston Brahmins.

Denyav, we only have one president and he is neither.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Joe Osman]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01...
> Ragnar wrote:
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> >>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
> >>
> >>
> >>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
> >>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
> >>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly
inept.
> >>>
> >>
> >>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> >>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>
> Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
> against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
> depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>
> Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
> cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
> for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
> warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>
> Cheers
>
> --mike
>

It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols. The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole
responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them to
get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense
responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and
didn't like to fly over water.

Joe

> >
> >
> > They also had better ships in many cases.
> >
> >
> >




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[David Lesher]

Mike Dargan > writes:


>The problem was with the magnetic fuses. Again, the dimwits in charge
>refused to do proper testing. The tests were expensive and the Navy
>knew that their white engineers had innate superiority to gooks.

Sounds just like Star Wars II, going on now.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Mike Dargan]

Guinnog65 wrote:
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:gaK3d.128016$3l3.43395@attbi_s03...
>
>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Nobody dreamed Pearl would have been the target.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell?
>>>
>>>
>>>Numerous people envisioned an attack on Pearl Harbor. Claire Chennault
>>>was part of war games in the early 1930s that gamed such an attack.
>>>
>>>Of course, people also envisioned an attack on the Panama Canal and
>>>New York City. After the attack, whether it's Pearl Harbor or the
>>>World Trade Center, the conspiracy buffs trot out the clear trail of
>>>warning that *any fool* would have noticed.
>>
>>Your straw man is hopelessly lame. There's no need to allege conspiracy
>>here, MacArthur, Kimmel and Short were asleep at the switch. They ignored
>>one warning after another. They should have hanged the lot of them.
>>
>>
>>>It seems very obvious to
>>>us now that the Japanese would attack Hawaii. It didn't seem obvious
>>>in December 1941.
>>
>>Then why was Pearl surrounded with gun emplacements? Were they figuring
>>to flock shoot pheasants? Why did they have interceptors based in Hawaii?
>>What were they going to intercept? How big would a P40's drop tanks have
>>to be to attack Tokyo and return? Do you think Hawaii was a training
>>base? Cheaper than Texas? Why base interceptors where you don't expect
>>an attack? What, if anything, are the Kimmel/Short apologists thinking
>>of?
>>
>>
>>>(What was obvious was that they would attack Malaya, Indonesia, and
>>>the Philippines.
>>
>>Don't forget Singapore. That surrender made Churchill pull the covers up
>>over his head. About 30,000 Japanese on bicycles rolled up a UK garrison
>>of 88,000. Turns out that the Gibraltar of the east was the Tobruk of
>>Asia times two.
>>
>>Nobody there was prepared, either.
>>
>>It wasn't because of lack of supply or other support from the states. If
>>they'd had twice the resources the Japanese would have had twice as many
>>targets. The problem was a lack of leadership. If you'd have swapped
>>Allied generals and admirals with those of the Japanese, the outcomes
>>would have been reversed.
>>
>> And if somebody
>>
>>>was, little good it did him.)
>>
>>The notion that resistance to the Japanese was hopeless is what made it
>>hopeless. If the Allied heroes had gathered their wits and acted like
>>leaders instead of pathetic old geezers, the second week of December 41
>>could have turned out far differently.
>
>
> Great post. I still suspect there was more than a hint of racism in the
> assumptions that were made about the warmaking abilities of the Japanese.
>

Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
a bunch of white folks."

Cheers

--mike

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Dargan wrote:

> Guinnog65 wrote:
>
> > Great post. I still suspect there was more than a hint of racism in the
> > assumptions that were made about the warmaking abilities of the Japanese.
>
> Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
> Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
> stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
> military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
> a bunch of white folks."

Kinda like 9/11 in fact ? ( substitute camel-jockeys for slanty-eyes )

Graham

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...
>
> Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
> Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
> stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
> military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
> a bunch of white folks."
>

Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
was that while they believed attacks would take place at
Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

Keith

[Eunometic]

vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
> >..... the IJNs Japanese Navy Long Lance Torpedo could manage 46
> >knots for about 22 knautical miles and 35 Knots for about 36 nautical
> >miles.
>
> Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
> 22 nm away?

The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
torpedoes about 1800 at this time.

I expect a spread of torpedoes were fired such that at extreme range 6
or 8 torpedoes would be distributed every 100 meters or so for an
600-800 meter wide hit window. Don't forget a ship is likely to be
between 100 to 300 meter long.

The Germans had torpedoes that could run various types of zig-zag and
circling patterns either aimed at individual ships or designed to run
through convoys. The patterns were becoming more sophisticated as the
mechanisms improved. So presumnably if the range measure was wrong or
the target evaded the torpedo it could turn around and have another
attempt.

The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which
could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets.
Hit rates of around 80% were common.

A combination of German and Japanese technology would have been lethal
I expect though who knows how good the japanese torpedoe guidence was?

US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming
by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth.

The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
periscope.



>
> vince norris

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Denyav
> writes
>>Do you mean it was as true in 2001 as it was in 1941, i.e. not at all,
>>except in your fevered little brain cell? I wish I had an imagination as
>>active as yours.
>
>You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.
>
Perhaps, but I have no idea what you mean. Or even what ZB said.

>Anglos were both in 1941 and 2001 a minority in US population.(if you are
>interested German-Americans make up biggest single ethnic group in US,ffollowed
>by Irish-Americans)but fully dominated decision making platforms both in 1941
>and 2001.
>
Does the average American really care much about people's ethnic
background? Or only the paranoid, such as yourself?

>So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
>Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
>religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the impression that
>the US under massive external threat.
>
What?

>>Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
>>--
>
>Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to Anglos in
>Anglo homeland and in Australia.
>
What _are_ you talking about?

>>Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.
>>
>
>Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
>Statesman Lord Rhodes.
>
Who? If you mean Cecil Rhodes, he was many things, but never a Lord.
Your credibility, minuscule as it is, is diminished further by your lack
of accuracy.

Is an Anglo someone of purely* English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
JFK and Reagan?

*Do you have any idea how the English came to be?

>You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
>Boston Brahmins.

I know no such thing. I have never given such considerations a moment's
thought.

If you think that Rhodes Scholarships are an Anglo-American conspiracy,
why did they originally include Germans?


Nice bit of snipping of the preceding post, BTW. It's all right, you
don't have to apologise for making a mistake and calling the Roosevelts
"Anglos", we wouldn't like you to do anything that's out of character.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Guinnog65]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...
>>
>> Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
>> Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
>> stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
>> military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
>> a bunch of white folks."
>>
>
> Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
> white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
> was that while they believed attacks would take place at
> Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
> the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

Sure. And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such. But certainly
a read of the contemporary documentation wrt Pearl and Singapore as well,
reveals attitudes towards the Japanese that would seem very racist to us
nowadays. It is at least tempting to assume their low expectations of them
were connected to their racist beliefs of them. This 40 years after
Tsushima, mind.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
> accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
> attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
> electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
> more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
> active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
> periscope.
>

In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
service and only one ever went on patrol. The list of ships
sunk by this type follows

<Start of List>
<End of List>

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
> wrote:

> And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such

It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!

Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
French-held North Africa.

Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On 21 Sep 2004 19:29:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>Denyav, we only have one president and he is neither.

No, he is merely a graduate of Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School,
a self-made millionaire, and a retired jet jockey.

(Not to mention ex-governor of Texas and pending two-term president of
the United States :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Guinnog65]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
> > wrote:
>
>> And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>
> It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>
> Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
> the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.

Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?

> Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
> ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
> which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
> French-held North Africa.
>
> Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
> Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
> Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
> landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
> similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.

So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
go...

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Guinnog65" > writes:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
>> news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...
>>>
>>> Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
>>> Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
>>> stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
>>> military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
>>> a bunch of white folks."
>>>
>>
>> Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
>> white folks was exactly what WAS expected. The problem
>> was that while they believed attacks would take place at
>> Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
>> the IJN had the capability to attack at PH
>
> Sure. And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such. But certainly
> a read of the contemporary documentation wrt Pearl and Singapore as well,
> reveals attitudes towards the Japanese that would seem very racist to us
> nowadays. It is at least tempting to assume their low expectations of them
> were connected to their racist beliefs of them. This 40 years after
> Tsushima, mind.

Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial Japanese Navy was
only so large - they didn't have enough ships to be everywhere in the
Pacific at once. They _had_ to attack the Netherlands East Indies -
it was the only source of petroleum within reach, and without it, the
IJN and Japanese Industry ground to a halt in short order. With a
somewhat lesser priority, they had to attack the Philippines - not so
much for the resources, but becasue it provided bases that covered the
shipping lanes from the NEI and Indochina to Japan. Everything else
was secondary. They didn't have enough carriers to get airplanes over
the vital locations, and have enough left over for deep strikes. They
could fly htier land-based bombers from their forward based in
Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive without fighter escorts. The
same, of course, would apply to any sea-borne invasions force - no
fighter cover, and they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

It didn't work out that way. One of the most closely held secrets if
the IJN was the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero) fighter.
It could escort the bombers and seaborne convoys from Japan's existing
land bases. This allowed simultaneous attacks on the widely separated
primary tagets, and the deep strikes that were supposed to unbalance
the Allies enough to allow the invasions to be successfully prosecuted
and consolidated.

Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key to its
success early in the war. And, indeed, it certainly had that. But
the real key was its fuel economy. Just being able to get fighters
over the battle area trumped everything else. Interestingly enough,
the dogfight performance of the Zero was irrelevant, in these cases.
If the Japanese had been flying (notional) long range P-40s or
Brewster Buffalos, and the Allies flying Zeros, the results would have
been the same - Japanese fighters dropping like a box of rocks on a
gaggle of defenders trying desperately to take off and form up as the
bombs started to fall.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stickney > writes:

Peter> Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
Peter> Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
Peter> ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../

Peter> /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
Peter> forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
Peter> without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
Peter> to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
Peter> they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.

Peter> /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
Peter> the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
Peter> fighter. /../

Peter> Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
Peter> to its success early in the war. /../

Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
'Claude'.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>
>> It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>
>> Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>> the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>
>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>
>> Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>> ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>> which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>> French-held North Africa.
>>
>> Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>> Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>> Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>> landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>> similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>
>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>go...

Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched successfully
from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case you
didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[denyav]

> >
> >You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.
> >
> Perhaps, but I have no idea what you mean. Or even what ZB said.

Interesting,I think ZBs words need not much clarification,they are
very clear.
I dont understand why smart people start playing dumb when faced with
clear but implicating statements.


> Does the average American really care much about people's ethnic
> background? Or only the paranoid, such as yourself?

You are right,over 80% percent of American people do not care about
peoples ethnic background,but the problem is that the Anglo minority
that make up less than 20% of population but fully control US,they
care very much about ethnicity.While they openly advocate that
etnicity should not be a factor in US,(if ethnicity would be
factor,Anglo minority could not fully control US) and try to supress
the importance of the importance of heritage for the other ethnic
groups,behind closed doors they practice racism and make plans to keep
US under Anglo control.
Those who are old enough will remember signs like that "Help
Wanted,Irish do not need to apply" or stories of excelent Jewish
students that dared to apply to the top Anglo higher education
instutitions in US.
Anglos have recovered US after 1872,this time without using RN but
using much more subtle but much more effective methods

Rhodes wrote "Why should we form a secret society with but one object
the furtherance British Empire and the bringing of whole uncivilised
world under British rule for the recovery of United States for making
the Anglo-Saxon RACE but ONE empire".

He succeded.period.


> >So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
> >Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
> >religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the impression that
> >the US under massive external threat.
> >
> What?

I think you still have difficulty in understanding Brzezinskis words.

> >>Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
> >>--
> >
> >Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to Anglos in
> >Anglo homeland and in Australia.
> >
They,specially Anglos in Anglo homeland will need good luck in future.

>
> >>Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.
> >>
> >
> >Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
> >Statesman Lord Rhodes.
> >
> Who? If you mean Cecil Rhodes, he was many things, but never a Lord.
> Your credibility, minuscule as it is, is diminished further by your lack
> of accuracy.
>
> Is an Anglo someone of purely* English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
> a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
> JFK and Reagan?
>
> *Do you have any idea how the English came to be?
>
> >You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
> >Boston Brahmins.
>
> I know no such thing. I have never given such considerations a moment's
> thought.
>
> If you think that Rhodes Scholarships are an Anglo-American conspiracy,
> why did they originally include Germans?
>
>
> Nice bit of snipping of the preceding post, BTW. It's all right, you
> don't have to apologise for making a mistake and calling the Roosevelts
> "Anglos", we wouldn't like you to do anything that's out of character

To be a part of Anglo conspiracy you dont need to be an ethnic
Anglo,some become a part of it even without realizing it,some become a
part of it for personal gains.

Lets name it sir,Pearl Harbor,Northwoods and 9/11 were not planned by
Germans,Jews,Hispanics,Irish or Arabs,they were both Anglo
operations,designed to provide broad Public support behind ruling
Anglo minority.

"United we stand"
Translation: "if we unite behind our Anglo rulers we stand"

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>>
>>> It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>>
>>> Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>>> the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>>
>>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>>
>>> Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>>> ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>>> which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>>> French-held North Africa.
>>>
>>> Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>>> Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>>> Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>>> landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>>> similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>>
>>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>>go...
>
> Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
> seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
> successfully
> from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
> interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
> spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
> you
> didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
the way? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
ever encountered!

My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

Sheesh!

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, denyav
> writes
>> >
>> >You dont need to ,even a third grader can understand what Brzezinski meant.
>> >
>> Perhaps, but I have no idea what you mean. Or even what ZB said.
>
>Interesting,I think ZBs words need not much clarification,they are
>very clear.
>I dont understand why smart people start playing dumb when faced with
>clear but implicating statements.
>
I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
without telling me what you're talking about.
>
>> Does the average American really care much about people's ethnic
>> background? Or only the paranoid, such as yourself?
>
>You are right,over 80% percent of American people do not care about
>peoples ethnic background,but the problem is that the Anglo minority
>that make up less than 20% of population but fully control US,they
>care very much about ethnicity.While they openly advocate that
>etnicity should not be a factor in US,(if ethnicity would be
>factor,Anglo minority could not fully control US) and try to supress
>the importance of the importance of heritage for the other ethnic
>groups,behind closed doors they practice racism and make plans to keep
>US under Anglo control.
>Those who are old enough will remember signs like that "Help
>Wanted,Irish do not need to apply" or stories of excelent Jewish
>students that dared to apply to the top Anglo higher education
>instutitions in US.
>Anglos have recovered US after 1872,this time without using RN but
>using much more subtle but much more effective methods
>
>Rhodes wrote "Why should we form a secret society with but one object
>the furtherance British Empire and the bringing of whole uncivilised
>world under British rule for the recovery of United States for making
>the Anglo-Saxon RACE but ONE empire".
>
>He succeded.period.
>
>
Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
in a non-grammatical morass of syntactical gobbledegook.

>> >So if an ethnic group wants to rule a big country , they need either
>> >Republican Guard divisions manned by the members of ruling ethnic and/or
>> >religious group or if you cannot do that, PSYOPs that gives the
>> >impression that
>> >the US under massive external threat.
>> >
>> What?
>
>I think you still have difficulty in understanding Brzezinskis words.
>

See above. Even if I knew what his words were, which I don't, they'd
probably be more comprehensible than yours.

>> >>Keep up the good work, it gives us a good laugh from time to time.
>> >>--
>> >
>> >Good Luck to all Anglos including our minority Anglos as well as to
>> >Anglos in
>> >Anglo homeland and in Australia.
>> >
>They,specially Anglos in Anglo homeland will need good luck in future.
>
>>
>> >>Anglo" (whatever the hell that means) conspiracy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Meaning of Anglo? Well you should check out works and deeds of great British
>> >Statesman Lord Rhodes.
>> >
>> Who? If you mean Cecil Rhodes, he was many things, but never a Lord.
>> Your credibility, minuscule as it is, is diminished further by your lack
>> of accuracy.
>>
>> Is an Anglo someone of purely* English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
>> a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
>> JFK and Reagan?
>>
Answer the question (if you can)

>> *Do you have any idea how the English came to be?
>>
Answer the question (if you can)

>> >You know all of our Presidents are either Rhodes scholars or certified by
>> >Boston Brahmins.
>>
>> I know no such thing. I have never given such considerations a moment's
>> thought.
>>
>> If you think that Rhodes Scholarships are an Anglo-American conspiracy,
>> why did they originally include Germans?
>>
Answer the question (if you can)
>>
>> Nice bit of snipping of the preceding post, BTW. It's all right, you
>> don't have to apologise for making a mistake and calling the Roosevelts
>> "Anglos", we wouldn't like you to do anything that's out of character
>
>To be a part of Anglo conspiracy you dont need to be an ethnic
>Anglo,some become a part of it even without realizing it,some become a
>part of it for personal gains.
>
I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me to
be part of the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.

Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!

>Lets name it sir,Pearl Harbor,Northwoods and 9/11 were not planned by
>Germans,Jews,Hispanics,Irish or Arabs,they were both Anglo
>operations,designed to provide broad Public support behind ruling
>Anglo minority.
>
Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
(again).

>"United we stand"
>Translation: "if we unite behind our Anglo rulers we stand"

We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Denyav]

>I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
>idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
>without telling me what you're talking about.

Then you must read Brzezinskis book titled "Grand Chessboard".

>Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
>(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
>the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
>in a non-grammatical morass of

Apparently you are experiencing difficulties in understanding of Rhodes' words
too.
BTW why a country with less than 20% Anglo population should be forced to nake
English the official language?

Is the language alone not one of the main tools of Anglo Empire building
process?


>English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
>>> a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
>>> JFK and Reagan?
>>>
>Answer the question (if you can)

Well,there were only two presidents that got the job without approval of Boston
Brahmins ,JFK and Nixon,the first one got killed after he killed Operation
Northwoods the latter one (politically) got killed after he killed
Bretton-Woods.period.

The president wanna be that Anglos hated most was Gore,closely followed by
Dean.

>I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
>religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
>services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
>business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me e part of
the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.

Are you sure?

>Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
>proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!
>

Dont forget some people become the part of the even without realizing it,so
others for personal gains.

>Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
>9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
>(again).

Dont you know how Anglos play the "Great Game"?

First game area selected then proxies not other way around.

So if the the game area selected populated predominanly by muslims then your
proxy must be an islamic terrorist organization.

If game area were Cuba then cuban terrorists would be the natural choice.

BTW no operative of any intel agency identifies him/herself to any terrorist
organization as such.
Saudis that piloted 9/11 planes probably did not even now for whom they were
working.

>We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
>--

I think I know pretty well.
Do you know why these signs popped up everywhere in US after 9/11?

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Denyav
> writes
>>I don't know how many ways there are of conveying to you that I have no
>>idea what ZB said in this context. It's no use banging on about it
>>without telling me what you're talking about.
>
>Then you must read Brzezinskis book titled "Grand Chessboard".
>
If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
tell us what he said?

>>Lots of babble but very little sense. If you live in an English-speaking
>>(and I bet that ****es you off) country, at least make an effort to use
>>the language comprehensibly. Your arguments, such as they are, are lost
>>in a non-grammatical morass of
>
>Apparently you are experiencing difficulties in understanding of Rhodes' words
>too.

I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
comprehensible form.

>BTW why a country with less than 20% Anglo population should be forced to nake
>English the official language?
>

Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
have something to do with its history as an English colony?
Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
the major power there. Or even the Germans.

>Is the language alone not one of the main tools of Anglo Empire building
>process?
>
The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.

>
>>English ancestry, such as Washington? Is
>>>> a Scot like Polk classed as an Anglo? What about the Irish connection:
>>>> JFK and Reagan?
>>>>
>>Answer the question (if you can)
>
>Well,there were only two presidents that got the job without approval of Boston
>Brahmins ,JFK and Nixon,the first one got killed after he killed Operation
>Northwoods the latter one (politically) got killed after he killed
>Bretton-Woods.period.
>
Not much of an answer. I still want to know what an "Anglo" is.

>The president wanna be that Anglos hated most was Gore,closely followed by
>Dean.
>
>>I've obviously missed out somewhere, because despite having links to
>>religious groups, the police, the armed services, charities, medical
>>services, broadcasting and business, and having family, friends and
>>business contacts in 11 or so countries, nobody has ever invited me e part of
>the conspiracy. Not even the Freemasons or the Rotary Club.
>
>Are you sure?
>
I think I would have noticed.

>>Perhaps that just proves your conspiracy theory: the absence of direct
>>proof or personal experience just shows how effective the conspiracy is!
>>
>
>Dont forget some people become the part of the even without realizing it,so
>others for personal gains.
>
Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?

>>Very clever of the "Anglos" to persuade all those Saudis to perpetrate
>>9/11. If the "Anglos" are that good, then they DESERVE to rule the world
>>(again).
>
>Dont you know how Anglos play the "Great Game"?
>
The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.

>First game area selected then proxies not other way around.
>
>So if the the game area selected populated predominanly by muslims then your
>proxy must be an islamic terrorist organization.
>
>If game area were Cuba then cuban terrorists would be the natural choice.
>
You do talk some crap.

So where is this game of yours leading? World domination by some
undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?

>BTW no operative of any intel agency identifies him/herself to any terrorist
>organization as such.
>Saudis that piloted 9/11 planes probably did not even now for whom they were
>working.
>
>>We stand where? Do you understand what "United we stand" means?
>>--
>
>I think I know pretty well.
>Do you know why these signs popped up everywhere in US after 9/11?

Well, what does it mean?

I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
them.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Gernot Hassenpflug > writes:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stickney > writes:
>
> Peter> Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
> Peter> Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
> Peter> ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../
>
> Peter> /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
> Peter> forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
> Peter> without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
> Peter> to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
> Peter> they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.
>
> Peter> /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
> Peter> the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
> Peter> fighter. /../
>
> Peter> Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
> Peter> to its success early in the war. /../
>
> Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
> surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
> it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
> in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
> the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
> 'Claude'.

The existance of the Zero wasn't a secret - the fact that the Japanese
had built a single-engine fighter that could fly from Taipei to Manila
and back was. That was certainly not apparent to anybody, and the IJN
wasn't advertising that fact.

A short range fighter with extremely high performance certainly wasn't
unexpected - consider teh case of the Curtiss CW-21 "Demon" - a
lightweight short-ranged interceptor that exceeded the A6M in climb
and agility. The KNIL had a bunch of them in Java. Without the
ability to be warned in time to get off the ground and into position,
it didn't do them a bit of good.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[B2431]

>Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>>>
>>>> It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>>>
>>>> Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>>>> the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>>>
>>>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>>>
>>>> Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>>>> ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>>>> which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>>>> French-held North Africa.
>>>>
>>>> Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>>>> Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>>>> Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>>>> landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>>>> similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>>>
>>>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>>>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>>>go...
>>
>> Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
>> seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
>> successfully
>> from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
>> interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
>> spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
>> you
>> didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.
>
>I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
>the way?

The "again" refers to some of the nonsense you have posted in other threads.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
>ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
>abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
>subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.
>

And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Gernot Hassenpflug > writes:
> >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stickney > writes:
> >
> > Peter> Actually, it's fairly easy to see why - The Imperial
> > Peter> Japanese Navy was only so large - they didn't have enough
> > Peter> ships to be everywhere in the Pacific at once. /../
> >
> > Peter> /../ They could fly htier land-based bombers from their
> > Peter> forward based in Indochina and Formosa, but they'd arrive
> > Peter> without fighter escorts. The same, of course, would apply
> > Peter> to any sea-borne invasions force - no fighter cover, and
> > Peter> they'd be sitting ducks in the target area.
> >
> > Peter> /../ One of the most closely held secrets if the IJN was
> > Peter> the unprecedented range of the A6M (Year Zero)
> > Peter> fighter. /../
> >
> > Peter> Much has been made of teh Zero's maneuverability as the key
> > Peter> to its success early in the war. /../
> >
> > Sorry, but that's not true AFAIK: the fact that it came as a
> > surprise to some of the Allies is not the same as the IJN keeping
> > it a strict secret. The IJN never considered it secret, using it
> > in China. Chennault wrote of this fighter in 1940 and 1941, and
> > the Chinese certainly knew of this successor to the Type 96
> > 'Claude'.
>
> The existance of the Zero wasn't a secret - the fact that the Japanese
> had built a single-engine fighter that could fly from Taipei to Manila
> and back was. That was certainly not apparent to anybody, and the IJN
> wasn't advertising that fact.

One reason was that the Japanese were unaware that they had the capability
until sometime in 1941. Clark and Iba were over 450nm from the closest
Formosan bases, Manila was 500nm away. They'd never made attacks at such
ranges in China, and they were flying over land there, where navigation was
much easier. They'd originally planned to use three small carriers (the big
ones were going to PH), but that was inconvenient as they were slow and
unable to operate sufficient numbers of a/c (only 75 vs. the 250 or so Zeros
they had assembled on Formosa and believed to be necessary). So in 1941,
they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
gal./hr.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

B2431 wrote:

> >From: "Guinnog65"
> >Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
>
> >My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
> >ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
> >abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
> >subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.
> >
>
> And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
> being an "empire" at the time.

Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian
Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired as a
result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the
case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino
"freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once
McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much easier)
and the Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10 years. While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

Guy

[Mike Dargan]

Guinnog65 wrote:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>>>
>>>>It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>>>
>>>>Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>>>>the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>>>
>>>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>>>>ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>>>>which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>>>>French-held North Africa.
>>>>
>>>>Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>>>>Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>>>>Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>>>>landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>>>>similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>>>
>>>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>>>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>>>go...
>>
>>Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
>>seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
>>successfully
>>from land. As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
>>interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
>>spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
>>you
>>didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.
>
>
> I did know there really were Japanese spies there. What is this 'again' by
> the way? This has to count as one of the most ungracious agreements I have
> ever encountered!
>
> My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
> ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
> abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events which
> subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.

These old Air Force guys aren't much for reading. Probably hard to do
with his Rush Limbaugh's Greates Hits tapes roaring in the background.

Cheers

--mike
>
> Sheesh!
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

Joe Osman wrote:

> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:eqM2d.452184$%_6.9665@attbi_s01...
>
>>Ragnar wrote:
>>
>>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
>>>>news:lyr2d.206258$Fg5.67066@attbi_s53...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Pearl Harbor debacle is often blamed on lack of resources caused by
>>>>>inadequate support from the politicians. Wrong. Short and Kimmel had
>>>>>both quantitative and qualitative superiority but were hopelessly
>
> inept.
>
>>>>While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
>>>>superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>>
>>Dig out Gordon Prange's book and do the numbers. P40s were adequate
>>against the Japanese in China, thousands of miles from their supply
>>depots. Why wouldn't they bave been adequate over Oahu?
>>
>>Also, why wasn't Kimmel running patrols? He didn't have resources to
>>cover 360 degrees, but he certainly could have covered the NW quadrant
>>for a couple of hundred miles. Washington had been bombing him with
>>warnings for weeks. Geez. Couldn't he have just read the newspapers?
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>--mike
>>
>
>
> It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols.

Then what were all those PBYs for?

The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole
> responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them to
> get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense
> responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and
> didn't like to fly over water.

No kidding. Maybe they should have hired a bunch of nannies to hold
their hands.

Cheers

--mike

>
> Joe
>
>
>>>
>>>They also had better ships in many cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mike Dargan]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:l964d.344733$8_6.85223@attbi_s04...
>
>>Right. When people make cracks like "no one imagined an attack on
>>Pearl," they really mean "no one imagined a bunch of slanty-eyed,
>>stunted, jabbering, monkey-like gooks would have the technical and
>>military expertise necessary to attack a modern industrial nation run by
>>a bunch of white folks."
>>
>
>
> Sorry to spoil your rant but an attack on a nation run by
> white folks was exactly what WAS expected.

Then why did they get caught jerking off in bed instead of at their duty
stations?

The problem
> was that while they believed attacks would take place at
> Midway , Wake and the Phillipines they didnt believe
> the IJN had the capability to attack at PH

They didn't do much thinking at all until it came time to come up with
alibis.

Cheers

--mike
>
> Keith
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>>
>>>It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>>
>>>Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>>>the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>>
>>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>>
>>
>>>Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>>>ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>>>which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>>>French-held North Africa.
>>>
>>>Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>>>Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>>>Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>>>landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>>>similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>>
>>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>>go...
>
>
> Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
> seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched successfully
> from land.

Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face.
Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they
would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry.

As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
> interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
> spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case you
> didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and
get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to
these guys.

When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the
impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls?

Cheers

--mike
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Dargan
>Date: 9/22/2004 7:19 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <tEo4d.87069$MQ5.83561@attbi_s52>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>>>From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:28:18 +0100, "Guinnog65"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And it is unprovable *why* their expectations were such
>>>>
>>>>It's so easy to mock decisions made before the event!
>>>>
>>>>Have you never looked at a globe? Raiding Pearl Harbor from Japan was
>>>>the equivalent of the U.S.'s attacking Murmansk from New York City.
>>>
>>>Actually, didn't something almost like that occur post WW1?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nothing like it was ever done in history before, and nothing like it
>>>>ever happened again with the possible exception of Operation Torch, in
>>>>which an American invasion fleet left Hampton Roads to attack
>>>>French-held North Africa.
>>>>
>>>>Even in 2001, we wouldn't attempt what the Japanese attempted at Pearl
>>>>Harbor. We can launch bombing raids on Baghdad from Sam's Knob,
>>>>Missouri, but those are only individual planes. Perhaps the Marines
>>>>landing in Afghanistan from ships offshore--a whole country away--was
>>>>similar, but that was mere hundreds of miles, not thousands.
>>>
>>>So would you say that the Pearl Harbor defence teams did as well as they
>>>were capable of? And the defences at Singapore? I wouldn't, but there you
>>>go...
>>
>>
>> Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
>> seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
>successfully
>> from land.
>
>Well, genius, all those 88,000 soldiers had to do was an about face.
>Even if those big nasty shore defences had been pointed inland, they
>would not have been much use against a well-trained and well-led infantry.

OK, as I said the defenses were pointed seaward. That means the British planned
for a sea attack. They grossly underestimated the effect of infantry coming in
from the woods. They DID turn the defenders around to face the attack. The
defense was poorly led and under equipped for such a thing. Simply put the
British failed to prepare for such an attack.


>As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
>> interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
>> spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
>you
>> didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.
>
>Sure. All they had to do was look out the window, count the masts, and
>get on the phone to the embassy. James Bond was a piker comapred to
>these guys.

How about the fishermen who took depth readings using fishing lines? How about
the B-girls and bar men who picked up information?

>
>When you get done snotting off, maybe you can tell us what about the
>impact of the saboteurs on December 7. Salt in the sugar bowls?
>
>Cheers
>
>--mike

I never said there were any saboteurs only that the fear of them was there. You
might want to do some research on the subject. It's an interesting subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Guy Alcala
>Date: 9/22/2004 6:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>> >Date: 9/22/2004 12:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>>
>> >My point was that the defences at both outposts of empire were perhaps
>> >ineffective *because* the US and UK defenders under-rated the fighting
>> >abilities of the Japanese and had therefore not planned for the events
>which
>> >subsequently took place. As a look up the thread would confirm.
>> >
>>
>> And your anti American bias is showing here too. The U.S. was nowhere near
>> being an "empire" at the time.
>
>Dan, I think the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, Hawaiian
>Islands, and the Philippines at the time would disagree. I forget how the
>takeover went in the case of the Marianas, but the others were all acquired
>as a
>result of wars. In the case of Hawaii we kicked out the local rulers. In the
>case of the Philippines, we defeated the Spanish with the help of Filipino
>"freedom fighters" who'd been fighting against the Spanish since 1896. Once
>McKinley had decided to keep the islands (made trade with China so much
>easier)
>and the Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
>"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
>defeat
>them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10 years.
>While
>the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
>certainly had one.
>
>Guy

Good point.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
> > accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
> > attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
> > electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
> > more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
> > active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
> > periscope.
> >
>
> In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
> built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
> service and only one ever went on patrol.

This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice
building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only
the post war German navy but were extensively used by others.

Some XXI's were for example a long time in use
by:

France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967)
Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514
USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515
USA: U 2513, 3008


> The list of ships sunk by this type follows
>
> <Start of List>
> <End of List>

Not for lack of capabillity:

U 2511 (Korvettenkapitaen Adalbert SCHNEE) left Bergen at the end of
April
'45. On the next day she met a British Sub Hunter Group -- and was
detected
and attacked. But her sonar enabled her to plot the British movements
and
she escaped.

On May 4th she met a British group, the cruiser HMS Norfolk with her
escort.
They had been on the usual U-Boat alert, but didn't find U 2511.
Incidently
U 2511 was in a good position. Assuming, that Adalbert Schnee didn't
get his
oakleafs for nothing, he couldn't have missed a cruiser at 700m
distance,
but the BDU had already ordered to cease fire. Back in Bergen, the
Norfolk's officers didn't believe, they had been targeted, until, they
read the log book of U 2511.

Apart from their superb sonar, great speed, range and diving depth
these u-boats had secondary creeper drive opperated via 12 v belts
that made them essentialy undetectable at speeds of up to 6 knots.




>
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Joe Osman" > wrote in message news:41519804
>
> It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols. The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole
> responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them
> to
> get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense
> responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and
> didn't like to fly over water.
>

No sir, as the Joint Congressional Investigation clearly states

<Quote>

Under the Joint Coastal Frontier Defense Plan the following tasks of the
Army and Navy were recognized:

"a. JOINT TASK. To hold OAHU as a main outlying naval base, and to
control and protect shipping in the Coastal Zone.

"b. ARMY TASK. To hold OAHU against attacks by sea, land, and air
forces, and against hostile sympathizers; to support the naval forces.

"c. NAVY TASK. To patrol the Coastal Zone and to control and protect
shipping therein; to support the Army forces."

One of the most significant features of the plan was the assumption of
responsibility by the Navy for distant reconnaissance, a normal task of
the Army. In this regard, the plan provided: "The Commandant, Fourteenth
Naval District, shall provide for: * * * i. *Distant Reconnaissance*."
</Quote>

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_3.html#126

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Joe Osman" > wrote in message news:41519804
>
> It wasn't Kimmel's job to run patrols. The Air Corps/USAAF got the sole
> responsiblity for the aerial defense of the US in 1935. This allowed them
> to
> get more long range bombers. They didn't take the coastal defense
> responsibility seriously. Their pilots were very poor at navigation and
> didn't like to fly over water.
>

No sir, as the Joint Congressional Investigation clearly states

<Quote>

Under the Joint Coastal Frontier Defense Plan the following tasks of the
Army and Navy were recognized:

"a. JOINT TASK. To hold OAHU as a main outlying naval base, and to
control and protect shipping in the Coastal Zone.

"b. ARMY TASK. To hold OAHU against attacks by sea, land, and air
forces, and against hostile sympathizers; to support the naval forces.

"c. NAVY TASK. To patrol the Coastal Zone and to control and protect
shipping therein; to support the Army forces."

One of the most significant features of the plan was the assumption of
responsibility by the Navy for distant reconnaissance, a normal task of
the Army. In this regard, the plan provided: "The Commandant, Fourteenth
Naval District, shall provide for: * * * i. *Distant Reconnaissance*."
</Quote>

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_3.html#126

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>> In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
>> built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
>> service and only one ever went on patrol.
>
> This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice
> building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only
> the post war German navy but were extensively used by others.
>
> Some XXI's were for example a long time in use
> by:
>
> France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967)
> Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514
> USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515
> USA: U 2513, 3008
>

There's a difference between evaulation and being
the backbone.

The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
were operational for very long and certainly didnt
form the backbone of the submarine force. The
USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
RN built the O & P classes

>
>> The list of ships sunk by this type follows
>>
>> <Start of List>
>> <End of List>
>
> Not for lack of capabillity:
>

Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
a sign of a lack of capability

Keith

[Denyav]

>There's a difference between evaulation and being
>the backbone.
>
>The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
>were operational for very long and certainly didnt
>form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY
conversions while the
>RN built the O & P classes

Yeah right,there is also a difference between inventing and copying (stealing)
a technology.
Right Mr.Willshaw?

[Chris Mark]

>From: Guy Alcala

> I forget how the
>takeover went in the case of the Marianas

Invasion, June, 1944. You are probably thinking of Guam. That was ceded to
the US by Spain as part of the Spanish-American War settlement. The Marianas
were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 (along with the rest of their Micronesian
holdings--the Carolines, etc.) Japan seized them from Germany at the onset of
WWOne in 1914 and was confirmed in her possession by the victors of that war.
The US acquired Micronesia by conquest during WW2 and was confirmed in
possession (as trust territories) by UNO after the war.

>Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
>"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
>defeat
>them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10
>years

At one point at least a quarter of the entire US Army was engaged in supressing
the Filipino resistance. It was a major war.

>While
>the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
>certainly had one.

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.
We did treat the Filipinos well (unlike the monstrous horrors imposed by the
Belgians on the Congolese in the same time frame), and by the 1920s were not
afraid to arm them and create a Filipino military force. The Filipinos were so
unafraid of their American "masters" that when the troops decided they didn't
like the pay scale the Americans offered, instead of grabbing their weapons,
revolting and starting a war, they went on strike.





Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: Guy Alcala

>in 1941,
>they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
>of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
>became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
>12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
>dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
>gal./hr.

Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent power.
Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption figures?
What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?



Chris Mark

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >There's a difference between evaulation and being
>>the backbone.
>>
>>The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
>>were operational for very long and certainly didnt
>>form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY
> conversions while the
>>RN built the O & P classes
>
> Yeah right,there is also a difference between inventing and copying
> (stealing)
> a technology.
> Right Mr.Willshaw?
>

Indeed and the submarine was invented by an Irish
American called John Holland.

Keith

[Denyav]

>If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
>tell us what he said?

Well,I thought that only Americans are not allowed to read serious books.(If
they get smarter,herding of them would become harder,you know).
But you are posting from UK ?.
You can find this book in any library.(at least in US)

It (the book) is actually the blueprint for the events that happened after 2000
and the event are going to to happen in next year.

If you read the book (published in 1997) carefully you could easily understand
that Anglos did not occupy or plan to occupy Eurasian countries because the
terrorists came from these areas,but other way around,terrorists came from
these areas because Anglos selected these areas as the playing ground for the
next round of the Great Game.

Brzenzinki sheds also light why 9/11 was required not only for the realization
Anglo foreign policy goals but also for the solving of Anglo domestic policy
goals.

Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35

Quote:
"The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American
power has been much more ambivalent .The public supported Americas engagement
in WWII largely because of SHOCK effect of Japanase attack on Pearl Harbor."
page24

Quote:
"Moreover,as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues ,EXCEPT in
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived foreign threat" page235


This is the blueprint for 9/11 and the events prior after 9/11 not something
that necons (whatever or whoever they might be) did or said.


>I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
>comprehensible form.

OK, the words of Rhodes in 1877:

"Why should we not form a secret society with but one object of furtherance of
the British empire and the bringing of whole uncivilized world under British
rule for the recovery of the United States for making ANGLO-SAXON RACE but
ONE EMPIRE"

Still did not understand?



>Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
>have something to do with its history as an English colony?
>Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
>the major power there. Or even the Germans.

Well,I wonder in which part of Britain Latin,or at least Italien, is the
official language?

In history there are several great empires and all of them used different ways
to maintain their superiority.

For example the main chracteristics of the famous Roman Empire were superior
military organisation AND cultural appeal.
Main chracteristics of British empire was superior military organization AND
cultural assertiveness.period.

I hope you know the difference between "appeal" and "assertiveness",becuse
thats the reason why nobody in Britain speaks italian, wheras almost everybody
in US,India etc speaks English.

>The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
>tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.

There is not much space for accidents in history,for example the creation of
Soviet Union was a road accident,but not British Empire.


>Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?

You may never know it,I am pretty sure that neither Confederates nor Nazis ever
realized that they were indeed Anglo proxies.

I said before several times,I admire Great Game playing skills.

>The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
>French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.

That was the first chapter of the Great Game,The Great Game or if I use
Brzezinkis words "Grand Chessboard" never ended there,First and second WWs were
only another chapters of the Great Game now we see the most recent chapter.

>leading? World domination by some
>undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
>their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?

Anglos dominate the world for centuries already,struggle is to save Anglo
dominance.

>I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
>them.

I am sure you wont see any of them in Britain,Australia or New Zeeland as all
of these countries are (still) Anglo countries,not an Anglo dominated country
like US.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Chris Mark) wrote:

> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> >in 1941,
> >they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
> >of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
> >became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
> >12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
> >dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
> >gal./hr.
>
> Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent
> power.
> Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption
> figures?
> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?
>
>
>
> Chris Mark


They achieved thos numbers by cutting back to 20%-30% power and
aggressive leaning. Lindbergh taught the same concepts to USAAF P-38
pilots -- this technique is part of what enabled the Yamamoto shootdown.
The P-38s were operating way outside their expected normal combat radius.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Denyav
> writes
>>If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
>>tell us what he said?
>
>Well,I thought that only Americans are not allowed to read serious books.(If
>they get smarter,herding of them would become harder,you know).
>But you are posting from UK ?.
>You can find this book in any library.(at least in US)
>
>It (the book) is actually the blueprint for the events that happened after 2000
>and the event are going to to happen in next year.
>
>If you read the book (published in 1997) carefully you could easily understand
>that Anglos did not occupy or plan to occupy Eurasian countries because the
>terrorists came from these areas,but other way around,terrorists came from
>these areas because Anglos selected these areas as the playing ground for the
>next round of the Great Game.
>
Wow.

>Brzenzinki sheds also light why 9/11 was required not only for the realization
>Anglo foreign policy goals but also for the solving of Anglo domestic policy
>goals.
>
>Ouote:
>"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35
>
Is it? Why?

>Quote:
>"The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American
>power has been much more ambivalent .The public supported Americas engagement
>in WWII largely because of SHOCK effect of Japanase attack on Pearl Harbor."
>page24
>
>Quote:
>"Moreover,as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
>it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues ,EXCEPT in
>circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived foreign threat" page235
>
>
>This is the blueprint for 9/11 and the events prior after 9/11 not something
>that necons (whatever or whoever they might be) did or said.
>
>
>>I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
>>comprehensible form.
>
>OK, the words of Rhodes in 1877:
>
>"Why should we not form a secret society with but one object of furtherance of
>the British empire and the bringing of whole uncivilized world under British
>rule for the recovery of the United States for making ANGLO-SAXON RACE but
>ONE EMPIRE"
>
>Still did not understand?
>
>
No. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
time.
>
>>Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
>>have something to do with its history as an English colony?
>>Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
>>the major power there. Or even the Germans.
>
>Well,I wonder in which part of Britain Latin,or at least Italien, is the
>official language?
>
That's a poor argument. The Romans left Britannia in the 5th century,
but still left their mark on the evolution of the English language. The
British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
majority of the population is concerned.

>In history there are several great empires and all of them used different ways
>to maintain their superiority.
>
Most of them fell. The British gave theirs away/back.

>For example the main chracteristics of the famous Roman Empire were superior
>military organisation AND cultural appeal.
>Main chracteristics of British empire was superior military organization AND
>cultural assertiveness.period.
>
>I hope you know the difference between "appeal" and "assertiveness",becuse
>thats the reason why nobody in Britain speaks italian, wheras almost everybody
>in US,India etc speaks English.
>
No it isn't. See above. The situations can't be compared. The social and
cultural conditions were very different in the 1st to 5th century Roman
Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.

>>The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
>>tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.
>
>There is not much space for accidents in history,for example the creation of
>Soviet Union was a road accident,but not British Empire.
>
Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
events is concerned.
>
>>Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?
>
>You may never know it,I am pretty sure that neither Confederates nor Nazis ever
>realized that they were indeed Anglo proxies.
>
Yeah, right. King George V sponsored Hitler. Get a grip, for goodness'
sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.

>I said before several times,I admire Great Game playing skills.
>
>>The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
>>French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.
>
>That was the first chapter of the Great Game,The Great Game or if I use
>Brzezinkis words "Grand Chessboard" never ended there,First and second WWs were
>only another chapters of the Great Game now we see the most recent chapter.
>
>>leading? World domination by some
>>undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
>>their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?
>
>Anglos dominate the world for centuries already,struggle is to save Anglo
>dominance.
>
Sounds OK to me. Problem is, the Queen's a German and the PM's more or
less a Scot. Rather messes things up.
Anyway, as I already asked, what happens then? Everybody is forced to
drink tea?

>>I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
>>them.
>
>I am sure you wont see any of them in Britain,Australia or New Zeeland as all
>of these countries are (still) Anglo countries,not an Anglo dominated country
>like US.
>
There really is little to say in response to that one, except: ********!

I like having a laugh at a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but
yours seems a bit lacking in practicality. You need more detail (apart
from one quote from Cecil Rhodes and vague prattling from Brzenzinki).
Contemplating nebulous aspirations such as world domination doesn't
really appeal if there's no substance and no obvious purpose except the
idea for its own sake.

And you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > writes:
> In article >,
> (Chris Mark) wrote:
>
>> >From: Guy Alcala
>>
>> >in 1941,
>> >they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
>> >of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
>> >became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
>> >12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
>> >dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
>> >gal./hr.
>>
>> Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent
>> power.
>> Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption
>> figures?
>> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Mark
>
>
> They achieved thos numbers by cutting back to 20%-30% power and
> aggressive leaning. Lindbergh taught the same concepts to USAAF P-38
> pilots -- this technique is part of what enabled the Yamamoto shootdown.
> The P-38s were operating way outside their expected normal combat radius.

Y'know, that's been mentioned any number of times about Lindberg's
trip to the Pacific. But I have some doubts about it.
The Carbs used on the later model P-38s were Bendix-Stromberg PD 12
pressure carbs. IIRC, These didn't have manual adjustment - you had
settings of "Full Rich", Auto-Rich", "Auto-Lean", and "Idle Cutoff".
you couldn't manually lean the engines.

The secret to a low fuel burn is low RPM/High BMEP. To get this, you
need to crank the prop to the desired cruise RPM (Usually Full Decrease or
thereabouts, set the throttle to the maximum setting that maintains
that RPM, and pull the mixture back to Auto-Lean. If you've chosen
the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.

It's not a great condition to be in if you're bounced, however - you
can't just shove teh throttle forward & go. A Big recip can be
remarkably delicate at times, and just shoving the throttle forward at
low revs with a lean mixture is asking it to come apart. To spool
things up, you've got to do the hand-jive, shoving teh mixture to Full
Rich first, the prop to Full Increase, and then you can bring up the
power with the throttle. I can see somebody who's concerned about
being bounced keeping the mixture up in the AUto-Rich range and just
fiddling with the revs (Prop) and Manifold Pressure (Throttle).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Chris Mark) writes:
>>From: Guy Alcala
>
>>in 1941,
>>they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
>>of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
>>became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
>>12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
>>dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
>>gal./hr.
>
> Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent power.
> Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption figures?
> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?

They did it the classical way - Minimum RPM, Maximum Manifold Pressure
to maintain that RPM, as lean a mixture as the engine can stand, and
flying at the altitude where, with those conditions, they could
maintain the minimum drag spot on the airplane's drag curve. (Probably
around 15,000', in a Zero, maybe a bit lower.)
You can turn in some really impressive fuel burn numbers that way.
The low RPM means that the total volume of fuel/air mixture per unit
of time is as small as it can get. The High Manifold Pressure means
that you're getting the most out of that small volume.

Note that you can't do this unless you've got a fully controllable or
Constant Speed prop.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Chris Mark wrote:

> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> > I forget how the
> >takeover went in the case of the Marianas
>
> Invasion, June, 1944. You are probably thinking of Guam.

Yes.

> That was ceded to
> the US by Spain as part of the Spanish-American War settlement. The Marianas
> were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 (along with the rest of their Micronesian
> holdings--the Carolines, etc.) Japan seized them from Germany at the onset of
> WWOne in 1914 and was confirmed in her possession by the victors of that war.
> The US acquired Micronesia by conquest during WW2 and was confirmed in
> possession (as trust territories) by UNO after the war.
>
> >Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
> >"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
> >defeat
> >them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10
> >years
>
> At one point at least a quarter of the entire US Army was engaged in supressing
> the Filipino resistance. It was a major war.

I've seen figures of 75,000 U.S. troops in the Philippines at the time, but don't
know how accurate that is.

> >While
> >the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
> >certainly had one.
>
> After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
> disease.

Yeah, economic dominance turns out to be cheaper.

> We did treat the Filipinos well (unlike the monstrous horrors imposed by the
> Belgians on the Congolese in the same time frame), and by the 1920s were not
> afraid to arm them and create a Filipino military force. The Filipinos were so
> unafraid of their American "masters" that when the troops decided they didn't
> like the pay scale the Americans offered, instead of grabbing their weapons,
> revolting and starting a war, they went on strike.

Not that this was going to happen givenwhat japan was doing, and I have no idea
what the exact legal situation was then as the Philippines were called a
commonwealth, but I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
President Quezon had said to General MacArthur

"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases owned
and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to have
you come and visit from time to time."

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Orval Fairbairn > writes:
> > In article >,
> > (Chris Mark) wrote:
> >
> >> >From: Guy Alcala
> >>
> >> >in 1941,
> >> >they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
> >> >of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
> >> >became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
> >> >12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
> >> >dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
> >> >gal./hr.
> >>
> >> Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent
> >> power.
> >> Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption
> >> figures?
> >> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Mark
> >
> >
> > They achieved thos numbers by cutting back to 20%-30% power and
> > aggressive leaning. Lindbergh taught the same concepts to USAAF P-38
> > pilots -- this technique is part of what enabled the Yamamoto shootdown.
> > The P-38s were operating way outside their expected normal combat radius.
>
> Y'know, that's been mentioned any number of times about Lindberg's
> trip to the Pacific. But I have some doubts about it.
> The Carbs used on the later model P-38s were Bendix-Stromberg PD 12
> pressure carbs. IIRC, These didn't have manual adjustment - you had
> settings of "Full Rich", Auto-Rich", "Auto-Lean", and "Idle Cutoff".
> you couldn't manually lean the engines.
>
> The secret to a low fuel burn is low RPM/High BMEP. To get this, you
> need to crank the prop to the desired cruise RPM (Usually Full Decrease or
> thereabouts, set the throttle to the maximum setting that maintains
> that RPM, and pull the mixture back to Auto-Lean. If you've chosen
> the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
> drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
> will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
> I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.

Exactly right. They'd been cruising in auto-rich, low MP/high rpm. He told them to
put it in auto-lean, pull the prop back to 1,800 rpm and then advance the throttle
until they got 180mph IAS (they'd been cruising at higher speeds).

> It's not a great condition to be in if you're bounced, however - you
> can't just shove teh throttle forward & go. A Big recip can be
> remarkably delicate at times, and just shoving the throttle forward at
> low revs with a lean mixture is asking it to come apart. To spool
> things up, you've got to do the hand-jive, shoving teh mixture to Full
> Rich first, the prop to Full Increase, and then you can bring up the
> power with the throttle. I can see somebody who's concerned about
> being bounced keeping the mixture up in the AUto-Rich range and just
> fiddling with the revs (Prop) and Manifold Pressure (Throttle).

The advantage of the late-war Pacific was that most of the time you were flying over
uninhabited areas or the sea, so really didn't need to worry about getting bounced
except in the vicinity of airfields. The Japanese lack of fuel also played a part.
The details are in Lindbergh's wartime journal, but IIRR the increased radii guarantees
he made to Kenney, or maybe it was Whitehead, included going to auto rich and (IIRC)
combat cruise speed in the combat zone, which I think he defined as 100 miles both in
and out, plus combat allowance, etc. The crews didn't necessarily believe him the
first couple of missions, but when they noticed he was returning to base with 100-200
gallons more fuel than they while flying the same missions, they paid attention.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Chris Mark wrote:

> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> >in 1941,
> >they started to see just how much they could safely stretch the fuel economy
> >of the Zero, individually and then in larger groups. Ten hour missions
> >became routine, then 11 and eventually they were able to stay in the air for
> >12. Okumiya describes this in "Zero!", with average fuel consumption
> >dropping to 21 gal./hr. and Saburo Sakai holding the record at only 18
> >gal./hr.
>
> Interesting. The Wright R-2600 engine burned about 75gph at 60 percent power.
> Any details on how the Japanese achieved such frugal fuel consumption figures?
> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?

I have a vague memory of reading 30-35gal./hr. somewhere, but don't hold me to
it. The A6M2 had the Sakae 12 engine, which was only rated at 950 hp or so. When
they got the A6M3 Model 32 in the Solomons, which had the more powerful Sakae 21
engine of 1,130 hp (and slightly less fuel) plus clipped tips, they found that its
range was inadequate to make it from Rabaul to Guadalcanal and back (it was
pushing it for the A6M2), which IIRR was something like 550 sm one way. They
built intermediate strips down the Solomons (Buin, etc) so that it could get there
and back, and put the A6M3 Model 22 with increased internal fuel and the full
wingspan (non-folding, like the first production model, the A6M2 Model 11) into
production for land use.

The USN found that for carrier operations, overall they could plan on R-2600s
burning 45-50 gal./hr average per sortie (which includes lots of low speed loiter
for landing and ASW patrol) depending on whether it was in an Avenger or a
Helldiver, while the R-2800 in the Hellcat burned about 75 or so (same landing
loiter, CAP loiter). The exact mix of sortie types flown would affect the
average, but as far as planning for carrier AVGAS replenishment needs, that gave
them good numbers.

Guy

[Chris Mark]

>From: Guy Alcala

> I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
>President Quezon had said to General MacArthur
>
>"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases
>owned
>and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
>sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to
>have
>you come and visit from time to time."

In 1935 congress passed theTydings-McDuffie Act, which created the Philippine
Commonwealth, with Quezon the first president, the Commonwealth status to end
after a decade, a which time the country would become independent.
Roosevelt asked MacArthur if he would like to become High Commissoner of the
new Commonwealth. But Mac would have to retire from the Army (he was CoS) to
take the job. He declined, but Quezon asked him to become military adviser to
the Philippine Commonwealth, a job he could take and still remain on active
duty.
Paul McNutt, former gov. of Indiana became PI High Commissioner and invited
Quezon to Washington, as FDR wanted to talk to him about the future of the
Philippines.
Instead of going directly to D.C., Quezon went by way of Tokyo and an audience
with Hirohito. When he finally arrived in L.A. Quezon announced to the press
that he had come to the US on behalf of the Filipino people to demand
independence from the US in 1938. He would insist on seeing the president and
having his demand met. Then he went to New York, took over the Roseland
Ballroom and partied, partied, partied.
FDR, who was considering speeding up Philippine independence to as early as
1940 at the suggestion of former Philippines High Commissioner Frank Murphy,
with the caveat that the Philippines declare themselves neutral and neither
maintain their own armed forces or host foreign forces, was furious with
Quezon, and also MacArthur, who had accompanied Q. FDR completely ignored
Quezon while he hung out in New York for months.
Finally MacArthur went to D.C. and asked to see the president on behalf of
Quezon. FDR gave him 5 minutes. He agreed to lunch with Quezon. But no
serious meeting.
At lunch Quezon demanded independence--and US guarantees of protection--in
such a rude and insulting manner that Roosevelt later told Harold Ickes of
Interior, which controlled administration of the Philippines, that as far as he
was concerned, the Philippines were not worth even attempting to defend. Let
the Japs take them and see how "the little weasel" likes taking orders from
them.
One immediate result of that lunch was when, shortly after, Quezon tried to buy
rifles from the US to equip the new Philippine Army, FDR blocked the sale. He
also ordered MacArthur recalled to the US and given another assignment.
MacArthur thereupon retired from the Army so he could stay on in the
Philippines with Quezon.
One reason the US was late in sending forces to defend the Philippines in the
face of the growing Japanese threat was the personal dislike by Roosevelt and
key membors of his government of Quezon, whom they considered a corrupt,
disloyal fop. McNutt described him as "the statesman as lounge lizard."
Goes to show just what a fiasco the whole Philippines episode was. We never
should have taken over the place, and, having taken it over, we should have
dumped it at the earliest possible opportunity, like maybe soon after the last
Moro fighting ended.


Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: Guy Alcala

>> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?
>
>I have a vague memory of reading 30-35gal./hr. somewhere, but don't hold me
>to
>it. The A6M2 had the Sakae 12 engine, which was only rated at 950 hp or so.

So by using the standard procedures outlined by Mr. Stickney, they were cutting
normal fuel consumption by about a third, which sounds right. There used to be
a belief in the long ago that low rpm and high manifold pressure would wreck an
engine, but everybody seems to have discovered that wasn't so as soon as they
needed to extend range.

USN numbers interesting. Thanks for posting.

Ah, found something, a note from a fellow who flew P-40Ns in the Pacific,
saying that he regularly flew combat missions of 800 miles, cruising to and
from the target area at 170IAS at 8,000ft., 30gph. This would get them over
the target with nearly empty 75g belly tanks, which they would jettison, do
their thing and head home, landing after about 5 hours in the air.


Chris Mark

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >> In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
> >> built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
> >> service and only one ever went on patrol.
> >
> > This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice
> > building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only
> > the post war German navy but were extensively used by others.
> >
> > Some XXI's were for example a long time in use
> > by:
> >
> > France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967)
> > Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514
> > USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515
> > USA: U 2513, 3008
> >
>
> There's a difference between evaulation and being
> the backbone.

Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used
as agressor subs in exercises. Presumably untill the Porpoise and
Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of
anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to
them untill they had something of their own.


>
> The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
> were operational for very long

Do you know for how long?

> and certainly didnt
> form the backbone of the submarine force. The
> USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
> RN built the O & P classes

The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the
British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way
they worked and used ballast tanks.

Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way
could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme
diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth
charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats.


>
> >
> >> The list of ships sunk by this type follows
> >>
> >> <Start of List>
> >> <End of List>
> >
> > Not for lack of capabillity:
> >
>
> Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
> a sign of a lack of capability

Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial
problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit
your opinions.

The Type XXI was able to demonstrate its abillity to opperate against
heavily defended British capital ships towards the end of WW2 and its
succesfull and extensive use for 20 years after the war by the German
and French Navy showed it was a solid designe with no basic problems.
It was used by the other navies as well: for how long I don't know.

The reality is that the type XXI was a breakthrough in concept.


>
> Keith

[Eunometic]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0700, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >While agreeing on the ineptitiude its clear that the IJN had a clear
> >superiority in terms of modern fighter aircraft.
>
> Not really. Read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom for an account of
> how the inexperienced USN carrier pilots fared against the
> China-blooded JNAF pilots during the first six months of the war. They
> came out almost exactly even. That would suggest that the Wildcat was
> the better plane, or else that the American pilots were
> extraordinarily fast learners.

The Wildcat didn't have the manoeverability of the zero however the
Wildcat pilots had radios. They developed something called a Thatch
weave to keep zeroes of each others tail. Also armour is worth
something.



>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Tom Cervo]

>>>Again you show an ignorance of history. Singapore's defenses were directed
>>>seaward since the British didn't think an attack could be launched
>>>successfully from land.

The guns were mounted there to defend against surprise attacks from surface
raiders. They swung around to fire at the Japanese, but they had little idea of
where the Japanese really were and a lot of shells went into empty jungle.

As for Hawaii there were several errors made in intelligence
>>>interpretation and defense planning. They were more worried about Japanese
>>>spies and saboteurs than about an unprecedented seaborne attack. In case
>>>you didn't know it there really were Japanese spies there.

And in Singapore a British captain serving as an Air Liasion Officer was
passing secrets to the Japanese.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "B2431" == B2431 > writes:

B2431> /../ Singapore's
B2431> defenses were directed seaward since the British didn't
B2431> think an attack could be launched successfully from
B2431> land.

That is a myth: there were large guns with full 360 degree traversal,
and many others also covered the land angles. However, the mind-set of
assuming a naval attack, coupled with inadequate funds, resulted in
only (or predominantly) AP (and maybe SAP) shells in stock, with no HE
available for use in anti-ground actions.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message

>
> Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used
> as agressor subs in exercises.

Actually not, only U-3017 was commissioned and then only for a
short period of trials

> Presumably untill the Porpoise and
> Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of
> anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to
> them untill they had something of their own.
>

Your presumption is incorrect. Post war the RN depended
on the A-Class submarines

>
> >
> > The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
> > were operational for very long
>
> Do you know for how long?
>

Yes - the only boat put into service by the RN was scrapped in 1949

> > and certainly didnt
> > form the backbone of the submarine force. The
> > USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
> > RN built the O & P classes
>
> The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the
> British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way
> they worked and used ballast tanks.
>

Dont be silly. The hull form is entirely different and all submarines
use ballast tanks.

> Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way
> could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme
> diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth
> charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats.
>

Only one of those vunderveapons ever went on patrol
with no kills. Compare and contrast with the record
of the US Fleet submarines.

>
> >
> > >
> > >> The list of ships sunk by this type follows
> > >>
> > >> <Start of List>
> > >> <End of List>
> > >
> > > Not for lack of capabillity:
> > >
> >
> > Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
> > a sign of a lack of capability
>
> Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial
> problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit
> your opinions.
>

Only one boat made a patrol - that is no exaggeration.

Keith

[Guy Alcala]

Chris Mark wrote:

> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> >> What was "normal" fuel consumption for the Zero?
> >
> >I have a vague memory of reading 30-35gal./hr. somewhere, but don't hold me
> >to
> >it. The A6M2 had the Sakae 12 engine, which was only rated at 950 hp or so.
>
> So by using the standard procedures outlined by Mr. Stickney, they were cutting
> normal fuel consumption by about a third, which sounds right. There used to be
> a belief in the long ago that low rpm and high manifold pressure would wreck an
> engine, but everybody seems to have discovered that wasn't so as soon as they
> needed to extend range.

My dad taught me to value overdrive gears and shift early for the same reason, many
years ago. I seem to get far better mileage than most people I talk to with the
same car do, and I don't drive around at LOL from Pasadena speeds. Come to think
of it, my first car, handed down from my Dad, was a '65 Chevy Impala SS with 3 on
the tree and an overdrive; it also had an MP gauge, but I confess I rarely paid any
attention to it. Barring the need for a rapid accel, I was in 3rd by 20 and 3rd
Over by 28-30, and the engine (283 V-8) was perfectly happy to do that. 240,000
miles and never had the head off, although it did leak oil pretty badly towards the
end of its 23 year career in my family. Compression was still within normal
limits, though.

> USN numbers interesting. Thanks for posting.
>
> Ah, found something, a note from a fellow who flew P-40Ns in the Pacific,
> saying that he regularly flew combat missions of 800 miles, cruising to and
> from the target area at 170IAS at 8,000ft., 30gph. This would get them over
> the target with nearly empty 75g belly tanks, which they would jettison, do
> their thing and head home, landing after about 5 hours in the air.

Yeah, that was the other advantage in the PTO, you could cruise most of the way to
the target at low to medium altitudes. While the air miles per gallon are better
at higher altitude, you aren't burning all the extra gas in the climb up to
altitude at high power settings. B-29s also benefitted from moderate outbound
cruise altitudes when bombing Japan. It was a lot easier on the engines, you didn't
need to be on O2 the whole mission, and you saved a bunch of fuel thatcould be
instead used to up the bombload.

That was generally the case in the Med too, but not in the ETO where you were
potentially in danger the moment you went feet dry over the continent, so you had
to cruise at high power settings at high altitude to avoid bounces. That's
probably the main reason why the P-38's Allisons worked well everywhere _but_ the
ETO.

Guy

[Cub Driver]

On 23 Sep 2004 15:49:24 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
>disease.

Well, Chris, I don't know if I agree with that. Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; Cuba and
Puerto Rico; Panama (okay, that was post-Spain), the Phillippines, and
Guam as you just mentioned. Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico. It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism, perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism :).

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment. We are much nicer
about it in 2001 than we were in 1901, but it's still colonialism of a
sort.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing. It was a benign
sort of colonialism (France asked us to leave after a couple of
decades, and we went, a pretty rare event in the history of
colonialism) but still...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:51:08 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>If you've chosen
>the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
>drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
>will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
>I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.

I don't know if this is relevant, but when Glen Edwards flew from
Goose Bay in Canada to Bluie West One in Greenland, he remarked how
uncomfortable it was, flying at the edge of a stall with his nose high
and his tail low.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:51:08 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>If you've chosen
>>the proper cruise altitude, you'll be chugging along at the minumum
>>drag IAS (Speed for best climb), and what determines your endurance
>>will be whether the relief tube's plugged.
>>I suspect that that's wht Lindy really taught them.
>
> I don't know if this is relevant, but when Glen Edwards flew from
> Goose Bay in Canada to Bluie West One in Greenland, he remarked how
> uncomfortable it was, flying at the edge of a stall with his nose high
> and his tail low.

Quite relevant, I'd say. Ernie Gann wrote about it in "Fate is the
Hunter", as well. Apparently it went against every gut feeling they
had. Even today, you'll find people who'll tell you that running an
engine "oversquare" (More Manifold pressure in Inches Hg than RPM in
100s - say, 30" vs 3000R) is Absolutely Evil. (Again, you'll only
get there with a controllable pitch prop - with a fixed pitch, set for
takeoff power at sea level, you'll generally run out of torque defore
you;ll reach the RPM redline at any sort of altitude). While its true
that yo can overboost an engine if you aren't careful, thw Handbook
numbers are solid - the Manufacturer can't get them past the FAA
without proving them.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver

>Americans are
>certainly economic colonialists, even today.

I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

>And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
>on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;

I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Neither Mexico nor
Canada need fear US territorial aggression. And, of course, you intended to
say "Mexico" rather than "Spain," as Mexican independence long preceded
the_Mexican_-American War.

>Cuba and
>Puerto Rico;

I was lumping them in with the whole Spanish-American War, which was what i was
referring to when I said "one brief infection." I should have made that clear.

>Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
>liked so much that we incorporated it,

Mr. Alcala had already mentioned Hawaii in his post, and as I agreed with his
comments I didn't bring it up again.
The Hawaii annexation is also a part of the S-A War "infection," because Hawaii
was a fine staging base for operations in the Philippines, although probably
even without that war, annexation was inevitable sometime during the McKinley
administration. Had Bryan been elected in 1896 it would not have been annexed
and it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Spanish-American War.
Grover Cleveland, who refused to consider annexing Hawaii during his
administration, wrote at the time, "Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the
first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to
complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair."

>o much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
>done with Puerto Rico.

yep. But it is a legacy of that one infection.
>It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
>aversion to colonialism,

You have to throw huge qualifications on that. There was major domestic
opposition to US colonialist or colonialist-like actions from the get-go. Just
as there has been opposition to the current US adventure in Iraq.
Again, I quote Grover Cleveland: "I mistake the American people if they favor
the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality...and
that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weaker one
of its territory." This is quite an amazing thing for an American president to
say in a era that was the height of European Imperial land-grabbing. Cleveland
was emphasizing that America was _not_ like Europe and we would not stoop to do
the dirty things the Europeans did.
The McKinley administration, under the influence of the Boston imperialists
(Henry Cabot Lodge and his crowd), turned away from that view, and their first
target was Hawaii, despite the many difficulties acquisition would cause. As
Alfred Mahan wrote to Theodore Roosevelt: "Take the islands first and solve
the problems afterward." Gee, that sounds like advice somebody must have given
Bush about Iraq. Like they say, history doesn't repeat itself--but it rhymes.

>perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
>Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism :).

True, indeed.

>And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment.

I'm not sure about that. I suppose it depends on how you define "colonial."
They could be described as wars of self-defense. But then, broadly, that was
how the Boston imperialists described their expansionist policies: acquire a
defensive cordon of outlying territories to fend off the expanding imperialist
powers; if we don't take Hawaii, Britain will; if we don't take the PI, Germany
will; etc.
We certainly don't intend to annex Afghanistan and Iraq after the fashion of
Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

>One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
>mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
>following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing.

But that, again, was a defensive action. We certainly had no plans to do that
before the Soviet threat became clear. In fact, at Yalta, when Stalin
specifically asked Roosevelt how long the US would maintain troops in Europe
after the fighting ended, FDR responded two years at most. This fact was one
of the reasons that it was agreed to rehabilitate France as a "great" power and
give it a zone of occupation in Germany.

People look at the events of history from different perspectives. I do believe
the words "colonialism" and "imperialism" are bandied about too freely these
days, now that most have forgotten what _real_ imperialism and colonialism
were. US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination. Since we have de
facto been in charge of the planet post 1945 we have bungled badly at times,
but compared to how the world was managed in the half century before we took
over, we've done very well, indeed, for ourselves--and for the world.




Chris Mark

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Cub Driver
>
>>Americans are
>>certainly economic colonialists, even today.
>
> I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?
>
>>And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
>>on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;
>
> I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
> country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
> stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii.

Not to mention the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and a
significant number of islands in the Pacific such as
Wake, Guam, Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc and there's the
panama canal zone of course

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind. See Banana Wars.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

Keith

[Denyav]

>>Ouote:
>>"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35
>>
>Is it? Why?

If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a
system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of
your plans,I guess

>o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
>Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
>time.

Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR,
(Council on Foreign Relations).

Does CFR really exist?
Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?



>The
>British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
>the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
>learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
>majority of the population is concerned.

Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber
than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc.

You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than
Britons ruled Indians.

But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but
almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies.

This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural
Assertiveness".

Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented
cultural highpoint of their era.

Confident cultures need not be assertive.period.

>Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
>Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
>the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.

Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course)
Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any
body in empire to use their language.

>Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
>events is concerned.

Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to
create the Empire accidental .

>sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
>many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
>Henry Ford rich? You've been

In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

>Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.
>
Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in
real world.


>nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
>--

Does it matter?
Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent?

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"

>Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

>Puerto Rico

Discussed






Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"

>Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

>Puerto Rico

Discussed

>Wake,

Ceded to the US by Spain as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War,
which has been discussed

>Guam,

Discussed

>Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc

Spanish possessions sold to Germany, seized by Japan, seized by the US.
Already discussed.

>panama canal zone

Mentioned, not discussed

>Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
>in various central and south american nations
>to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
>1933 comes to mind.

Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing
as imperialism, although the more radical left (and libertarian right) loves to
obscure the difference. Lumping US actions in Central America into the same
box with what the US did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines is to make a false
comparison.

>The fact is the US went through a colonial period
>too.

No one has disputed that. The proposition is that the US flirtation with
"classic" imperialism was brief in duration and limited in extent, largely due
to domestic opposition.


Chris Mark

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>

>
> Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
> ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same
thing
> as imperialism,

Of course it is, thats why Britain built an Empire fer crying
out loud.

Keith

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"

<snip>

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Chris Mark

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Denyav
> writes
>>>Ouote:
>>>"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35
>>>
>>Is it? Why?
>
>If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a
>system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of
>your plans,I guess
>
Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?

>>o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
>>Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
>>time.
>
>Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR,
>(Council on Foreign Relations).
>
I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.

>Does CFR really exist?
>Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
>source located inside Great Britain?
>
More obscure thinking.
>
>
>>The
>>British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
>>the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
>>learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
>>majority of the population is concerned.
>
>Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber
>than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc.

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.
>
>You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than
>Britons ruled Indians.
>
>But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but
>almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies.
>
>This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural
>Assertiveness".
>
>Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented
>cultural highpoint of their era.
>
>Confident cultures need not be assertive.period.
>
The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

>>Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
>>Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
>>the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.
>
>Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course)
>Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any
>body in empire to use their language.
>
What has Italian got to do with it? The Romans didn't speak it.

>>Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
>>events is concerned.
>
>Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to
>create the Empire accidental .
>
Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

>>sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
>>many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
>>Henry Ford rich? You've been
>
>In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course.
>
So the British Army occupied the Saar, concluded the Anschluss, occupied
Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland?

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

>A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would
>be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win
>
What?

>>Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.
>>
>Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in
>real world.
>
And you do know what's happening? How?

>
>>nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
>>--
>
>Does it matter?
>Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent?

Of course it matters! You're the one who is telling us all that we're
subject to an "Anglo" conspiracy. You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>
> <snip>
>
> I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points
already
> discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were
only
> interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
> Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
> conversation with you.
> Have a nice day.
>

Evasion noted

Keith

[Bill Kambic]

(Eunometic) wrote in message

> > Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
> > 22 nm away?
>
> The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
> however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
> version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
> submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
> surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
> torpedoes about 1800 at this time.
>
> I expect a spread of torpedoes were fired such that at extreme range 6
> or 8 torpedoes would be distributed every 100 meters or so for an
> 600-800 meter wide hit window. Don't forget a ship is likely to be
> between 100 to 300 meter long.

In theory "yes," but in practice "no."

Torpedoes were/are VERY expensive weapons and were not carried in
large numbers. A prudent captain would not engage in this kind of
"browning shot" unless the target were VERY high value or there were
some other dramatic reason so do so.

It might also be well to consider that a sub in WWII would have a very
difficult time identifying an anchored target from 22,000 yards
(absent a good radar).

> The Germans had torpedoes that could run various types of zig-zag and
> circling patterns either aimed at individual ships or designed to run
> through convoys. The patterns were becoming more sophisticated as the
> mechanisms improved. So presumnably if the range measure was wrong or
> the target evaded the torpedo it could turn around and have another
> attempt.

These "fish" were developed to enhance the survivability of the sub,
not to increase the probability of a hit, which they do not do. As
the War progressed the effectiveness of the U-Boat was steadily
declining as its losses increased. With the Kriegsmarine looking at a
1-1 loss ratio they had to try something.

Far more innovative were their attempts at accoustic homing torpedoes.

> The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which
> could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets.
> Hit rates of around 80% were common.

Was this the figure in '40 or in '44? Can you cite a reference for
these numbers?

> A combination of German and Japanese technology would have been lethal
> I expect though who knows how good the japanese torpedoe guidence was?

Good enough.

> US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming
> by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth.

No, not really.

U.S. tactics (as I understand them) required a visual approach and
shot. Sonar (and, later, radar) was (were) used to facilitate that
approach. This does not mean that "sound" shots were not used; but,
given the cost and limited number of weapons, there were not favored.

Also, the problem with early U.S. torpedoes was the exploder, not the
guidance system.

> The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
> accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
> attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
> electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
> more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
> active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
> periscope.

I have never heard this claim, before. Can you cite a source for it?

Bill Kambic

Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-30, FASOTRAGRULANT

[Denyav]

>Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
>century France? 20th century USSR?
>

Whats about 21st century US?

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
>comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
>comprehension if it's written sensibly.
>

As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

>>Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
>>source located inside Great Britain?
>>
>More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

>No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
>up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.
Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.
What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

>The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
>ignoring the question of education.
>
See above

>Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
>showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

>Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
>conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
>war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
>Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

>A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic
>stuff,would
>>be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win
>>
>What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

>And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

>You might do us the courtesy of
>letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
>--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

[Guy Alcala]

Bill Kambic wrote:

> (Eunometic) wrote in message
>
> > > Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
> > > 22 nm away?
> >
> > The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
> > however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
> > version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
> > submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
> > surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
> > torpedoes about 1800 at this time.

This is, of course, wholly inaccurate. The standard US DD torp, the 21"
Mk.15, had three speed settings: 15,000 yds/26.5 kts, 10,000 yds/33.5 kts;
6,000 yds/45 kts, the speed chosen depending on the circumstances. Night
attacks would normally be at short range (pre-radar), so the highest speed
was used then. Daytime attacks on a battle line would normally be at the
longest possible range, although the speed was considered a bit low, so the
intermediate speed was provided to allow a better chance of hitting if
conditions allowed so close an approach. Use of oxygen would have allowed
an increase in range and/or speed, but safety concerns, lack of funds and
inertia on the part of BuOrd delayed development of such torps for the US.
The US eventually went with hydrogen peroxide, but development wasn't in
time to get them into service during the war. The Mk. 16 for subs was rated
at 11,000 yds/46 kts, while the Mk. 17 for DDs was rated at 18,000/46 kts.

The 21" Mk. 14 submarine torp also had a choice of speeds: 9,000 yd/31.1
kts; 4,500 yds/46 kts. Aimed shots were only considered likely to have a
reasonable probability of hitting when fired under 2,000 yds. The extra
range gave a cushion and allowed 'cross your fingers and hope' shots to be
fired. I'm unaware of any warshots being taken at the lower speed setting.

> > The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which
> > could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets.
> > Hit rates of around 80% were common.
>
> Was this the figure in '40 or in '44? Can you cite a reference for
> these numbers?

Seems highly unlikely, since high hit rates (of the U-boat aces) were based
on them closing to very short range on the surface at night (ca.600-800m)
and taking single shots. At that range it was almost impossible to miss.
Unfortunately for them the allies got centimetric radar, and that approach
no longer worked.

> > US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming
> > by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth.
>
> No, not really.
>
> U.S. tactics (as I understand them) required a visual approach and
> shot.

Prewar, the US planned to make pure sonar approaches and shots, owing to the
overrated effectiveness of sonar. This tended to breed very conservative,
risk averse commanders (indeed, those who weren't and tried periscope or
even night surface attacks in practice were slapped down), so in addition to
problems with the Mk.14 torpedo, it took a year or so of the war to weed out
many of the pre-war commanders who lacked the aggressiveness for combat.

> Sonar (and, later, radar) was (were) used to facilitate that
> approach. This does not mean that "sound" shots were not used; but,
> given the cost and limited number of weapons, there were not favored.
>
> Also, the problem with early U.S. torpedoes was the exploder, not the
> guidance system.

They did tend to run a sinusoidal path, and typically about 10 feet deeper
than set. That was a separate problem from the exploders, and the one found
and fixed first.

>
>
> > The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually
> > accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading
> > attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays
> > electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far
> > more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both
> > active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of
> > periscope.
>
> I have never heard this claim, before. Can you cite a source for it?

GHG was a good unit, operating at subsonic frequencies, and copies/updates
based on it were used by both the British and US (and probably the
Soviets). The BQR-4 bow array for the postwar SSKs was the American
equivalent. I very much doubt passive ranging capability for fire control
in WW2; that takes far too long and is too inexact. Single-ping range would
be more likely.

Guy

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Denyav
> writes

Another reply from the selective snipmeister, I see.


>>Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
>>century France? 20th century USSR?
>>
>
>Whats about 21st century US?
>
Answer the question.

>I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
>>comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
>>comprehension if it's written sensibly.
>>
>
>As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
>apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
>Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
>as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
>meant.
>
It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said it
and we might get somewhere.

>>>Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
>>>source located inside Great Britain?
>>>
>>More obscure thinking.
>
>No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
>loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.
>
What?

>>No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
>>up.
>
>Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
>language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
>building using "cultural assertiveness".
>
What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

>The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
>elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
>colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
>resistance aganist colonial masters.
>
Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

>For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.

Untrue.

>Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
>whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
>peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
>picture than peasants.
>
Hardly a valid comparison.

>Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
>nature.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

>What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
>colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
>masters.
>
Rubbish.

>>The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
>>ignoring the question of education.
>>
>See above
>
>>Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
>>showing again.
>
>Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
>more freely in colonies .
>
So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

>>Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
>>conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
>>war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
>>Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.
>
>Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
>years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
>power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
>investment.
>Typical Anglo pragmatism.
>
But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

>>A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic
>>stuff,would
>>>be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win
>>>
>>What?
>
>Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.
>
Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

>>And you do know what's happening? How?
>
>If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.
>
What?

>>You might do us the courtesy of
>>letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
>>--
>
>In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
>very good condition.
>I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

But WHO ARE THEY???

Despite my attempts at finding out what is behind your bigotry and
hatred of these "Anglos" and their alleged world domination, you still
refuse to justify your ravings or to tell us what the purpose of this
conspiracy is.

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:44:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Bill Kambic wrote:
>
>> (Eunometic) wrote in message
>>
>> > > Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
>> > > 22 nm away?
>> >
>> > The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
>> > however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
>> > version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
>> > submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
>> > surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
>> > torpedoes about 1800 at this time.
>
>This is, of course, wholly inaccurate.


Did you expect anything else ?
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

[Cub Driver]

On 24 Sep 2004 15:36:34 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

> US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
>prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination.

Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
way :) It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
simply carried colonialism to a new level.

("Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld would say.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Guy Alcala]

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:44:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >This is, of course, wholly inaccurate.
>
> Did you expect anything else ?

No, but every once in a while I feel an uncontrollable urge to inject some
reality into eunometic's cloistered world.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Twydell wrote:

> In article >, Denyav
> > writes

<snip>

> I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.
>
> You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Peter Twydell wrote:
>
>> In article >, Denyav
>> > writes
>
><snip>
>
>> I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.
>>
>> You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
>
>Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now
>killfile him like
>the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
>attempts to have a coherent argument with him.
>
>Guy
>
There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
next time anyway.

Over on the rec.sport.rugby.union newsgroup (devoted to one of the two
greatest sports on the planet), there is the RSRU Shield, a virtual
competition between national teams. The first holder was South Africa,
who were awarded the Shield after their World Cup win in 1995. The
Shield
changes hands every time the holder loses a Test match. Funnily enough,
South Africa holds it at the moment, having beaten Australia recently.
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Denyav]

>Answer the question.
>

Less than 20% is the percentage of Anglo-Americans in US acc.to census figures

>It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
>ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
>"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said

I dont know if you like it but:

The quote was taken from John Flints book "Cecil Rhodes" published in 1976.
If you want to see full version of Rhodes' 1876 "Confession of Faith" you
better check out this book.
The Author has published the both versions of Rhodes' "will" ,one written by
himself in his own handwriting,other written by his clerk .
If you read the book we might get somewhere possibly.

>>No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch
>or
>>loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.
>>
>What?

Well,for more information I strongly recommend you to read Bill Clintons
mentor Carroll Quigley's book "The Anglo-American establisment"

Highly Secretive "Round Table Group" is behind of the current events in the
world,and our famous CFR is nothing but a loudspeaker for this secretive group.

>What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
>before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
>tongue was needed to unify the country.

If I remember correctly the motto of the Empire was "Divide and Rule" not
"Unite and Rule"
So,the reason behind the introduction of English in colonies must be anything
BUT unification.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
>Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
>people there.

Sounds like you are describing existing social structures in Britain at that
time.>For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all
>methods.
>
>Untrue.
>
>

Unfortunately true,Empire did everything imaginable to eliminate Brahmins,which
were Indias best educated elite and tried to replace them with a new
"nomenclature" educated in British founded schools and with "Gazzetta
Officers".

>pretty hard to be friendly with the
>>peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
>>picture than peasants.
>>
>Hardly a valid comparison.

Why? .Replace Brits with Germans and Brahmins with Polish then you have exactly
the same picture.

>Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
>world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

I wonder why there is not even one former British colony among G-7 or 8
countries whereas countries that were not fortunate enough to receive an
education courtesy of Pax Britannia,for example Japan,are among the most
developed,even though some former colonies were more developed than Japan
before they received education courtesy of Pax Brittannia?

I also wonder why many of worlds current hot spots,if not all, are the
countries that were fortunane enough to receive an education courtesy of Pax
Britannia?

Any explanations greatly appreciated.

>>What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
>>colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
>>masters.
>>
>Rubbish.
That was the way the Anglo empire (and others) work.

>So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
>exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
>Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Surely it was not only reason but one of the reasons

..>But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
>first place.

You possibly could not find anybody with less IQ than Nazis in Germany at that
time.


>Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
>Agreement?

This date was too early,even Idiots like Nazi management could see it.

>>>And you do know what's happening? How?
>>
>>If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.
>>
>What?

Why Sir David (David King) got involved in a nasty discussion with George W. ?,

What about could possibly our Prez without stellar IQ number discuss with
Britains top "official" scientists?.

Why the discussion turned nasty and Mr.Blair got a complain about that?

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver

>Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I'm glad I didn't! A few paragraphs in a usenet posting can't possibly be that
persuasive.

>I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
>years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
>you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
>can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
>way :) It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
>colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
>simply carried colonialism to a new
>level.

It's interesting that the Spanish-American War episode, which was so very close
to the classic European pattern of colonial imperialism stands as a singularity
in American power projection. It really wasn't what we were all about. That's
why it fell so easily victim to the scorn and satire of Bryan, Twain and Moody,
and was quickly viewed by Americans as an "ope'ra bouffe" imperial adventure
full of cheap jingoism that made the protagonists of the adventure--Hay,
Beveridge, Mahan and even TR--look like ninnies.
But the whole episode, with its noisy fireworks and the hoopla of Hearst
journalism, was marginal to the development of American power. The amasing of
American "imperial" power has scarcely followed the classic European pattern at
all. It has operated by the techniques of trade, investment and profitable
sales in foreign markets (you alluded to this in an earlier post and I was
hoping to draw you into a discussion of this interesting topic). It has not
been averse toward using "dollar diplomacy" to remove the obstructions in the
path of business profits (the Clinton Administration was very gung-ho on this),
to start convenient revolutions or quell inconvenient ones, and it has used
economic and technical aid as needed to secure its interests.
The S-A war did mark the coming of age of the US as a world power, and after
briefly veering into that European colonial rut, the country has stuck to an
amazingly consistant pattern. Since that time, and very especially since WW2,
which focused us wonderfully, the US has surprised both friends and foes by
its assertive diplomacy and an almost bristling eagerness to use American
military power. This policy reflects the basic American outlook or character,
unchanged from earliest days. It can be seen in every foreign engagement we
enter:
The attraction and recoil pattern, the fear of being hoodwinked by foreign
wiles, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, the demand for signs of affection
from the beneficiaries of American largess, the huffiness when these are not
forthcoming, the anxious pursuit of "national security," the belief that the
American angel must always, in the end, look homeward, followed by
introspection and the desire to withdraw from world affairs, only to be
followed by a reassertion of raw American power whenever the country encounters
a challenge from which it cannot escape. In the past that challenge was
German, Japanese, Soviet; today it is Islamic. We crush genuine threats with
brutal, unswayable determination--whatever it costs, however long it takes.
I don't believe this is at heart an "imperialistic" pattern: it is
self-defense writ large.


Chris Mark

[John Keeney]

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
> What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
> award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
> (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
> Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
> be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
> be awarded the trophy until the next one.

I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
of acronyms, hell yes.
But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.

[Guy Alcala]

John Keeney wrote:

> "Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
> > award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
> > (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
> > Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
> > be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
> > be awarded the trophy until the next one.
>
> I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
> a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
> of acronyms, hell yes.
> But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
> staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.

While I agree with you re Kurt not being a loon, I think I'd have to disagree
on your R&D group suggestion. Think of the extra overhead involved -- they'd
either all have to be sent to the Defense Language Institute at Monterey to
learn how to understand Kurt's prose, or else develop a computer translation
program to decode all the acronyms and Plummerisms, and constantly update the
database as new ones are added. The last item by itself is a full-time job.
Granted, familiarity with Kurt's style does help with the decoding, but it's
just not worth the investment of time and energy for a small R&D shop.

Guy (who doesn't miss having to read and decipher plummerisms such as
"Dorito'd" or "Just so the Monkey can push the Pulsar button")

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Twydell wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes
> >Peter Twydell wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Denyav
> >> > writes
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.
> >>
> >> You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
> >
> >Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now
> >killfile him like
> >the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
> >attempts to have a coherent argument with him.
> >
> >Guy
> >
> There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
> the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
> it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
> justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
> did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
> after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
> relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
> next time anyway.
>
> Over on the rec.sport.rugby.union newsgroup (devoted to one of the two
> greatest sports on the planet), there is the RSRU Shield, a virtual
> competition between national teams. The first holder was South Africa,
> who were awarded the Shield after their World Cup win in 1995. The
> Shield
> changes hands every time the holder loses a Test match. Funnily enough,
> South Africa holds it at the moment, having beaten Australia recently.
> What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
> award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
> (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
> Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
> be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
> be awarded the trophy until the next one.

Would seriously mis-wired types like ZZbunker qualify, or is that a separate
'Garble' trophy? And do we need sub-categories, like any bloated awards show? You
know, Monomaniac of the Year, with sub-categories for Deutschland uber
Alles/Luftwaffe'46, TWA 800, USS Liberty, Iran Airbus, Area 51 (often awarded
jointly with DuA/L '46), Best New Obsession (political election obsessions are
banned), Most Promising New Loon (no, on second thought, no loons are promising),
etc. And of course a lifetime achievement award, given to the Loon who has
demonstrated an extreme level of sustained lunacy over many years. The award has
to be named after a Loon who has left the Internet community seemingly forever for
whatever reason, so that it can be a memorial award. I have a nominee in mind, but
like George Washington being the near unanimous choice to be the first President of
the US, I imagine everyone here on r.a.m. would vote my candidate in by
acclamation.

Guy

[denyav]

> >
> >Guy
> >
> There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
> the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
> it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
> justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
> did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
> after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
> relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
> next time anyway.


Did you read to books I referred to? I guess not.

Remember the fundamental principle of Anglo-American education system:
The individuals who know ,do not get suspicious and the goal of our
education is to produce individuals who know.period.


Another hint for you,try to find out what William Cohen said to
Senators Nunn and Lugar during Conference on Terrorism,Weapons of Mass
Destruction and US Strategy in Georgia Center in 1997.
Hopefully,your "rationality" helps to understand message of Mr.Brown.

[Cub Driver]

On 25 Sep 2004 23:44:15 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>The amasing of
>American "imperial" power has scarcely followed the classic European pattern at
>all. It has operated by the techniques of trade, investment and profitable
>sales in foreign markets

In Puccini's opera Madama Butterfly, the USS "Abraham Lincoln" sails
into Nagasaki(!) Bay, and an American lieutenant named Pinkerton meets
and marries a local girl on a 99-year lease (subject to cancelation at
any time). Just before the wedding there's a fairly long discussion of
how the "Yankee sailor" goes about the world, doing business and
meeting women. At the end of this bit of business, Pinkerton and the
American consul raise their whiskey glasses and toast: "America
forever!"

It is the only English in the opera--indeed, the only English I can
recall in any Puccini opera. Even when he composed an opera about "The
Girl of the Golden West" (La Fancuilla del West), he wasn't moved to
include any English dialogue.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>John Keeney wrote:
>
>> "Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
>> > award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
>> > (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
>> > Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
>> > be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
>> > be awarded the trophy until the next one.
>>
>> I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
>> a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
>> of acronyms, hell yes.
>> But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
>> staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.
>
>While I agree with you re Kurt not being a loon, I think I'd have to disagree
>on your R&D group suggestion. Think of the extra overhead involved -- they'd
>either all have to be sent to the Defense Language Institute at Monterey to
>learn how to understand Kurt's prose, or else develop a computer translation
>program to decode all the acronyms and Plummerisms, and constantly update the
>database as new ones are added. The last item by itself is a full-time job.
>Granted, familiarity with Kurt's style does help with the decoding, but it's
>just not worth the investment of time and energy for a small R&D shop.
>
>Guy (who doesn't miss having to read and decipher plummerisms such as
>"Dorito'd" or "Just so the Monkey can push the Pulsar button")
>
>
Yes, you're both right (how often do you see _that_ in this ng?). My
apologies to Kurt Plummer for classifying him as a loon. The common
factor is their incomprehensibility, I suppose. Some people get even
more obscure the more you ask for clarification.

Did you remember those expressions, Guy, or did you look them up?
If the former, please get help soon! :-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:

> While I agree with you re Kurt not being a loon, I think I'd have to disagree
> on your R&D group suggestion. Think of the extra overhead involved -- they'd
> either all have to be sent to the Defense Language Institute at Monterey to
> learn how to understand Kurt's prose, or else develop a computer translation
> program to decode all the acronyms and Plummerisms, and constantly update the
> database as new ones are added. The last item by itself is a full-time job.
> Granted, familiarity with Kurt's style does help with the decoding, but it's
> just not worth the investment of time and energy for a small R&D shop.

I wonder what the Indian Chief from the "Go-Go Gophers" is doing?
I think he'd be a perfect translator.

"What him say?"
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Twydell wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes

<snip>

> >Guy (who doesn't miss having to read and decipher plummerisms such as
> >"Dorito'd" or "Just so the Monkey can push the Pulsar button")
> >
> >
> Yes, you're both right (how often do you see _that_ in this ng?). My
> apologies to Kurt Plummer for classifying him as a loon. The common
> factor is their incomprehensibility, I suppose. Some people get even
> more obscure the more you ask for clarification.
>
> Did you remember those expressions, Guy, or did you look them up?
> If the former, please get help soon! :-)

Some things are burned into your brain, and nothing can remove them;-)

Guy

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, John Keeney >
writes
>
>"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
>> What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
>> award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
>> (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
>> Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
>> be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
>> be awarded the trophy until the next one.
>
>I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
>a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
>of acronyms, hell yes.
>But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
>staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.

Sorry, but Kurt was a bit of a fanatic on a few issues. We're not
talking R&D - there's an office-full of guys next door to me doing just
that for "how do we use UAVs at sea?" and actually *using* the kit to
learn what it can do rather than just blindly accepting brochure claims.
(For example, one US UAV lost its chance for a trial because it was
unable to safely be landed aboard a frigate - the sort of trivial detail
Kurt sneered at but is crucial to actually *using* the equipment).

Kurt would say "Bwahahahahahah! You IDIOTS!" for not already having...
er... something in service to do... well... something... but it's a
FANTASTIC idea and it's all the fault of SITM BTC dinosaurs that his
proposed SOTAMC isn't SIAWU across a WROOWS.

"Loon" might be too strong, but he didn't connect closely to reality, or
play well with others... and imagination is the easy part.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, John Keeney >
> writes
> >
> >"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
> >> award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
> >> (lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
> >> Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
> >> be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
> >> be awarded the trophy until the next one.
> >
> >I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
> >a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
> >of acronyms, hell yes.
> >But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
> >staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.
>
> Sorry, but Kurt was a bit of a fanatic on a few issues. We're not
> talking R&D - there's an office-full of guys next door to me doing just
> that for "how do we use UAVs at sea?" and actually *using* the kit to
> learn what it can do rather than just blindly accepting brochure claims.
> (For example, one US UAV lost its chance for a trial because it was
> unable to safely be landed aboard a frigate - the sort of trivial detail
> Kurt sneered at but is crucial to actually *using* the equipment).
>
> Kurt would say "Bwahahahahahah! You IDIOTS!" for not already having...
> er... something in service to do... well... something... but it's a
> FANTASTIC idea and it's all the fault of SITM BTC dinosaurs that his
> proposed SOTAMC isn't SIAWU across a WROOWS.

Please stop now, I'm getting the kind of headache I haven't had for about
three years;-)

> "Loon" might be too strong, but he didn't connect closely to reality, or
> play well with others... and imagination is the easy part.

Kurt definitely went spinning off the deep end before he left us, as, with a
wave of his hand and a Hi-Yo, Silver!, he'd make all the practical
difficulties go away. But no, he wasn't a loon. You can be a unpleasant
fanatic, and still not be a loon.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
>
> > While I agree with you re Kurt not being a loon, I think I'd have to disagree
> > on your R&D group suggestion. Think of the extra overhead involved -- they'd
> > either all have to be sent to the Defense Language Institute at Monterey to
> > learn how to understand Kurt's prose, or else develop a computer translation
> > program to decode all the acronyms and Plummerisms, and constantly update the
> > database as new ones are added. The last item by itself is a full-time job.
> > Granted, familiarity with Kurt's style does help with the decoding, but it's
> > just not worth the investment of time and energy for a small R&D shop.
>
> I wonder what the Indian Chief from the "Go-Go Gophers" is doing?
> I think he'd be a perfect translator.
>
> "What him say?"

Trust you to dredge up a memory that I hadn't accessed for probably 30 years;-)
For some reason that one never stuck with me. OTOH, pretty much any Looney Tunes
or Jay Ward cartoon is engraved on my memory and will likely stick with me into
senility. There we'll all be in the retirement home, dribbling our oatmeal down
the front of our clothes while heartily singing along to the theme from
SuperChicken, and then giving the punchlines for all the cartoons early:

"Cavalleria Rusticana."

"Audience?!"

And we all croak out "Rigoletto!", followed by a bunch of coughing. It's a scary
thought.

Guy