PDA

View Full Version : The Aviator: remark about the Zero



EnGaurde
02-16-2005, 03:40 PM
watched the aviator movie with di caprio the other night.

in it, he (hughes) makes reference about how the Japanese stole "his" model 21 for their Zero.

is this based on fact? was it his design? or is it another situation where the american film industry tries to own significant events in history ie the last samurai is apparently american?

EnGaurde
02-16-2005, 03:40 PM
watched the aviator movie with di caprio the other night.

in it, he (hughes) makes reference about how the Japanese stole "his" model 21 for their Zero.

is this based on fact? was it his design? or is it another situation where the american film industry tries to own significant events in history ie the last samurai is apparently american?

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Hollywood.....di caprio <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's your answer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jungmann
02-16-2005, 04:18 PM
Not just a line from the movie--the story's been around for a long time. One of those urban legends, like alligators in the NY sewer system.

There were plenty of small-bodied, large radial-engined fighter prototypes around the word in the mid-30's to inspire the Mitsubishi designers. I think a lot of the swiped-it-from-Hughes thing came out of American attitudes before WWII, which saw the Japanese as a second-rate manufacturing country, only good enough to copy the designs of their betters. This, of course, proved wrong.

Cheers,

DRB_Hookech0
02-16-2005, 04:23 PM
Hmmmm...ever take a look at the Hughes H-1 racer that he set the speed record with?

http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/

on that page...look at the pic of the tail section from underneath.....**** thing looks like a Zero. But I'd be more inclined to say the H-1 was the bases for that open air cockpited early Tojo plane ...the Nate?

Edit:::::

Yes, I'm sure that in the mid to late 30's aircraft designers were all looking at each others planes and thinking...I can do "THAT" better....which is maybe why all radial '30s era planes look a lot alike. Except ofcourse the Germans and the ME series...whatever that started out as.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-16-2005, 04:30 PM
Americans and Europeans couldn't believe that the Japanese had the ability to design a modern fighter plane so they began to look for similar designs that the Japanese may have copied. Its seems totally unsubstantiated. The Zero is radically different from the Hughes plane in just about every respect except some minor physical similarities in its exterior.

Zyzbot
02-16-2005, 04:30 PM
"During the war, Allied intelligence repeatedly suggested that the Zero was a copy of various other types of foreign aircraft, such as the Howard Hughes 1935 air racer and particularly the the Vought 143, a one-off prototype fighter that the Japanese purchased. This was a stretch, since the Vought 143 really didn't look that much like a Zero and was a detestable aircraft in the first place. The idea that a fine machine like the Zero was a copy of it strained all logic. According to Horikoshi, the influence of the Vought 143 on the Zero was limited to the design of the landing gear. "

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html

p1ngu666
02-16-2005, 04:52 PM
that plane looks like iar80 and 81

think zero was pretty much orignal. was a very good design too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 05:05 PM
Polikarpov I~17 looked much like 1930s racer too. Everybody had them.

Still, the Zero was a logical continuation of design philosophy represented in Mitsibishi A5M, and Ki~43 from Ki~27, with Ki~43 not being much different from Zero, even to the point of being called Zero by Allied pilots.

Sorry for my earlier cuteness, but ya I guess with Hughes he would make a claim like that and be big enough for people to give credit where credit is not due.

harryklein66
02-16-2005, 05:27 PM
the the closest aircraft I found, who look like a zero is this one, gloster g.38 (1937).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/G-38.jpg
and the closest aircraft I found, who look like
the H-1 is this one potez 53 (1933)
http://pdennez.free.fr/AVIONS/images/Photos/av735imp.JPG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/potez53.jpg
and according by Krzysztof Janowicz in his book on the fw 190, the one that the H-1 inspire the most was...Kurt Tank...so u see who's copy who is a never ending story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jarink
02-16-2005, 06:44 PM
Gee, and I always thought the A6M looked like the T-6 Texan.

Well, it does in the movies! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

VF-3Thunderboy
02-16-2005, 07:51 PM
http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/pictures/belly.jpg

[Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

...Well, the Zero was not entirley "Japanese" made anyway. The propellor govenor, I believe, and a few other parts were the same American parts used in TBD's.

Yup- good old USA parts in that there Nippon Kite.

As for the Japanese 'habit' of copying all things 'Western', that is a known FACT of many Asian cultures, especially the Japanese.

They would have been better off "copying" one of our radial engines,

The Ki-61 was a 'copy' of the 109, mainly the engine.

Many of their cannon were german knock offs...


etc..

It rather 'racist' to imply that as a culture, the nippons are "totaly origional thinkers 'like Western Cultures.


Only a true cultural ignoramus would even attemt to imply that absurdidty....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
"The nail that sticks out gets pounded down."
-Great Asian Thinker...

EnGaurde
02-16-2005, 08:01 PM
then why didnt they copy the hellcat?

corsair?

b29?

why did the western powers have 4 engine bomber philosophy and why did the japanese stick with the medium bomber attitude?

why did the zero dominate everything so completely early in the war if it was a copy of anything the west had? Id have thought that the US would have said "nyar nyar well goll-llee gee thats our &lt;whatever&gt;, we hell ****n well built that plum sucker sumbeetch too. This is how we woop its &lt;asian racial slur involving eye shape &gt; a$$"

clearly the guns, instruments etc were copied. But the basic airframe? doesnt seem so....

its a funny thing copying, as i read in those provided links. The jarmans seem to have provided the US with a lot of copies too, so have the brits.

its no doubt the zero had design influence from a component frame of mind, but its a little too presumptuous to claim ownership.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2005, 09:06 PM
Lets put this into context like none of you have. Yes surely on one level they are painting that Americanized view of the world but I think thats something being derived from a very critical bias.

The two other levels of this remark that seem to have been more or less missed (one definately, the other was touched on):
1) This appears to be something that H.H. said.
2) Di Caprio is playing the character of a guy who we know right from the start has a number of problems mentally...he's very much the eccentric genius and apparently the real guy was too. The notion that he was paranoid, which is a theme played out throughout the movie, factors into that comment. It doesn't matter if the remark was correct or incorrect...someone paranoid about such a thing would probably have said that no matter where it showed up - even in the hands of another US manufacturer.

I just thing that this is a particular line in the movie that is multifaceted...it draws from history, from character, and it may, probably inadvertantly, draw from a commonly accepted American cultural notion.

Badsight.
02-16-2005, 09:50 PM
Howard Hughes hardly got anything he started fully developed

han freak solo
02-16-2005, 09:54 PM
That Hughes recreation is on GORGEOUS aeroplane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Maybe I could marry it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Aztek_Eagle
02-16-2005, 10:09 PM
The americans say that the plan of atacking pearl habor by air was copy from them aswell!!!!!!!!!!....... this is not lie, some do oficialy say!!!!!!!!! lmao http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif what kind of person would make a plan to atack their own military instalations!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

han freak solo
02-16-2005, 10:50 PM
I bet the US Military has plans written up (but obviously not to be executed) to attack just about any place on the globe, foreign and domestic.

Mad_Hatter009
02-16-2005, 10:51 PM
FOR THE LOVE OF....

I just read the original post and in my haste to answer this I didn't even bother to look at the replies, so forgive me if someone else has said this already. I have seen this said many times, mostly on this forum, and am tired of people's misconceptions. The Last Samuri was not implying that Tom Crusie's character was the last samuri. Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) was the last samuri. Is it really that difficult a concept. Come on people. My apologies to those in the community who are smart enough to figure this out and have to read my rant. ~S~

ClnlSandersLite
02-16-2005, 10:51 PM
I don't know about the rest of it, but everyone makes plans to attack their own installations to one degree or another, that's how you develop a defensive stratagy. You say, "now, if I was the enemy, what would I do. Now, what do I do to beat it."

Pentallion
02-16-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aztek_Eagle:
The americans say that the plan of atacking pearl habor by air was copy from them aswell!!!!!!!!!!....... this is not lie, some do oficialy say!!!!!!!!! lmao http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif what kind of person would make a plan to atack their own military instalations!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Virtually any decent military commander worth his salt. And Billy Mitchell was one heck of a decent military commander in spite of his court martial:

July, 1924
"Japan knows full well that the United States will probably enter the next war with the methods and weapons of the former war...It also knows full well that the defense of the Hawaiian group is based on the island of Oahu and not on the defense of the whole group."

"The Japanese bombardment, (would be) 100 (air) ships organized into four squadrons of 25 (air) ships each. The objectives for attack are:

Ford Island, airdrome, hangers, storehouses and ammunition dumps;

Navy fuel oil tanks;

Water supply of Honolulu;

Water supply of Schofield;

Schofield Barracks airdrome and troop establishments;

Naval submarine station;

City and wharves of Honolulu."

"Attack will be launched as follows: bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island at 7:30 a.m.

"Attack to be made on Clark Field (Philippine Islands) at 10:40 a.m."

"Japanese pursuit aviation will meet bombardment over Clark Field, proceeding by squadrons, one at 3000 feet to Clark Field from the southeast and with the sun at their back, one at 5000 feet from the north and one at 10,000 feet from the west. Should U.S. pursuit e destroyed or fail to appear, airdrome would be attacked with machineguns."

"The (Japanese) air force would then carry out a systematic siege against Corregidor."

"The United States must not render herself completely defenseless on the one hand thinking that a war with Japan is an impossibility, and on the other by sticking to methods and means of making war as obsolete as the bow and arrow is for the military rifle."


To which G. Katsuda, the Japanese House of Peers statesman said to a correspondent for the Hartford Courant:

"Should there be such a war America would have to fight it a long way from home...It would be gravely embarrassing to the American people if the ideas of your General Mitchell were more appreciated in Japan than in the United States."

gerhardius
02-16-2005, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>why did the western powers have 4 engine bomber philosophy and why did the japanese stick with the medium bomber attitude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese actually made 2 attempts at a 4 engine bomber: the G5N Shinzan (http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g5n.html) and the G8N Renzan (http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g8n.html).

JR_Greenhorn
02-16-2005, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
The Ki-61 was a 'copy' of the 109, mainly the engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Copy my a$$!
The Ki-61's engine was a frickin' licence-built DB 601A. Do you know the difference between licence-building and copying? (I'll give you a hint--think capital and consent)

The design team at Kawasaki responsible for the Ki-61 was influenced by German engineer, Dr. Vogt. Vogt was the head of the design bureau at Kawasaki from 1923 to 1933, before returning to Germany. It would stand to reason that much of his design philosiphy remained even after he left.
The design team also heeded combat reports coming in from Europe, heralding the sucesses of the liquid-cooled V-12 engined designs employed there.


The Americans license-built every engine in every successful example of their beloved Mustang.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
They would have been better off "copying" one of our radial engines, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which US radial comes close to suiting the needs of Japanese fighter design and doctrine by the time war broke out?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
Many of their cannon were german knock offs... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's another good one!
Many of the Japanese cannons were German cannons, because they imported the MG 151.
The MG 151 replacement, the Ho-5, is very similar to the MG 151, which could be affected by supply issues due to importation and transit.

Obviously the Ho-5 is very similar to the MG 151; why wouldn't it be? It was designed to fit the same installation, and groud crews would already be familar with the design.

IIRC, the MG 151 was based on a Swedish design anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
Yup- good old USA parts in that there Nippon Kite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My, how the tables have turned then, in 60-odd years. Is there a vehicle made today that is void of Japanese components? I think not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
As for the Japanese 'habit' of copying all things 'Western', that is a known FACT of many Asian cultures, especially the Japanese. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice "fact" there. How do you figure?
Of all the Asian nations involved in large-scale manufacturing currently, the Japanese easily take the most pride in their domestic design culture. Many of their designs are tailored to a specific market segment, but seldom share many design cues with any foreign competitor.
The Chinese, on the other hand, still don't seem to mind copying at the moment, but that nation's manufacturing firms are building steam in the prodcut development department.

Krt_Bong
02-17-2005, 12:01 AM
actually the Zero design is said to have been inspired by the T-6 but the engine would not have been as efficient had the Zero-sen been an all metal monoplane so it was constructed out of lighter materials. The Japanese who had originally been "friends" with the U.S. had been present at a demonstration of U.S. Naval Airpower which showed it's capabilities by pulling off a mock attack of Pearl Harbor in the late '30s in order to impress their allies, it served to educate them very well as they copied it almost exactly. The Ki-61 bears a more than passing resemblence to the He-100 fighter, not to mention the Japanese had gotten designs from not only American companies such as Boeing for the purpose of building under license prior to WWII but also designs of the Me-262 and the V-1 buzz bomb as well since they were allied with Nazi Germany, except the japanese version had a pilot and was known as the Ohka ....as I read more of these I have to add that the Ki-43 was called Oscar by the allies and often referred to as the "Army" Zero the A6m was called Zeke by the allies but was called Zero by the Japanese

ImpStarDuece
02-17-2005, 12:33 AM
Yes, Admiral Turner (then a Captain) simulated aerial assaults against Pearl Harbour in a pair of war games in the very late 20's and early thirties. I'm not positive of the exact details but I know for sure that he had carrier borne aircraft launched against Pearl from the North West and was crushingly successful in the simulated attack.

Will post more deatails soon. All the info is in Schoms The Eagle and the Rising Sun. Its a weird concoction of a book. Tragically inaccurate in places and brilliantly researched and analysed in others but sporting a bias that had me shouting at the author every couple of pages.

JR_Greenhorn
02-17-2005, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by harryklein66:
and the closest aircraft I found, who look like
the H-1 is this one potez 53 (1933) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Compare the H-1 to the IAR80 series. The resemblance is remarkable, yet the IAR looks the way it does because it was designed around a licence-built French radial, as well as several airframe components from license-built versions of the Polish PZL P.24. In other words, the resemblence can only be purely coincidental.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by harryklein66:
...according by Krzysztof Janowicz in his book on the fw 190, the one that the H-1 inspire the most was...Kurt Tank... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've heard that too. Supposedly the H-1 was proof to the world's aircraft designers that a large radial was a viable engine choice for a land-based fighter. And why not? The H-1 possesses many features enviable in a fighter: record-setting speed and performance, stable flight (think: gun platform), exceptional range (especially at that time), interchangeable wing design (making the type easily adaptable to different roles).

The reason the H-1 wasn't directly copied is that the design is unsuitable for conversion to an effective fighter due to the extra equipment required: armament, armour, ordinance. These additions require a redesign. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by harryklein66:
...so u see who's copy who is a never ending story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not actually copying. Engineers are influenced by successful and innovative designs. Engineers also benchmark sound designs and desirable features. Both of these things are still a part of engineering, and they always have been.
Copying is usually a perception of the general public, and not the reality of engineering activities.

Around the time of WWII, the most notable case of actually copying a design was the Soviet Tu-4 (aka B-29), and even that was quite an undertaking to modify the design to be manufacturable in Russia. I do not envy the engineers that worked on that project.

ImpStarDuece
02-17-2005, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
actually the Zero design is said to have been inspired by the T-6 but the engine would not have been as efficient had the Zero-sen been an all metal monoplane so it was constructed out of lighter materials. The Japanese who had origially been "friends" with the U.S. had been present at a demonstration of U.S. Naval Airpower which showed it's capabilities by pulling off a mock attack of Pearl Harbor in the late '30s in order to impress their allies, it served to educate them very well as they copied it almost exactly. The Ki-61 bears a more than passing resemblence to the He-100 fighter, not to mention the Japanese had gotten designs from not only American companies such as Boeing for the purpose of building under license prior to WWII but also designs of the Me-262 and the V-1 buzz bomb as well since they were allied with Nazi Germany, except the japanese version had a pilot and was known as the Ohka <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese had one of the pioneering aircraft industries of the late 30's, particularly in Naval and Long Range aviation and in bombing techniques. It was just tragically derided by the Allies and still is, in some form or another.

The Japanese set MANY records with their aircraft industry, from indigeonously designed and produced aircraft. They learn't their lessons from their aviation seniors in the 20 and 30's and spread their wings in the mid 30's.

Longest ranged single seat fighter, longest ranged torpeedo bomber, best power to weight torpedo bomber, first MASSED carrier operations, first tran-oceanic bombing raids, longest range twin engined bomber, best accuracy in dive bombing ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

To deride their aircraft is just silly, it only makes thier accomplishments in the first 6 months of the war MORE outstanding.

Almost everyone had accquired licences to build another nations aircraft at one stage or another. The US even studied plans to produce Spitfires. Afterall, the Spitfire also bears more than a passing resembelance to the He-100 as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oh and if the Zero isn't a all metal monocoque monoplane then what the hell is it. It was a more advanced design than the steel tube Hurricane or the Gladiator, which entered production within a couple of years of each other.

Giganoni
02-17-2005, 02:27 AM
Oh I think no one can question the success of Japan in the first six months of the Pacific war. Japan had a highly experienced army and navy. Army pilots had been fighting since 1931, so many of them were the commanders or trainers. Their army was experienced from fighting China and Russia.

I had never heard of the Zero being a copy of or influenced by anything. However, I'm not that deep into aviation history. As for weapons of war being influenced by others, all nations did that. Weapons got around. For example the Czech light machine guns were used by Germany, Spain, China and partially influenced the British and Japanese light machine guns.

Much of the attention of Japanese ground warfare seems to be around the time Japan starts losing the war. When many of the Japanese soldiers were undersupplied and under reinforced thanks to the US subs or air power.

It was important during the war to dehumanize, bring down and riddicule your enemy. US did it, Japan did it. If it goes on today people must realize Japanese air power had the disadvantge of fighting the type of war Japan did not want to fight with America: attrition.

The Ki-84 is a shining example that Japanese plane design was brilliant. It had an unreliable engine, but under the pressures of resource shortages, immediacy, lack of skilled labor (through conscription or bombing) its amazing they made as many as they did.

MrMoonlight
02-17-2005, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
The Ki-61 was a 'copy' of the 109, mainly the engine.

Many of their cannon were german knock offs...
etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite...Many historians believe the design of the Ki-61 was based on the Heinkel He-100, an example of which was provided by the Germans to the Japanese for evaluation. The He-100 was also powered by the DB601...which was then license-built by the Japanese to power the Ki-61.

As a side note...the Germans could have had a much better fighter than the Bf-109 if Willy Messerschmitt hadn't had his nose so far up Adolf's a**. The He-100 was a much better fighter than the 109, but alas, Hitler had a personal thing against Ernst Heinkel and demanded the inferior 109 be put into production instead. Goes to show how cronyism can affect a war.

IMO, had the He-100 been put into production instead of the 109, the war in the air could have looked very different.

indylavi
02-17-2005, 03:24 AM
Guys anything and everything is influenced by other design. That's how things work. Typically, it's not a case of who designed what first, but a question of who saw the advantages of such a design first. Doesn't matter if it's American, Japanese, German, British, or whoever. Even in the military. Patton used Rommels own tactics against him, Japan used our own tactics against us. Again, it's a question of who saw the practical application first. Then others see what made it succesful and if it can be improved. I wouldn't put too much weight in Hughes comment. After all do you really trust a man that wore tissue boxes on his feet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

harryklein66
02-17-2005, 06:18 AM
@JR_Greenhorn:
u are right I should use "influenced" instead of "copy" (sorry my english is a bit limitedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).
I take the exemple of the potez 53 because it was done before the H-1 to show that if the H-1 influenced other designs, the H-1 himself, was influenced by earlier designs, so as indylavi said "anything and everything is influenced by other design".
But compare the H-1 to the IAR80 is a good idea because it show as you said that
"the resemblence can only be purely coincidental".
And an other notable case of copying was the Seversky P-35 and the Reggiane Re.2000

JG53Frankyboy
02-17-2005, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:

Many of the Japanese cannons _were_ German cannons, because they imported the MG 151.
The MG 151 replacement, the Ho-5, is very similar to the MG 151, which could be affected by supply issues due to importation and transit.

Obviously the Ho-5 is very similar to the MG 151; why wouldn't it be? It was designed to fit the same installation, and groud crews would already be familar with the design.

....................... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the IJA Ho-5 20mm canon was aderivate of the .50cal Browning.
also the Ho-103 12,7mm MG.

the gemran delivered MG151/20 , 800 in total , were only used in the modified Ki-61s.

the japanese derivated the MG131 as IJN Type2 MG.

also MG15 was "copied" as IJA Type98 and IJN as Type1

EnGaurde
02-17-2005, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>sorry my english is a bit limited <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problem, sure is a lot better than any of my european or asian languages.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

i must be from australia, we OBVIOUSLYdont need to teach anything other than english here.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

actionhank1786
02-17-2005, 08:04 AM
You're all wrong.
The Japanese designers copied my blue prints for a plan, they spilled Ketchup on part of the plans titles 0117 type fighter. And covered the 117, hence the name Zero.
Any book saying other wise, close forever and never open again

geetarman
02-17-2005, 08:28 AM
Enguard - what is this the fourth or fifth post by you about inaccuracies in American movies? What's the big deal - don't watch them. Your true colors are starting to show through. Get a life.

Saburo_0
02-17-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/pictures/belly.jpg

[Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

...Well, the Zero was not entirley "Japanese" made anyway. _The propellor govenor, I believe, and a few other parts were the same American parts used in TBD's._

Yup- good old USA parts in that there Nippon Kite.

As for the Japanese 'habit' of copying all things 'Western', that is a known FACT of many Asian cultures, _especially _ the Japanese.

They would have been better off "copying" one of our radial engines,

The Ki-61 was a 'copy' of the 109, mainly the engine.

Many of their cannon were german knock offs...


etc..

It rather 'racist' to imply that as a culture, the nippons are "totaly origional thinkers 'like Western Cultures.


Only a true cultural ignoramus would even attemt to imply that absurdidty....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
"The nail that sticks out gets pounded down."
-Great Asian Thinker... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're looking for "evidence" to justify your pre-conceived notion that the Japanese & other Asian cultures , as you say, have a propensity to copy. Your notions are wrong, & you seem to be confusing the emphasis on conformity & avoiding disagreements & conflicts with others, with a lack of creativity. Japanese folks are just as creative as their counterparts in other cultures. Sometimes copying is the SMARTEST way to do something- Packard built Merlins. Detroit built compact cars....henry Ford's assembly line...just in time production flow....

Plus it seems easy to overlook the fact that the US with all it's strengths was unable to produce a high quality inline aero engine & was forced to copy one from the Brits. But culturally Americans are less able to admit they copied something, they explain it away somehow to maintain their illusion of uniqueness & independence.

Eraser_tr
02-17-2005, 09:20 AM
I always thought the zero kindof resembled the P-35 (which the italians did directly copy) The H-1 looks more like a corsair than a fw-190 to me.

You want to know why many designs were similar?

Form follows function.

You want a maneuverable little bugger, it'll be similar to a zero or oscar, if you want something really fast, it'll resemble a mustang or corsair

Zyzbot
02-17-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerhardius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>why did the western powers have 4 engine bomber philosophy and why did the japanese stick with the medium bomber attitude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese actually made 2 attempts at a 4 engine bomber: the http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g5n.html and the http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g8n.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese were indeed very interested in getting a 4 engine bomber. Recall that prior to US involvement in WWII the Japanese approached the Boeing corporation about buying the B-17.

harryklein66
02-17-2005, 10:44 AM
the 190 looks like the H-1 not in the shape
but in the concept : ridal engine associate to an aerodynamic airframe with and a wide wheel track.

"form follows function" then why the Ki44 and Ki84 look so similar in shape to the Ki43?

Fliegeroffizier
02-17-2005, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Yes, Admiral Turner (then a Captain) simulated aerial assaults against Pearl Harbour in a pair of war games in the very late 20's and early thirties. I'm not positive of the exact details but I know for sure that he had carrier borne aircraft launched against Pearl from the North West and was crushingly successful in the simulated attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Wargaming was Fleet problem XIX, conducted in 1938. The commander was (then) Captain Ernest King.

Some interesting details:
On 15 March 1938, Saratoga sailed from San Diego for Fleet Problem XIX(wargame training exercise) conducted off Hawaii. In the second phase of this exercise, the Fleet was to execute an amphibious landing against Hawaii. Hawaiian defenses comprised Army Air Corps planes and Navy patrol bombers. The commander, Captain Ernest King, allowed to devise his own tactics, had both the Saratoga and Ranger aircraft carriers at his disposal. He directed the Saratoga to maneuver Northwest of Hawaii to launch a predawn attack on the island from a distance of 100NM. Just before dawn on 29 March, the Saratoga launched a successful surprise attack, effectively sneaking through Pearl Harbor‚‚ā¨ôs defenses undetected, and practiced bombing the Army‚‚ā¨ôs Hickam and Wheeler air fields and the Pearl Harbor Naval Air Station and docked ships.

...On a related note, a certain Klaus Mehnert, a young German intellectual and Nazi fanatic, who taught anthropology at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, was a highly regarded professor on campus, but also a clever and productive spy, one deeply imbued with the ideals of Nazism.

In 1938 professor Mehnert seems to have learned of the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor when the U.S. Navy launched its successful mock air strike from the carrier ‚‚ā¨ŇďSaratoga‚‚ā¨¬Ě.
Mehnert, under the guise of conducting field research, eavesdropped on [discussions about] the naval exercise, and sent to his masters in Berlin an exhaustive report in which he accurately detailed woefully weak spots in the Hawaiian Islands defenses. An astute student of naval tactics, the professor suggested that a daring and skillfully executed air attack by a foreign power (that is Japan) could easily infiltrate those defenses and strike a telling blow against the United States fleet.

Since Germany and Japan were locked in an espionage alliance negotiated three years earlier, Mehnert‚‚ā¨ôs report was eventually shuttled on to Tokyo.

horseback
02-17-2005, 11:46 AM
There is a reason that the Ki-61, Me 109, and Macchi 202 all look similar: They had essentially the same engine and the same design goal, i.e., air superiority fighter. The differences are due to different design philosphy/requirements.

The Japanese IAAF would desire greater range and maneuverability over top speed and firepower. The Ki-61 has a longer wing and greater size than the 'original' DB601 fighter, the 109.

The Italian Reggia Aeronautica (my Italian friends, please excuse if I have mispelt) seems to have had a greater emphasis on speed and maneuverability. Also, they had a greater sense of style: the Macchi 202/205 were much more attractive than the other two designs.

The Luftwaffe had a greater emphasis on speed and firepower. The Me 109 is smaller and more compact than the other two designs.

After those requirements, there's the factor of a designer's 'style'. Aircraft from a common maker tend to have certain similarities. The Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, and Ki-84 all have certain elements in common, probably because the aircraft have similar missions and the same manufacturer & design teams at Nakajima.

Look at Curtiss aircraft made during WWII. The P-36, P-40, SB2C Helldiver and C-46 Commando all have a very similar rudder design.

At Republic, the P-35, P-43, and P-47 all share a lot of similarities as well.

As for the H-1, it was a bit of a pioneer for the time, and had a lot of influence in aeronautical design, but I've seen it at the National Air & Space Museum, and while the Zero designer may have been superficially influenced by it, the H-1 is no Zero. It's a lot closer to the Me 109 in its compact lines and generally narrow profile.

cheers

horseback

rcocean
02-17-2005, 06:54 PM
Suprise attack against an Enemy fleet was done by the Japanese in 1905 against the Russians.

BTW, Yamamoto fought in the Russo-Japanese war.

The Japanese didnt need us to tell them how to attack Pearl Harbor.

VF-3Thunderboy
02-17-2005, 07:16 PM
We didnt "copy" the 'Merlin', it was a better engine than the Allison.That was really just putting a Britt race tested better engine in the plane, not a copy.

If you look at the top view of the Zero, and the Hughs racer, you can see a very good resemblance. If this was the 'fastest' plane IE: most Aero-dynamic, it may have been copied at some level, I dont know, it looks alot like it though. The metalurgy in the Zero was unique, no doubt.
But basicly the Western World created just about EVERYTHING you see around you modern, Cars, aero-planes, light bulbs, guns, and Japan was introduced reluctantly ONLY 150 years ago or so to the modern world, so its not really suprising that they had to copy as much as they could. One would think ALL underdeveloped nations would pursue such an 'enlightened' and rewarding policy (doy&gt; ******ed&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif), but it has never happened on Japans scale. One really wonders about Mexico, Uganda, etc and the like, but I digress.....sort of... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

JR_Greenhorn
02-17-2005, 11:20 PM
WTF is wrong with this guy?

Daiichidoku
02-18-2005, 12:10 AM
AFAIR, the H-1 racer was heavily influenced by the Northrop designs, the Gammas



anyhow, NEVER believe what is said or depicted in hollywood flims

in the aviator, there is a scene where di caprio is shown a model of "his" plane, the constellation, by some ppl from lockheed, or TWA, cant remeember, while in a hangar with a complete-looking X-11

HAHA, the connie first flew AFAIR 1939 latest, while the first flight of the X-11 was 43 i believe...connies were already in USAAF service as C-69s for 3 or 4 years by the time the X-11 flew

Giganoni
02-18-2005, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
AFAIR, the H-1 racer was heavily influenced by the Northrop designs, the Gammas



anyhow, NEVER believe what is said or depicted in hollywood flims

in the aviator, there is a scene where di caprio is shown a model of "his" plane, the constellation, by some ppl from lockheed, or TWA, cant remeember, while in a hangar with a complete-looking X-11

HAHA, the connie first flew AFAIR 1939 latest, while the first flight of the X-11 was 43 i believe...connies were already in USAAF service as C-69s for 3 or 4 years by the time the X-11 flew <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, I just saw the film. That scene you were talking about was about the commercial release for the connie I believe. Didn't say anything about the military which could have been using it. Anyway, it was an interesting movie none the less.

IL2-chuter
02-18-2005, 01:31 AM
I've read all posts . . . everyone seems stuck on the appearance similarities between aircraft. One example, the zero is a very original fighter structural design in that the cockpit area (fuselage center section) is part of the wing, with the aft fuselage (from wing trailing edge) a seperate subassembly. Engineering factors are easily overlooked by most people, but not me . . . I'm a freakin' expert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and I think I've just shot down any credibility this post might have had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Oh, well . . .

Keep flyin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

whiteladder
02-18-2005, 05:35 AM
As point out in a number of post Design (especially Aircraft design) tends to be evolutionary rather revolutionary. There are odd blimps where something is designed that breaks from the norm. That is then adopted by a large number of designers because the recongnise the value in the change ( straight to swept wings, fixed pitch to constant speed props etc)

The Zero can been seen as an evolution of previous Japanese aircraft, designed to a specification that was almost unique when compared to other Naval Air Arms at the time. That is not to say that they were not influenced by advances in other countries, but then all designers were at the time. They were not designing in a vacuum.

indylavi
02-18-2005, 07:04 AM
I don't think appearance should be the main factor. After all if it's a good idea why change it? You want me to make my aircraft less aerodynamic just because it might look like that guys plane? Look at the French Rafale, Swedish Gripen, and then the Euro fighter. Look here if you don't want to google up pictures. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/index.html

All of them look VERY similar. In fact I'd bet most people would mistake them for each other. However, each aircraft is different is a lot of ways. If a design is good then why change it?

EnGaurde
02-18-2005, 07:08 AM
rcocean


STOP talking sense.


its hurriedly covered up reality that stops the reality busting thru.

*sigh*

Krt_Bong
02-18-2005, 12:34 PM
A little off topic from the Zero and copies et al but, if you look at the new pics for the Betty you'll notice the machine guns are modelled on the Lewis Machinegun seen on countless WW1 aircraft and most prominently seen on the top wing of the SE-5 http://storage.mfa.free.fr/se5photo4uk.html While the "Zero being a copy of.." may or may not be accurate in everyones eyes it is a fact that engineers and designers look at what works and they try to either copy it or make it better. Many of the Japanese military's rifles and machine guns were of poor quality to say the least, still they had to insure that whatever they used would suit the purpose so they got whatever they could from whomever and made it their own. Their unwavering belief in the Bushido; "The Warriors Way" was enough in some cases to give them complete faith in themselves to Believe that they could not be beaten no matter what the weapon of choice was (after all they still carried swords into battle in some cases) this is not a topic of putting down the Japanese, they were very courageous to fight a battle against technologically superior adversaries against whom they could surely never win and yet it took two A-bombs and the implied threat of a third before they would consider themselves defeated.

VF-3Thunderboy
02-18-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>was (after all they still carried swords into battle in some cases) this is not a topic of putting down the Japanese, they were very courageous to fight a battle against technologically superior adversaries against whom they could surely never win and yet it took two A-bombs and the implied threat of a third before they would consider themselves defeated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, on Okinawa, they were down to Women and
Childeren with pitchforks. That must have been fun blowing away a six year olds with rocks.Ever read about Okinawa.

Japan was a very backwards society. Like Mexico and Uganda, etc ad infinatum, but oops, I digress...

The Japanese belief was that Americans would see the wisdom in Americas Military defeat, and would not engage the Japanese. They did not see America as superior in any way, only a few who were educated in the states saw what we were capable of in terms of Military production.Americans were seen as FAT, LAZY, STUPID. 60 some years later:

China is relentlessly using American Political Correctness to cover for make technological raids in Silicon Valley,(FBI warning) for thier own military.

America is surely the land of Fat, Lazy and stupid people, even to this day.

So I guess they have alot more insight than we can fathom... Pc will destroy America, and Western Europe, if its not seen for what it is....******edness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> WTF is wrong with this guy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


-Im not ******ed, fat, lazy, or stupid!...(..*fart...!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Thundaboya

Feathered_IV
02-18-2005, 03:59 PM
Never a Mod around when you need one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.

Aztek_Eagle
02-18-2005, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerhardius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>why did the western powers have 4 engine bomber philosophy and why did the japanese stick with the medium bomber attitude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese actually made 2 attempts at a 4 engine bomber: the http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g5n.html and the http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/bww2/g8n.html. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the problem was that guys on top of the japanese military aviation were too autoritarian, when the betty desing was requested, wiht expecification of range speed and bombload... they specify this new bomber to be twin engine.... the designer adviced them to go for a 4 engine bomber and was rejected, and told to do as he is told.... when japan atemped to go for 4 engines bombers, it was too late any ways.... japan could have start the war wiht a capable heavy bomber.. but instead.. the designer had to sacrify armor for the betty, to met the specification of speed, range and bombload...... why.. why those stupid ppl!!!!

Aztek_Eagle
02-18-2005, 06:06 PM
another good point tyo mention, the range of the betty..... 6000km... not even the b29 surpaced this aircraft on range not to mention his counterparts the B25 of 2000km... amazing isnt it... many consider the betty in the clasification of heavy bomber...

Aztek_Eagle
02-18-2005, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>was (after all they still carried swords into battle in some cases) this is not a topic of putting down the Japanese, they were very courageous to fight a battle against technologically superior adversaries against whom they could surely never win and yet it took two A-bombs and the implied threat of a third before they would consider themselves defeated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, on Okinawa, they were down to Women and
Childeren with pitchforks. That must have been fun blowing away a six year olds with rocks.Ever read about Okinawa.

Japan was a very backwards society. Like Mexico and Uganda, etc ad infinatum, but oops, I digress...

The Japanese belief was that Americans would _see the wisdom in Americas Military defeat_, and would not engage the Japanese. They did not see America as superior in any way, only a few who were educated in the states saw what we were capable of in terms of Military production.Americans were seen as FAT, LAZY, STUPID. 60 some years later:

China is relentlessly using American Political Correctness to cover for make technological raids in Silicon Valley,(FBI warning) for thier own military.

America is surely the land of Fat, Lazy and stupid people, even to this day.

So I guess they have alot more insight than we can fathom... Pc will destroy America, and Western Europe, if its not seen for what it is....******edness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> WTF is wrong with this guy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


-Im not ******ed, fat, lazy, or stupid!...(..*fart...!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Thundaboya <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey Mod, give him a one week vacation like me!... i have get 4 week vacations so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Giganoni
02-19-2005, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
A little off topic from the Zero and copies et al but, if you look at the new pics for the Betty you'll notice the machine guns are modelled on the Lewis Machinegun seen on countless WW1 aircraft and most prominently seen on the top wing of the SE-5 http://storage.mfa.free.fr/se5photo4uk.html While the "Zero being a copy of.." may or may not be accurate in everyones eyes it is a fact that engineers and designers look at what works and they try to either copy it or make it better. Many of the Japanese military's rifles and machine guns were of poor quality to say the least, still they had to insure that whatever they used would suit the purpose so they got whatever they could from whomever and made it their own. Their unwavering belief in the Bushido; "The Warriors Way" was enough in some cases to give them complete faith in themselves to Believe that they could not be beaten no matter what the weapon of choice was (after all they still carried swords into battle in some cases) this is not a topic of putting down the Japanese, they were very courageous to fight a battle against technologically superior adversaries against whom they could surely never win and yet it took two A-bombs and the implied threat of a third before they would consider themselves defeated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The type 92 naval machine gun (different from the common type 92 in combat on the ground) was a licensed model of the Lewis MK III at least supposedly. Only internet websites have talked about it. You are somewhat mistaken that the Japanese rifles and machine guns were of poor quality. As the war turned bad for Japan and it was cut off from much of its resources yes, bad rifles were made they had to do what they could. So are you correct in that respect.

However, the Arisaka type 38 and Arisaka type 99 (7.7 mm version) is now considered to have had the strongest reciever of all bolt action rifles of world war II. Since every army in WWII (except the US) mostly used bolt action rifles this is no small feat. The type 38 has been criticized as being too long and the type 99 was originally as long in 1939 but, was quickly changed by 1940 and most of the 3.5 million were much shorter (shorter than enfield for example.).

As for machine guns the type 96 and 99 (you know the one in Windtalkers which Cage uses to suddenly become Rambo and decimate a trench full of Japanese soldiers.) were very good light machine guns incorporating design similarities from the ZB vz.26 vz.30. Their "heavy" machine-guns were unremarkable but, served their purpose. It was mostly quantity of those weapons that hurt Japan the most, not the quality.

Ruy Horta
02-19-2005, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mad_Hatter009:
The Last Samuri was not implying that Tom Crusie's character was the last samuri. Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) was the last samuri. Is it really that difficult a concept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OFF TOPIC...

But what do the last minutes of the film mean if your version is accurate, when he has that special moment with the Emperor?

Enjoyed the movie, actually have it on DVD, but it did leave a feeling of an Ami "out-japanesing" the Japanese, a US warrior being able to match and out do those who have been bred as Samurai in only an X-period (months?).

Although I wouldn't regard myself as a Cruise fan, I do like most of his work, and will probably enjoy him outdoing the British in his next Battle of Britain project.

I'll bet you a beer that the Brits will be brave but slightly handicapped by silly notions as sportsmanship, while he'll answer that by hard action, not inhibited by silly old world notions, but toughened as only those of the new world can be...its either that or the old Shane setup, which would be worse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta
02-19-2005, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
Japan was a very backwards society. Like Mexico and Uganda, etc ad infinatum, but oops, I digress... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took a while before I understood your remark, but nevertheless your wording and examples are poor. Backward implies inferior, that is not the case, since it also implies that our (Western) or your (American) society was superior. This is simply a good example of cultural arrogance. Japanese society was DIFFERENT and this made them stronger in certain areas and weaker in others. Again, you need to be objective...

Mexico and Uganda are both very different in nature and culture, so that implies that your only point is based on "backwardness", since that's what their "societies" share compared to your own society.

You did digress and it showed your cultural bias and dare I say limited grasp of the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Japanese belief was that Americans would _see the wisdom in Americas Military defeat_, and would not engage the Japanese. They did not see America as superior in any way, only a few who were educated in the states saw what we were capable of in terms of Military production.Americans were seen as FAT, LAZY, STUPID. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler made the same mistake when it comes to "American" resolve. Indeed both militarist societies could not graps the idea that a democracy could mobilize so effectively and so completely.

Japan had a two precendents that spoiled them forever. First they defeated China in the last decade of nineteenth century and afterwards they defeated Russia in the early twentieth.

The latter made them believe in their superior culture, since the Russians should be regarded as military superior, their victory was based on JAPANESE cultural superiority. Being part of the Allies in WW1 did much to build on that feeling of greatness.

The Japanese military again became entangled in China during the thirties, their path was one of success after success (until their border clashes with the Soviets in Mongolia, after which the Japanese always retained a healthy respect of the Soviets - something that the Soviet advance in 1945 was to proof correct).

So basically 60 years of military success and no real defeats, having fought Imperial China, Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany and finally Nationalist & Communist China and even the Soviet Union.

Is it so impossible that they thought they could win a war against the US?

Now I agree that after WW2 it is almost impossible to accept any US defeat (well...outside the US that is), but hindsight is not an objective companion.

Could Japan have defeated US by invading the american west coast? No such a war could never have been won based on simple calculations of men and material etc etc etc.

Could Japan have won A war against the US in the Pacific/Asian area. Personally I believe they could have, as long as they kept the conflict relatively local and limited.

One good scenario would have been the gradual involvement of US forces in China, see Dan Ford for example in his AVG book. Such a local war have had a different psychological impact on the American nation as well - compare for instance with post war limited wars waged by the US.

Its the attack on Pearl, or more exact the effective use by Rooseveltof this event in mobilizing the whole country, making it another Alamo or Lusitania, a crusade against evil that makes it impossible for the american man in the street to accept anything else than total victory that changes the nature of this war.

Could the Japanese have won limited war scenarios against the Americans, I believe they could have. But not a total war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
60 some years later:

China is relentlessly using American Political Correctness to cover for make technological raids in Silicon Valley,(FBI warning) for thier own military.

America is surely the land of Fat, Lazy and stupid people, even to this day.

So I guess they have alot more insight than we can fathom... Pc will destroy America, and Western Europe, if its not seen for what it is....******edness <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are certainly similarities between the two examples. Yes, again there is a power struggle in the making. Although America can accept an ECONOMIC superpower in the area, like Japan is today, it does not accept any military competition in the Pacific. Japan is ultimately dependant on the US, which is a nice word for under its military sphere of control, China is not...

China today is becoming bolder, more conscious of its potential. Growing economically, catching up technologically, tapping into a huge inner market as well as being able to export cheaply because all of its resources. China is indeed the biggest dragon in the area and potentially a true superpower, perhaps even eventually the only true superpower - military and economic

Now I am not Chinese, but I can understand their growing feeling of pride, also I am not American, but I can understand your worries.

What if the US is not the greatest anymore?

It could happen?

Would the idea alone be a Casus Belli to some of you?

Out of curiosity, are the Chinese included in your concept of inferior societies?

For that matter are we Europeans inluded as well?

Who does belong to your idea of superior societies?

Saburo_0
02-19-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
We didnt "copy" the 'Merlin', it was a better engine than the Allison.That was really just putting a Britt race tested better engine in the plane, not a copy.

If you look at the top view of the Zero, and the Hughs racer, you can see a very good resemblance. If this was the 'fastest' plane IE: most Aero-dynamic, it may have been copied at some level, I dont know, it looks alot like it though. The metalurgy in the Zero was unique, no doubt.
But basicly the Western World created just about EVERYTHING you see around you modern, Cars, aero-planes, light bulbs, guns, and Japan was introduced reluctantly ONLY 150 years ago or so to the modern world, so its not really suprising that they had to copy as much as they could. One would think ALL underdeveloped nations would pursue such an 'enlightened' and rewarding policy (doy&gt; ******ed&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif), but it has never happened on Japans scale. One really wonders about Mexico, Uganda, etc and the like, but I digress.....sort of... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Now I see what you are saying, I probably misunderstood the tone of your post. Perhaps, the connotation of Copy, is what threw me off there. As you point out copying esp in a technological sense is the only way to go when you are behind. Japan 's rapid modernization has been seen as an example of how to do it for many nations.

On the merlin, the Japanese license built the Daimler-Benz just as the Americans did the Merlin. Just wanted to point out the similarity there.

One more thing, "backwards" poor choice of words if you don't qualify what you mean by it. Like backwards technologically etc. Japan was certainly behind in realizing that a nation is stronger if it believes in the value of each and every citizen's life. Tho we shouldn't forget that tyrannical states can be incredibly powerful, and accomplish great technological advancement. And just because tyranny & fascism lost that war doesn't mean they can't defeat Democratic societies.

On Last Samurai,
Great cinematography, but could have been better. I also felt it was too much of an American out-Japanese-ing the Japanese.
And as my wife pointed out to me (she's Japanese BTW) she didn't think the Last Samurai had a good reason for fighting & dying. The movie could have been better if it had more deeply explored the suicidal/nihilistic mindset (& the desire for excitement & action ?)that made war & death more desirable than peace.
Had some great scenes though.

CraigNT
02-19-2005, 10:59 AM
Please, please, let Thuderboy NOT be American and just someone else impersonating an ignorant, adolescent, and rude american!!! Please let it be so!!! He is SO over-the-top that it has to be someone freakin' faking it!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
CraigNT

murewa
02-19-2005, 11:16 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:


As for the Japanese 'habit' of copying all things 'Western', that is a known FACT of many Asian cultures, _especially _ the Japanese.


It rather 'racist' to imply that as a culture, the nippons are "totaly origional thinkers 'like Western Cultures.


Only a true cultural ignoramus would even attemt to imply that absurdidty....

[QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I sure hope that was some twisted attempt at fishing humour...if you really feel that way it is truly scary and disturbing