PDA

View Full Version : Ki43 vs Spitfire VIII(?)



mynameisroland
09-12-2006, 06:21 AM
"We were encountering a serious problem by this time. Recent Spitfires seem to have adopted even more powerful engines and and their climb and speed had improved considerably. Chasing and shooting down these enemy fighters with our Hayabusa MkIIs became increasingly difficult. Even if we succeeded in luring them into a close-in dogfight, the skill of the RAF pilots was not bad at all. In clear contrast to the USAAF pilots, the RAF pilots were seasoned veterans. They often seemed to intentionally try to dogfight us rather than using hit-and-run tactics.

So we made our best efforts to improve the rate of climb and maneuvrability of our mounts; stripping down our planes was the primary method. We removed our back armor, head armor (this was also to imrove rear vision), and reducedthe number of oxygen bottles."

Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda, 64th Sentai commenting on the state of battle in Burma , 1944

Saw this off a link Leitmotiv posted on other thread. Most interesting to se ethat this pilot regarded the RAF pilots as more skillful opponents. Also its oft stated that the Spitfire didnt turnfight against Ki43/Zero - hey I supose if I was in a VIII Id stay and dogfight with anything even I-16 lol

Poor bugger having to strip even more out their already lightweight mounts to try and cope with much better Allied equipment.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/quotes/ki43.html

tigertalon
09-12-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
hey I supose if I was in a VIII Id stay and dogfight with anything even I-16 lol


In this sim or IRL? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
09-12-2006, 07:09 AM
In RL definitely , in IL2 Ratas are like Tiefighters. In RL VIII was best overall Spitfire mark and even the Russians were greatlt impressed with the manuverability/performance of Merlin 66 Spitfires.

In IL2 Im more than happy shooting down Ki84s and Bf 109s in it

KIMURA
09-12-2006, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
In RL definitely , in IL2 Ratas are like Tiefighters. In RL VIII was best overall Spitfire mark and even the Russians were greatlt impressed with the manuverability/performance of Merlin 66 Spitfires.
In IL2 Im more than happy shooting down Ki84s and Bf 109s in it

Are we playing the same version of FAB - or at least the same game at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

tigertalon
09-12-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
In RL definitely , in IL2 Ratas are like Tiefighters.


They seem to be toned down a bit lately, but are still killers in early years. If you compare them to designs from that era (HurricaneI, P36, brewster...) the I-16 brutally outpwns them all.

mynameisroland
09-12-2006, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
In RL definitely , in IL2 Ratas are like Tiefighters. In RL VIII was best overall Spitfire mark and even the Russians were greatlt impressed with the manuverability/performance of Merlin 66 Spitfires.
In IL2 Im more than happy shooting down Ki84s and Bf 109s in it

Are we playing the same version of FAB - or at least the same game at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we play the same game but you just arent very good in a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KIMURA
09-12-2006, 08:26 AM
hmm, no I only fight vs. them. What late Spits in FAB can do surprises me from new every day.

btw outmanoeuvre should be more specified to avoid misunderstandings.

Jaws2002
09-12-2006, 09:30 AM
Rata is easy meat for the IAR-80/81. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 09:52 AM
First off, I'd severely doubt a Spitfire could "out-turn" a Ki-43....YET that does not mean that it would not seem as such. If one performs certain maneuvers aggressively (zoom and boom with a lot of roll/rudder etc. then the action can be so fast and furious that compared to the hit then vanish (as attacks are not as here over and over within 500m till dead) that it would seem as such.

In kind, if a group attacks in force and sticks with it, that again adding to the illusion. Lastly, if for the past 5 years all you've been dealing with is hit and run, the change alone would suddenly seem dramatic.............Note he says "Lure them into a "close in" Dogfight, the skill of the RAF pilots was not bad at all."........If in a poorer turning plane and you were lured into a turnfight, would you say that is more skilled?


That all said, I'm not praising one group of pilots or slamming another, or challenging Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda's observations.......What the quote above infers to me however is that a sudden change in planes that had more power put to use, LESS regimented or different tactics due to the confidence in it, and aggressiveness (or bloodlust finally on the attack vs. defense)....That it made it "seem" that the Spitfire could brawl (turnfight) with a Ki-43. We see the same thing with P51's vs. Japanese fighters...........Truth is none could. Yet power, dive ability, and numbers can make it seem as such.

Any Z&Ber can seem like a turnfighter if pushed to an opponent that expects the former. That second of surprise often enough to win the encounter.

MEGILE
09-12-2006, 09:57 AM
Bill I dunno what you just wrote... but it surely wasn't about the aforementioned quote.

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Bill I dunno what you just wrote... but it surely wasn't about the aforementioned quote.

Then re-read it...

tigertalon
09-12-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Any Z&Ber can seem like a turnfighter if pushed to an opponent that expects the former. That second of surprise often enough to win the encounter.

LOL I wrote almost exactly the same sentence today, in a "190 is slow" thread by raid.

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 10:35 AM
Yes well I try and avoid those threads........I prefer to drink to kill braincells.

tigertalon
09-12-2006, 10:40 AM
I use them for training.

Whatever does not kill you, makes you stronger.

(or something like that)

Dtools4fools
09-12-2006, 11:08 AM
I prefer to drink to kill braincells.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


I will drink to that tonight!

Off to the pub...
*****

HayateAce
09-12-2006, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Yes well I try and avoid those threads........I prefer to drink to kill braincells.

You're well on your way to killin' em all!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BillyTheKid_22
09-12-2006, 02:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

VW-IceFire
09-12-2006, 04:16 PM
One of the many Spitfire books I own talks specifically about the Spitfire VIII squadrons in Burma fighting against mostly Ki-43-II's. Judging from the books, the Spitfire pilots KNEW they couldn't turn with the Ki-43s so they employed BNZ tactics...but they rarely seemed to leave combat quickly. The Spitfires would get in there and stay in there. Often it was a standard patrol of two flights (8 Spitfires) against a swarm of 12 or 16 or even 30 Ki-43s (mentioned by the pilots). As I read it, often the Spitfires would fight and then disengage when they were done. Doesn't sound like the Japanese had a good time of it as the Spitfire VIII's hold virtually all of the cards except for turn rate.

It seems that opinion of the RAF's pilots was high for quite a bit of the war. In reading some Luftwaffe pilot accounts they rated the RAF as being the most agressive and best fighter pilots they would come up against. This may be in part due to the type of fighters they were flying (Spitfires) but respect was definately tipped at the RAF pilots. The USAAF pilots were considered second to that and the Russian VVS considered absolutely poor in comparison to the first two....with the exception of the Guards units which the Luftwaffe pilots felt were on the level of the RAF pilots.

For the Japanese pilots...flying generally underpowered and underarmed fighters as they were...against foes with superior fighters and far better training quality overall....you can see why they would be calling the RAF pilots skilled adversaries as I'm sure they were in many instances having the appearance of turning with Japanese army's better turning fighters.

SkyChimp
09-12-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Even if we succeeded in luring them into a close-in dogfight, the skill of the RAF pilots was not bad at all. In clear contrast to the USAAF pilots, the RAF pilots were seasoned veterans. They often seemed to intentionally try to dogfight us rather than using hit-and-run tactics.



He is clearly equating "seasoned" with ability or willingness to dogfight. Americans learned early on not to dogfight Japanese fighters and developed hit-and-run tactics the Japanese felt were dishonorable. Actually, it was very smart. A similar quote exists about Sptifire pilots during the raids on Darwin - I'll have to find it. A Japanese pilot stated, to the effect, that the Spitifre pilots never seemd to learn their lesson and engaged in turning fights with the Japanese they could rarely win.

luftluuver
09-12-2006, 05:00 PM
There is more than one way to turn. P-47s have been known to out turn Me109s.

LStarosta
09-12-2006, 05:22 PM
I've seen a MiG-28 do a negative 4G dive once.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-12-2006, 05:28 PM
Im willing to bet as well that the Spitfires k/d ratio vs Japanese planes is not even close to the Hellcats, Corsairs, and Lightnings. Just because one is more eager to mix it up in a furball does not mean one is a more skilled pilot. Just the opposite IMO.

SkyChimp
09-12-2006, 06:11 PM
The Spitfire didn't do very well against Zeros in their first encounters with one another over Darwin. The following are some Spitfire encounters over Darwin that involved Zeros as well. There were other encounters with just bombers, but I didn't list those. I think it shows that the Zero pilots taught hard lessons to those opposing pilots not used to them. Don€t get me wrong; I think the Spitfire was a superior plane, but only if used properly.

On March 2, 1943, the first Zero/Spitfire encounter, the outcome was 0 to 0.

On March 15, 1943 4 Spitfires were destroyed versus 1 Betty destroyed and 8 damaged. No Zero losses.

On May 2, 1943, 5 Spitfires were destroyed (+8 more force landed) versus 7 Bettys damaged and 7 Zeros damaged.

On May 9, 1943, 1 Spitfire destroyed versus 2 Zeros destroyed.

On May 28, 1943, 2 Spitfires destroyed versus 3 Bettys destroyed, no Zero losses.

On July 6, 1943, 6 Spitfires destroyed (+2 due lost due to mechanical) versus 2 Bettys destroyed, 2 Bettys damaged, and 2 Zeros damaged.

On September 7, 1943, 3 Spitfires destroyed versus 1 Zero destroyed.

vocatx
09-12-2006, 06:38 PM
My favorite targets in an Oscar are people that haven't learned NOT to turn-fight against it in a Spit of any model. They burn quite nicely...

If flown properly, a Spit can make short work of an Oscar, as can just about any Allied aircraft.

horseback
09-12-2006, 10:07 PM
Just an observation, but didn't a Spit driver of some note make a similar complaint about the 109 drivers not being willing to mix it up, and then come to repent when the even more formidible FW 190 began to appear and stick around to extend the fight? Have we not also read many Soviet pilot accounts that seem to equate hit & run (or Zoom & Boom, if you prefer) with a lack of moral fiber?

Methinks that the T&B types did equate skill and aggressiveness with fighting their way.

That said, it is the normal human tendency to think the other guy isn't playing fair if he's beating your brains out.

cheers

horseback

HellToupee
09-12-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Spitfire didn't do very well against Zeros in their first encounters with one another over Darwin. The following are some Spitfire encounters over Darwin that involved Zeros as well. There were other encounters with just bombers, but I didn't list those. I think it shows that the Zero pilots taught hard lessons to those opposing pilots not used to them. Don€t get me wrong; I think the Spitfire was a superior plane, but only if used properly.


the spitfire used in darwin were probly not superior to the zero, they were old mark vs with volks filters from the desert over in north africa.

JG53Frankyboy
09-13-2006, 03:01 AM
and the Zeros were most propably A6M3 Model 22.
one of its best Marks, unfortunatly missing in game.

luftluuver
09-13-2006, 04:17 AM
The Darwin Spits were also climbing for the intercept (iirc) which would put them at a disadvantage.

WOLFMondo
09-13-2006, 05:48 AM
Were the Darwin Spits VB/Cs or VIIIs?

Skychimp, one observation about those stats. It seemed the Spitfires went after the bombers and not the fighters in each instance.

mynameisroland
09-13-2006, 06:10 AM
Hey guys we all no that even the Wildcat was much better than the Spitfire VIII and that USN pilots were even better than those Krauts who flew in that phoney out fit JG52.

This is a thread to discuss a Japanese fighter pilots comments - feel free to belittle the Spitfire if you want and the RAAF and RAF pilots who flew in in the PF but we all know that its just plane envy.

The VIII powned its enemies and its contemporaries alike.

mynameisroland
09-13-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Were the Darwin Spits VB/Cs or VIIIs?

Skychimp, one observation about those stats. It seemed the Spitfires went after the bombers and not the fighters in each instance.

Which is exactly what the Luftwaffe did when the Jagdwaffe went Bomber hunting and USAAF fans claim that the fighter VS FIGHTER stats show up unfavourably for the Germans ... duh!

JG53Frankyboy
09-13-2006, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Were the Darwin Spits VB/Cs or VIIIs?

Skychimp, one observation about those stats. It seemed the Spitfires went after the bombers and not the fighters in each instance.

No 1 Fighter Wing RAAF in Spring/Summer 1943 "over" Darwin had Spit Vc Trop, new build ones AFAIK.

at least at one japanese attack(20 june 1943), the Spitfires faced Ki-43-II instead of A6M.
in this attack the japanese lost one Ki-49 bombers(+ 1 Ki-49 and 2 Ki-48 forcelanding near thier bases) and one Ki-43, the RAAF three Spitfires.


the first Mk.VIII were deliverd to the RAAF in Australia in october 1943 - when they were combat ready i dont know.

HellToupee
09-13-2006, 06:59 AM
http://www.fastbooks.com.au/interview.html


"The thinking behind this was beyond us at the time. We weren't aware that the planes they sent us had been thrashed to pieces - some were real 'bombs' like used cars from a 'shonky' car yard. And they expected these young pilots to fly them into battle against the Japanese Zeros."


"The truth is that the losses - planes being shot down - were about the same as in the previous raid. The rest had nothing to do with Japanese aeroplanes shooting them down, it was failure of the equipment."

ploughman
09-13-2006, 07:00 AM
There's a bit in Castle Bromwhich test pilot Alex Henshaw's "The Sigh of a Merlin" in which he describes a mechanical fault with production Spits from that period which he worries might have something to do with the high rate of Aussie losses at the time. I don't have the book around so I can't look it up, maybe if someone else does they can check it out.

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


This is a thread to discuss a Japanese fighter pilots comments...


Is it now? I could have sworn this was just another of your backhanded ****s against Americans. I guess I was mistaken.

LRRP

mynameisroland
09-13-2006, 09:33 AM
yup I just falsified the whole website just to get a dig in at you 'proud' yanks.

If you dont like what you read bog off - truth is there were allied airforces other than the USN or USAAF and the Japanese/Germans feared them as much if not more than US airmen.

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

faustnik
09-13-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Darwin Spits were also climbing for the intercept (iirc) which would put them at a disadvantage.

Right, the Spits were after the Bettys, not the Zeros.

It always surprises me when people compare Bf109 losses to Spit and Hurri losses in BoB. The RAF wasn't up there to play with the 109s, they had bigger fish to fry. Same thing with the LW in Reich defense.

Xiolablu3
09-13-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Were the Darwin Spits VB/Cs or VIIIs?

Skychimp, one observation about those stats. It seemed the Spitfires went after the bombers and not the fighters in each instance.

The would be old MkV's with vokes filters in Sept 1943. Spit VIII was only just coming off the production line.

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
yup I just falsified the whole website just to get a dig in at you 'proud' yanks.

If you dont like what you read bog off - truth is there were allied airforces other than the USN or USAAF and the Japanese/Germans feared them as much if not more than US airmen.

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

Setting up a strawman to knockdown, eh roland? I didn't accuse you of falsifying anything, just gleefully taking another gratuitous shot at the Yanks. You don't like us, we get it.

LRRP

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Ah, I wondered when you'd mention me. Considering I have not even entered a thread knocking the US for a very long time, you must still have a chip on your shoulder about my supposed chip to remember me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That makes me very amused indeed...LOL

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Ah, I wondered when you'd mention me. Considering I have not even entered a thread knocking the US for a very long time, you must still have a chip on your shoulder about my supposed chip to remember me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That makes me very amused indeed...LOL

As soon as I posted that, I had that very thought. You deserve credit for staying above the fray. I apologize and will edit the post.

LRRP

MEGILE
09-13-2006, 12:21 PM
Someone pass the chips

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Ah, I wondered when you'd mention me. Considering I have not even entered a thread knocking the US for a very long time, you must still have a chip on your shoulder about my supposed chip to remember me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That makes me very amused indeed...LOL

As soon as I posted that, I had that very thought. You deserve credit for staying above the fray. I apologize and will edit the post.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I'll retire back to not getting involved.

But, just as an aside, contrary to what you think of me, lrrp, I *really* do not hate America or Americans - I just question some of it's leaders motives or the things that some Americans say sometimes. That's all. As I said somewhere else today, 'enough said' by me.

Please continue with the slanging match....seconds out, round two.

horseback
09-13-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hey guys we all no that even the Wildcat was much better than the Spitfire VIII and that USN pilots were even better than those Krauts who flew in that phoney out fit JG52.

This is a thread to discuss a Japanese fighter pilots comments - feel free to belittle the Spitfire if you want and the RAAF and RAF pilots who flew in in the PF but we all know that its just plane envy.

The VIII powned its enemies and its contemporaries alike. The Darwin Spit squadrons had been clearly warned about the Zero by no less a pilot than Joe Foss-and he thought that they ignored his somewhat blunt advice, although it appears that the MK V Spitfire was much more sensitive to the tropical conditions found in the Southwest Pacific than was understood at the time.

However, it should be pointed out that the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were also primarily tasked with getting to the bombers, and after a few initial setbacks, were able to engage both fighters and bombers successfully. The Darwin Spits had to deal with comparatively few raids before the Japanese ran out of resources for offensive operations.

AFAIK, the Mk VIII units in Australia were unable to find aerial opposition, due to MacArthur's putting them in backwater bases to bomb and strafe bypassed Japanese strongholds.

The CBI, however, was primarily a Commonwealth show, especially in Burma, where the majority of the relatively few US fighter units were flying P-40s well into 1944, which may explain the perceived difference between them and the faster, better climbing Spit VIII. It didn't take five minutes for a Spit VIII to get the seperation needed before re-engaging.

cheers

horseback

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:

I just question some of it's leaders motives or the things that some Americans say sometimes.

You and me both, Norris...you and me both.

LRRP

PS- I'm not interested in ****ging matches, I just get discouraged by the fact that there is a very obvious double standard on these boards concerning the things that can be said about Americans vs. what is considered acceptable regarding any other amorphous national or ethnic group.

Remember, every group represented around here has its own HayateAce in one form or another.

MEGILE
09-13-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:

I just question some of it's leaders motives or the things that some Americans say sometimes.

You and me both, Norris...you and me both.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing wrong with that... but you think maybe it effects your opinions on other topics a tad? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

Nothing wrong with that... but you think maybe it effects your opinions on other topics a tad? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Like? I'm not exactly following what you're saying here...

If you are asking if my nationality colors my world view to a certain extent then, yes, of course it does. So does yours, every bit as much as does mine.

LRRP

MEGILE
09-13-2006, 12:56 PM
Not you.

Maybe I'm offbase here.. but on these forums I see a polarisation of political views and historical views. One seems to go with the other.

Hate Bush = P-51 sucked.
Germany were all Nazis = FW-190 sucked

Not directed at anyone in particular, but interpret it as you choose.


I digress

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Not you.

Maybe I'm offbase here.. but on these forums I see a polarisation of political views and historical views. One seems to go with the other.

Hate Bush = P-51 sucked.
Germany were all Nazis = FW-190 sucked

Not directed at anyone in particular, but interpret it as you choose.


I digress


I agree completely. I'm always amazed at how someone's opinion of current geopolitics affects there view of a 60 year-old machine.

LRRP

p1ngu666
09-13-2006, 01:07 PM
i hate bush, but i dont think p51 sucked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

twas the 109 that was the sucky german fighter, not 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

american motives become clear about 5-20years after a certain event, in my experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 01:22 PM
"Not you."

Me, then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This might be better to take to PT but...

There has always been a polarisation of views on these forums, whether it has been red or blue, Europe vs US or whatever.

I dislike Bush anyway - I can't help it, sorry. It's just what he says and how he says it that makes me wonder about how wise it is to have him as a president. And it's more of that 'you make up your mind about someone within 60 seconds of first 'meeting them' thing, I'm sure.

Then again, I fully understand that our view of him can be manipulated by the media and that you may not see all sides to him. On that note, I was quite impressed by his "apology" to a black (not sure if that's the correct PC term these days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) woman in New Orleans recently but him being the most powerful man on the planet just worries me...plain and simple.

On the subject of P51s, what polarises me about it is the onslaught of it 'winning the war' and 'being porked' (same applies to the 190 view from the other side, I know) because I have the view that it didn't win teh war (the allies did), it wasn't actually the best piston engined fighter of the war (although it was one of the best) and that isn't porked (I've always doubted the wings falling off business but, then again, I've always doubted a 5 foot tall 190 pilot)

On the other hand, there are those (we know who) that still blame the Germans for bombing their chippy (or whatever) and that they must all be goose steppers still and that anyone who likes LW must be closet Nazis (I read the Guardian when I can be bothered to buy a paper).

Ultimately, I don't think anyone likes anything shoved down their throat all the time, whether it is 'teh Mustang won da war' or 'all Americans are idiots'; hence the polarisation.

I took a decision to take a step back from the largley 'just wind them up like they're winding you up' cobblers posts of old and to try to at least reason things without going overboard. Unforutnately, I find it harder to curtail my sarcastic nature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
09-13-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
american motives become clear about 5-20years after a certain event, in my experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

American motives are exactly the same as British, French, Peruvian, Ghanian, etc.'s motives- whatever is in the perceived best interest of that particular nation at that particular time. It's the current administration's perceptions of what is 'best' that are somewhat troublesome.

LRRP