PDA

View Full Version : Most successful air action of WWII?



DaBallz
02-22-2004, 03:36 PM
In "RISE AND FALL of the THIRD REICH" Albert Speer
said the US Raids on the Schwinefurt ball bearing
plants were the most damaging.
he said the Allies should have re-visited
as often as possible, no matter what the
recon photo's showed.

Speer should know I would guess.

Any more opinions? (stupid question....)


Da...

DaBallz
02-22-2004, 03:36 PM
In "RISE AND FALL of the THIRD REICH" Albert Speer
said the US Raids on the Schwinefurt ball bearing
plants were the most damaging.
he said the Allies should have re-visited
as often as possible, no matter what the
recon photo's showed.

Speer should know I would guess.

Any more opinions? (stupid question....)


Da...

Chuck_Older
02-22-2004, 03:42 PM
Most succesful...


In the long run, I say: Second atomic bomb attack, because it effectively ended the war.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Fornixx
02-22-2004, 03:49 PM
Yepp, atomic bomb easy the most successful air action. Saved half a million japanese and american lives and ended the war in an instant.

Other than that.... Battle of Britain from the english side that is. Stopped the invasion threat and made Britain a springboard for the 1944 invasion.

S!

Covino
02-22-2004, 03:53 PM
Successful for whom? The "good guys?" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'd say the Pearl Harbor attack was pretty successful

Menthol_moose
02-22-2004, 03:59 PM
Yeah.. Pearl Harbor, stunning suprise and huge damage, although the carriers were not found.

But definately the bomb. The amount of lives and suffering saved on both sides is unimaginable. The invasion of japan would have been a bloodbath of biblical proportions.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Chuck_Older
02-22-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
Successful for whom? The "good guys?" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'd say the Pearl Harbor attack was pretty successful<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That had crossed my mind, that and the attack at Taranto. But it didn't meet it's objectives: sinking carriers, too, not just battleships. And in the end, most of the battleships returned to duty.


A spectacular attack, of course, but not as successful as was hoped. It's objective, if I recall, was to eliminate US opposition to Japanese expansion until Japan could consolidate it's hold to the point the US would cede certain things to them. That didn't happen.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

HARD_Sarge
02-22-2004, 04:25 PM
Hi Evilben

'd say the Pearl Harbor attack was pretty successful

greesh, dude, who was it successful to ?

major mistakes made during the raid, importent targets missed (Oil storage, sub base, Mach shops), Glory targets hit that meant nothing ( BB's, in the long run) follow up attacks not made (Commander in Charge had a history of getting cold feet)

the Raid had great planning and great skill in pulling it off, but it missed it main targets and then didn't attack the most importent of the sencodary targets, and started a war on grounds that made the foe unwilling to give up

don't know if you can really name a "best" raid, most raids worked, most really work or don't work as seen from a Campaign view

overall, for what it did and how it was carried out, maybe the Dolittle Raid should be

HARD_Sarge

DaBallz
02-22-2004, 04:25 PM
The Atom bomb was successful for sure.
More Japanese died in the fire raid
on Tokyo March 9th and March 10th 1945
than in both atomic attacks combined.
yet the Japanese fought on.

I doubt the Japanese would have surrendered
easily untill the atomic weapons gave them
a a weapon that no one in 1945 could defend against.

Japanese firemen and civillians fought the
Tokyo fires to the death. The atom bomb
lit a whole city in one shot.

Good choice. Perhaps our Russian friends can
come up with a great air action on the eastern front?

Da...

DangerForward
02-22-2004, 08:43 PM
I'd say the first couple of days of Barbarossa. Or maybe the air battles over New Guinea, really took a toll on the experienced pilots of Japan.

DangerForward

reddevil49
02-22-2004, 08:57 PM
I would sat the battle of Midway as it turned the tide of the war in the pacific. Some will say it was just dumb luck, but a lot of battles are won or lost onte turn of a card.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-23-2004, 09:49 AM
Hi

Pearl Harbor...
Complete surprise and a lot of damage, particularly of a psychological nature.

Tied with...
The atomic bomb

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

uberweng
02-23-2004, 10:25 AM
I am not an expert on pearl harbour but i was thought that most of the ships were salvaged and able to play an active role in the naval war within a year due to the shallowness of the harbour. This, combined with the failure to hit the carriers makes it more of a failure than a success as an air action in my eyes. (although japanese bombing accuracy was pretty spectacular)

Uberweng

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 10:31 AM
Pearl Harbor was a great plan... but since FDR knew about it he removed the CVs, best cruisers and destoyers in the week before... Japan didnt keep track of them that well and when they attacked they got old targets to sink... FDR could have stopped PH, but basically needed a reason to go to war... PH basically was a total failure...


the Atomic bomb was succesful yes... but so where the bombing campaigns in germany and japan, at leveling factories and cities.. really made them Axis countries look like junk and killed tons of civilians...

bazzaah2
02-23-2004, 10:33 AM
Big Week!

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

LEXX_Luthor
02-23-2004, 10:50 AM
Well, I was gonna say Barbarossa bombing of Soviet airfields built for Massacre by NKVD, given the I~153 scored the first KILL of the East WAR, and they would have whupped the Luftwaffe if the fields were not bombed--but that is the purpose of airforces to win through bombing, but I must agree with Midway, I mean 100% success right there (or 100% failure depending on point of view). Although the scale of the two actions were totally different.

btw...at least to some level the Debate over FDR and Pearh Harbour I find to be similar to the Debate about NKVD and Barbarossa.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

MandMs
02-23-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
In "RISE AND FALL of the THIRD REICH" Albert Speer
said the US Raids on the Schwinefurt ball bearing
plants were the most damaging.
he said the Allies should have re-visited
as often as possible, no matter what the
recon photo's showed.

Speer should know I would guess.

Any more opinions? (stupid question....)


Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The plants were up and running within a few weeks. There was hardly any interuption to production. The manufacturing facilities were then dispersed so more raids would not 'knock out 'the bearing manufacturing.


required reading

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/index.html



I eat the red ones last.

Jippo01
02-23-2004, 11:15 AM
I don't think scale has necessarily anything to do with success of a air action. Here is a sample of a highly succesful air action in small scale:


http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Bansai Potato
02-23-2004, 11:27 AM
What about some of the very succesful and daring low level bombing raids of our famous Mozzie Bombers, such as completely destroying the Gestapo head quarters somewhere in Europe. That raid in turn destroyed thousands of documents on suspected resistance workers which allowed them to carry on their devious tasks, i beleive they carried out similiar raids on concentration camps, releasing hundreds of prisoners at a time.

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Ede_EAF92/EAF/24890632.92EastIndiaSquadronpersonnel.jpg

J30Vader
02-23-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
Pearl Harbor was a great plan... but since FDR knew about it he removed the CVs, best cruisers and destoyers in the week before... Japan didnt keep track of them that well and when they attacked they got old targets to sink... FDR could have stopped PH, but basically needed a reason to go to war... PH basically was a total failure...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FDR did not know that Pearl Harbor was a target. No one in the Pacific Fleet even expected that it would be a target. Why?

The theory at the time was that a fleet would lose 10% of its effectiveness for every 1000 miles from base. Hence the Phillipines were the more likely target.

If it was known, then the day would of been known as well. The fleet would of been at sea.
The carriers would of not been dispersed, and the fighters would of not been on the ground.

The only way he could of stopped it was to give Japan what she wanted.

Consider this:

The two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver additional fighters to Wake and Midway. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the IJN, widely separated and lightly escorted.

On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west and heading for Midway. See Admiral Kimmel's report on these missions.
"OK, but they were still out of port!" Yes, but Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".

[This message was edited by J30Vader on Mon February 23 2004 at 10:55 AM.]

[This message was edited by J30Vader on Mon February 23 2004 at 10:57 AM.]

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J30Vader:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
Pearl Harbor was a great plan... but since FDR knew about it he removed the CVs, best cruisers and destoyers in the week before... Japan didnt keep track of them that well and when they attacked they got old targets to sink... FDR could have stopped PH, but basically needed a reason to go to war... PH basically was a total failure...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FDR did not know that Pearl Harbor was a target. No one in the Pacific Fleet even expected that it would be a target. Why?

The theory at the time was that a fleet would lose 10% of its effectiveness for every 1000 miles from base. Hence the Phillipines were the more likely target.

If it was known, then the day would of been known as well. The fleet would of been at sea.
The carriers would of not been dispersed, and the fighters would of not been on the ground.

The only way he could of stopped it was to give Japan what she wanted.

Consider this:

The two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver additional fighters to Wake and Midway. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the IJN, widely separated and lightly escorted.

On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west and heading for Midway. See Admiral Kimmel's report on these missions.
"OK, but they were still out of port!" Yes, but Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".

[This message was edited by J30Vader on Mon February 23 2004 at 10:55 AM.]

[This message was edited by J30Vader on Mon February 23 2004 at 10:57 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow, you just helped the cause there... secret, so nobody knew... i.e. the japanese, they thought the carriers where still there... doh...

BfHeFwMe
02-23-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
Pearl Harbor was a great plan... but since FDR knew about it he removed the CVs, best cruisers and destoyers in the week before...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish, cite your source please. These vessels were scheduled for the training exercise they were on long before that week.

No one kicks off a war by letting the other guy have a free shot, winning wasn't a sure thing you know, it took five long years of hard combat and atomic weapons to crush that enemy. Only the extreme UFO crowd could possibly reduce it to a conspiracy, put your tin foil hat back on now.

Zyzbot
02-23-2004, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
[No one kicks off a war by letting the other guy have a free shot,


"On Nov. 27, 1941, President Roosevelt issued orders to all the commanders in the Pacific and told them to stand aside, don't go on the offensive, remain in a defensive mode, and these are [his] exact words, 'for the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act' of war."

He probably didn't know their exact plans but he knew that the Japanese would eventually start a war.

Ankanor
02-23-2004, 03:39 PM
you could say that the first 9 hours of Operation Barbarossa were unique-1200 Russian Aircraft were destroyed, 900 of them on the ground.

On the other hand, the Marianas Turkey shoot, about 300 Japanese planes destroyed in less than 8 hours, comes to mind. About the most successful airraid, I think it will be the Tokyo Raid when about 80 000 people died.
The nuke is another weapon, it is in a different category

How

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 03:40 PM
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read dozens of similar conspiracy theories.
All fail to prove anything.
What is clear is that EVERYONE had an idea
that the Japanese were going to do something.
The US did in fact have a days advanced warning
but it got delayed in a typical millitary SNAFU.
It arrived in Hawaii Monday morning.

But as to the "success" of Pearl harbor......
The US lost two battleships, one was obsolete
and one was old and nearly so.
As we now know ALL battleships were obsolete.
Pearl harbor was a total failure. The losses were
easily made up for, and the attack legitimised
the war effort. There were no more protests, the
German American Bund disolved, and most everyone
pitched in to the war effort.

The alleged Yamamoto quote in the movie "TORA TORA TORA"
is absolutely correct. A sleeping giant was awakened.
Not only that but it was extremely pissed off.
Any Americans remember the 9-11 attacks?
Remember how upset you were?
If that had been a clearly identifiable nation
that had pulled that off where do you think we would be?

Pearl Harbor was a localised millitary success.
In context to the whole picture
it was suicide.

Da

MandMs
02-23-2004, 03:59 PM
Here is some more reading of revisionist history for you Red.

http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/idx.htm



I eat the red ones last.

BaldieJr
02-23-2004, 04:08 PM
Um... Dropping the bomb was successful air action?

Ok, they succeeded, but whats so special about that?

A coupla BIG bombers lumbered in at relativly low altitude and dropped a bomb, unchallenged. Does that not tell you something about the state Japan was in at the time of the bombing?

Dropping the atom bomb on Japan was a complete waste of time. All it did was piss Stalin off. Japan was already beaten.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Um... Dropping the bomb was successful air action?

Ok, they succeeded, but whats so special about that?

A coupla BIG bombers lumbered in at relativly low altitude and dropped a bomb, unchallenged. Does that not tell you something about the state Japan was in at the time of the bombing?

Dropping the atom bomb on Japan was a complete waste of time. All it did was piss Stalin off. Japan was already beaten.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The invasion of mainland Japan was only hours away
when the ceasefire was announced. An invasion
fleet that dwarfed the Normandy invasion was
in place. The Japanese had no intention of surrender
until Hirohito was handed what he needed. He
needed the nasty shock of an undefendable
weapon like the Atom Bomb to force the issue
of surrender.

You believe the japanese were defeated?
Why then was an attempt made to kidnap Hirohito
the day the surrender speach was recorded?

By the western definition the Japanese were in fact
beaten. No agruing that. But they were not going
to quit till the last warrior was dead.
And there was a great amount of evedence the
civilian population was to join in the fight.

As to those bombers... The Japanese continued
to attack formations of B-29s whenever possible.
But to waste resources on lone weather/recon planes
was not done. Short on resources thet let those
lone bombers fly unmolested.
Bad move eh?

The idea that the bombs were used to stop Stalin
is pure rubbish. The Allies were begging Stalin to
open a Pacific front against the Japanese.
It is obvious that Stalin was too late.

I remain convinced that between half a million
and one million Japanese and Americans survived
WWII because of the Atomic attacks.

Da...

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 06:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaBallz:

beaten. No agruing that. But they were not going
to quit till the last warrior was dead.
And there was a great amount of evedence the
civilian population was to join in the fight.

QUOTE]

Yes
The japanese goverment was telling civilians that they would be slaughtered and raped by Americans if they ever set foot on the mainland. Total resistance and suicide was expected, and the civilians seemed willing to give this.

The writing was on the wall for Japan, but they were FAR from a beaten nation.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaBallz:

beaten. No agruing that. But they were not going
to quit till the last warrior was dead.
And there was a great amount of evedence the
civilian population was to join in the fight.

QUOTE]

Yes
The japanese goverment was telling civilians that they would be slaughtered and raped by Americans if they ever set foot on the mainland. Total resistance and suicide was expected, and the civilians seemed willing to give this.

The writing was on the wall for Japan, but they were FAR from a beaten nation.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Comment taken out of context.
BY THE WESTERN DEFINITION was omitted.

It should read...
By the western definition beaten. No agruing that.

Covino
02-23-2004, 06:31 PM
I'm generally supportive of the atom bomb droppings but there are times when I question it.
Stalin, in painful irony, once said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
When you hear about 100,000 deaths, you tend to shrug it off. When you think of a face, a personality, an innocent life, and multiply it by 100,000, then it really hits you.
An act like than by America today would never be tolerated, why should it have been 60 years ago? That's not the America I know. I guess the best answer is war isn't black and white. Everything is in shades of gray.

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:


It should read...
By the western definition beaten. No agruing that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just what is the "western definition" of beaten ?

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Zyzbot
02-23-2004, 06:40 PM
[
Just what is the "western definition" of beaten ?



FRANCE 1940?

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 06:40 PM
Hard to place a hard description on it.
But I can easily describe 'out of context'.



Da...

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 06:47 PM
go on...

do tell



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
go on...

do tell



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Flamer has been caught in the act.
No responce will be forthcoming.
Get a life.

Da...

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 06:57 PM
no.. not flamming..

we want to hear your definition.

Dont try and wriggle out of it.



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
no.. not flamming..

we want to hear your definition.

Dont try and wriggle out of it.

A Flamer has been caught in the act.
No responce will be forthcoming.
Get a life.

Da...

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

horseback
02-23-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
I'm generally supportive of the atom bomb droppings but there are times when I question it.
Stalin, in painful irony, once said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
When you hear about 100,000 deaths, you tend to shrug it off. When you think of a face, a personality, an innocent life, and multiply it by 100,000, then it really hits you.
An act like than by America today would never be tolerated, why should it have been 60 years ago? That's not the America I know. I guess the best answer is war isn't black and white. Everything is in shades of gray.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem for you here is that you are a victim of the Soviets' greatest victory in the Cold War. For fifty years, the West was told by every source the Soviets could muster that atomic or nuclear weapons were "evil" or "immoral" in and of themselves. They explained away the fact that they themselves had similar weapons by saying that they needed them to defend themselves from those crazy Americans, and said if NATO gave up their nuclear weapons, the "progressive peoples" of the Warsaw Pact would give up theirs.

They probably never dreamed that so many people could be so thoroughly conditioned to buy such a load of crap.

Naturally, they never spoke too openly about their massive advantages in conventional weapons and trained military manpower, which was why western countries who had to pay their bills with real money earned by the private sector, leaned on the (cheaper) nuclear deterrent.

But I digress. In 1945, the atomic bomb was just a more powerful bomb, and while awesome, the results of the two bombs used on Japan were not as horrific as the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo. In the Allies' view, the German and Japanese people had brought these calamaties upon themselves, first by supporting the rise of rapacious leaders, and secondly, by committing numerous atrocities of their own from the outset of the war.

The Second World War was the ultimate conclusion of a major philosophical debate in the first half of the twentieth century. The essence of the question was "Does might make right? Is it the right of the strong to take whatever they want and do whatever they want to the weak?" as personified by the Fascist movement in Italy, the Nazis in Germany, and the militarists in Japan.

As you can see, it didn't work out for them. While the west has not been perfect in this regard, we have made more of an effort in the last fifty years to live up to our stated principles.

America doesn't need to use nuclear weapons for most cases today. They're too wasteful, and dangerous to everyone else in the vicinity. We had no knowlege of that in 1945, and took about ten years to figure it out. The genie is however, out of the bottle, and until ALL of humanity can come to some kind of agreement about tolerance for other points of view, we're probably going to keep our Big Stick. When those crazy Frenchmen give up their nuclear weapons, we'll give up ours.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 07:26 PM
Its a shame we have people like you in forums. When asked to back up ambiguous statements like "western definition of surrender", they back into a corner then start calling people trolls, flamers and to "get a life"

If your going to come out with such definitions make sure you can back them up in a forum.

Or you can stay out of the kitchen if its too hot.



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
Its a shame we have people like you in forums. When asked to back up ambiguous statements like "western definition of surrender", they back into a corner then start calling people trolls, flamers and to "get a life"

If your going to come out with such definitions make sure you can back them up in a forum.

Or you can stay out of the kitchen if its too hot.



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Shame we have flamers like you that take things out of context.
This is my last post in responce to your childish taunts.
You got caught and now try to turn it on me.
Face it, you loose.
See ya.

Da...

LestWeForget
02-23-2004, 10:51 PM
I'm not sure you could rightfully class ANY one raid as the most successfull of the war, but if it was, I think Operation CHASTISE, the RAF's 617Sq "Dambusters" raid would have to rate a mention.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/raflossiemouth/sqn/pages/617_his.htm

Then of course there is Operation JERICHO, the Mosquito raid that busted a heap of condemned French Resistance men out of Amiens prison.

http://www.air-photo.com/english/jericho.html

Another of the most successfull, and possibly one with the greatest impact on the outcome of the European air war, was the continued ferry flights of new combat aircraft and crew from the USA and Canada to England via Greenland.

jurinko
02-24-2004, 02:29 AM
this one was not so bad either..

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=007428

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

HARD_Sarge
02-24-2004, 06:30 AM
Hi LestWeForget
got to disagree about the dambusters, great raid, great skill, heavy losses, but in the end, while they did get some of the targets, it turned out that they didn't get the most importent one, the one that would of flooded the Rhur and shut it down (for a while at least)

HARD_Sarge

HARD_Sarge
02-24-2004, 06:39 AM
hi jurinko

and again, while a great strike, that killed Yamamoto, it was more a morale boost, then a war ending strike

over all, Yamamoto after the PH planning, was more harm to his side then to ours, and as with most of the trained IJN commanders, they tended to get carried away with there plans, and the more that was added to there plans, the worst they got

Midway is a prime one, the idea was to draw out the US fleet and then overwelm it, but once the planning got going, it was decided to send out a decoy (the landings up north) to split and draw away froces from the main battle ?

and his plans in and around Canel, all but lost them the war

overall, we may of been better off with him still in charge, but it made the people back home happy

HARD_Sarge

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-24-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
I'd say the first couple of days of Barbarossa.
DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. My vote for Eastern front...hands down.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

MatuDa_
02-24-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
I'd say the first couple of days of Barbarossa.
DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. My vote for Eastern front...hands down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gets my vote too.

Whoever said the atomic bombings were "most succesful" are ignorant. Japan tried to surrender before the nukes but US didn't listen since they had to show all who had the biggest guns. IMO nuking civilians is on-par with the german and russian c-camps.

Cajun76
02-24-2004, 09:23 AM
MatuDa_, I would love to see your evidence that Japan was seeking an unconditional surrender before the bombings. They'd known the terms for quite a few years before the "Bomb."

And "civilians" working in wartime factories are unfortunately military targets. That's war. It was a different time than now. To judge it by "enlightened" standards of today is false and misleading about the nature of the conflict at the time.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

eiffel68
02-24-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
you could say that the first 9 hours of Operation Barbarossa were unique-1200 Russian Aircraft were destroyed, 900 of them on the ground.

On the other hand, the Marianas Turkey shoot, about 300 Japanese planes destroyed in less than 8 hours, comes to mind. About the most successful airraid, I think it will be the Tokyo Raid when about 80 000 people died.
The nuke is another weapon, it is in a different category

How

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battle of the Philippine Sea was a very successful defensive air action from the US point of view.

Likewise the RAF defense of Malta should also have a honorable mention.

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/antn45.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
02-24-2004, 10:00 AM
Hi,

I actually agree with MatDa on that issue of attacking civilian targets but it was "successful", in terms of causing a surrender.

Quite why (apart from the fact that there weren't many kicking around to drop) one device was not used where it would clearly be obvious to the Japanese that a weapon of mass destruction existed (i.e. drop it on an island nearby or set it off out to sea) that would annihilate their cities and people, is a mystery to me.

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

Magister__Ludi
02-24-2004, 11:09 AM
The campaign against german oil can be rated as one of the most successful.

DONB3397
02-24-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The campaign against german oil can be rated as one of the most successful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point, as a subset of the Strategic Air Campaign. Add targets for munitions production, heavy industry, transportation and communications systems, even a/c manufacturing...and you have the most misunderstood, maligned, expensive...and ultimately successful air campaign.

But individual air actions? Probably Pearl Harbor at the outset of the war, Midway in the middle, and Hiroshima/Nagasake at the end.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCbi4NAB.0s9LZQo

DaBallz
02-24-2004, 04:21 PM
Whoever said the atomic bombings were "most succesful" are ignorant. Japan tried to surrender before the nukes but US didn't listen since they had to show all who had the biggest guns. IMO nuking civilians is on-par with the german and russian c-camps.[/QUOTE]

Please, I would like to see a legitimit reference.
There is no record of the Japanese making
surrender overtures.
Quite to the contrary, the Japanese were digging
in for the long haul.
In light of your accusations I would like you
to try and explain the attempt to kidnap
Hirohito by Army officers to prevent the surrender.

The ONLY argument against the atomic bombing
was the possability of a demonstration
bombing.
I can not see how a demonstration could have been done.

Blowing a 20 kiloton atomic devise over the ocean
leaves no evedence of it's destructive power.
A land based demonstration in an un populated
area would only leave a scorch mark, again
an ineffectice demonstration.

Seems obvious this post was just made to throw
a cheep shot at the US.

da...

MB_Avro
02-24-2004, 06:12 PM
My father was a young boy in England during WW2 and he remembers the following as if it was yesterday..

He hadn't had any fresh fruit for years so he raided his mother's stockpile of one tinned can of pineapples...secretly, he opened this only can under his bed and ate the lot...

He still feels guilty about this.

Does this count as an air action and if so was it viable?


Concerned and thoughtful

MB_Avro

J30Vader
02-24-2004, 10:43 PM
There were peace overtures. Unoffical for the most part. Through Sweden, Switzerland, and the Soviet Union. For various reasons, they came to naught.

Chapter 31, "In Quest of Peace" in the book "The Rising Sun", by John Toland.

See also "The Pacific War" by John Costello, starting on page 566.

MatuDa_
02-25-2004, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Seems obvious this post was just made to throw
a cheep shot at the US.
da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OOOOHHH here we go again *******it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

I DID mention the soviet and german camps too didn't I? Any german or russian ppl complaining? no? Some UnitedStatesofAmericans are just a bit too jumpy. Luckily it is a minority http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now run to your mum and tell big baddie say bad thingy about the nukes.

One pretty succesful air operation was Rudels sinking of Marat. One bomb and one less battleship http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Didn't need the tall boys or grandslams for that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ooops someone can consider that comment as a cheap shot too.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

DaBallz
02-25-2004, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Seems obvious this post was just made to throw
a cheep shot at the US.
da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OOOOHHH here we go again *******it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

I DID mention the soviet and german camps too didn't I? Any german or russian ppl complaining? no? Some UnitedStatesofAmericans are just a bit too jumpy. Luckily it is a minority http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now run to your mum and tell big baddie say bad thingy about the nukes.

One pretty succesful air operation was Rudels sinking of Marat. One bomb and one less battleship http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Didn't need the tall boys or grandslams for that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ooops someone can consider that comment as a cheap shot too.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope, just childish flaming.
Insults usualy are the byproduct of
the failure to prove a point.
Insult all you like, the mods love it.

There are rumors that the Japanese made
attempts to negotiate a peace. But this
went nowhere for a reason.
#1, no hard facts have been brought to light that the Japanese really wanted to negotiate.

#2, Unconditional surrender was the only acceptable option.

Hiroshima was no more or less a viable target
than Nanking or shanghai.

War is hell.

The war ended and millions of lives were saved
by demolishing those two cities.

Da...

MandMs
02-25-2004, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa_:

One pretty succesful air operation was Rudels sinking of Marat. One bomb and one less battleship http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Didn't need the tall boys or grandslams for that
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What so great about the partial sinking of a pre-WW1 battleship? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

02-25-2004, 04:31 AM
Some of the most successfull ones :

-Soviet airforce being destroyed on the ground on 22nd June 1941. With some 2000+ a/c destroyed in a single day...
-Taranto
-Pearl Harbor
-The LW night raids on the Poltava airfields where B-17s rested, summer 1944, EF.
-Sinking of the Italian BB Roma by just a handful of Do 217s
-Midway. With some luck, the tide of war on the PTO turned in a single battle
-Operation Cerberus
-Dieppe (at least for the LW..)
-The Oil Campaign in 1944
-Supplying the Demyansk encirclement by air (LW)
-Supplying the Bastogne encirclement by air (USAAF)
-Eban Emael
-Operation Merkur

Just the ones that struck my mind at the moment.

BlackHawkLeader
02-25-2004, 04:52 AM
While it was funny to see yet another post turn into a childish mud slinging match, God this place is getting worse.

How could you go past Pearl Harbour!
The strategic objective was achieved, Japan had a free hand in the Pacific.

I would agree with the Atom bomb but for one small point only.
The devastating impact on the outcome of WW2 if Japan had invaded the West Coast Mainland of the United States, and the philipinnes, instead of the philipinnes and near Asia.

There was no American fleet to stop them and America was for the most part un prepared for War.
With the Phillipines under Japans control, the Japanese had the Oil to Wage a sustained War into the American heart land.

My goodness America fighting for her own life!
No lend lease to Russia, no aid to Britain, who knows mayby no Atom Bomb ?

Makes you wonder eh!

DaBallz
02-25-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackHawkLeader:
While it was funny to see yet another post turn into a childish mud slinging match, God this place is getting worse.

How could you go past Pearl Harbour!
The strategic objective was achieved, Japan had a free hand in the Pacific.

I would agree with the Atom bomb but for one small point only.
The devastating impact on the outcome of WW2 if Japan had invaded the West Coast Mainland of the United States, and the philipinnes, instead of the philipinnes and near Asia.

There was no American fleet to stop them and America was for the most part un prepared for War.
With the Phillipines under Japans control, the Japanese had the Oil to Wage a sustained War into the American heart land.

My goodness America fighting for her own life!
No lend lease to Russia, no aid to Britain, who knows mayby no Atom Bomb ?

Makes you wonder eh!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting spin on the possabilities.
I tend to think the invasion of the US
would have been a blood bath. The US civillian
population was very heavily armed in 1941.
Even if the enemy made a beach head they would
have been shot at by every tom **** and harry
with a gun.
Also the US is vast and not connected by land
to any AXIS allies. Combine that with the nasty
counter attacks and Japan would have quickly
been driven back into the Pacific...

IMO where Japan really screwed up is there was no
invasion of Hawaii on Dec,7,1941.

But as with the many "what if" scenarios of
Germanys tactics in Europe, Japan was simply too small
to sustain a long fight. The outcome was a forgone
conclusion. Japan like germany simply could never have won.

Da...

Cajun76
02-25-2004, 07:12 PM
DaBallz, ya keep saying they had no chance, but that's the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Without getting into the historical specifics of why Germany and Japan failed, there were reasons why two of some of the most heavily populated and resource rich countries in the world were invaded. Russia and China were each invaded for men and material. Both, at one point, were in very real danger of being conquered. Historical hindsight says that the results of these campaigns were destined to fail, but to the people that were there in early '42, both Germany and Japan seemed unstoppable. So you're right, Japan and Germany were too small to sustain a fight, but, they were well on their way to acquiring that ability. To say they couldn't have won ignores the facts and reasons the Allies fought so hard against them.

Now, I know you like to bring up the "Bomb" at this point in these discussions, but it didn't exist and wasn't a factor for 99% of the war. Japan could have been beaten conventionally, eventually. Numerous factors could have greatly delayed it's development and deployment. 20/20 hindsight says it brought the war to a quicker end and even saved more lives than it destroyed. But to the Marines on troopships, waiting to land on Japan's beaches before the "Bomb" was deployed, Iwo and Okinawa were going to be fond memories if they survived.

Germany and Japan had a shot. They gambled, and lost. But in the early years of the conflict, the dice hadn't come to rest, and nobody knew what the outcome would be. Frightening, desperate times, for sure.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The most succesful air action? As far as lopsided fights go, the Marianas Turkey Shoot was one of them, imo.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

PF_Talus
02-25-2004, 07:33 PM
The thought that Japan could have invaded the mainland US is fantasy. Japan didn't have near the merchant shipping to invade and supply Hawaii let alone the mainland. Where would the needed troops come from?
As for sucessful air campaigns, 5th AF in the south Pacific acomplished much with very little.


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/Talus/tank_cccp.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-25-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
.

Now, I know you like to bring up the "Bomb" at this point in these discussions, but it didn't exist and wasn't a factor for 99% of the war. 20/20 hindsight says it brought the war to a quicker end and even saved more lives than it destroyed. But to the Marines on troopships, waiting to land on Japan's beaches before the "Bomb" was deployed, Iwo and Okinawa were going to be fond memories if they survived.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does it's appearance at the end of the war diminish the a-bomb's use as potentially the most succesful air action of WWII? I don't think widespread use of the weapon or tactic is a good measure of success, I prefer to lean toward results as a better yardstick for success.

To you or I hindsight is 20/20 in this regard, but the immediate nature of that decision was real and the factors you mention were the factors considerd by Harry Truman. He didn't benefit from hindsight in his desicion at all. I think that your post suggests that it was used just as another conventional weapon, and it was not. The desicion was well considered. It was the first single use weapon to be used individually and strategically. Think about that- a single weapon of any type used in a single attack. Not tons of bombs- a single weapon. Dropping the A-bomb was the first point in the war that the US had true strategic airpower. The act of dropping the bomb made the use of a single weapon go from tactical to strategic in one awful moment, and changed the post war world as well. I suppose that is an example of the most momentous attack, but then again, I would argue that it wouldn't have had the power to change the post war world had it not been as successful as it was.

Could you clarify your comment on the Marines? It all but contradicts your argument that the bomb's use wasn't seen as a nessecary thing to end the war quickly with less loss of life- emphasis on US life of course.


A quick comment on Pearl Harbor-
In my definition of success, Pearl Harbor was immediately successful, but I can't find an argument that persuades me it was as successful as some folks here think. Why? Because while it's true that Japan temporarily had a free hand in the Pacific, Japan's goal was to eliminate US opposition to their actions, not delay it. Japan did not plan on striking Pearl Harbor to merely gain temporary control of anything, it was supposed to curtail our efforts to oppose them completely. That failed.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

DaBallz
02-25-2004, 07:47 PM
Two small countries with limited resources but with
highly trained and highly motivated millitary
kick the world in the nuts and try to take over.
Hindsight you say?
It is amazing they got as far as they did.
Hindsight says they never stood a chance.
No one, not Hitler, not Hirohito or Tojo expected
the TOTAL mobilization of the US economy.
no one expected the Soviets to do the same.

Yep, in hindsight it is obvious, the AXIS
could never have won after Barbarosa and Pearl Harbor.

Hindsight is the only view I have, it's history, not
a present conflict.

da...

Chuck_Older
02-25-2004, 07:57 PM
That doesn't address anything I said. All you did was give your perspective.

To Truman it was not hindsight. To Truman, the war was not over. I am not trying to discuss what you personally think of the situation or it's consequences.

Yes it is history, but by the same token, that does not change the fact that it was not an act of hindsight at the time. I think you're confusing your standpoints with the discussion of contemporary opinion and option. I'm not talking about you or how you can look back at History.

My post does not say that anything was a failure because someone lost, it says something was a failure because it did not accomplish it's goals. Has nothing to do with Japan losing.
*****************************
Rudy can't fail~ Clash

Cajun76
02-26-2004, 08:12 AM
OK, maybe I can clear this up, Chuck. Sorry for the confusion. My post that you quoted from was directed at DaBallz. He seems to only care about the conflict as separate events. He even goes as far as saying that Germany was a small country. It was one of the biggest (if not the biggest), resource rich countries in Europe. I try to look at the how and why things occur. The events behind the events, as it were. It's a continuation from a similar discussion where he basically says the same thing. I disagree. The Allied leaders of the time saw what a great danger the Axis posed, and made a great effort to stop them. To them it wasn't a cut and dry war. Every major decision ran the risk of losing ground, men, resources or even the very war. They had no way of knowing if the next decision would make or break their efforts. DaBallz doesn't seem to think it mattered. To him, I guess, there is no other outcome possible, even if things had gone slightly different at some critical junctures. To me this just doesn't make sense. There is a reason why the Allies fought so hard, mobilized our industry, and did all the other things to defeat the Axis powers. They were a threat, and we shed a lot of blood to stop them. If they were such a low danger as DaBallz seems to think, I doubt it would have been such a struggle. But it was, and to me he seems to cheapen the sacrifices the Allies made to stop the Axis.

DaBallz, I might have your intent wrong, but this is the impression I get from you. If your intent is different, then please elaborate.

Now Chuck, I'm not disagreeing with the Bomb drop as being significant, I just prefer to look for examples of a more conventional nature for this discussion. Otherwise, it's a very short discussion, and not very interesting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif When this discussion (the war being a foregone conclusion) was brought earlier, DaBallz brought up the "Bomb" as a way to say the Allies (US) would have prevailed in the end. Reread my post with this in mind, and the part you quoted might become clearer. I was not referring to the Bomb as being insignificant, I was talking about the possibility that it might not have been deployed. My comment about the Marines was an example of a "what if" scenario. What if the Bomb had not been used. The Marines on those ships didn't know we were about to deploy such a strategic, devastating weapon. They were planning on going in, and they knew it would be a helluva fight.

I hope I've been a bit clearer on this. There may be things I'm missing, but I'm human, and always willing to learn.

PS- I'm trying to avoid the discussion about the how and why the war was won and lost. I'm just trying to state that I disagree with DaBallz idea that the war could not have turned out differently.

Another air action that comes to mind, or more like a series of air actions, is the Flying Tigers efforts.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

DaBallz
02-26-2004, 04:05 PM
Germany could not have prevailed, that is my point.
The only you might argue a different outcome
is if you use "what if" scenarios.
Against Poland and France, Germany won easily.
Against the Brits they started to run afoul
of the US, the US was never neutral, it's obvious.
Against the Russians and now they faced certain
disaster.
Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.....

The reality for the leaders was not simple.
They were never certain of victory.
But in hindsight the Axis powers were going to lose
no matter the outcome of the odd battle.
Forget the Atomic bomb and assume Hitler
made all the best decisions.
By 1946 the Axis was going to face men and material
on a scale that dwarfed what they had already faced.
Germany and Japan could never have survived a war
of attririon on that scale.

We know that now, hindsight is always 20-20.

Da...

FI-Aflak
02-26-2004, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reddevil49:
I would sat the battle of Midway as it turned the tide of the war in the pacific. Some will say it was just dumb luck, but a lot of battles are won or lost onte turn of a card.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not accidental at all, thats just what the US government wants us to think.

I did some research, we were reading most Japanese encoded transmissions by that point. The trick was to use the information gained from the codebreakers effectively without giving away the fact that we had broken their codes.

Yamamato was also killed due to codebreakers, as a more well-known example. The US claimed that a couple P-38's were just roving around when they spotted his bomber flight and shot him down, but they were operating at their extreme range limitations (which means the intercept was perfectly planned and executed). I have no idea why the Japanese didn't switch their codes at that point, seeing as the only rational conclusion was that all of their codes had been broken wide open. They made alot of mistakes, the biggest being starting the war (seeing as we could manufacture hundreds of ships/carriers/aircraft/tanks/etc. for every one that their industry was capable of producing. Later in the war, their industry was capable of producing only a handful of bulldozers/year. No wonder they were so big on slave labor.

Chuck_Older
02-26-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
OK, maybe I can clear this up, Chuck. Sorry for the confusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need, the confusion was on my part.


Aflak-
Midway was hardly a well coordinated plan coming off with precison timing and maximum effectiveness, as I'm sure you know. What the US government has to gain by fooling me into thinking that Midway was a fortuitous accident when the real deal was that it was all planned out, no accidents involved, is something I cannot conceive. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

Bewolf
02-26-2004, 04:29 PM
Just to throw in some more "what ifs"

I think only few people know, that while Germany drove towards Moscow in 41, Stalin pleaded for peace. Twice. Willing to grant Hitler most of his strategic goals in this campaign.
Hitler refused out of arrogance, his thinking of winning anyways, and the will to destroy communism.
Now imagine the war would have ended in the east in 41, Germany having the whole of continental Europe in his grasp with all its ressources and menpower and without an eastern front.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

horseback
02-26-2004, 04:33 PM
FI-Aflak-

While we were reading the Japanese mail (or at least some of the more important bits), someone still had to find the carriers and fight the battles. The US forces on hand were very green, outnumbered at the point of attack, and had the torpedo squadrons not drawn the Japanese carriers' fighters down to sea level just before the dive bombers found them, the battle might easily have gone the other way. If the Japanese had any idea how unreliable our torpedoes were back then, they might not have bothered to engage them at all.

Incidentally, after Midway, US dive bombers never achieved that level of accuracy and effectiveness in a major battle again. The Japanese admiral had changed his mind about the arming of his planes, so they were caught on the deck with two sets of armament beside them. That was why the few bombs that hit were so effective. You couldn't have known that from the codes we read.

Good intelligence or not, we lost a lot of fine young men, and we were still damned lucky.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Chuck_Older
02-26-2004, 04:33 PM
Bewolf-
I would say that, just like in the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, either Hitler or the paranoiac Stalin would violate the peace treaty, again creating an Eastern Front. I don't think for a second that Stalin wouldn't have gone for Hitler's throat the second Hitler was immovably engaged with the new Operation Sea Lion.

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

DaBallz
02-26-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI-Aflak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reddevil49:
I would sat the battle of Midway as it turned the tide of the war in the pacific. Some will say it was just dumb luck, but a lot of battles are won or lost onte turn of a card.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not accidental at all, thats just what the US government wants us to think.

I did some research, we were reading most Japanese encoded transmissions by that point. The trick was to use the information gained from the codebreakers effectively without giving away the fact that we had broken their codes.

Yamamato was also killed due to codebreakers, as a more well-known example. The US claimed that a couple P-38's were just roving around when they spotted his bomber flight and shot him down, but they were operating at their extreme range limitations (which means the intercept was perfectly planned and executed). I have no idea why the Japanese didn't switch their codes at that point, seeing as the only rational conclusion was that all of their codes had been broken wide open. They made alot of mistakes, the biggest being starting the war (seeing as we could manufacture hundreds of ships/carriers/aircraft/tanks/etc. for every one that their industry was capable of producing. Later in the war, their industry was capable of producing only a handful of bulldozers/year. No wonder they were so big on slave labor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The United Stated and britian had cracked most of "Purple"
and "JN25" before 1941.
You make it out to be a big secret. The US
de classified the code breaking effort in
the early 1980's. Nothing new, no conspiracy
of silence.
Since the declassifying of those ducuments and
the whole code breaking effort I have enjoyed
reading the Ultra decrypts of German transmissions.
Man, they had no clue! The Allies were
reading their conversations right along.
ULTRA certainly shortend the war.

Da...

Bewolf
02-26-2004, 04:42 PM
very possible chuck.

on the other hand, this was the beginning of the desert war. With full ressources, it would have been more then likely to have thrown the brits out of the mediterrainian. I think Russia would have needed at least a year to consolidate and strike again.
At this time, you must know, nobody gave Russia much of a chance. Not even the russians themselves. I doubt war would have raged again only after a couple of months.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Chuck_Older
02-26-2004, 04:46 PM
Good point.

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

buz13
02-26-2004, 05:05 PM
If Pearl Harbor had been a Japanese success there would not have been 3 US carriers at Midway.....Pearl Harbor united the American public against Japan and Germany like no other event. Missing the carriers and secondary targets at Pearl Harbor made it a victory for Japan only in the short run.

Chuck_Older
02-26-2004, 05:10 PM
Well I agree with that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

jensenpark
02-26-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The United Stated and britian had cracked most of "Purple"
and "JN25" before 1941.
You make it out to be a big secret. The US
de classified the code breaking effort in
the early 1980's. Nothing new, no conspiracy
of silence.
Since the declassifying of those ducuments and
the whole code breaking effort I have enjoyed
reading the Ultra decrypts of German transmissions.
Man, they had no clue! The Allies were
reading their conversations right along.
ULTRA certainly shortend the war.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Da...where did you get your hands on the Ultra decrypts? Sounds pretty cool!

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

TheJayMan
02-26-2004, 05:32 PM
Umm, back on topic...

The nuke bombs were the most successful air actions, by any objective standard. They ended the war.

Pearl Harbor was the biggest failure in air combat history, becuase it did nothing of real strategic significance, except get America in the war and giving us the best reason we could of hoped for to fight it to the very end. Even Yamamoto knew this within hours of the end of the attack. It was a tactical victory, but a strategic defeat.

I would argue that the US Navy raids on Truk were the single most significant air action, second only to the nukes. We caught an entire Jap supply and troop fleet preparing to disembark, and we wholly slaughtered them.

Other ideas: Falaise Pocket was a massive slaughter of an entire German army group by air in just a few days. Or, The Tokyo Fire Bombings. There are many others, but these are some that haven't yet been broached.

DaBallz
02-26-2004, 05:41 PM
All ULTRA decrypts that were saved are in print.
One reference that I have, and is not in print
is "A strategy for defeat, The Luftwaffe".
There are many more. I borrowed another one
and can not remember off the top of my head.
Most decrypts are pretty dull and mundane.
Some however are pretty important.

Da...

DaBallz
02-26-2004, 05:48 PM
Excellent, I forgot about Truck Lagoon.
It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
But they were very important fish.
Truck spelled the end for the IJN.

Da...

Cossack_UA
02-27-2004, 09:46 AM
Did anyone mention Operation Bodenplatte in January of 1945?

It seems to be a very successful operation for the Germans, although it could not alter the course of the war. 200-300 US a/c were destroyed. Is this correct?

Chuck_Older
02-27-2004, 10:07 AM
Bodenplatte also cost the lives of many experienced German pilots. By some accounts, a lot of the pilots were hung-over from the New Years' Eve celebration the night before.

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

JG27_BLACKHART
02-28-2004, 05:36 AM
WHen one asked what is the best air action I have to ask my self a question.

which wwII action took less of our pilots or men and had a major impact with less inoccent casualties of war. This is a hard dicision to make. The A-bomb took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives but achieved the end of the war. Pearl Harbor for Japan had low casualties was a great achievement and took America totaly off gaurd. Our death Ratio was heavy.

The question was not geared for a specific side American or foriegn so if I had to chose I couldn't.

I just wonder at time's what it would be like to be in there shoes on ground or in the air. To wonder if today is the day I was going to die or live. If what I did today saved the lives of hundreds or just my own. I think it would just about drive one to a breaking point.

I feel I couldn't chose because they were all effective in there own way no matter if it was a sinking of a fleet to stopping an invasion of bombers.

BH

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

Storm_Bird
02-28-2004, 05:40 AM
How about the German?

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

MandMs
02-28-2004, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Did anyone mention Operation Bodenplatte in January of 1945?

It seems to be a very successful operation for the Germans, although it could not alter the course of the war. 200-300 US a/c were destroyed. Is this correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was relatively successful until the return to base during which German Flak shot down more a/c than were lost in the airfield attacks.

A recommended read is Six Months to Oblivion by Werner Girbig, a German. ISBN 0-88740-348-4

Chuck, get real, another WW2 myth.



I eat the red ones last.

Jirozaemon
02-28-2004, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
you could say that the first 9 hours of Operation Barbarossa were unique-1200 Russian Aircraft were destroyed, 900 of them on the ground.

On the other hand, the Marianas Turkey shoot, about 300 Japanese planes destroyed in less than 8 hours, comes to mind. About the most successful airraid, I think it will be the Tokyo Raid when about 80 000 people died.
The nuke is another weapon, it is in a different category

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So killing 80.000 people (mostly civilians) is a success ? War is never successful... it destorys wealth, economy and the lives of the people. Have you ever thought about that ?

Regards

Jiro

Chuck_Older
02-28-2004, 07:22 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
MandMs, I think maybe you missed the part where I said, "by some accounts".

here's a quote:

"By some accounts, a lot of the pilots were hung-over from the New Years' Eve celebration the night before"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I never said they were hung-over, I said some sources report this. Could be wrong, could be right. I doubt it's right myself, because these were experienced pilots who knew they would be flying the next day, but I wasn't there, and I never have talked to anyone who was there.

So I typed, "by some reports". All I'm doing is passing on information I have read, I'm not old enough to have witnessed it, and all I can do is read about it. That's as real as I can get without second-guessing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At least we can agree Bodenplatte wasn't a perfect succes.

*****************************
I don't wanna die, fighting in the Falkland Strait ~ Clash

vipepefitemp
09-24-2019, 02:04 PM
Phalogenics (https://phalogenics.info/) Your body produces millions of sperm every day, but if you already have a low sperm count, consider storing them longer between ***********s. If you have Phalogenics or masturbate daily, reduce the frequency to increase sperm production. Imagentitulada Increase Your Sperm Count Step 8 8 Be careful with toxins. Exposure to chemicals can affect the size, movement and count of your sperm. It is increasingly difficult to avoid exposure to toxins, but it is absolutely necessary for your overall health and for healthy sperm. Follow the recommendations below to reduce your exposure.



https://phalogenics.info/