Originally posted by stormbind
I knew you would say that! I also knew you would disregard other parts so I have quoted it for you.
I ignored part of what you said because it was corrrect, part becasue it was so absurd that i needn't reall comment on it.
as for the quotes: name them! what reliable source on stealth did you quote?
It should also be noted that the details of current military equipment are ussually classified, so this debate won't be fully understood until stealth becomes obsolete.
that means that we should take your initial statement as a totally meaningless babble, since obviously everything is secret?
At least one F-117 was shot down over Iraq. Footage was shown shortly on CNN until it was censored.
I also saw footage from Iraqi television braofcasted by CNN that showed Iraqi soldiers pulling the remains of an 'exploded' tomahawk cruise missile from the remains of a 'mall' along with dead bodies of 'shoppers'. How weird that the 'mall' had 'keep out - military installation' signs and the (all male) shoppers wore military uniform..... rolleyes:
CNN has also been known to report prematurely, giving unchecked, sometimes even false information. For the record: after the war, even the worst criticsm of the US military in the press admitted that no report their aired was censored except for place and exact time. So if it was on CNN and then suddely disappeared then because it was wrong.
CNN also showed 'Scud missiles' that were anti-air missiles, and in one report showed East German tanks in Iraq
The senior Japanese admiral was against attacking pearl harbour. It was his estimation that if they failed to capture the island, the USA would be able to capture the southern areas of their empire and move north. He also estimated that if they succeeded, they would be able to support an invasion but details are clasified/lost. He would have preferred to secure Australia first - but the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and New Zealand were already putting up too much resistance - which required all of Japan's resources so they did clearly overstretch themselves.
I am sorry, but I have to repeat myself here: read up on history!
The Royal Navy was a heap of **** compared to the Imperial Japanese Navy, and what resistance are you talking about?
And do not mix Australia and Pearl Harbor! The Supreme Command in Japan was smart enouhg to see that taking the resources necessary was easy, but keeping them against dedicated US attacks was inpossible in the long run. So he was against the Pearl Harbour attack. This ha NOTHING to do with whether or not to take Australia, which also would have brought he US into the war right away - just what the smart man wanted to avoid!
The USA is not comparible to Europe. Most of the USA is not populated and would give zero resistance, it may also be significantly smaller than Europe. (Not sure)
And again I am sorry - you jsut disqualified yourself totally! Look at a map, for Christs sake, if you don't know!
Most of the US is not populated
densely - but why would anyone want to take that? And in the populated parts, the US is just as hard to invade as Europe.....
Contrary to Hollywood's portrayal of events, Zero were the weakest of Japanese fighters.
Yes, this is why the US pilots feared them at the beginning, but then gradually learned to shoot them down almost at will...... It doesn't matter howgood a plane is, but how good it is compared to the opponents!
Japan had the bomb too, but were missing the key nuclear material. It was in the process of being delivered by U-Boat from Germany, but boat was ordered to surrender when Germany fell.
Had England have fallen instead of Germany, the USA would have been nuked by Japan.
The USA intentionally did not bomb two Japanese cities - these were reserved for a special weapon. Must have been the American plan from the start!
and here it gets as absurd as it possibly can!
A) Japan was FAR AWAY from building a nuclear bomb. They were no further than Germany - and their attempts (especially the heavy water apporach) was doomed to failure.
B) and how would the Japanese have delivered the bomb? by submarie?
C) the nuclear material was btw delivered to Japan. about 520 kg of uranium oxide were abord the boat, they got handed over to the US. The weapons-grade isotope was extraced (about 500 grams worth) and delivery of it to Japan was taken care of by the Enola Gay.......
D) reserving the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (did you even know the names?) 'from the start' - tha is pretty much absurd. AFAIK, Nagasaki indusrial centers were bombed before, and Hiroshima simply wasn't as much of a target as other places. When these were destroyed, the US wanted an 'intact' target to study the effects of the bomb....
The American escorts were not good enough. England almost surrendered because no supplies were getting through. They actually came hours away from surrended but then German tactics changed and supplies arrived. Phew!
yeah, a well-know British quality - throwing in the towel!
seriously, what's your problem? the British lacked a navy capable of dealing with the U-Boats, they learned and the US learned. But the time you are talking about, right at the start of the war when the 'good days' for the U-Boats b]really[/b] harmed the supply lines were
before and right after the US entered the war!
One German tactic was to shoot the parachutes which is probably a war crime.
it is, and was a war crime. And if a German pilot was caught doing this by a real officer (not a Nazi clown) he was in serious trouble. Interestingly, some British pilots were known to 'swoop' German parachutes. Their construcion being different they would fold if a plane swooped by.....
British also hit strategic targets; it is simply false to suggest they didn't.
an utterly insignificant number was actually targeted. Even after getting explicit orders to stop the 'terror bombing', Harris ordered almost all bombers onto residential aareas. I have fully read the after war report he wrote, along with the comments of the British military. They refute practically every claim he makes. That the British press took up his report, but not the comment is no surprise
I never argued against that, I only said it was not a decisive weapon. Strange how people twist things
A) be
very carefull accusing people of 'twisting' things - either intentionally or by accident. You will too easily cross the line to an insult!
B) YOU said 'it never did anthing' - well, that's bull****! It forced the RAF to change tactics, and it hastened the 'death' of the 'bomber gunship' concet.
My source was a documentary but as I have stuck closely to what was said I am sure there are other sources online.
there we come to the core of the problem! Have you tried to doublechek this infrmation in any way?
I just read a book (and it was excellent reading on the loo) claiming the Chinese sailed to America long before Columbus. interesting claim!
Sadly, it is a collection of misinformation (e.g. the claim that people in the middla ages believed the earth was flat - yes, I have more information on this if anyone want!), rough guesses and a lot of 'seeing things as one wants to see them' without ever trying to find other possibilities.
For example, the guy uses C14 dates. Well, they come from ashes, and these are loosely associated with a artefact. Loosely! Now he claims the artefact is as old as the ash. The TV show I later saw about the book (ARTE, no less!) broadcasted this out as 'solid, scientific proof!'
if you believe the Dicsovery Channel or even worse programs (and heaven forbid BBC!) then you better learn to check up on what they say. TV people have to stick to a time limit, commercial breaks, funds limits and especially to viewers who want easy, fun information. Not solid facts that may leave a puzzle, but 'results'. And they deliver. Then, they go find someone who gives an interview and shout 'we have an eyewitness'....
Now I am no expert at history, but I am on other areas, an TV on them is usuallly seriously flawed.
My sources have suggested wood weighs more than light metals.
I can actually hear the 'expert' in that nTV show (if it ws one). His 'it's so easy' tone.
Fact: try building somehting from aluminium if you haven't really figured out yet how the material is to be handled, how it adapts to the stresses of flight and so on. You'll end up a lot heavier than necessary. With wwod and canvas, people knew how to work. This changed after a while, but it ook time, trial and error.
stormbind, I cannot help but feeling that you are a young man, while easily enthused about a subject, ready to soak up information, group it together and argue theories (all well and good), but too quick to accept opinions. Doubt, question, dig for more, again and again and again!
[/quote]
). Or you could do the same thing to ivory and call it something besides ivory and give it a different graphic besides a little elephant. It would be going overboard, however, to want a change to the strategic portion of the game to reconcile a cosmetic problem.
