Originally posted by stormbind
I have yet to find the details of the Royal Navy deployments in the Pacific, but they were present.
I don't know how large the Imperial Navy was but the The Royal Navy and Dominion in 1939 was not small - This is not the entire commonwealth.
15 Battleships
7 Aircraft carriers
74 Cruisers
195 Destroyers
60 Submarines
51 escorts
4 sloops
OK, OK, for those who WANT to get a discussion off the issue: you do fully understand what I meant, but you choose to intentionally misinterpret my statements. Not exactly good style, let me tell you that.
the Royal Navy
in the Pacific theatre was a heap of ****. That was what we were talking about, that was obviously what i meant, and that was what you now should address. That the RN was very strong is clear, but those ships were in the Atlantik to fight the German navy which was almost as strong.
I was not the person who decided to use secret technologies to change the subject and save face... if I recall, that was you.
You better give a quote if you claim such rubbish! I never changed the subject, never claimed stuff is secret to change the subject. I adressed right from the start the several points you made that I considered worth addressing. That you are incapable of not mixing them is not my problem. We were talking about the jet engine and I alos addressed your remark about stealth. Nothing to with the other issue that I consider settled at: stormblind picks one view (a bit of a narrow one), others pick another one.
So before you go claiming I was changing subect and saving face you better bring proof! or I'll get very angry very quickly!
To suite your requirements, you are prepared to select which CNN stories are true and which are not. You have done the same for other sources of news. You even did the same for the site on history.
It will remain impossible to discuss anything with you for as long as you continue to humn and stick fingers in your ears.
I consider this a personal affront. To say it clear: you claim to quote me but your style of discussion is about on the level of Jehovas witnesses. I DO say news sources ahve to be doublechecked. Claiming I selected stories to believe as it suits me is a lie, and you know it. Certainly
every story from a unreliable source has to be checked. As for the online site: I didn't say it was wrong as you are absurdly implying. So now you better stop miquoting me right away. Your line of argumentation is nothing but agressive bluster bordering insult. And I get quite fed up with it.
Your unique way of reading history requires the rearangement of words into new meaning. I don't think anybody was fooled by your repeated claim and "proof" that the jet was invented in Germany.
Interesting! It appeared very cler from the discussion that soe people prefer to choose the date of patent, others that of fisrt test run, others that of first flight. And you yourself brought the info for this
my 'unique way' - that should be your stubborn inability to see others point of view even if you might disagree.
and 'the jet' (meaning the plane as an entirety) flew first in germany, so you better choose YOUR words a bit more carefully or I will revert to your methods......
The USA is less developed than Africa.
another statement throw into the ring, another one that you will have to define a bit better. what do you mean by 'developed'? it is a good strategy to throw wild statements totally unreflected into the discussion, makes you seem authoritive and knowledgeable.
I hate to have to point out that whatever your definition of 'developed', the US is MORE developed than Africa. But before we continue this I ask you to define what you meant be 'developed'. If you fail to do so I will see it as proof that you do not want a discussion but a flame war.
Rubbish. The American fighters improved to the extent that pilots were empowered to shoot down the Zero. As stated, the Zero was the worst Japanese fighter (and only one mentioned by Hollywood) but other Japanese fighters remained a problem for US fighters.
I now seriusly doubt you were sober when you wrote that. Read my post again: I wrote exactly that, then you go and claim it is rubbish, then you claim in truth it was exactly as I wrote.
pityfull performance!
As another member has already stated. They have investigated this and conclude that Japan may well have beaten the USA to getting the bomb.
I checked up on this with a friend who is a nuclear physics doc. He says japan was about as far as Germany (as I wrote) and far from getting anywhere. What the reson were is debateable, but the bombing of research facilities has certainly something to do with it.
Stop trying to cloud the issue. Everyone has said they don't know how Japan planned to deploy it, that doesn't mean they didn't have a plan. Perhaps they would start by nuking the US Navy? One persons guess is as good as anothers and it's not worth discussing.
I hate it when you get so personal....
Where would Japan get all the material to build enough bombs to bomb the navy and then the US mainlands? Becasue that is what you emant in the beginning with 'bombing the US', right? Don't be absurd! It is 'in' for adolescents to favor the losers and mystify them to show their disagreement with the 'establishment'. That is like the kids saying communism in the USSR was better
Absurd!
So you did have some knowledge of it!
WTH? i never claimed I didn't! What's your point? Another example of you trying to cloud the issue!
Other cities were flattened with bombs. These two were left almost untouched. The evidence speaks for itself.
I just gave a good reason for that. Your logic is flawed (typical for very young people). Your conclusiin here reminds me of two examples. Onee is the stork/birthrate thing (which is pure chance), the other is Gollums logic in LOTR: the ring showed up on his birthday, is
could have been a birthday present, so it showed up to
be a birthday present, so it
was his brithday present..... very very logical!
That's the point, the US did not learn! The British discovered ways of fighting the U-Boats. I have already said the Royal Navy took heavy losses at the start of the war. I'll never understand why you repeat what I say and pretend it's a correction.
Interestingly, when asked, U-Boot captains usually said: the difference between the Tommies and the Yanks is that the Tommies do not stop shooting when they have forced a boat to the surface.....
They did have more success - because they watched the parts of the convoy routes closer to land, with better air support and constrained waters. Claiming the US didn't learn - well you're stock raving mad if you really believe they'd sit around and let themselves get shot! But that sounds a bit like typical nationalism and a massive inferiority complex towards the US on your side, so I'll let that one slide.
Nobody is interested in what some individuals did, it's the war policies that matter
YOU brought this up to give the Luftwaffe a bad image.
You didn't talk about politicians. And you sound like The Sun!
I don't know, but I would like to see a source! Can you say where this is recorded?
It shouldn't be too hard for you to get the now publicly accessible report in London, just email the department of defence, they'll be able to help you along.... Sadly, I wasn't allowed to make a copy of the copy I read and the professor who owned it has since died, otherwise I' be glad to give you the title and source. But I think it was called 'Official report to the War Department...' something like that. Ask them, they'll know....
Most Nazi "decisive weapons" were used against US bombers who were actually bombing Germany more the RAF by the end of the war. These included the Comet and worse. I don't remember the name, but there was another rocket interceptor without guns... they forced the pilot in at gun point... and he was fired upright to collide into the US bombers. Germany didn't seem to want experienced pilots!
A) How is this a comment on what you quote?
B) it is BS. There was a rocket interceptor w/o guns all right, it was to carry air-to-air missiles (and it did). It did indeed often collide with bombers (like maybe (am guessing here) ten times out of 25 tries) because the pilots were o busy fyling the radio-controlled missiles with a joystick and avoiding fighters that they simply lost control. Noone forced Kamikaze in Germany
This is not a change of topic, mearly a indication that most interceptors were targetted as US bombers. I don't know anything about Me262 operations, do you have a source?
And indeed the US bombers did the damage to the war industry while the British hardly scratched it (thanx to Harris they rather killed civilians...). So it was smart to target the US bombers. Sources: go into a book store and get yourself about 20 book on the subject. You will find them full of interesting facts, but also of misinformation. Search until you find those showing facsimiles of official documents. Im know there are several ooks on the matter of US bombers, and I have leaved through (but not bought) one that showed in detail the 'bomber gunship' deployment. it should include references, too.
Sorry, I do not ahve the money to buy all these books and keep them at home as much as I'd like to
but the next time I get to a store I will look for titles for you.....
Many "shows" are unreliable, but you attempt to discredit everything without seeing it. We are left with no acceptable sources because you won't accept anything that is written!
You misunderstand me: there used to be several rather reliable sources like in Germany the ARD and ZDF, in Britain the BBC and The Times, but in the last 10 years I have increasingly noticed bad information there. So what to do? Always
question that information. No
single source should be believed. Never! But if several independent sources show the same stuff you cna be confident that it is pretty accurate. The problem is the
independent, they may well ahve asked the same experts.
To give you an example: there was a report on ARTE about 'the true story of Desert Storm'. They claimed that the US had wanted Saddam to stay in power and for that allowed him to use helicopter gunshos to suppress demonstrations in southern Iraq. To 'proove' that, they showwed little snippets of an interview with a peace activist who made the claim, then showed Gen. Schwarzkopf, too. He said: 'so we allowed them to fly armed helicopters that they used to fight down rebellions.'
prooven? Yes or no? please think about it (I have given you all the information that came forth duing this ARTE show), tell me what you think I will then tell you why this got me suspicious.
Stop saying "fact" when you have no source to back you up. The Yak-1/3 suggests your "fact" is simply incorrect.
Go ask a material scientist.
The Soviets took quite some time to get it right. They were very fast at it, too, I have to admit. But go and compare (and you can do that in reality) a Boeing 747 and a Boeing 777, how they are built, witht he same materials. The 777 is lighter because of more experience.
Hpw much of a role this played in the construction of the Mosquito I do not know, but I do remember having heard repeatedly that the Britsih military was very wary of these new things. Another poster did also post something to that effect IIRC....
I expect an answer on the Iraq thing!
