|
dougie posted:What are your thoughts on how the Military Industrial Complex has affected US foreign Policy since the second world war? "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." My view.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Speaking of Normans, how exactly did the Viking raiding culture emerge (if it even did as portrayed nowadays), and any reason why they were so successful in it? Scandinavia must have been a rough place to live, but that was because of the long winters and limited farm ground, not because of the need to constantly defend against invaders. If you read the Icelandic family sagas (which were written 2 or 3 centuries after the events they describe, so take them with a grain of salt), its often described that young men would go viking in order to earn fame, wealth, and social status. After a couple of seasons raiding, they would return home, marry, settle down, and start a farming life. It's almost described as a right of passage, like going off to college is for people today: "Well, I'm 18, time to go viking, see the world, meet interesting people, take their stuff, and maybe kill them too." But again, these come from Icelandic family sagas, which were oral traditions only written down a couple hundred years after the events they describe occurred (so some poetic license was probably in use), and only describe the life of a select few (important) individuals and their families, so they most likely lack a general universality. Also, the conflicts these stories focus on are not viking raiding events, but internecine conflicts between Icelandic families. Not much time is spent describing the viking raids themselves. That said, if you have any interest in Viking Age life or culture, you should read them
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. That's your view and Eisenhower's quote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Yeah. My view is pretty well presented by Eisenhower's address.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Because every dime they spent trying to develop a brand-new (for them) naval tradition was a dime they wouldn't have had available to spend on submarines. Or tanks and artillery to be used to expel the German army from their country, for that matter...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:28
|
|
Crasscrab posted:"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. That doesn't really have anything to do with foreign policy though.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:That doesn't really have anything to do with foreign policy though. Yeah, there's no correlation between the exorbitant amount the United States spends on its military and its lovely foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:04
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Yeah, there's no correlation between the exorbitant amount the United States spends on its military and its lovely foreign policy. You didn't really answer the question except in a round-a-bout way.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Sorry about that I'll shut up about my opinions on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:21
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Sorry about that I'll shut up about my opinions on the matter. I'm not the arbitrator of posts, bro. You have a thesis on the topic, just back it up.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. A counterpoint would be that the technological innovation that happens in the military has civilian benefits as well. The first computers were built to do calculations for the military, and the early Internet was developed and funded by the United States Department of Defense. These innovations require a lot of resources to develop, and there may not be enough short term profit in it for private industry to invest in them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Why did not the soviet navy develop fleet carriers during the cold war They had little real use for them in terms of their strategic doctrine. Unlike America they weren't separated by the main theater of operations by a lots of water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:They had little real use for them in terms of their strategic doctrine. Unlike America they weren't separated by the main theater of operations by a lots of water. Just enough water to develop the ekranoplan, so there's that. The Soviets were weird. You gotta love a nation that puts that many jet engines on something that big, straps missiles to the roof, and then train people to fly it 40 feet off the water at 400mph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
I got thee impression that those things were just testbeds. Did the Russkies actually have solid deployment plans for them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:A counterpoint would be that the technological innovation that happens in the military has civilian benefits as well. The first computers were built to do calculations for the military, and the early Internet was developed and funded by the United States Department of Defense. These innovations require a lot of resources to develop, and there may not be enough short term profit in it for private industry to invest in them. That is a fallacy: the resources could be mobilized by the government without the staggering waste intrisic to war. War may be a very powerful motivation for directing resources, but its an incredibly inefficient way of allocating them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
The essential problem for Russian navy, from Crimean War to Russo-Japanese war to WW1 to WW2 to Cold War has always been their position with regards to oceans. Like USA, they have bases on the Pacific and they have bases in the Barents from which they can access the Atlantic. However, for the fleets of these two operational areas to meet during a war is much harder as Russia lacks naval bases along the route, which is far longer than it takes for US Atlantic fleet to reach the Pacific. Distance from New York to San Francisco through the Strait of Magellan is the same as distance from Murmansk to Vladivostok through Gibraltar and Suez Canal. That Soviets could have taken all those shortcuts during a major war while USA couldn't go through Panama is laughable. Nowadays the Northern Sea Route is becoming a reality, which halves this distance for Russians. Soviets already used it during WW2 with the assistance of ice breakers. In future it will be free of ice round the year. But even that route goes through the Bering strait, under the watchful eye of Sarah Palin. To complicate matters, Russians also have fleets in the Baltic and Black Sea. During a European war these are locked to their bases or local support operations with no access to open waters - even more so with modern ASMs. When some of the current anti-ship missiles could be fired from the coast of Turkey right into the bay of Sevastopol, there is precious little they can do in a WWIII scenario. meatbag posted:That is a fallacy: the resources could be mobilized by the government without the staggering waste intrisic to war. War may be a very powerful motivation for directing resources, but its an incredibly inefficient way of allocating them. Citizens! From this day on we will start rationing gasoline and other goods in an effort to develop cold fusion and other nice things. This is going to take many personal sacrifices from you, but the results will be worth it. signed, your president
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 12:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Citizens! From this day on we will start rationing gasoline and other goods in an effort to develop cold fusion and other nice things. This is going to take many personal sacrifices from you, but the results will be worth it. signed, your president (the muslims made me do it)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
Why was Georgia chosen as the place to attack in the middle of the Civil War? Sherman/Grant had the choice of any Confederate state after securing Tennessee, and North Carolina stands out for two reasons. 1. Attacking NC would have put much more stress on Lee and a possible linkup with the Army of the Potomac 2. North Carolina was more important to the Confederacy, supplying more troops than any other state while Georgia's governor was uncooperative and ordered it's resources to stay in Georgia, effectively "sleeping" Georgia's army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
Something that always bugged me about the Guadalcanal campaign was that the Japanese abandoned what would become Henderson Field without a fight. Do we know why they did it? It seems like a lot of their problems came from letting the US establish the Cactus Air Force from day 1
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
I assume they were mostly (korean) labour battalions on Guadalcanal when the americans landed
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:1. Attacking NC would have put much more stress on Lee and a possible linkup with the Army of the Potomac Savannah is a major shipping port, and Terminus[Atlanta] is/was a Major Rail Hub, The Confederates thought Georgia was gonna be safe from invasion so they built a lot of munitions plants in it and housed a bunch of Union Prisoners for the most part in Georgia. So IIRC, If Lincoln Seizes GA, he gets a bunch of Union Prisoners freed and basically kills what little Southern war industry they have, and more importantly tell the press this so he gets re-elected. This is just what I remember vaguely from Georgia History class coming up on.... eight nine? years ago, so it's probably not the whole picture. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was Georgia chosen as the place to attack in the middle of the Civil War? Sherman/Grant had the choice of any Confederate state after securing Tennessee, and North Carolina stands out for two reasons. Atlanta was the second biggest city and industrial center left in the Confederacy (New Orleans having fallen in 1862), taking it would cripple the Confederacy. Also, Sherman's initial orders were to destroy Johnson's army, it wasn't until Atlanta fell that he decided to take the war to the interior. I'm not too familiar with the Appalachian "Mountains", being from the west, but it probably would have been difficult to move an army through them to North Carolina. The railroad went from Chattanooga to Atlanta, so that was the best route for supplies to take during the Atlanta campaign. Afterwards, during the march to the sea, the fact that there were so many resources left in Georgia was an incentive, since the army was going to need to "live off the land" to stay together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:Considering the whole war swung on two battles a different party coming out on top is not really that bizarre of a scenario. Ok then. The main difference between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons was the Normans use of stone castles, whilst the Anglo-Saxons preferred wooden hill forts. The Anglo-Saxons were starting to get interested in cavalry but the one thing stopping them from using them regularly was money; Britain was generally poorer than Normandy at that time but was gaining quickly due to a far more efficient government and taxation system. Your average Norman army was always going to have the advantage in the cavalry stakes but the Anglo-Saxons had superior weapons and armour so their infantry had the advantage. Whether or not the Anglo-Saxons would have adopted cavalry if they had won at 1066 is an impossible question to answer. The answer is probably "it's plausible", since they were already a very outward-looking people and keen to take new ideas from abroad and work on them to make them better. A couple of decades after the Normans invaded a large proportion of Anglo-Saxon nobles emigrated to the Byzantine Empire; if they were aware of the existence of the Byzantines and their need for well-trained and disciplined mercenaries, they were certainly aware of the existence of horses. Castles were similar; the more money you've got, the bigger a castle you want. Then again they might have developed the Bren gun instead 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Something that always bugged me about the Guadalcanal campaign was that the Japanese abandoned what would become Henderson Field without a fight. Do we know why they did it? It seems like a lot of their problems came from letting the US establish the Cactus Air Force from day 1 They might not have realized the significance of it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Ok then. The main difference between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons was the Normans use of stone castles, whilst the Anglo-Saxons preferred wooden hill forts. The Anglo-Saxons were starting to get interested in cavalry but the one thing stopping them from using them regularly was money; Britain was generally poorer than Normandy at that time but was gaining quickly due to a far more efficient government and taxation system. Your average Norman army was always going to have the advantage in the cavalry stakes but the Anglo-Saxons had superior weapons and armour so their infantry had the advantage. Thanks. I know one factor in the development of heavy cavalry was the availability of horses that were large and strong enough to bear an armored rider. In the Byzantine Empire a large percentage of their horses for armored cavalry came from Armenia because the terrain and elevation made the horses bred there extremely sturdy and strong. When the Byzantines lost Armenia to the Turks it had a pretty detrimental effect on their ability to field heavily armored cavalry (although they were moving away from that anyway). So I guess my next questions are horse related: -Pre-Norman invasion were horses bred in the British isles generally fit to be ridden by heavily armored knights, or did would they have had to import horses from the mainland to do so? -Did the Normans bring French horse husbandry with them to England?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 21:43
|
|
Crasscrab posted:They might not have realized the significance of it at the time. The Japanese undoubtedly realized the importance of both aviation and the strategic/tactical value of Henderson field. It seems like the Japanese officer in charge of building and defending Henderson field was scared off by the surprise bombardment and landings. Perhaps he didn't see the big picture value of Henderson Field. vains fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:So I guess my next questions are horse related: It wasn't just a factor of geography but also of long-term breeding projects. Horses suitable for use in the heavy cavalry were very expensive had to be bred over many generations to achieve the right mixture of physical and personality traits. There were actually several different categories of warhorses bred to different purposes. This is expensive, to the point that if you aren't outfitting a heavy cavalry it isn't really worth it to develop the capability. Since the Anglo-Saxons lacked a tradition of heavy cavalry, they probably only bred the lighter types of horses, for skirmishing and transport to and from battles where they fought as infantry. If the Anglo-Saxons had become interested in the idea of using cavalry, particularly heavy cavalry, they would have needed to import not only the horses but also the expertise in breeding and caring for them. That wouldn't necessarily have been impossible or even that difficult, but they wouldn't have it overnight. The Normans did indeed bring French horses and all that with them to England. More significantly they brought their way of life and aristocratic traditions. They displaced the existing Anglo-Saxon nobility and took control over their lands, replacing them as the ruling class. This caused a real change in the structure of the kingdom, and the outlook of its kings and nobility. I think the more interesting question isn't whether the Anglo-Saxons would have adopted specific elements of continental warfare or not, but how Anglo-Saxon kings would have behaved as European sovereigns. Would they have had the same impulse to expand into Scotland, Wales, and Ireland? Would they have cultivated ties with France, or been more involved with affairs around the North Sea, as had been the case before? Unfortunately there's no way to answer those questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:So I guess my next questions are horse related: Back then there wasn't as much time, money or food to breed and keep large horses. There also wasn't much point - a knight wouldn't wear his armour when travelling to battle, it would be kept on a cart pulled by several horses or oxen. He would only put it on when about to fight, make one charge, withdraw and dismount. Thus, "heavy horses" weren't actually that heavy; the "heavy" refers to what they had on their back (i.e. a knight in heavy armour). Heavy horses were chosen for their stamina, not their ability to carry heavy things. A typical horse of that time wouldn't be any larger than about 14 hands - about the size of an Aegidienberger. What was important was equestrian technology. The saddle, bridle, reins and spurs were important innovations, whilst the stirrup was quite possibly the most important innovation in millitary warfare ever. A stable saddle allowed the rider to ride his horse faster and lean to the sides without falling off; superior bridles and reins allowed far, far greater control than a simple snaffle bridal; spurs allowed more regulation of speed; and stirrups did virtually all of that, and better. There is plenty of evidence of Anglo-Saxons breeding, rearing and using horses. There is some evidence of groups of Anglo-Saxons using horses in battle, and these horses were almost certainly very similar to their Norman counterparts. The problem is that although it is very easy for half a dozen riders to aim their horses at the enemy and charge, it is very difficult for fifty or more to aim their horses at the enemy and charge at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction and in exactly the same formation. Without saddles, bridles, reins, spurs and stirrups it is impossible. The technological innovations brought about because of the Normans traditions for equine husbandry were infinitely more important for them than the horses they ended up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Back then there wasn't as much time, money or food to breed and keep large horses. There also wasn't much point - a knight wouldn't wear his armour when travelling to battle, it would be kept on a cart pulled by several horses or oxen. He would only put it on when about to fight, make one charge, withdraw and dismount. Thus, "heavy horses" weren't actually that heavy; the "heavy" refers to what they had on their back (i.e. a knight in heavy armour). This is an exceedingly inaccurate description of 11th and 12th century warfare in Western Europe. To start with, battles were very rare. Instead, ravaging and siege took up the vast majority of warfare. In the former case the expectation of combat, in the form of skirmish, was frequent, and indeed near constant. Thus when Louis VI's men encountered the prepared army of Henry I at Bremule they had been raiding and were fully armed and mounted. In another example, Robert of Belleme ambushed and captured Helias of Maine, both of whom were raiding and skirmishing in Maine, and both were fully armed. In a later example, the Latins were all fully armed and armoured for the march that would lead to the battle of Arsuf, though they were operating internally rather than on a ravaging expedition. In siege knights typically, but not exclusively, fought on foot. In these circumstances, too, armour would often be worn even by men who were not on the front lines, in case of a sally or breach in the walls. The second major problem is your characterisation of a knightly charge. While charges would could be followed up by quick withdrawals, this is not always the case, especially in circumstances like assaults of fortified positions and skirmishes. In the former instance the act of reforming would disorganise the flow of men and in the latter the number of men would make reforming unnecessary and dangerous. And when they did withdraw the knights would reform and attempt another charge, not to dismount. Thus William I's knights were able to execute *multiple* feigned charges at Hastings, and the late 12th century Rule of the Templars talks about brothers who would 'go towards his banner' in the midst of a melee. While knights would certainly dismount to fight on foot, this was done at the start of the battle, rather than in the middle. Henry I did this on multiple occasions, most notably at Bremule but Louis VI, too, dismounted his knights in preparation for a battle (which incidentally never came) outside the castle of Le Puiset in 1112. What I have seen plenty of evidence for is that knights who have been unhorsed (either directly or through the death of their mount) would continue to fight on foot, but would tend to remount if the opportunity presented itself. quote:Heavy horses were chosen for their stamina, not their ability to carry heavy things. A typical horse of that time wouldn't be any larger than about 14 hands - about the size of an Aegidienberger. All the evidence I have seen for this estimate of size is based very heavily on pictorial evidence, and the Bayeux Tapestry at that. It's highly speculative, and should not be presented as fact. quote:What was important was equestrian technology. The saddle, bridle, reins and spurs were important innovations, whilst the stirrup was quite possibly the most important innovation in millitary warfare ever. A stable saddle allowed the rider to ride his horse faster and lean to the sides without falling off; superior bridles and reins allowed far, far greater control than a simple snaffle bridal; spurs allowed more regulation of speed; and stirrups did virtually all of that, and better. I have heard the stirrup called important before, but the most important innovation ever? Ridiculous. And even with that hyperbolic claim out of the way, they don't do the things you say they do. They may make them easier, but they certainly don't enhance them. I'll quote myself for ease, but other people have made the point already and better, and if anyone remembers which Bernard Bachrach (or whoever it was) article that makes this point decisively please do post it. Rodrigo Diaz posted:Macedonian, Roman, Carthaginian, and Persian horsemen all managed to ride perfectly well without stirrups, and the Macedonians fielded, in the Hetairoi, some very heavy cavalry. quote:There is plenty of evidence of Anglo-Saxons breeding, rearing and using horses. There is some evidence of groups of Anglo-Saxons using horses in battle, and these horses were almost certainly very similar to their Norman counterparts. The problem is that although it is very easy for half a dozen riders to aim their horses at the enemy and charge, it is very difficult for fifty or more to aim their horses at the enemy and charge at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction and in exactly the same formation. Without saddles, bridles, reins, spurs and stirrups it is impossible. Jim Bradbury has ably debunked the notion of Anglo-Saxons regularly fighting from horseback, and they would not have been the same quality of horses as employed by the Normans, not only because of limited contact with the Franks or Spanish until the reign of Edward the Confessor, but also because there was no demand for it. The only British islanders who used horses regularly were the Scots, and they used them as javelin-armed skirmishers, not as heavy cavalry. quote:The technological innovations brought about because of the Normans traditions for equine husbandry were infinitely more important for them than the horses they ended up with. Nope. The skill of the equestrian trainers, as Carroll M. Gillmor has shown, was hugely important in the rearing of effective war horses, and the size, endurance, and temperament of the Norman horses made them exceedingly worthy of import. Edit: Update duckmaster posted:Ok then. The main difference between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons was the Normans use of stone castles, whilst the Anglo-Saxons preferred wooden hill forts. The Anglo-Saxons were starting to get interested in cavalry but the one thing stopping them from using them regularly was money; Britain was generally poorer than Normandy at that time but was gaining quickly due to a far more efficient government and taxation system. Your average Norman army was always going to have the advantage in the cavalry stakes but the Anglo-Saxons had superior weapons and armour so their infantry had the advantage. This is wrong for a bunch of reasons, but I've never heard any evidence that the English had superior weaponry or armour at Hastings. Considering how little 11th century weapons and armour survive, I don't know how you'd even try to prove it. R. Allen Brown, as I recall, doesn't mention it in his account of the battle, and that is a fairly definitive piece. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Dec 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Did the US planes do better with 6 to 8
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Would they have had the same impulse to expand into Scotland, Wales, and Ireland? Would they have cultivated ties with France, or been more involved with affairs around the North Sea, as had been the case before? Unfortunately there's no way to answer those questions. In the case of Ireland, the Normans were invited over by the King of Laigin, Diarmait Mac Murchada to act as mercenaries in the near constant warfare of medieval Ireland (the Normans called a large part of Ireland the Terra Guerra, the Land of War). It was later while a group of Norman nobles were setting about carving out lands for themselves that Henry II decided to pop over and pick up their claims of fealty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Did the US planes do better with 6 to 8 Since the US fighters didn't have to worry about taking out heavy bombers the 50 cals worked perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Those 37 mm auto cannons were also terribly inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Aerial gunnery puts a premium on several things, compared to ground based gunnery, prime among them are rate of fire, and flatness of trajectory. .50BMG has a relatively flat trajectory, compared to nearly anything else carried during WWII. A flat trajectory is a rather large advantage in aerial gunnery, especially versus small targets, like other fighters. .50BMG also had the highest rate of fire of anything bigger than rifle caliber, which let pilots get a lot of lead in the air, maximizing the chance of a hit. German 30mm cannon, in contrast, had excruciatingly low rates of fire, and the shells had a very curved trajectory, making aerial gunnery aimed at anything smaller than a B-17 rather problematic. As mentioned above, if the US was spending a lot of time shooting at Ju390s or Ta400s, then you probably would have seen more 20mm, or even 30mm cannons carried by US fighters, but that obviously didn't happen. It wasn't until after the war (well after,) that 20mm weapons in particular were optimized for air combat, by use of the Gatling action, and more advanced lead-computing gunsights, to tremendously increase rate of fire, and reduce the effects of less-flat cartridge trajectories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Did the US planes do better with 6 to 8 I wrote a long thing on this a few months ago so here: bewbies posted:I'll provide a sperg answer on this because why not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The RAF, somewhat surprisingly, were the first to figure this out. Thats a very good post, but I must take exception to the above quote. The british were at the cutting edge of aircraft design and it wasn't untill we taught the US to build aircraft engines properly that they started to catch up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
General China posted:Thats a very good post, but I must take exception to the above quote. The british were at the cutting edge of aircraft design and it wasn't untill we taught the US to build aircraft engines properly that they started to catch up. Pratt & Whitney disagree with you. As do Wright, Allison, etc. See also SBD Dauntless, B-17 Flying Fortress, P-61 Black Widow, as well as a host of carrier based and land based medium aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
I seem to recall that during World War II a American submarine crew briefly landed on the Japanese coast. Were there any similar incidents?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
DasReich posted:Pratt & Whitney disagree with you. As do Wright, Allison, etc. Catch up was the word. The things you mention happen a lot later, about as late as britain is holding your coat so you can catch up in the fight 3 years later, when japan and germany declare war on the us. The thing to remember about ww2- the uk declared war on germany- the us got war declared on them. General China fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jan 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
General China posted:Catch up was the word. The things you mention happen a lot later, about as late as britain is holding your coat so you can catch up in the fight 3 years later. What time period are you talking about exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 02:59
|
|
