I AM AKIRA!!!!!

A place for off-topic posts not related to this website. All messages are purged frequently.
statemachine
Contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Earth

Post by statemachine » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:47 pm

Very impressive,David.Later on in the 30's two black American pilots went to Ethiopia.
An unbreakable man

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:30 pm

Thank you statemachine!!! Would you happen to know their names?

Very Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

statemachine
Contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Earth

Post by statemachine » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:29 pm

The Eagle,Col Hubert Fauntleroy Julian,The Condor,Col John Robinson.

http://www.amfea.com
An unbreakable man

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:31 pm

By the By, I'm still a bit disappointed in Feldgrau's membership, although I have removed a number of posts by myself which I thought were "over the top".

I think that Germany and Japan's lack of cooperation lost them the World War--not exactly a bad thing--but it has its parallels in the Forum membership's reactions to this Thread.

Will someone out there please acknowledge, despite any prejudice, that the Imperial Japanese Navy was a major factor in World War II and a potential War-winner for the Axis???

~Akira, AKA JACK, THE RIPPER
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:38 pm

Oh, and in case any of you poor sods didn't catch the joke:

"Jack"--the WWII Allied code-name for the Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden" (雷電, "Thunderbolt") fighter.
"Jack the Ripper"--a 19th century killer of prostitutes in London.

The American B-29 Squadrons knew my Black Panther-painted aircraft as "Jack the Ripper", as I showed no mercy and was always up "for the Game". Besides, they weren't the sharpest knives in the kitchen. Most were simple country boys.

Maybe some of you English blokes can explain the slang term "on the game"? Just so everyone understands the complications? It means something much different to our English members than it does for our American members.

Thanks.

~Akira
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:30 pm

Ah, did you ever see a crew so unaware of their imminent destruction?

Image

~Jack, the Ripper
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

statemachine
Contributor
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Earth

Post by statemachine » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:02 pm

The Japanese navy could have landed on the Somali coast in Feb 41.Italy and Japan had squabbled over Ethiopia up till 35 I believe.This complicated matters.They were back around Madagascar early 42,but only sank a few freighters.Madagascar was outside the boundary Germany and Japan had settled on.
An unbreakable man

User avatar
Waleed Y. Majeed
Patron
Posts: 1126
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:34 am
Location: 8200 - Denmark

Post by Waleed Y. Majeed » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:28 am

:shock: Did Akira dishonour himself..?

Image

:wink:
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 961#194961


waleed

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:56 pm

:D :D :D

We call it typical deceptive tactics..... :wink:

(Alas, that is one of the Raidens tested by the U.S. and Australia after the war.)

Banzai!
~Akira
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Uli » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:05 am

Commissar D, the Evil wrote:By the By, I'm still a bit disappointed in Feldgrau's membership, although I have removed a number of posts by myself which I thought were "over the top".

I think that Germany and Japan's lack of cooperation lost them the World War--not exactly a bad thing--but it has its parallels in the Forum membership's reactions to this Thread.

Will someone out there please acknowledge, despite any prejudice, that the Imperial Japanese Navy was a major factor in World War II and a potential War-winner for the Axis???

~Akira, AKA JACK, THE RIPPER
The Imperial Japanese Navy may well have been the world's finest until June 1942, and despite it's loss at Midway, it continued to inflict considerable damage on it's enemies up to Leyte, where simple luck may well have handed Halsey a victory that should've instead gone to Kurita. Indeed it may well have been sheer luck--or perhaps providential intervention--which handed Spruance the decision at Midway, and Nimitz himself openly acknowledges this in at least one wartime Pacific Fleet communique as well as in recorded memoir.

The Japanese should never have attacked Pearl Harbor, a raid that proved both a masterstroke of genius on the part of Yamamoto, and yet a long-term disaster for Japanese ambitions for the establishment of a Co-East Asian Prosperity Sphere. Had Tokyo abstained from attacking the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands, remainded within her inner-defensive ring no further west than the Marianas, and simply consolidated her numerous other Asian holdings to that point, the U.S. would've been compelled to either accept Japan's bid for a share of the Asian pie, or initiated her own war with the Japanese--this last a move that almost assuredly would've fully ignited Western non-interventionists and fatally placed American hawks on the defensive. In the end, Japan might have served herself and the Axis cause well had she instead went for the Soviet Far East a second time, this time in conjunction with the German drive on Moscow. With 30-40 of Zhukov's Siberian divisions already fighting the Germans in desperation in the West, it seems unlikely the world would've witnessed a disastrous repeat of Khalkin Gol in December 1941.

I've no prejudices toward the Japanese, one way or another. I've lived among them and love their culture. My father and a dozen of my greater family members fought the Japanese, and I'm of the opinion that the Japanese warrior of WWII--despite his glaring industrial limitations, despite his peculiarly stubborn reliance on outdated small-arms, despite his well-noted penchant for killing himself rather than simply following the demonstrably successful defensive strategy of one of the finest of all WWII-era strategists, Colonel Hiromichi Yahara--might well have proved the finest, the most formidable, and the most determined warrior any American combatant has ever faced in the field.

My father, who fought the Japanese on the ground at Okinawa, and later lived in Japan for a short while during the Korean War, said of the Japanese before his death: "If I were ever forced to go to war again, I'd love to have a Jap at my side."

His sentiment should in no way be construed as anything other than a high compliment.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942

Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:19 am

Uli wrote:
The Imperial Japanese Navy may well have been the world's finest until June 1942, and despite it's loss at Midway, it continued to inflict considerable damage on it's enemies up to Leyte, where simple luck may well have handed Halsey a victory that should've instead gone to Kurita. Indeed it may well have been sheer luck--or perhaps providential intervention--which handed Spruance the decision at Midway, and Nimitz himself openly acknowledges this in at least one wartime Pacific Fleet communique as well as in recorded memoir.
Uli,

Simple luck and sheer luck handed victory to the Americans at Leyte and Midway respectively!!!!

That is one of the most unusual analyses of these monumental and pivotal Naval battles I have ever come across. Were such factors as strength of numbers, tactics, and planning largely irrelevant? Or was it simply the Yanks just kept getting lucky all the time in these crucial Naval battles?

Why do you think Kurita deserved victory and what exactly encompasses this “simple luck” you assert handed Halsey victory during the Battle of Leyte Gulf?

Was the fact that Halsey and the Americans had amassed 32 aircraft carriers, 12 battleships, 24 cruisers, 141 destroyers, 39 PT (motor-torpedo boats) and over 1,500 planes compared to the Japanese strength of 4 carriers, 9 battleships, 19 cruisers, 34 destroyers and less than 200 planes, simple luck? (source for figures: http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/LEY ... attle_.htm)

Was the destruction of 600 Japanese aircraft (almost the entire Japanese air-strength in the area) in the prelude to the Leyte battle, simple luck?

Was the superior Radar-Fire-Control gunnery systems on the US ships, allowing them to engage without retaliation, simple luck?

Was the presence of USS Dace and Darter patrolling the area, spotting Kurita, and sinking or damaging several of his ships(including his flagship) while he failed to deploy anti submarine measures, simple luck?

Were the quick, resourceful and brave actions of Officers and men like Commander Evans aboard USS Johnston (Battle off Samar) when they charged the larger Japanese Battleships “point-blank”, simple luck?

Etc. etc. etc………….

Luck plays a part, in varying degrees in all walks of life, including battle, but it’s rarely (if ever) the single most crucial component in any sizable military engagement. Successful commanders make their own luck, and of course they plan for the eventually of poor luck.
Halsey made some poor decisions during the battle, but his blunders were if anything Kurita’s “luck” (rather than vice-versa). Had Halsey facilitated bringing the full weight of the forces at his disposal to bear, the (heavily mauled and depleted) Japanese fleet would not have had the opportunity to cut and run. They would probably have been annihilated.

Regards,

Andre

PS: You state Nimitz can be quoted as stating both victories were the result of luck. Can you provide this information (or a link to it). Of course it’s always imperative that the full context of such a quotation is given.
Up The Tigers!

Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Uli » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:07 pm

Cott Tiger wrote:
Uli wrote:
The Imperial Japanese Navy may well have been the world's finest until June 1942, and despite it's loss at Midway, it continued to inflict considerable damage on it's enemies up to Leyte, where simple luck may well have handed Halsey a victory that should've instead gone to Kurita. Indeed it may well have been sheer luck--or perhaps providential intervention--which handed Spruance the decision at Midway, and Nimitz himself openly acknowledges this in at least one wartime Pacific Fleet communique as well as in recorded memoir.
Uli,

Simple luck and sheer luck handed victory to the Americans at Leyte and Midway respectively!!!!

That is one of the most unusual analyses of these monumental and pivotal Naval battles I have ever come across. Were such factors as strength of numbers, tactics, and planning largely irrelevant? Or was it simply the Yanks just kept getting lucky all the time in these crucial Naval battles?

Why do you think Kurita deserved victory and what exactly encompasses this “simple luck” you assert handed Halsey victory during the Battle of Leyte Gulf?

Was the fact that Halsey and the Americans had amassed 32 aircraft carriers, 12 battleships, 24 cruisers, 141 destroyers, 39 PT (motor-torpedo boats) and over 1,500 planes compared to the Japanese strength of 4 carriers, 9 battleships, 19 cruisers, 34 destroyers and less than 200 planes, simple luck? (source for figures: http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/LEY ... attle_.htm)

Was the destruction of 600 Japanese aircraft (almost the entire Japanese air-strength in the area) in the prelude to the Leyte battle, simple luck?

Was the superior Radar-Fire-Control gunnery systems on the US ships, allowing them to engage without retaliation, simple luck?

Was the presence of USS Dace and Darter patrolling the area, spotting Kurita, and sinking or damaging several of his ships(including his flagship) while he failed to deploy anti submarine measures, simple luck?

Were the quick, resourceful and brave actions of Officers and men like Commander Evans aboard USS Johnston (Battle off Samar) when they charged the larger Japanese Battleships “point-blank”, simple luck?

Etc. etc. etc………….

Luck plays a part, in varying degrees in all walks of life, including battle, but it’s rarely (if ever) the single most crucial component in any sizable military engagement. Successful commanders make their own luck, and of course they plan for the eventually of poor luck.
Halsey made some poor decisions during the battle, but his blunders were if anything Kurita’s “luck” (rather than vice-versa). Had Halsey facilitated bringing the full weight of the forces at his disposal to bear, the (heavily mauled and depleted) Japanese fleet would not have had the opportunity to cut and run. They would probably have been annihilated.

Regards,

Andre

PS: You state Nimitz can be quoted as stating both victories were the result of luck. Can you provide this information (or a link to it). Of course it’s always imperative that the full context of such a quotation is given.
Admirable defense of the U.S. Navy, Cott--after all, the U.S. Navy of WWII remains the greatest maritime force ever forged and put to sea during wartime--though for a considerably better or more concise summary of the battles' of Midway and Leyte Gulf than yours, I recommend to you Gordon Prange's Midway and Edwin Hoyt's Leyte. Additionally, should you one day enjoy the opportunity of visiting the U.S., you might try to make it on down to the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas: There you'll find primary source material specifically dealing with both battles, and aides will assist you in uncovering Nimitz's personal conclusion suggesting that, though heavy outgunned (as you mentioned), the Japanese Navy might easily have emerged the victor in both encounters, given a bit more luck (Nimitz's conclusion, not mine). His references to "luck" can be found within his personal papers.

How I might readily access portions of his personal memoirs for you via computer, I have little idea--though they're likely out there. I'm not a computer geek, so perhaps someone else with a better technological touch might try digging them up for you. However, that the Leyte Gulf battles might have ended on an entirely different note--thanks in large to glaring mistakes on Halsey's part--has long been accepted as conventional wisdom among historians and sea-war buffs here in the states. Granted, the U.S. Navy, as you noted, was far larger than that of the Japanese during the Leyte affair, and though our technological saavy far more advanced, our victory there wasn't guaranteed simply because of physical size or sheer numbers. Given the numbers you've provided, one would think that American victory at Leyte should've been a virtual lock, right? But it wasn't. In fact the margin of victory in both battles was dangerously thin, and American naval officers and historians have humbly argued this issue down through the decades.

Take a look inside Prange's and Hoyt's books--they're quite likely to be found in a library near you. Thirty-five years ago the books were required reading for sea buffs, naval officers, and other inquiring minds, and that's when I procured mine. The numbers you've kindly provided can likely be found most anywhere these days. Wikipedia and Angelfire are good for stuff like this, and yet those numbers are yesterday's news, in fact--but I thank you for refreshing us with them just the same.

On roughly equal terms--or at Guadalcanal, for instance--the Japanese on numerous occasions routinely sank us and put us on the run. And superior numbers aren't necessarily the product of superior minds or superior commanders, or a clear-cut indication that one nation's better than another. Given what little industrial might the Japanese could muster during the war years, I'd say that David made an excellent point regarding their navy's prowess. And this is saying nothing about the Japanese Navy's ability to sink, damage, or destroy numerous of our battleships and other vessels at Pearl Harbor with the loss of only 29 of it's aircraft and 55 airmen.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:23 pm

The Japanese should never have attacked Pearl Harbor, a raid that proved both a masterstroke of genius on the part of Yamamoto, and yet a long-term disaster for Japanese ambitions for the establishment of a Co-East Asian Prosperity Sphere. Had Tokyo abstained from attacking the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands, remainded within her inner-defensive ring no further west than the Marianas, and simply consolidated her numerous other Asian holdings to that point, the U.S. would've been compelled to either accept Japan's bid for a share of the Asian pie, or initiated her own war with the Japanese--this last a move that almost assuredly would've fully ignited Western non-interventionists and fatally placed American hawks on the defensive.
I fully agree with this. I understand the motivation--crippling the American Pacific Fleet--but I think the Japanese, being a fascist state, didn't understand the political implications of Pearl Harbor. Very few Americans would have given a damn about the Pacific, if the Japanese had only attacked Chinese, British and Dutch forces. But an attack on America itself was a fatal mistake, for obvious political reasons.

Very Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:30 pm

Ah, but what it DID do was remove the rest of the USN/USAAF long-range in-theatre air capability, and vastly reduce the USN's small ships' strength in the Pacific - that MacArthur's plans relied on for coming to the aid of the Philippines...whether Washington was of the same opinion or not LOL Once the raids on Cavite etc. THEN removed the USN and USAAF element actually IN the islands that he depended on to support his tactical withdrawl into Bataan, the two main planks of his defensive plan were gone. So the attack on Pearl Harbour actually copperfastened the success of the Japanese campaign in the Philippines before it even started.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:34 pm

I think, as Hitler proved, that battles do not win wars--politics do! Keeping America neutral in WWII should have been the chief task of Axis Commanders and heads of State. Why fight Britain, Russia and America at the same time?

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron