Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And not all Red squirrels are red...
A friend of mine's older brother was a chopper pilot in 'Nam. A couple years after he got back, he was hand raising a baby squirrel that had fallen out of its nest. It grew fast but he had to get rid of it when it mistook his fingertip for a peanut and bit all the way through. Who knew squirrels needed glasses?
Oh, and Air Force stuff...yadda yadda. Carry on!
-Irish
You forgot the inevitable P-39 diversion.
or the never ending arguments about claimsYou forgot the inevitable P-39 diversion.
And don't forget, it was an American naval officer, Alfred Thayer Mahan, who took that strategic vision, already well understood in naval circles, and codified it and sold it to the outside world. My paternal great grandfather was in charge of the Universalist missionary system in Japan in the 1890s and 1900s, and imported great quantities of western publications as requested by his Japanese friends. Mahan's book was very popular with them.* While the USN has a much shorter history than the RN, I think it's traditions and goals have been influenced by those of the RN, and it's evolved a grand strategic vision that is roughly similar. I think that other navies, such as those of Germany or Russia have evolved a much different vision.
The question can be argued in exactly the wrong way, i.e., something like "we need an independent air force because operating above the ground is fundamentally different than operating on the ground" By that logic, there should be an independent submarine force because operating under the water is fundamentally different from operating on the water.
There was, and it was run by Hyman Rickover, who did things his own way and the rest of the Navy be damned!By that logic, there should be an independent submarine force because operating under the water is fundamentally different from operating on the water.
Cool cats all, dude!who's a cat then
And Whirlwindsor the never ending arguments about claims
or the +10% for having the Balkencruz displayed
or that not a single German tiger was ever lost to Allied ATGs
or that rockets fired in 1944 still haven't landed
Both arguments have been made, however the exact details regarding projected details from what I remember ranged from 500,000 - 1,500,000 normally with some estimates as low as 50,000.Here's one reality I don't often see mentioned: while the US military planners suggested over 1 million allied casualties were "probable" (a figure I don't recall ever being challenged), how about the suggestion that it also saved a great many Japanese lives.
True enoughI think you're confusing estimated casualties numbers with the estimated killed.
Those numbers were written in "Wings of Judgement" and was quoted from Ira Eaker. It seems that either the author or Eaker got it wrong -- I basically quoted from the book.Just as you evidently confused buildings destroyed in all the Sofia bombings, with the deaths in one raid.
What I was pointed out was that to justify the use of nuclear weapons, it seems likely that the highest estimate would probably be the most likely to be used. Regardless, based on surface area, Okinawa's surface area is 1206.98 km^2A little over 14,000 Americans were killed in the battle of Okinawa. I think any person studying WW2 battles would estimate the deaths in a invasion of the Japanese main islands would be much, much, worse than the the battle of Okinawa.
Japan's total population was around 70,000,000 according to what somebody said, which is enormous, but I don't know what the population of the main islands were in 1945.
As usual where the sea is involved, the Brits were ahead of us. They had Liberators sinking U-boats out in the U-boats' supposedly "safe" mid-ocean zone long before we did. And long before our Jeep carriers were a presence there.The Battle of the Atlantic was drawn out for one reason because of a lack of VLR aircraft from interservice bickering between ADM King and the USAAF.
Nope.Unity of command is usually more efficient. Even during the War the Navy Dept and War Dept competed with each other. The Battle of the Atlantic was drawn out for one reason because of a lack of VLR aircraft from interservice bickering between ADM King and the USAAF.
There were just 12 VLR a/c in CC in 1942, and the first kill was the end of 1941 from memory. About 30% of all uboat kills were due to air action.As usual where the sea is involved, the Brits were ahead of us. They had Liberators sinking U-boats out in the U-boats' supposedly "safe" mid-ocean zone long before we didescort carriers. . And long before our Jeep carriers were a presence there.
Cheers,
Wes
My uncle flew TBMs off a Jeep carrier attached to the task group that captured U-505, although he arrived after that event was over. He didn't talk about it much, so I never got much from him in the way of details. I think he felt some guilt over attacking survivors who were trying to abandon ship.With the breaking of the uboat ciphers (on a regular repeatable basis) US CVE groups came into their own, basically to mysteriously "arrive" where Uboats had been ordered to assemble, usually either to form a wolfpack or to resupply.
That depends really more on the nation than it does the service: The German Naval & Army Air arms were able to coordinate quite well when bombing cities. During the secret rearmament, the Germans created the Luftwaffe: It coordinated quite well with the Army, and was quite good at close air support despite being an independent air arm (it didn't work so well with certain aspects of Naval aviation).Unity of command is usually more efficient.
Ironically, they had a disregard for coastal command early on.As usual where the sea is involved, the Brits were ahead of us. They had Liberators sinking U-boats out in the U-boats' supposedly "safe" mid-ocean zone long before we did. And long before our Jeep carriers were a presence there.