Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front. . .

Snautzer01 · Dec 19, 2021

NTGray said:
That was especially true in the Pacific. The Japanese had nothing comparable to our naval underway refueling/replenishing capability, or to our temporary forward bases at Majuro and then Ulithi. Nor could they build forward airfields to the same standards that our SeaBees did. They also wasted a lot of material by discarding damaged things that we would have repaired and put back into service.

Japanese merchant fleet was quite big. Perhaps you want to read into this. And building airfields in far places they also did very effectively. It was not that clean cut back then.

fubar57 · Dec 19, 2021

A_____________A

J_P_C · Dec 19, 2021

NTGray said:
Not entirely sure what you mean. I think everybody is agreed that Hitler intended to occupy and Germanize the land as far as the Ural Mountains (functionally the same as the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line). Hard to do that without eliminating the threat of the Red Army.

And, yes, I know the difference between Mother Russia and the CCCP. I, like most Americans, just don't care. The Soviet Union was, after all, just another name for the Russian Empire.

considering Hitler's statement from his book, his ultimate goal was to physically eliminate all slavic nations and replace them with "pure nordic" population, in fact holocaust was just prelude for far more horrifying events which nazis had in plan...

Snautzer01 · Dec 19, 2021

fubar57 said:
A_____________A

?

GrauGeist · Dec 19, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
Japanese merchant fleet was quite big. Perhaps you want to read into this. And building airfields in far places they also did very effectively. It was not that clean cut back then.

Many Japanese forward airfields were not well built and their aircraft suffered for it. The Tainan air group at Rabaul, for example, lost a considerable amount of aircraft due to their field's poor condition.
In addition, the Japanese did not have a reliable supply network like the Allies, so getting supplies and materials to forward operation areas was not reliable and their ground and air units suffered for it. This only got worse as the war carried on.

PAT303 · Dec 19, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
Japanese merchant fleet was quite big.

American submarine's decimated the Japanese merchant fleet and halted their supply network once their torpedoes worked properly.

SaparotRob · Dec 19, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
?

You had to be there.

NTGray · Dec 20, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
Japanese merchant fleet was quite big. Perhaps you want to read into this. And building airfields in far places they also did very effectively. It was not that clean cut back then.

"Underway refueling and replenishment" was a reference to the American Pacific Fleet's ability to resupply its own ships while underway, so that the ships did not have to return to port to refuel. The Japanese did not have comparable ability.

NTGray · Dec 20, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
?

A_______________A = A-A line = Arkhangelsk–Astrakhan line:

GrauGeist · Dec 20, 2021

NTGray said:
"Underway refueling and replenishment" was a reference to the American Pacific Fleet's ability to resupply its own ships while underway, so that the ships did not have to return to port to refuel. The Japanese did not have comparable ability.

View attachment 652283

Actually, the IJN was ahead of all other navies in regards to sea going replenishment at the start of the Pacific war.

Were Tankers the Key to Imperial Japan’s Early Wartime Success?

Japan had come to appreciate the value of at-sea replenishment for its navy early on.

thediplomat.com

NTGray · Dec 20, 2021

GrauGeist said:
Actually, the IJN was ahead of all other navies in regards to sea going replenishment at the start of the Pacific war.

Possibly. But that gets back to the necessity of winning the war quickly, with the material they had on hand at the beginning. Their difficulty with fighting a longer war was not just a problem of not having as much industrial capacity at home to build new ships and airplanes and rifles, but also a built-in weakness in their advance planning for field maintenance and new construction of facilities such as airfields. They started with a weak grasp of long-range logistics, and were not able to correct that weakness as the war progressed.

Here is an informative article I found on that topic. It's well worth a read.

Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II

World War II in the Pacific was a fight to seize and defend airfields. The Japanese made gaining and maintaining control of the air as much a requirement

www.historynet.com

Dimlee · Dec 20, 2021

NTGray said:
Not entirely sure what you mean. I think everybody is agreed that Hitler intended to occupy and Germanize the land as far as the Ural Mountains (functionally the same as the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line). Hard to do that without eliminating the threat of the Red Army.

And, yes, I know the difference between Mother Russia and the CCCP. I, like most Americans, just don't care. The Soviet Union was, after all, just another name for the Russian Empire.

Not everybody is agreed on that. The distance from the A-A line to the Ural Mountains is comparable to the distance from the USSR border to A-A.

If you know the difference, why use the wrong term? The USA was, after all, just another name for the Colonies.

But, seriously, this is a major historical mistake. Bolsheviks denied any connections with the Empire, were proud of creating a "new society" and "new nation" and banned historical/culture baggage of the "old" until the early 1940s when it became necessary to motivate people for another war. Even in the 1970-1980s Russian Empire was portraited in the Soviet propaganda as something just a bit less evil than the Third Reich and as a country that was not a foundation of the USSR. As one wise man said, the Soviet Union related to the Russian Empire as the hangman to the corpse of his victim.

Dimlee · Dec 20, 2021

J_P_C said:
considering Hitler's statement from his book, his ultimate goal was to physically eliminate all slavic nations and replace them with "pure nordic" population, in fact holocaust was just prelude for far more horrifying events which nazis had in plan...

What book exactly? All two are available on the Internet.

J_P_C · Dec 21, 2021

i think it is one of the thesis contained in "main kampf" - all areas located east from Wisla river will be subject of "purification and settlement by nordic nations". Of course wording is different but meaning remains the same. Nazis have started this process september 4th '39 with first mass execution of civilians in Bydgoszcz. A month later they did this once again in more organised way, capturing and killing majority of university teachers in Krakow - and that was just beginning - Poland have ended WW2 loosing every fourth citizen - from close to 40mln down tu slightly below 30.

Snautzer01 · Dec 21, 2021

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/j/japanese-naval-merchant-shipping-losses-wwii.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ile_id=77377&usg=AOvVaw1E_EzIEUMIRXMAqgIMemdz Prior to World War II, the Japanese merchant marine fleet could claim 6.3 million
gross tons or about 8 per cent of the world's tonnage, ranking third after Great
Britain and the United States

Dimlee · Dec 21, 2021

J_P_C said:
i think it is one of the thesis contained in "main kampf" - all areas located east from Wisla river will be subject of "purification and settlement by nordic nations". Of course wording is different but meaning remains the same. Nazis have started this process september 4th '39 with first mass execution of civilians in Bydgoszcz. A month later they did this once again in more organised way, capturing and killing majority of university teachers in Krakow - and that was just beginning - Poland have ended WW2 loosing every fourth citizen - from close to 40mln down tu slightly below 30.

The wording is very much different. As for the meanings, - one can only guess what Hitler thought in 1925 about the implementation of his "eastern" ideas. We do know, of course, what he did later.
When I read that dull and ill-written book many years ago, I was surprised not to find a lot of what was attributed to that book. And to discover what was omitted.
Just looked quickly through one of the English translations and found the following.
"The fact was recognized that new territory could be gained only in the East; but this meant that there would be fighting ahead"
"...we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East"
"But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of Russia and the border States subject to her... Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here."

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

The last two sentences are from Chapter XIV Germany's Policy in Eastern Europe. Where the author blabbers about everything else but the policy itself and writes about France as much as about Eastern Europe.

To conclude: no, there was no Hitler's statement in his books about the ultimate goal of the extermination of the Slavic nations. That does not make him any "better". But this fact can help to understand the dangerous unpredictabilities of totalitarian leaders and regimes.

NTGray · Dec 21, 2021

Dimlee said:
Not everybody is agreed on that. The distance from the A-A line to the Ural Mountains is comparable to the distance from the USSR border to A-A.

If you know the difference, why use the wrong term? The USA was, after all, just another name for the Colonies.

But, seriously, this is a major historical mistake. Bolsheviks denied any connections with the Empire, were proud of creating a "new society" and "new nation" and banned historical/culture baggage of the "old" until the early 1940s when it became necessary to motivate people for another war. Even in the 1970-1980s Russian Empire was portraited in the Soviet propaganda as something just a bit less evil than the Third Reich and as a country that was not a foundation of the USSR. As one wise man said, the Soviet Union related to the Russian Empire as the hangman to the corpse of his victim.

Oh, sometimes I just like to kick back and be flippant and casual and even a little silly. I'm really not trying to start an actual debate, especially since I am more than capable of being exact and scholarly and proper when it's called for. My children have never really forgiven me for always correcting their grammar around the breakfast table (and other times). (But now they do the same to their own children.)

NTGray · Dec 21, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/j/japanese-naval-merchant-shipping-losses-wwii.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiazc6w4vT0AhV9_rsIHZygDcsQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/download.php/AN00234610-19830201-0118.pdf?file_id=77377&usg=AOvVaw1E_EzIEUMIRXMAqgIMemdz Prior to World War II, the Japanese merchant marine fleet could claim 6.3 million
gross tons or about 8 per cent of the world's tonnage, ranking third after Great
Britain and the United States

My, how things have changed since then!

N°	Country (or territory)	Gross tonnage (millions)[1]	Deadweight tonnage (millions)[1]
	World	1,034.3	1,552.2
1	Panama	215.8	330.8
	European Union	205.1	293.2
2	Liberia	123.8	193.3
3	Marshall Islands	81.1	133.3
4	Hong Kong	78.5	130.3
5	Singapore	59.2	91.7
6	Bahamas	48.3	63.3
7	Malta	45.0	70.3
8	Greece	41.1	72.9
9	China	38.8	61.2
10	United Kingdom	30.0	40.7

The United States is down at #22

gordonm1 · Dec 21, 2021

NTGray said:
My perspective of World War II was shaped by my being both an American and a navy brat, so to me the War began on December 7, 1941. My father made it to the South Pacific in October of 1943 as a radioman aboard an LST, and got out in 1966. When I was able to read, one of my favorite household books was a dark blue Navy "yearbook" that detailed the Pacific War battle-by-battle, with battle diagrams and lots and lots of photos. (The book's title included the words "Battle Stations" in case anybody else here thinks they grew up with that same book.)

My two favorite planes were the SBD Douglas Dauntless dive bomber and the PBY Consolidated Catalina seaplane, and I had a plastic model of both of them, along with a fair number of warships, including the battleships Missouri and Pennsylvania. Sadly, there were no models of Essex class carriers in wartime configuration; my model of the CV16 Lexington had an angled deck and hurricane bow.

Now, I knew that the War technically started in 1939, and I was aware of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany. Twelve O'clock High was on my regular TV watch list, as was The Rat Patrol, Combat! and, uh, oh yeah, Hogan's Heroes. A few years earlier, I faithfully caught every episode of Navy Log and The Silent Service.

All of that is to say that I had only the dimmest awareness of what was going on along the Eastern Front. I knew it existed and that the Arctic Convoy was a thing, but when I discovered that Erich Hartmann, Germany's top fighter ace, scored his 352 kills mostly in the East, I figured that his score was so high in large part because he flew against weak opposition. My knowledge of MiGs started with the MiG-15; I had no idea whatsoever what planes the Russians were flying during the War, except that they snapped up a lot of P-39s that nobody else seemed to want.

It has literally been just in the past year that I began researching the Eastern Front in detail, and am only now beginning to understand that the Russians (or "Soviets," I know the difference, but who cares?) actually did the majority of the Allied heavy lifting during the war. Could the Russians have won without Lend-Lease or the bombing of Germany? Maybe, maybe not, but considering all factors, World War II could justly be described as a war between Germany and Russia, with major participation by Britain and America and Japan. And now I have a much better understanding of why the P-39 was so popular with the Russians. I also have a great appreciation for the Yak-3, Yak-9, La-7, and Il-2. (MiG-3s played a relatively minor role in the war.)

Considering that I knew something about Zeroes and Vals and Kates and Bettys and Tonys and Emilys and others, it seems a shame that it took me so long to discover those planes built by Yakovlev, Lavochkin, and Ilyushin. Those were some top-tier flying machines, and some of them were as good as or better than anything the Germans (or Americans or Japanese) built. And for those whose general ignorance of the Eastern Front (or The Great Patriotic War, as the Russians know it) rivals my own (probably not very many on this forum, but there may be a few), there is some good material of the "quick" variety available on YouTube if you search "animated history of the Eastern Front" and look especially for videos by Eastory. They're not heavy on aviation, but they'll help you get a broad idea of what was going on.

McHale's Navy not included? Those guys made Klink and Schultz look smart sometimes.

SaparotRob · Dec 21, 2021

As long as we're off thread, does anyone know if there is a copy of "Seven Against the Sea"? It was a Playhouse 90 episode or a similar. It was the basis of McHale's Navy. It was a drama.

Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front. . .

Honourably banned

General

Senior Airman

Honourably banned

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Honourably banned

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads