MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Well put and something we all tend to forget
The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well put and something we all tend to forget
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
This is one reason NAA jumped at the idea of the possible conversion of the Allison engine Mustang into a dive bomber; A-36A. If the USAAF didn't pursue the purchase of the Mustang, then the production space at NAA would have gone to the assembly of other aircraft; namely the AT6 and/or the B-25.
Lets be clear, we are talking about two things - "to the death" of the State, ala another nation, kingdom, republic or etc., and second the overlapping concept of 'Total War'. Neither scenario literally means total murder of every single person.
Fighting to the death of a rival State was rare but not unheard of. I can think of a few off the top of my head: The Norman invasion of England saw the permanent and quite thorough overthrow of the Saxon regime which had preceded it. The Burgundian Wars ultimately ended the well developed State of the Valois Duchy of Burgundy when the Swiss killed Duke Charles the Bold at the Battle of Nancy. The Mongols annihilated several polities on the Eastern fringes of Europe (like the Principality of Kiev) in the 13th through 16th Century, as did the Ottomans from the 15th through the 17th. (The Ottomans destrroyed the Byzantine State as the most prominent example, though there were many smaller ones). Others were converted into Satraps which were effectively new States (with the old regime murdered and thousands of citizens impaled or enslaved). The War between the Conquistadors The War of the Roses in England ended in virtual annihilation of the Lancastrian side. The Albigensian Crusade was fought to the annihilation of the Cathars, the Northern Crusades were fought to the annihilation of the native Prussians, though the Lithuanians proved to be a harder nut to crack.
Total War was also not unheard of and was widely practiced during the 30 Years War in the 17th Century which saw the massacre of the population of the entire city of Magdeburg for example, and a hitherto unusually widespread mass-murder of civilians. The same occurred during the Hugujenot Wars in France.
During the Napoleonic Wars, several States were at least temporarily overthrown and re-created as "Revolutionary" puppets of the French Empire. And so on.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
And on the production side the policy that male children finished school at 15? and were put in factories for one year (with months of production lost to training) and then at age 16?, when now fully competent at whatever they were producing, they were ripped out of the factory and put in the military was wasteful on many levels as was the refusal to use women in factories for many years. These issues were covered in some detail in the book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini. This 1971 book is thoroughly discredited for its conclusions and the warping of fact to justify those conclusions but much of the content is both well researched and thought provoking. If the author had not allowed his political leanings to influence his writing this would be an excellent book as it does cover many items that we now ignore and a lot of history we have now forgotten. My copy was lost probably 30 years ago so I must go by memory on the ages quoted above.
To paraphrase Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey in his 2019 autobiography Before I forget, memory is not a reliable helper.
Also the Romans annihilated several polities they came into conflict with.
Did they? Which ones?
Carthage comes to mind. There were various other kingdoms around the Middle East as well. But there were several smaller polities in Italy, in Greece, and in what are now Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium and England.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
And, unlike allied aircraft the zero had an extensive flotation system to maximize the pilots chances of survival after ditching. It is often claimed the A6M was too lightly built but if you consider skin and frame thicknesses with the Spitfire it stacks up very well.
Technically much of it is brilliant. The tail wheel and retract system is far simpler and lighter than any allied aircraft and extremely strong. Again the arrester hook was way ahead of allied ones for weight and reliability and it had functions not found on allied hooks.
And what other fighter had a range of 2,695 km / 1,675 nautical miles from 518 litres/114 imp gals/137 USgal and 3,105 km / 1,930 miles with a 330 litre / 72 Imp gal / 87 USG drop tank added.
What what other non Japanese fighters had all round vision canopies instead of razorbacks in 1940? Just the P-39.
See the Zeke 32, Design Analysis article for the May 1943 Aviation magazine for the flotation details etc.
Last edited:
The Norman invasion of England was seen by William as claiming his rightful throne, he may have subjugated the north in the harrying of the north but that was only a small part of his already defeated enemy, it was consolidation of a victory already won. You are going back into the distant past. I have met and worked with a Huguenot descent French woman in Paris so the wars against them weren't all that successful. The 30 years war was devastating but eliminated most by starvation and only 50% not all of the population. Going back to Biblical times it has been tried and not achieved and the burden you put on the killers creates a people you just don't want to be in charge of, they will obviously kill anyone for no particular reason.
Nearly every prince in Europe had some claim to neighboring territories, which doesn't really mean that much except that the Royal families of widely divergent places were small in number and often intermarried quite a bit. Resulting in problems like the Hapsburg chin...
I was pretty careful to stipulate what I meant - war to the destruction of the rival State, and Total War, neither of which require or mean the complete extermination of the population. That said, certain polities did occasionally exterminate, or come quite close to it in the mathematical sense. Read about Tamerlane. And in particular, though there was no extermination, the Norman conquest of England was far more brutal and lethal than most people realize. Much, much more extreme than had previously been the case during the Viking conquests.
The point though is that the Saxon regime was eliminated.
I did go far back but examples I cited are not all in the distant mists of time, they extend from Rome to Napoleon. And I could cite more. That said, it was far more common in Europe for wars to be fought for relatively small territorial gains and not to the destruction of one or both parties. This was my original point - WW II didn't have to be a war to "unconditional surrender" -it was really the Strategies of the two primary Axis powers which led to that.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Third Punic War comes to mind...
It is easier to eliminate a population when that population amounts to almost nothing. Like "clan feuds" I have read about in Scotland that were little more than a pub brawl. I live in the North East of England I am fully aware of what the Norman conquest was and what it meant, I am also fully aware that it involved very few people in modern terms, the total population of England was about 1.5 million
It was planned to be only one step away from a surprise attack. The actual text of the diplomatic message was convoluted and vague and well short of an unequivocal declaration of war. It certainly didn't give any specifics of impending hostile action, and even if delivered on time, would not have allowed adequate time to alert defensive forces in an effective manner. Diplomacy aside, militarily the Japanese expected to achieve tactical surprise.
Cheers,
Wes
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Correct! But if it had been delivered, rather than delayed . . . the Japanese could have said we notified you. As an aside, the US Navy actually fired the 1st shot when they fired (and hit) a midget Japanese sub.
At least somebody was awake that morning! Let's hear it for junior tin can skippers; not old enough to succumb to caution.
Kevin J
Banned
200,000 dead out of a 1 million population is no small number.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I came across this by accident today. DESIGN and OPERATION of United States COMBAT AIRCRAFT
DESIGN and OPERATION of United States COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Office of War Information
The Following Report on the Performance of American Military and Naval Aircraft was Prepared by the Office of War Information. Copies may be obtained, upon request, from the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information. Washington, D. C. October 19, 1942
etc
Not quite on topic but much closer than some of the discussion
DESIGN and OPERATION of United States COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Office of War Information
The Following Report on the Performance of American Military and Naval Aircraft was Prepared by the Office of War Information. Copies may be obtained, upon request, from the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information. Washington, D. C. October 19, 1942
etc
Not quite on topic but much closer than some of the discussion
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Norman conquest was different from the Anglo Saxon conquest of the land we call England today.
Norman conquest was top down so the Lords and Kings were replaced although when the Kings lost their French possessions they became English and more Anglo by default. So one could argue that Anglo Saxon culture and language did overcome Norman over time. The peasants would not have seen themselves as French so the conquest was political.
When the Anglo Saxons conquered Celtic Britannia that was the full ethnic cleansing with the Celts booted out off land. That was far more a root and branch destruction of what came before than the Norman conquests or the Roman conquest.
William was of Viking descent and so were many in the North East of England at the Time.
Norman conquest was top down so the Lords and Kings were replaced although when the Kings lost their French possessions they became English and more Anglo by default. So one could argue that Anglo Saxon culture and language did overcome Norman over time. The peasants would not have seen themselves as French so the conquest was political.
When the Anglo Saxons conquered Celtic Britannia that was the full ethnic cleansing with the Celts booted out off land. That was far more a root and branch destruction of what came before than the Norman conquests or the Roman conquest.
William was of Viking descent and so were many in the North East of England at the Time.
Kevin J
Banned
There was no Anglo-Saxon invasion. The Angles were refugees having been kicked out of what became Denmark. The Saxons were traders in Roman times who settled on the Saxon shore running between Norfolk on the East to Sussex on the South Coast. They intermarried with the Romano-Britons, eventually taking over, many Romano-Britons left settling in north-west France in what is known today as Brittany (Bretagne) as opposed to Grand Brittannia (Great Britain). The Vikings pillaged and settled the East Coast of England. The Normans (Norse men intermarried with French) along with the Bretons returned in 1066. The harrowing of the north resulted in the deaths of 200,000. England's population at the time was 1 million. What most people believe is the Norman fantasy concocted in the 12/13th centuries, you know, king Arthur, Camelot, the Anglo-Saxon invasion that never happened.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Eh? The real, if there was a real King Arthur, fought the Anglo Saxons.
Why did Bretons leave to form Brittany?
I will use England and Anglo Saxon as a catch all phrase to make it easier.
Whether you call it an invasion or not, the Anglo Saxons certainly got the language and culture squared away. So you can call it a settlement or invasion but same dog.
The results are exactly the same which is the end of Ramono-Celtic culture in England been replaced with Germanic culture.
The intermarriage of Celts and Germaics could be the use of shorthand for rape and pillage so hardly useful. Kill all the men leaving the women and children.
Whether the English Celts fled or died or survived as Germanic offspring is neither here nor there. A genetically Celtic child would be brought up speaking English and as a Germanic child. And so would see themselves as Germanic. They wouldn't see themselves as Celtic.
Germanics won and the old English language has little basis from Latin or Celtic language. Which it would if Romano Celts and Germanics were equal.
Why did Bretons leave to form Brittany?
I will use England and Anglo Saxon as a catch all phrase to make it easier.
Whether you call it an invasion or not, the Anglo Saxons certainly got the language and culture squared away. So you can call it a settlement or invasion but same dog.
The results are exactly the same which is the end of Ramono-Celtic culture in England been replaced with Germanic culture.
The intermarriage of Celts and Germaics could be the use of shorthand for rape and pillage so hardly useful. Kill all the men leaving the women and children.
Whether the English Celts fled or died or survived as Germanic offspring is neither here nor there. A genetically Celtic child would be brought up speaking English and as a Germanic child. And so would see themselves as Germanic. They wouldn't see themselves as Celtic.
Germanics won and the old English language has little basis from Latin or Celtic language. Which it would if Romano Celts and Germanics were equal.
