RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 7:09:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"


Curiously, this is the Japanese position post war. Many scholars and soldiers never criticize the USA for what it did - because "war is war" - a literal translation. IF this sort of reasoning is acceptable to you - fine. It is more typical of the Samouri culture than of ours. It turns out Lincoln (the inventer of codified law in war) had sound policy reasons. It turns out they all still apply today. It is politic, economic and above all, it promotes good order and discipline in the ranks and combat effectiveness. I am awfully glad I honored my conscience before I really understood the law - it paid off handsomely - not only saving my life but also preventing bad dreams many others suffer. Possibly the biggest reason to do things well is it keeps you sane and it helps your country win.



Again, projecting modern thought processes onto past events (generationally past events especially) without consideration of the mentality and thought process of the time into account is falling into a trap.

Do I look back at Dresden '45 with horror and revulsion? Of course. But when I take into consideration the circumstances and conventional wisdom of the time, I do not judge those harshly who were trying to end the most destructive war in history as quickly as they could in the only way they felt at the time they could.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 7:19:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I think that we Americans, having had considerable success in many previous conflicts, have come to believe that war is in general a fairly effective way of making things go the way we'd like them to go. I think that historically we have been fortunate in having our wars result mostly from the miscalculations of our foes. In our wars that have occurred as a result of our own miscalculations, we have had less success. I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.


Good points. I would add also, that the combatant that can adapt to the changes in a campaign as far as tactics go can overcome miscalculations and mistakes, provided they are not too big i.e. Stalingrad, Midway.[:)] The Soviets on the Ostfront were perfect examples of learning from your mistakes to turn the tide.

As to your last statement I couldn't agree more.



Iridium -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:00:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.


Incorrect, I remember one Lyndon Johnson (DEM) entering a war that some remember rather badly.



Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:05:10 PM)

Yes, but that was all part of a giant military-industrial complex conspiracy, for which Johnson was just a puppet. Stone said so himself...[:D]



Iridium -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:11:36 PM)

Don't get me started, have we even talked about the whole 'Bay of Pigs' deal that Kennedy had going?[:@] Not really sure if I'd call it a war, more like a massacre.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:14:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.


Incorrect, I remember one Lyndon Johnson (DEM) entering a war that some remember rather badly.

Wars are all started by men who mistakenly believe that they understand what the outcome of that war will be; no political party can claim immunity to this folly.



Iridium -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:21:14 PM)

I'll agree with that irrelevant. I just feel the Democrats are not as candlestine as some might think.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.


Finally found time to search for it - thanks for info!

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-19.html


Leo "Apollo11"


NP, I remember reading about them a long time ago. For some reason I thought the raids had caused considerable damage. Insignificant would be more applicable.

I was looking for an excuse to get to 500.



Big B -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:54:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.


Finally found time to search for it - thanks for info!

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-19.html


Leo "Apollo11"


NP, I remember reading about them a long time ago. For some reason I thought the raids had caused considerable damage. Insignificant would be more applicable.



The reason the Marines took Iwo Jima was because the Military needed an emergency landing strip and Fighter base. The number of damaged aircraft that safely landed on Iwo Jima was far greater than the cost of taking the Island.
Stopping these "raids" on B-29 bases was not the reason for assaulting Iwo Jima, though it may have been a nice little side affect.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 8:56:24 PM)

quote:

The number of damaged aircraft that safely landed on Iwo Jima was far greater than the cost of taking the Island.


IIRC, there were ~2400 emergency B29 landings on Iwo.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 9:05:26 PM)

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.



Iridium -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 9:11:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.


Maybe your thinking 100 B-29's rendered inoperable even after landing post mission (Not actual kills, operational losses so to speak).



Big B -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 9:13:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.


Sorry for the confusion my post caused anarchyintheuk.[8D]
I know you never claimed that the raids were devestaiting, someone else made that claim, and since you brought up the true nature of the results of the Japanese raids - I just posted that Iwo wasn't taken because of the raids on Bomber bases - like an earlier post claimed.[;)]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 9:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.


Sorry for the confusion my post caused anarchyintheuk.[8D]
I know you never claimed that the raids were devestaiting, someone else made that claim, and since you brought up the true nature of the results of the Japanese raids - I just posted that Iwo wasn't taken because of the raids on Bomber bases - like an earlier post claimed.[;)]


Sorry, read it wrong. Watching ncaa, drinking beer with friends and forum trolling. Like the guy said in Dances w/ Samurai, "too many mind".



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 9:22:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.


Maybe your thinking 100 B-29's rendered inoperable even after landing post mission (Not actual kills, operational losses so to speak).


Sounds better than the reasons I came up with. [:)]



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:04:20 PM)

Getting back to the topic of the moral crisis of bombing cities with inevitable civilian deaths...
Does anyone doubt for a minute that should war break out among the worlds major powers (say - USA, China, Russia...etc) that THAT sort of thing would start happening?

I read earlier here that International Law prohibits such a thing? I'm not so sure - but more to the point - who would enforce that against a major power anyway?

Common revulsion for civilian deaths is a nice healthy sign of decent neighbors, but to me - in WAR (as in a real war..where national survival is at stake) - I think that taboo would go out the window rather quickly.

War since the industrial age (and I mean 'war'..not police action, or intervention) has become a protracted "all out" struggle for survival until the state collapses. I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.



mdiehl -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:05:48 PM)

quote:

I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.


Agreed. I also think that in most cases the pre-war analysis of the opfor is almost always "Just trust us, these guys will be a pushover." Aggressive admins almost always substitute "if we believe wholeheartedly in the ideology & indoc we will carry the day." Japan, Germany in WW2, US lately.



mdiehl -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:08:42 PM)

quote:

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.


I can. If you're talking about a real all up war between powers that can wage an all up war there is a very good reason not to bomb cities. Same one we had all throughout the cold war: MAD.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:21:11 PM)

quote:

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

How about if no one does it first?



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:23:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.


I can. If you're talking about a real all up war between powers that can wage an all up war there is a very good reason not to bomb cities. Same one we had all throughout the cold war: MAD.

I must disagree to an extent - not using nukes is one thing - mass use of cruise missles with conventional warheads is another matter.

Wars take on an inertia of their own...sooner or later someones going to clobber the kndergarten, Walmart, and the hospital...or worse MTV (for todays generation) from there on I think retaliation would only escalate (short of WMD that is)



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

How about if no one does it first?

Then you would not be in an All Out War



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:27:33 PM)

Let me put it in another way, were a real war to happen again - a war where your childrens lives are at stake, what qualms would you have about killing enemy civilians if you thought that might shorten the war and save your kids lives?



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:29:31 PM)

Then we must make certain that we are never the ones to start an All Out War.



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Then we must make certain that we are never the ones to start an All Out War.

Totally agree,

But I want to add that I now have a son old enough to have to fight a war should one occur. I can assure you he means more to me than ALL the civilians in any potential enemy country.

I'm being honest, I would demand my Govt do everything at their disposal to end a war they took away my son for..get the picture?



mdiehl -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:33:27 PM)

quote:

I must disagree to an extent - not using nukes is one thing - mass use of cruise missles with conventional warheads is another matter.


Cruise missiles are relatively precise instruments and quite expensive too in contrast to say a JDAM. So you're not doing anything like "strategic bombing" as it was done in WW2. Instead you're using a scalpel to excise the most critical elements of defense. Even the US B17 raids, relatively (compared to other forms of mid-high altitude level bombing) precise though they were at the time, have nothing on the accuracy of a cruise missile or a JDAM.

The only analog I can think of to, say, the firestorm raids on Dresden, Tokyo, and the other (whatever) 27 Japanese prefectures we bombed the snot out of would be modern nukes. These days you couldn't start a firestorm UNLESS you used a nuke.

Otherwise you wouldn't do anything like area bombing. It's costly to use cruise missiles in this way. It's wasteful because you really can (these days) hit exactly the critical industrial component that you want to hit (assuming it is at home when your missile hits).

You might try carpet bombing but I think that would be a bad idea morally (given that we now CAN be much more precise we OUGHT to attempt to do so). Anyhow modern SAMs now have pretty much got the strategic bomber beat. Sure there's B-2s but there's not many of them and radar absorbing paint and fancy avionics won't stop 30mm.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:37:01 PM)

quote:

get the picture?

I'm not sure....are you saying that it would make sense to attack enemy cities, knowing full well that they would then certainly attack ours in return?



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:39:23 PM)

I'm saying that if my son is in the 160th Infantry, dug in outside San Somethingelsio, and going to have to assault that town and take the city...I say flatten it first...yep

Edit: My point is, no matter how you slice it, in war victory and bringing as many of your people home alive and safe comes before anything else. That is moral.



mdiehl -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:41:50 PM)

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.



Demosthenes -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:45:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.

Agree...with all of it.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 11:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.

Agree...with all of it.

Me too, all of it.

quote:

I'm saying that if my son is in the 160th Infantry, dug in outside San Somethingelsio, and going to have to assault that town and take the city...I say flatten it first...yep

Edit: My point is, no matter how you slice it, in war victory and bringing as many of your people home alive and safe comes before anything else. That is moral.


With wise leadership such a situation as you describe should never be faced. Since wise leadership is not a given, all options must be considered. But we should never be the first to use WMD, whether our enemy has them or not.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375