RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

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

spence -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/17/2006 10:52:27 PM)
Perhaps the legal standard of "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is too high for a world where adherence to International Law is voluntary, unenforceable and subject to a host of disparate political and socialogical forces. Unscrupulous despots and lunatics have been quite successful in "gaming" the system by insisting such a standard be applied.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 12:41:49 AM)
quote: Plausible deniability is the key here. We have to figure out what to do with nations that try to "game the system" diplomatically as a way of covering heinous acts. A lot of that is going to depend upon the nation from where the weapon came. If it came from Russia, China or one of our staunch allies, we are going to treat it significantly differently than if it came from Iran or N. Korea. The degree of complicity will also govern our response towards Russia or China, I think. Less militarily capable countries are goimg to be in for a rough time. But generally, any country supporting terrorist's aims, directly or indirectly, is going to get that country burned if it can be proven (or not) that they had the least little thing to do with it. It isn't going to matter much whether it's knowingly or unknowingly. But, every nation in some way, shape, or form is going to "game the system" when threatened. Especially so when there is someone carrying a big stick and pounding on the door, shouting; "Let us in or we'll kick the door down." A nation that resists... well, they will probably see new management in their immediate future. The use of WMDs against the United States is one of the few scenarios where I can imagine a full and legal declaration of war being made against any and all guilty parties. As Iraq has shown, winning such a war will be relatively easy. Winning the peace somewhat harder. Chez

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 12:48:39 AM)
quote: I don't think that at the time of the Hamburg raids people even had knowledge of firestorm phenomena. If Hamburg is a typo for Dresden, you are correct. The concept didn't exist before that time - we did not know you could create an artificial weather system with fires!

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 12:54:25 AM)
quote: Good point. This principle saved Doenitz (he was accused by using subs on "civilian" transports, but American witnesess saved him from being guilty in that point - they said that those targets were legitimate and american subs also attacked transports). Oddly, while you are correct that Nimitz testified on behalf of Doenitz, it did NOT save him: he was convicted, sentenced to life in prison, and served six years (discharged to die with his wife). I feel it is one of the few major errors at the primary European tribunal (aside from not giving it universal jurisdiction). Only the case of Yamashita - not at a proper tribunal at all - is worse - and that in the Far East and under Mac. Yamashita was convicted of not being in control of his troops when we had specifically deliberatly denied him such control - and also hearsay evidence of an informer was admitted - an informer who had already betrayed us before and would do anything under pressure. The Donitz trial involved the Laconia Affair - when Germans had tried to rescue people from a sinking ship - gave away the position - neutralized the grid square - and we responed with a bomber! THAT is the reason for the general order against taking prisoners or rescue operations. We never tried such a thing. Donitz didn't like it, but he didn't second guess his commanders in the field - and got burned for it. First with the bomber, then for issuing appropriate orders not to do it again!

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 1:06:09 AM)
quote: I would have to respectfully disagree. If China or any other country ever used a nuke against this country, I would strongly advocate using nukes against his nuclear arsenal in the hopes of destroying or rendering it unusable. First, your wish is g ranted, in advance. A response is automatic and it would be catastrophic - far more than I think is wise - but that is the way the system is set up. It used to be that we would attack virtually everyone on the planet! That is, if the Russian had attacked us, and China sided with us, we would attack China anyway, and Brazil, and even South Africa! [It was called "economic recovery targeting" and it was meant to insure no one else was in good shape after the exhange!] It was literally insane, and it was uneblievable - but no one read the entire plan until Gen Butler did. He forced his staff to read it - then set out to abolish his command (SAC) - and change the entire way this is done. Exactly what resulted is not entirely open source - the SIOP and Strategic Targets List are two of our top three secrets - but summaries are released of slightly out of date versions. Today we would only need to determine the missile came from China, and then PRC would be in deep do do. I regret that we cannot take out the Chinese arsenal. We are so sure we cannot we refuse to do the planning to draw up a contingency plan to try. I am not entirely happy about this. While I actually think PRC has a sensible deterrent policy - I like it better than any other in all history of the nuclear weapon - there are advocates of change in PLA that might create a dangerous situation one day. I think contingency plans for all possibilities are a good idea, and the less far fetched, the more I want a plan. But this idea did not fly - they won't spend money to do it - on the basis that we would lose at least 2 - and maybe 5 or 6 - more cities if we tried. Apparently WE can be deterred! The good news is that in China, the ICBMs have NO warheads. That is, the Second Artillery ICBM Brigades (there are four) have no warheads in custody. These must be moved to them by a sort of Chinese KGB - a completely different and non-military service which is politically trusted. Chinese doctrine is to ride out any attack, wait a week or so, and when conditions permit, move in the warheads to surviving firing units and begin a systematic response. They exercise this and it appears these are mainly engineering units of high competence. They spend most their time building new tunnels in mountains for new (hidden) exit ports. They may well have some never completed - which could be completed in a few days - so we can not detect them. This is not an offensive system and it is rather sensible - and small enough to be affordable. When completed, the present phase will have only 32 firing units (8 per brigade).

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 1:15:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk 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 under that same impression as well reading "el cid again" posts earlier... "el cid again" - can you please elaborate on B-29 losses from japanese bombing? This is not well known - it was only disclosed a few years ago - so it is not in the official histories or the famous ones. It was a deeply held secret, and since it was not a story of American success, there was never any incentive to make a big deal about it (like in a movie). But if WE had done it, bet there would be a movie. It was awful because the bombers were armed and fueled and densely backed - some US officer said "a monkey with a hand grenade" would be enough to set them off. [His remark has been attributed to someone at Pearl Harbor! One wonders if it was used more than once?] These were not P-40s, but B-29s, and they had a lot of fuel and bombs. Also, there was much mystery about how they could know what day to do it - and what hour? The bombers were typically hit in the wee hours of the morning if I remember right - lined up waiting for the take off time - but not moving. There was not much place to go - and if any one got hit it was a nasty thing no matter if you were the hit one or not. I believe there is an account of this in English in The Ki-67/Ki-109 Hiryu in Japanese Army Air Force Service. These raids also involved something else unusual - things the "Japanese didn't do." First, they were JOINT Navy-Army raids - using the SAME plane. This is very rare. Some army units were formed up to serve under the command of the other service. Jointness in Imperial Japan! And the Navy was flying Army planes. Unheard of. Their "secret" was to study our operational methods, and use our habits as a basis to know what to expect. They watched the weather planes!

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/18/2006 1:23:45 AM)
quote: In today's situation in America....IMO most people are not anti-War on Terrorism/AQ...however they are anti-War in Iraq as the current administration has not drawn a clear-cut relationship between AQ and the Hussein Regime, had they done so IMO then we wouldn't necessarily see disapproval for the War in Iraq. The present situation is very frustrating - since the administration had a good strategic vision but failed utterly to communicate it. The need to change the situation in the Mideast is critical, and no other option was as likely to work as well. More than that, Iraq had violated its armistice - and should have been invaded a decade earlier - few other countries were quite so politically vulnerable. But instead of making that the causus belli, they tried for a PR tack - and got unlucky. For reasons unclear, the surrender of the Iraqi nuclear project in Lybia has not been widely reported in the press (I thought anything that makes money would be reported) - and anyway that project was not close to producing a usable weapon (only just over 400 people - it was serious - forbidden to be sure - but not something going to produce a product for years). We knew they had CW - but we wrongly believed their 4 billion investment in BW must have paid off - it did not. Anyway, do not be distracted by tactical failures - the worst was not listening to our army chief and State Dept and sending more MPs, engineers and occupation government troops. We have to win this - and if we don't things will get a whole lot worse - first for those in the mideast - but eventually for everyone. There is no future for radical Islam nor for secular regimes like that of Saddam which pretend to be Islamic. [Saddam was actually an enemy of AQ in a fundamental way - yet they did manage to get together anyway - on the basis of common enemies - meaning us. Not sure how this is not understood either: Saddam was not funding the 911 attacks or informed specifically by AQ what it would do, but he was very involved with many terrorist organizations, and although I thought he must fear AQ, he was so confident of his hold on power he did not.]

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/20/2006 11:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk 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 under that same impression as well reading "el cid again" posts earlier... "el cid again" - can you please elaborate on B-29 losses from japanese bombing? This is not well known - it was only disclosed a few years ago - so it is not in the official histories or the famous ones. It was a deeply held secret, and since it was not a story of American success, there was never any incentive to make a big deal about it (like in a movie). But if WE had done it, bet there would be a movie. It was awful because the bombers were armed and fueled and densely backed - some US officer said "a monkey with a hand grenade" would be enough to set them off. [His remark has been attributed to someone at Pearl Harbor! One wonders if it was used more than once?] These were not P-40s, but B-29s, and they had a lot of fuel and bombs. Also, there was much mystery about how they could know what day to do it - and what hour? The bombers were typically hit in the wee hours of the morning if I remember right - lined up waiting for the take off time - but not moving. There was not much place to go - and if any one got hit it was a nasty thing no matter if you were the hit one or not. I believe there is an account of this in English in The Ki-67/Ki-109 Hiryu in Japanese Army Air Force Service. These raids also involved something else unusual - things the "Japanese didn't do." First, they were JOINT Navy-Army raids - using the SAME plane. This is very rare. Some army units were formed up to serve under the command of the other service. Jointness in Imperial Japan! And the Navy was flying Army planes. Unheard of. Their "secret" was to study our operational methods, and use our habits as a basis to know what to expect. They watched the weather planes! Sorry for being late with this but . . . It may not be well known, but it isn't secret. I read about this probably 5-10 years ago. Out of the 7-8 raids listed, I only see one that hit while B-29s were lined up. Considering the number of aircraft destroyed in that raid, the Japanese would have been better off going with the "monkey with a handgrenade" approach. Not much mystery there. It also doesn't take a genious staff officer to calculate the distance from a-b, estimate the speed of an enemy aircraft, ascertain the times that targets are hit and come up with a general idea when the enemy is launching. Not much mystery there either. I don't care about the raids' uniqueness in being a joint Navy-Army event. Coordination or desperation? I don't know. All I care about is its relative effectiveness. It was unique in the sense that the IJNAF/IJAAF may have inflicted more damage than they sustained in an operation that occurred sporadically from 11/44-early 1/45. People did make a big deal about Pearl Harbor, Wake Island relief effort, Phillipines, Kaserine, Sicily air-drop fu's, Salerno. None of those were notable American successes. They were a big deal because they were significant, unlike these raids. At this point in the war the US was probably losing more planes due to operational losses in the Pacific Theater every day, than was lost in total from these raids. Let's face it, if whacking the Hawaiian AF and the PAF on the first day of WWII rates as a standing ovation, these raids don't even rate a golf clap. BTW, at Nuremburg no sentence was assessed against Doenitz for any breaches of international laws concerning submarine warfare. The tribunal lists the primary reasons for this finding as Nimitz's answers to interrogatories and a 5/8/40 Admiralty Order ordering the sinking of all ships in the Skagerrak. Doenitz did not serve 6 years of a life sentence. He was sentenced 10 which he served. He died in 1980.

el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/21/2006 3:39:10 AM)
quote: People did make a big deal about Pearl Harbor, Wake Island relief effort, Phillipines, Kaserine, Sicily air-drop fu's, Salerno. None of those were notable American successes. They were a big deal because they were significant, unlike these raids Then you are missing the point: they were the reason for the decision to fight the costly battle at Iwo Jima - to prevent more such raids. That this was the real reason - and that it was not disclosed at the time - strongly imply they were significant. I think there is a somewhat nationalistic tendency on the part of US history buffs to discount enemy achievements - unless (like Pearl Harbor) they were so widely observed they could not be denied and, in such a case, they could be used politically as well. We KNEW - before it was ever delivered - that Japan wanted to issue its warning before the attack - but didn't admit it the whole war long - because that would not serve propaganda purposes. [Not saying that was wrong - just saying not to confuse wartime statements with the complete truth]. On the other hand, it is possible I have an author who wanted to "sell newspapers" (or in this case books) who overstated the case to achieve some sensationalism - I recognize there is more than one possibility in the universe. Do we have ALL the official raid reports (not just those sanitized to weed out the enemy successes)?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328125