RE: Übercorsair and übercap (Full Version)

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



Message


Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/15/2007 11:33:00 PM)

Me too. It's probably his best book...




1275psi -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 9:10:35 AM)

THE classic book of the stiff upper lip

Pity the world does not stand to the same standards today




Apollo11 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 1:37:10 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

THE classic book of the stiff upper lip

Pity the world does not stand to the same standards today


Does anyone knows if "HMS Ulysses" was ever considered to be movie?

It's pitty that so many good books are never considered for movies (Len Deighton's "Bomber" comes to mind - it's fictional novel about one night Lancaster raid on June 31st 1943 over Germany - please note unexisting date)...


Leo "Apollo11"




Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 1:46:35 PM)

June 31st??? Why?[:D]




Apollo11 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 1:55:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

June 31st??? Why?[:D]


So that mission (and screwup) can't be connected to any living person and/or historic place (place of bombing is also not existing in real world)...

The "Bomber" by Len Deighton is out of print for so long that I had really hard time to get my hands on it... once I managed to get it I stay awake whole night and read it straightthrough... amazing book (n fact his WWII noves are great as well as his history books although he is "just" amateur historian: "Fighter", Blitzkrieg", "Blood, tears and Folly")... [:)]


Below is link to Amazon for "Bomber":

Bomber


Leo "Apollo11"




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 3:13:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Does anyone knows if "HMS Ulysses" was ever considered to be movie?
It's pitty that so many good books are never considered for movies ...


Couldn't find a movie in the IMDb database, but HMS Ulysses did get first "honorable mention" for the 10 most famous fictional ships at the following link titled "The Most Famous Ships That Never Were":

http://www.boat-links.com/books/Lardas/Lardas05.html




Apollo11 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 3:39:20 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


Couldn't find a movie in the IMDb database, but "HMS Ulysses" did get first "honorable mention" for the 10 most famous fictional ships (see end of list).


Thanks!

BTW, there is (as always) Wikipedia... [:)] link is below:

HMS Ulysses (novel)


In it it is said "HMS Ulysses has never been filmed. However, it was adapted by Nick McCarty for a BBC Radio 4 play of the same name which was first aired on 14 June 1997 in the Classic Play series. It starred Sir Derek Jacobi as Captain Vallery and Sir Donald Sinden as Admiral Starr."

Ahh... Derek Jacobi of "I Claudius" and "Cadfael" fame...


Leo "Apollo11"




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 5:34:07 PM)

And soon of Doctor Who fame, again reprising the role of the "Master":

"This is Derek Jacobi's third involvement in Doctor Who. The first was in the September 2003 audio drama Deadline, where he played a screenwriter who believes himself to be the Doctor. The second was several months later, in the webcast Scream of the Shalka, where he played an android version of the Master. "

Source: Wikipedia, where else.




Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 6:17:50 PM)

Somehow it just seems right for Derek Jacobi to be portraying a character called "The Master"...[:D]




Local Yokel -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 8:44:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okay - can you please describe the position of 'coffin corner'? Thanks in advance.


I could be wrong, but I believe this describes the position occupied by the leading ship in each of the two 'wing' columns of the convoy.




Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/16/2007 9:11:46 PM)

I thought the term came from the 8th Air Force bombing campaign over Germany, where there was one position in the bomber box that was considered to be the spot where the defensive integrity of the box broke down somewhat. One of the bottom corners, I believe, hence "Coffin Corner".

I could certainly be wrong, though...




wdolson -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 1:07:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Well done Bill ! For that effort you get a beer when I am next in town !



You're probably safe on that one since we're on different continents. [:)]

Though there is a watering hole here that is very popular with an Australian friend. He has fond memories of the place. A year ago the woman who was to become (possibly) the love of his life accidently abandoned him there. There was a screw up in communications. He thought it was inspired to abandon an Australian in a bar.

I could also recite a few lines from Tie Me Kangaroo Down Mate. [:)]

Products of my ill spent youth listening to Dr Demento.

Bill




wdolson -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 1:19:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The "Bomber" by Len Deighton is out of print for so long that I had really hard time to get my hands on it... once I managed to get it I stay awake whole night and read it straightthrough... amazing book (n fact his WWII noves are great as well as his history books although he is "just" amateur historian: "Fighter", Blitzkrieg", "Blood, tears and Folly")... [:)]


I haven't read any of his fiction, but his non-fiction books are very good. I keep getting his work confused in my mind with John Keegan's. The two have a similar writing style and similar levels of detail.

Bill




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 3:38:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I thought the term came from the 8th Air Force bombing campaign over Germany, where there was one position in the bomber box that was considered to be the spot where the defensive integrity of the box broke down somewhat. One of the bottom corners, I believe, hence "Coffin Corner" ...


Several AAR quotes from 8th AF bomber pilots:

"Our Flight was tail-end of the formation in the high squadron. This position was called "Tail-End Charlie" but better known as the 'Coffin Corner' "

"Since Kai-Kee’s plane lacked speed, the Laura flew in the lower left position of Piper’s flight of bombers. This “coffin corner” position was considered the most dangerous place in the formation because of its vulnerability to attack from enemy fighters."

"We had to drop out of formation. It was impossible to stay in position on three engines with a full load of bombs while making this rapid 2000 foot climb. We fell back to "tail-end Charlie" (sometimes known as "coffin corner" or "Purple Heart Alley") and stayed in this position from the target back to our base"

I'm assuming anything that went into battle as a convoy/formation -- ships, planes, -- had a "coffin corner" or something like it.




Apollo11 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 10:23:51 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The "Bomber" by Len Deighton is out of print for so long that I had really hard time to get my hands on it... once I managed to get it I stay awake whole night and read it straightthrough... amazing book (n fact his WWII noves are great as well as his history books although he is "just" amateur historian: "Fighter", Blitzkrieg", "Blood, tears and Folly")... [:)]


I haven't read any of his fiction, but his non-fiction books are very good. I keep getting his work confused in my mind with John Keegan's. The two have a similar writing style and similar levels of detail.


Len Deighton become famos for his spy books:

Berlin Game
Mexico Set
London Match
Spy Hook
Spy Line
Spy Sinker
Faith
Hope
Charity


But I love the most his WWII novels:

Bomber (imaginary Lancester raid on June 31st 1943 over imaginary German town)
Goodbye, Mickey Mouse (US P-51 unit in England)


Leo "Apollo11"




bobogoboom -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 6:29:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Frankly, I think the Zero was a brilliant design. It was a solid performer in the early war, though no "superweapon." Strategically it was ideal.

I think you've hit part of if Chez when you say it was designed as an aggressor with little consideration for defense. But it was also a strategic design. Japan knew that fuel would be a limiting factor, and that imports of almost everything were required to make their weapons of war, and they knew they'd start the war (once the US was in the fray) bereft of sufficient shipping to maintain output.

I know I know the design preceded US entry by years.

But my point is that one could make alot of Zeroes and fly them rather economically and that made the most of the resources to which the Japanese had access. Had it been more defensively designed, adding weight, demanding more horsepower (thereby adding weight), and then fuel (thereby adding weight), so that it came out like some sort of Japanese parallel to the F4F, then I think the early war ability for the Japanese to show up unexpectedly at long range from their own developed logistical sources would have been impaired. Having a heavier, more defensive plane might have slowed down the pace of operations in, say Indonesia.


I agree with this completely as well... (amazing) [:D]

BTW, some sort of "light" protection would have saved many Zero's (and other Japanese aircraft) and pilots for, hopefully, light weight addition: the self sealing fuel tanks and armored plate behind pilot (this would be like 50 kg = 100 lbs)...

Thus, as "ChezDaJez" already wrote, Japan counted on swift war and hoped for negotiated peace - they simply didn't count on USA fighting despite heavy initial looses... grave mistake on Japanese leaders (although many leaders including Yamamoto knew this but fought nonetheless - to me this is similar to Robert E. Lee and CSA in American Civil War)!

We now, of course, know that Japan lost war the very second they attacked Pearl Harbor and that no victories at the beginning would change the final outcome of USA victory (similarly Germany lost the very second they attacked Russia in 1941 - Russia was simply too huge to tackle in quick western like blitzkrieg fashion)...


Leo "Apollo11"

if japan had attacked russian and britian and not attacked the U.S. Do you not think there is a chance they could have won the war?




herwin -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 6:58:32 PM)

Japan attacked the USSR in 1938-39 and were handed their heads by the local Soviet garrison. They weren't likely to make that mistake again.

Japan versus GB and the Netherlands in the Pacific would have been game to the Japanese, even pre-1939. However, it is unlikely the USA would have stayed out of the conflict.




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 7:44:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
... Japan versus GB and the Netherlands in the Pacific would have been game to the Japanese, even pre-1939. However, it is unlikely the USA would have stayed out of the conflict.


re Shattered Sword: IJ High Command (correctly) believed US citizens would be unwilling to aid these colonial powers and would probably maintain an isolationist attitude.

Of course, Yamamoto's attack on PH put an end to any further isolation.






marky -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 7:45:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
... Japan versus GB and the Netherlands in the Pacific would have been game to the Japanese, even pre-1939. However, it is unlikely the USA would have stayed out of the conflict.


re Shattered Sword: IJ High Command (correctly) believed US citizens would be unwilling to aid these colonial powers and would probably maintain an isolationist attitude.

Of course, Yamamoto's attack on PH put an end to any further isolation.






i agree

japan shouldve attacked BG and netherlands only, i dont think the US wouldve intervened




marky -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 7:46:20 PM)

i really have to get Shattered Sword too

ne1 know where?




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 7:57:46 PM)

There is a website for Sword, but I just went to my local book store w/the title and the authors Parshall/Tully and just ordered it. It's a big, hard cover book at about $35, but it came within a week.

I'm not even half way thru Sword, but it's been a real eye opener, i.e., Yamamoto was a real SOB, not the reluctant wise warrior as portrayed Western folklore; relations between him and his superiors/subordinates were severely strained. Re Sword, Yam didn't mind any original thinking, as long as it was his own ideas.

And if you think relations in naval command were strained, it and the army hated one another.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 8:02:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
... Japan versus GB and the Netherlands in the Pacific would have been game to the Japanese, even pre-1939. However, it is unlikely the USA would have stayed out of the conflict.


re Shattered Sword: IJ High Command (correctly) believed US citizens would be unwilling to aid these colonial powers and would probably maintain an isolationist attitude.



Actually, you will find if you compare the polls and surveys of the American Public between the Summer of 1939 and the Fall of 1941 you will find a significant trend towards getting into the war. Herwin is right, the US was inevitably going to get involved. What PH did was make sure the poll jumped to 99.99% immediately...




bradfordkay -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 8:43:01 PM)

" re Shattered Sword: IJ High Command (correctly) believed US citizens would be unwilling to aid these colonial powers and would probably maintain an isolationist attitude."


It is rather hard to say that they "correctly" believed the US would stay out, since those circumstances never occurred.

In order to attack Britain and the NEI, the Japanese would have to move around the Philippines without violating US/PI sovereign territory. Considering that the Sino-Japanese war was begun by local commanders without imperial sanction, it is possible (probable?) that the US/PI forces would have been attacked at some point in a campaign against Malaya/NEI.




spence -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 9:40:32 PM)

quote:

In order to attack Britain and the NEI, the Japanese would have to move around the Philippines without violating US/PI sovereign territory. Considering that the Sino-Japanese war was begun by local commanders without imperial sanction, it is possible (probable?) that the US/PI forces would have been attacked at some point in a campaign against Malaya/NEI.



Somehow the thought of what was basically a military dictatorship allowing a potential enemy (the US) to peacefully go about arming the Philippines and building up a major bomber base sitting astride the SLOC of all those forces engaging the British and Dutch in this "hypothetical war" seems more and more out in left field every time I hear it. It is well beyond "a calculated risk"; bordering on suicidally rash.




mdiehl -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/17/2007 11:59:58 PM)

As I recall, Japanese intel was very concerned that in the event of a war with Britain and other European colonial states, and with the US neutral and thus free to arm and build up the Phillippines into a really unbreakable salient intruding on Japanese interior lines, that the US would make a "Lend Lease" arrangement that would simply put much of Borneo, New Guinea, and southeastern Indonesia out of reach of Japan absent an attack on the United States.

In that regard I think the Japanese assessment was correct. I have no doubt that Roosevelt would have found a way to make Balikpapan a US-Managed asset and officially "neutral ground." The more time the Japanese would have spent messing around not attacking the US, the less likely Japan would have been to successfully conclude operations in southern waters.

The other thing is that I can't see Japan developing, in any realistic time frame, any logistical capability for waging even a low-intensity war in Siberia unless they abandoned their effort in China. And even then, China, for all it's relatively low state of economic development (w/ respect to infrastructure) was substantially more developed than eastern and southeastern Siberia. The idea of Japan developing resources in Siberia (absent the giant labor pool of China, and absent any decent logistical infrastructure) within the time frame of WW2 seems very improbable. At least to me.




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/18/2007 2:13:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
" re Shattered Sword: IJ High Command (correctly) believed US citizens would be unwilling to aid these colonial powers and would probably maintain an isolationist attitude."

It is rather hard to say that they "correctly" believed the US would stay out, since those circumstances never occurred ...


Mike, Brad:

Here's the exact quote from Sword (p. 24) as I probably didn't do the authors justice ("he" refers to General Nagano, head of the IJ Naval General staff):

"He reasoned (correctly) that President Franklin D. Rosevelt would have a difficult time rallying sufficent support for a causus belli based only on Japanese attacks against British and Dutch colonial holdings, as American popular opinion was ambivalent about defending such interests."

I think Sword was saying that the US wouldn't rush to the aid of foreign colonialism, unless it's own interests were directly threatened.

re Polls: There was a strong isolationist movement that always appealed to the founding fathers' warning about getting involved in foreign (European) affairs. Then there was the line re "England will fight to the last American ..." or something to that effect.

I think Nagano wanted to keep us out of the confict just long enough to accomplish their initial Pacific objectives w/o a PH. Eventually we would butt heads over the Phillipines and Guam as the US couldn't maintain an isolationist policy indefinitly, what w/the whole world going to hell in a hand basket.





spence -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/18/2007 2:28:50 AM)

Roosevelt managed to engage the US Navy in a defacto war with the German Kreigsmarine before Pearl Harbor pretty much lacking a "causus belli". He was, as I am sure the Japanese were aware, that incidents at sea are or at least were pretty much "over the horizon" for the press and much more easily managed. Although something of a stretch (as all alternative history tends to be) US warships might have been used to escort supplies to the DEI or Singapore or some such basically daring the Japanese to attack them. Following upon the "Panay Incident" the tolerance of the American public might well have proven not such a impediment to full scale war. And every day of peace which intervened would have made the US position Philippines stronger and a greater threat to Japanese SLOCs.




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/18/2007 2:40:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Roosevelt managed to engage the US Navy in a defacto war with the German Kreigsmarine before Pearl Harbor pretty much lacking a "causus belli ... US warships might have been used to escort supplies to the DEI or Singapore or some such basically daring the Japanese to attack them ...


Something like a lend lease from "sea to shining sea"?




spence -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/18/2007 3:24:16 AM)

quote:

Something like a lend lease from "sea to shining sea"?


Lend-Lease was already "the law of the land" (although at the time Congress approved it all eyes were on Europe). It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see an opening for Roosevelt to order the same sort of thing in the Pacific especially since the nations involved were already "approved" (for the European war).

"Tell ya what. We'll lend you these here fighter planes and some B-17s and what say you guys lease us an airfield at Palembang or Balikpapan or Khota Bharu or Amboina or what the heck...all of the aforementioned"




Rainer -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/18/2007 10:13:36 AM)

It's also one of the best books about German nightfighters: the men, the waepons, the tactics, and the technology. Very good reading.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375