|
Chiteng -> (11/15/2003 6:18:32 AM)
|
[QUOTE=mdiehl]That's a pretty meaningless answer. You've stated that you can't attempt that which you wish to attempt because the assets that you feel that you need to make the attempt are not available. They're not available because you don't get to control 30%. Got it.
So third time's the charm I hope:
What do you need that you don't have?
Seems to me that by refusing to state what you feel you need and instead simply dissing the whole state of affairs because you can't "control 30%" that all you accomplish is to dodge the question.
If I understand your dig against Admiral King, you are now stipulating that the 1-prong approach was not used because of King, rather than because of Mac and Nimitz. Of course, since King had to manage the Atlantic War as well, and since a big pile of the fleet support that you mentioned was tied up in the North African and Med campaigns, that your biggest complaint is either that the US rationalized its production to meet its strategic goals, or else that the ETO was not subordinated to PTO in receiving assets.[/QUOTE]
No I am saying clearly that the historical builds paced the way they were would VERY likely be inadequete to a cross-ocean advance. Not because they could
not have been built or allocated. Especially CV aircraft replacements.
Why would the CV aircraft repl be low? Because we lost several CV. They
built what they needed.
Also you seem to not know that King ruled his assets with an iron hand and refused to release them from all quarters. INCLUDING demands from Europe.
They simply sat in storage.
Why he did that would be speculation.
As for Mac, there is no need to take back the Pi or fight in New Guinea
or the Soloman. Once sufficient HB become available these locations are moot in any case. But fleet support assets LIKE BaseForces are vital if you actually intend to USE and advance. If you dont have them, you wont be going anywhere. Also fleet oilers.
|
|
|
|
