Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/16/2002 4:34:00 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
Nobody has mentioned that Mac was accepted into West Point, graduated high in his class at West Point, received the Medal of Honor, and rose quickly through the ranks based almost entirely on the career and influence of his father, General Arthur McArthur. I don't think this guy was a genius by any stretch of the imagination. I think he was a wreckless opportunist who abandoned his men in the Phillipines, fired on veterans in Washington, almost lost the 1st Mar Div in Korea, and managed to use his overwhelming forces to eek out enough victories to make name for himself with the American public.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 31
- 2/16/2002 5:25:00 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Von Rom:
Currently, you can bet that China will test the west's resolve over Taiwan. And guess what? Wwe will back down here too, and China will take over that island nation that America promised to protect. Sound familiar? Take a look at the Phillipine situation at the outbreak of WWII in the pacific to see the parallels
My crystal ball is too cloudy for any long-term predictions about whether or when China will take over Taiwan. But I'll safely predict this: It ain't gonna happen on the watch of George W. "Axis of Evil" Bush.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 32
- 2/16/2002 6:46:00 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Blackhorse:
My crystal ball is too cloudy for any long-term predictions about whether or when China will take over Taiwan. But I'll safely predict this: It ain't gonna happen on the watch of George W. "Axis of Evil" Bush.
I sure hope you're right. The lessons, written on the pages of history, are strewn all around us. It takes a brave soul to take those lessons to heart. Even so, the Chinese are very patient. If not this watch; then the next. But you can be sure that they are casting their eyes to have a wider sphere of influence over the Pacific. And the key to moving into the Pacific? The island of Taiwan. . . [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 33
- 2/17/2002 1:12:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Too bad so many of us missed our true calling in life. So many great Generals and Admirals here at Matrix who can point out all the faults and weakness's of the guys who had the dia-advantage of actually having to make the descisions without the advise 50 years of 'armchair' commanders could have given. Military leaders always face critisim from history for ethier losing too many men (being stupid or not caring) or they are too cautious and too slow. It has been suggested that Patton was not a good commander cause he had the OB's of the enemy. Well we have them also and we're all genius's to boot. Do we have the moral courage to take resposibilty for sending men into combat and dying. The leaders so freely critized here did. The really big strategic question of the Allied Pacific war planners was, what route should we take to Japan? Four were possible:
Through the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca, led by the British fleet. This became impossible because the British command in the Far East never obtained enough force to eject the Japanese from Burma.
The short route by the Aleutians. This was ruled out by the constant foul weather in those latitudes.
A creep up on Japan by what General [Douglas] MacArthur called the "New Guinea-Mindanao axis." This plan, which General MacArthur consistently urged the Joint Chiefs of Staff to adopt, meant concentrating the entire weight of the Pacific Fleet, Army, and amphibious forces under his command and liberating the Philippine archipelago before going on to Japan.
The Navy's plan for an advance through the Central Pacific, taking key points in the Gilbert, Marshall, and Caroline islands en route; then to the Marianas; then to Formosa; and creating a base on the coast of China for the final onslaught on Japan. If you will look at a map you can see that the Marianas, the Carolines, the Marshalls, and Gilberts make a series of great spider webs-- "made to order for Japan," as one Japanese admiral said--to catch any unwary flies that might try to cross the Pacific. These islands and atolls had been well provided with airfields, advanced naval bases, and strong garrisons. The distances between them are so short that Japan could fleet up aircraft and naval forces at will. General MacArthur believed that it would take too long to slice through this series of spider webs; we must work around them. Hence his "New Guinea-Mindanao axis" plan, which required only one big corridor, through the Solomons and Bismarcks. Admirals King and Nimitz, on the other hand, argued against the MacArthur plan as the sole route of advance, for four reasons: it was too roundabout; it would be subject to devastating flank attacks by aircraft and warships as long as the spider webs remained in Japanese hands; to concentrate on the southwestern route would leave the enemy free to maneuver over the greater part of the Pacific; and if the Allies adopted a single line of advance, the enemy would naturally concentrate against it, whilst parallel offensives would force him to divide his forces and leave him guessing as to our ultimate intentions. Thus, the Navy favored a simultaneous advance over both routes, Central Pacific and the New Guinea-Mindanao axis, mopping up the spider webs as we proceeded. And that is what we did. The plan finally adopted for the defeat of Japan was a combination of numbers 3 and 4 of the MacArthur and Navy plans. Keeping the Japanese off balance worked; and doing it that way meant no impairment of operations in Europe, despite the squawks of Alan Brooke and others about shortages of beaching craft. Once the Bismarcks barrier was broken, we gave the enemy no rest. MacArthur's forces pushed on to the conquest of the Admiralties, where Seeadler Harbor, Manus, became a great forward fleet base; to Hollandia, where an important airdrome was built; and along the northwest coast of New Guinea. At the same time, Admiral Nimitz's forces drove into the Marianas--Saipan, Tinian, and Guam. En route, as a substitute for slow, deliberate, island-to-island hopping, a new strategy of "leapfrogging" was adopted. It is still a matter of debate whether leapfrogging was thought up by General MacArthur or by Admiral Wilkinson, Admiral [William F.] Halsey's amphibious force commander. Ted Wilkinson described this method of "hitting 'em where they ain't"--a baseball term invented by "Wee Willie" Keeler of the Baltimore Orioles, who hung up a batting average close to .400 in 1895. In terms of oceanic warfare it meant that instead of invading every island which held a Japanese garrison, we bypassed the strongest concentrations, such as Rabaul, Truk, and Wewak; landed amphibious forces on beaches comparatively free of the enemy; built an airfield; and, using our sea supremacy to seal off the bypassed enemy garrisons, left them to "wither on the vine." General [Hideki] Tojo, after the war was over, told General MacArthur that leapfrogging was one of the three principal factors that defeated Japan, the other two being the attrition of Japanese shipping by American submarines and the ability of our Essex-class carriers to operate for weeks and months without entering harbor for replenishment. Prior to these operations in the spring and early summer of 1944, General MacArthur made a last attempt to have the entire Pacific Fleet committed to his New Guinea-Mindanao axis, and he "kicked like a steer" against our wasting time, as he thought, in the Marianas. But his pleas did not prevail, for three very good reasons: Admiral [Marc] Mitscher's fast carrier forces, far running and hard hitting, were not suitable for employment in the narrow waters south of the Philippines, with Japanese air bases on each side; the B-29 long-range bombers, about to come into operation, could bomb Japan itself if based at Saipan; and Saipan would make an ideal advanced base for Pacific Fleet submarines
The disagreement between General MacArthur and Admiral King as to whether the liberation of the Philippines should precede or follow the defeat of Japan was not wholly resolved until nearly the end of 1944. The Navy wished to go directly into Formosa from Saipan, bypassing all Philippine islands north of Mindanao, and then seek a base near the mouth of the Yangtze for the final assault on Japan. Okinawa was finally substituted for the Yangtze base. Concurrently, the Navy planned to strike Japan repeatedly by sending B-29s "up the ladder of the Bonins." General MacArthur, however, insisted on prior liberation of the Philippines and using Luzon for the final, or semifinal, springboard to Japan. He made the strong emotional argument that the United States was honor-bound to liberate the Philippines, where he had been nourishing resistance forces, at the earliest possible date, and that if we failed the Filipinos no Asiatic would ever trust us. He also made the sound strategic argument that loyal Luzon, sealed off by our seapower, would be a more suitable base to gather forces for the final assault on Japan than hostile Formosa, which the Japanese could easily reinforce from the mainland. To General MacArthur it appeared as monstrous to defeat Japan before liberating the Philippines as it would have to General de Gaulle to defeat Germany before liberating France. Here is an instance where political considerations influenced strategy, and rightly so. General MacArthur's arguments were irrefutable. Happily, his strategic plan, too, was sound. From what we learned of the defenses of Formosa after the war, it would have been a very difficult island upon which to obtain a lodgment, much less a complete conquest

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 34
- 2/17/2002 2:01:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Well Mogami that is hardly surprising, you consitently dont agree with anything I say.
I lable all things as my opinion. Opinion is subjective. I am talking about TRUE skill, not techno superiority. I see NOTHING Patton did except in
WWI as never having that edge. All he had to do is read the intercepts, look at a map, and plot
advances around the germans. So he looks brillant.
NO he wasnt brillant. I will give you two examples. Metz and Bastogne. Metz could have easily been masked and flanked.
The german units there were in no shape to even make spoiling attacks. But no he commited 3rd army
to a crude frontal assualt. Bastogne, as any wargamer knows the easiest
advance on Bastogne from the south is to
take the Neufchatel road. He ignored that and simply headed straight North. This is an example
of where he DIDNT have intercepts he could trust.
But he went right up the road. He suffered thousands of caualties until the weather finaly
broke and then it was airpower that won it for him. That and him being a crybaby about his gas alottment and his actual THEFT of fuel from
other armies depots makes me question if he
really was that good. I dont think so.
He never faced a concerted attack so we simply
will never know. To compare him with Manstein is a gross distortion. He WAS agressive when most US commanders were frankly gunshy. That is why I like Collins. He was on Guadalcanal
he managed to deal with shortages and Jungle
that made Hedgerows look like open terrain.
I have no idea why he was never promoted past corp. So in my opinion Patton was no more than passable.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 35
- 2/17/2002 3:00:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I'm sorry I thought you were looking for view different then your own. We could have avoided the fuss if you had just post "looking only for those who agree with me' GUADALCANAL? Oh now I get it. And here I thought the Japanese were out numbered and undersupplied had no heavy equippment or weapons. Their air support came from 600 miles away. Manstein was great but not great enough to reverse the situation. If you go strictly by German sources you would wind up scratching your head when you noticed the final score (Germany lost the war to those stupid Russians) Had Manstein been a super genius instead of merely a genius he would have told Hitler to pack sand and boarded a steamship for Mexico around 1935. I don't know what you want, is Patton to blame because the Germans couldn't mount offensives to test him? We moved his army forward and followed orders (the movie Patton is a bad source for Patton knowledge.) Pick on leaders who lost it is much easier to prove or make a solid case. Attacking leaders who met the command requirments of their leaders and defeated the enemey makes it look personal rather then objective. After any job is complete you can look back and see where improvments could have been made, how it could have been done cheaper or faster. Interesting how the men who had to risk their lives following these now dispised Generals liked and admired them and willingly followed their orders, and had trust and confidence in them. You can hardly be suprised if you post things like "I think Mac and Patton sucked and US bombing of Japan was murder" that you get reactions like mine. It is only cause you post them in this WITP forum I respond. Up in 'AOW' you would get much more support. I basing my reponse from the position that you would like the designers of WITP to give MacArthur low ratings.
(lower then he has in Pac War) I disagree. His numbers in Pac War are not that high I think he merits similar ratings here. While I find the veterans treatment in Washington regretable I don't think he was particurly proud of the event and he was under orders. You have to take historical persons warts and all. There are no (have never been) any perfect Generals or Admiral or statesmen. These people were the ones that were in command during the event, they are the ones we get stuck with when a game covering that event is produced. (they are however much easier for us to remove/replace then they were at the actual time. How many people do not do a major command reorganization when playing West Front?
(as a side question how many replace Patton?)
(If you were Supreme Allied Commander in Europe 1944 who would you place in command of your armour?) Every General had their bad days. (Bonus extra credit question: On what day did the first Soviet offensive that defeated at least an axis divison size force begin?) [ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 36
- 2/17/2002 3:43:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Well actually Mogami I wsnt using the movie Patton
as a source. It suxxed. But lets start with 'War as I knew it' by
G. Patton Think he might know something about it.
He admits that it WAS a mistake to attack straight North to Bastogne. He stated he should NOT have done that. I was talking about TRUE military genius. NOT
about technolgy mascerading as genius.
At least he had the nerve to trust ultra when
Monty did nothing. Well actually he trusted
Ultra during market-garden, its not his fault
the SS ground commanders made a habit of lying
to the high command. As for Manstein he was relieved for just that.
But no he didnt go to south america he just went
home. As for Mac who really knows what he knew.
His memoirs are pretty much self-serving. BUT Mac did have the ONE requirement that you absolutely MUST have in the US army. That has been
true since Benedict Arnold. You simply MUST
be connected. Mac was. If Hearst had not been
covering his *** at home, I suspect FDR might
have been more willing to say NO. So in the end, the United States war machine
is political after all. BTW I didnt say that Japanese atrocities
equated with USA bomb. My post was a QUESTION
since I myself do not see a difference.
Then again yes I am a liberal and I feel all life has value.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 37
- 2/17/2002 4:05:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Boy we're touchy today, I just don't understand your supernatural powers, the ones that let you tell true genius from 'techno' genius. But Manstein is not a 'techno' genius he is a true genius (that lost, no doubt you blame Hitler or that imagined unending supply of Russians the West has grown so found of-meaning the Germans were never outfought, they lost due to the weather/Hitler/Gremlins eating the wire in their Tigers but never to a better Russian General. Every one acknowledge Manstein at Kharkov
saving the day (forget at the same time the Soviets are destroying the German 6th Army (which he failed to relieve) and Italian 8th Army) Manstiens beating a Tank Army in Feburary that had been in combat from Nov 19th was the work of a true Genius. Geez give me a break. He got mad at Adolf and quit in MARCH 1944!!!!

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 38
- 2/17/2002 4:42:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Greetings A genus would be
1 someone who gains victory in spite of numbers/equipment/logistics (wins where others would lose)
2. Someone who might have advantages that would allow an inferior commander to achieve victory but the genius is able to also cut the time required/cost
3. does what the enemy deems impossible (first rule in war should be NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE) some things are merely improbable
4. A genius sees opportunity -tactical defeats or victories are not important except in how they influence/effect the strategic situation 5. Pioneers tactics/equippment/training Requirement one Patton (so what he stole supply it was so he could continue to advance)
Rommel-had a railroad running along coast never asked for a locomotive or equipment to utilize. More then once chewed out a subordinate for not attacking after running out of fuel kept Luftwaffe assets loaned him and by not returning them cause the assault on Malta to be canceled thereby insuring the defeat of Axis in North Africa, how Great of a Genius must a person be to realize how important to success making sure your supply lines are secure is? (opps sorry my bad, I almost forgot you don't believe that securing supply lines is of stratigic importance either) Does a Genius make a plan to stop offensive on beaches and ignore the fact that without air superiority the daylight movement of forces required for this is impossible? (a genius does not make impossible plans-crap I did it again, sorry I forgot about you going straight to Pearl Harbor and capturing it) He was a good division commander made great by fighting the West. (meaning most any run-of-the-mill German Panzer Division commander would today be considered a genius and great general had they, not Rommel been sent to Africa) Smiling Albert would have captured Malta and been in Africa at least a year longer. Mac (who you will never get an dispute with me about being a Genius) was defeated by a numerically inferior enemy. Had no viable plan and blamed others for his failures. I am not a big Mac fan. I just don't think he was a dolt perhaps not as big as his rep but few men under microscopes are. It is hard to think of a replacment allied leader who whould have been able to turn things around. They may not have been as unprepared as caught by suprise and as easy as Mac. But the situation was one that called for a genius and von Manstein would have lost the Phillipines had he rather then Mac been in command there. (Mac lost PI for the same reasons Manstein cites in 'Lost Victories' he and the Germans lost. In your opening post you say Mac set us back 18 months meaning you feel Japan could have been forced to surrender in Feb 1943 I think this is nonsense and it tends to make your other statements suffer ('oh it's that nut who thinks the japs could have been beat in under 2 years'-now he is telling us what genuis is etc etc )(they hold the world record for losing as it is). I believe history to be that fable agreed upon. Patton I think your incorrect. Of all American field commanders he was the closest to my definition of a genius. First he took a defeated unit and turned it around and led it to victory (II Corps in North Africa) Then while in a secondardy role contributed through his actions to obtaining a stratgical goal (Sicily) He had vision, he saw how war would be fought in the future and was a leading exponent of armor (a genius must be able to adapt). He was the only allied commander who tried to fight battles of encirclment. He used combined arms (oh that makes him a 'Techno) [ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 39
- 2/17/2002 6:26:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Well actually I meant him holding open the Rostov
corridor, and the retreat to the Dnepr.
Those situations. The commander of that soviet tank corp you mention was ordered to advance out of supply, and told he would be shot if he didnt get moving. That really takes the battle of Kharkov out of the local commanders hands.
Much like Alamein. You right about Rommel he was NOT a strategic
genius. Just a tactical genius. There is no other
way to explain Gazala. He was also politicly naive. No I am sorry, I just cant agree. Techno superiority can fail. weather can intervene,
power failure, solar flares. Are you saying that
you simply stop the war until the situation
changes? The enemy just might have a bit to say about that. The contrast between the events
where the allied commanders HAD intelligence
and (for example the Bulge) where they didnt
USE the intelligence, is striking.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 40
- 2/17/2002 7:21:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
"where the allied commanders HAD intelligence
and (for example the Bulge) where they didnt
USE the intelligence, is striking" The Allies won that battle in remarkably quick time, and in the process destroyed the attacking German units. Limited German success not with standing. But it was hardly Patton's fault he was aware of the possiblity and was ignored. Gen Bradly while trying to maintain 2 offensives one north and one south of the Ardennes had left that area too weakly defended. A mistake to be sure but the end result was all in favor of the allies (the delay it caused in the west was more then made up by the gains made in the east. The Bulge does underline the lack of Genius on the part of it's German planners. Their losses were irreplaceable. They left the Western theater of operations with no appreciable fuel reserves. Ammunition stockpiles were down to one third of estimated needs. Replacements for the casualties suffered could no longer be expected. The Ardennes had hurt the Allies, but, in the words of von Runstedt's historian, it had literally "broken the backbone of the (German) western front." Long before the official end of the offensive in the West, the full impact of the strategic consequences of the Ardennes was felt in the East. The weakness of the 1,500-mile Eastern Front is best illustrated by the fact that almost half of the German divisions were either isolated in the north (on the Courland peninsula in Latvia) or tied down in the south (in Hungary) without a chance to influence the outcome of the impending battle in the center. When the Russians struck on 12 January 1945, it was too late for remedial measures. The reinforcements and supplies that for the past four months had consistently gone to the West and into the Ardennes had been spent in the short-lived Battle of the Bulge, while the Russians gained an awesome bulge of far greater permanence. They swept across Poland, captured almost all of East Prussia, drove deep into Silesia, and, finally, came to a halt less than fifty miles short of Berlin. Hitler's desperate gamble in the West had invited disaster in the East and hastened the final and inevitable defeat of Germany.
The Battle is an excellent choice to use to illustrate poor military ability, it proves Hitler was a stratgic idiot. However Pattons rapid response and successfull operations in stopping a winter offensive moving over a hundred miles by forced march and going into another offensive without the benefit of air or arty and against good enemy combat formations hardly merits him being labeled a Techno, rather it seems a disply of battlefield leadership and understanding. It does not detract too much that he might as you say took a bad road when a better was available. Oh and tactical genius's are a dime a dozen [ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 41
- 2/17/2002 7:36:00 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
Well regardless of what everyone else thinks of Mac, there was one group of people who were more than welcome to see him and welcomed him with open arms.....Australia. In early 1942 Australia was facing upto the fact that there was no one to help them stem the tide of the Japanese. Australia was very woried about the US ability to lend help concidering that Roosevelt had committed to the "beat Hitler first" strategy.
By Jannuary '42 the Japanese had landed on Borneo and Rabaul, Singapore fell on the 15th of Feb and along with it the greater part of the 8th Divison. The first air raid on Port Morsby took place on the 3rd of Feb. Things were looking very grim for Australia. All we had was an obsolete air force, weak anti-aircraft defence, and a poorly trained local militia ( who would be thrown into the defence of Papua New Guniea, and prove themselfs to be some of the best jungle fighters in the world and indeed went on to be some of the troops to be the first to stop the Japanese advance.) The Prime Minister of the time John Curtin realising how dire a situation Australia faced, demanded from Churchill that all Australian troops fighting in the Middle East (the 6th, 7th and 9th AIF divisions) be returned for the defence of Australia. Astonishingly Chruchill not only defied this request but also ordered and returning convoy of Australian troops should be diverted to Burma to reinforce british troops....all this was done without permission from Curtin ! This infurated Curtin and he sent back to Churchill "we feel a PRIMARY obilgation to save Australia". By the 8th of Feb the Japanese were landing in force in New Guinea, the next day Java surrenders. The situation Austalia faced was more than alarming...it was desperate. Seemingly abandoned by Britain and still suffering the shock of the fall of singapore (which had been greatly talked up in all the newspapers as being impossible for the Japanese to defeat.
The mood in Australia at that time can therefore be seen as dark and even muted panic. It was into this that MacArthur arrived in Melbourne to be cheered by thousands, who took his apperance as a firm comittment that the US was helping to support Australia. With his comments "I shall return" helped to inject into a nation a new hope....and remember that Australia had aready been at war for two years by this stage. MacArthur and Curtin formed a unique and crucial relationship, with MacArthurs plan of a US counter-attack up thought New Guniea and beyond fitted in pefectly with Curtin's hopes of safe-guarding Austraila. Yes he was a flawed and complex man and regardless of any of his faults in the past or the future, in 1942 MacArthur was seen by one nation as ray of light in a very dark time.
Post script The 19th of February....for the first time in history the Australian main land comes under enemy attack.....Darwin. The two raids of that day killed inexcess of 250 people, sank 8 ships and damaged 9 more. Over the next two years Darwin would face over 150 raids.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 42
- 2/17/2002 7:45:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Patton had nothing to do with Stopping anything.
No one was advancing where he was. He attacked
a static front. If you want to give 'genius' to 'stopping' the attack then you are calling Monty a genius since
he was in command on the front that WAS advancing.
Dont distort the battle. Considering who was 'really' commanding the German offensive, your likely correct that it was foolish. Except, if those reserve had been
commited to the East front, it would have added
at most two weeks to the resistance. The situation
there was totally compromised by that same commander. To call Patton a great commander, you debase
people like Napoleon, Wellington, Marlbough,
even Caesar. People who were able to go ahead and win, without intelligence, without numbers,
and even on a strategic defense. This has the feeling of a 'sacred cow' issue
and I doubt argument is productive.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 43
- 2/17/2002 7:53:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
"Rostov corridor, and the retreat to the Dnepr." Are we talking about the Chir river here (11th Pz Div under Balack?) and the poor 5th Tank Army? All still while 6th Army and 8th IT Army are being destroyed. I do think von Manstein was the most capable German officer. I don't think retreats conducted while the enemy is winning 2 major victories are good evidence. About this same time 'Operation Mars' gets pasted but I think that was Model kicking Zhukovs butt not Manstein

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 44
- 2/17/2002 8:14:00 AM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mogami:
"Rostov corridor, and the retreat to the Dnepr." Are we talking about the Chir river here (11th Pz Div under Balack?) and the poor 5th Tank Army? All still while 6th Army and 8th IT Army are being destroyed. I do think von Manstein was the most capable German officer. I don't think retreats conducted while the enemy is winning 2 major victories are good evidence. About this same time 'Operation Mars' gets pasted but I think that was Model kicking Zhukovs butt not Manstein

Hi, that sounds like it should be in AOW, so i only want to say that you, mogami, has a problem with "your" generals Patton and MacArthur. I still try to find out, what it is ? Maybe both had in their victories nearly unlimited support of men and material and maybe you and i after 2 bottles of whiskey could have won too ? Hm, that could be one point... But for that, wich side was at april 8, 1940 the heroes ? the HMS gloworm, a small destroyer fighting fiercly and with honor against the admiral hipper, but lost and was sunk or the superior german crusier ? With your definition, it was the Hipper, not the gloworm and his crew... But, as i mentioned earlier, that theme is better in the AOW, there we could discuss this and the german generals frankly and with more esprit...
Here, well no, here i wait for a great pacwar-game, like you and the rest of the guys...


_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 45
- 2/17/2002 8:43:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
"This has the feeling of a 'sacred cow' issue
and I doubt argument is productive" Then why start them? Patton requested a transfer to the Pacific theatre so he could fight the Japanese. The request was, of course, denied, respectfully. The mind boggles at the thought of Patton serving under Macarthur! One congressman even proposed that Patton be made Secretary of War [ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 46
- 2/17/2002 12:13:00 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mogami:
The Bulge does underline the lack of Genius on the part of it's German planners. Their losses were irreplaceable. . . Hitler's desperate gamble in the West had invited disaster in the East and hastened the final and inevitable defeat of Germany. The Battle is an excellent choice to use to illustrate poor military ability, it proves Hitler was a stratgic idiot.
I'm enjoying the lively discussion on this thread. I'm going to (respectfully) disagree with Mogami on this one point, tho. If Germany's defeat was, "final and inevitable," then it really didn't matter where Hitler committed his resources. Prolonging a defeat may win points in wargames, but not in real wars. The justification for the Ardennes Offensive was that it was the best possible action to break up the combinations against Germany, and allow her to avoid an unconditional surrender. The Germans' hope was to drive to Antwerp, splitting the Americans from the British and pocketing the Allied armies north of the Ardennes. A thin reed and a desperate hope? Absolutely. But if the Germans are going to try to avoid losing the war, instead of just prolonging the inevitable, what better opportunity did they have in December, 1944?

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 47
- 2/17/2002 1:05:00 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Indeed there are two phrases that are chilling in their accuracy. 'I see no point in moving disaster from one place to another' A.H. 'Better an end in horror, than horror without end'
german proverb.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 48
- 2/18/2002 4:40:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mogami:
Greetings A genus would be
1 someone who gains victory in spite of numbers/equipment/logistics (wins where others would lose)
2. Someone who might have advantages that would allow an inferior commander to achieve victory but the genius is able to also cut the time required/cost
3. does what the enemy deems impossible (first rule in war should be NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE) some things are merely improbable
4. A genius sees opportunity -tactical defeats or victories are not important except in how they influence/effect the strategic situation 5. Pioneers tactics/equippment/training Requirement one Patton (so what he stole supply it was so he could continue to advance)
Rommel-had a railroad running along coast never asked for a locomotive or equipment to utilize. More then once chewed out a subordinate for not attacking after running out of fuel kept Luftwaffe assets loaned him and by not returning them cause the assault on Malta to be canceled thereby insuring the defeat of Axis in North Africa, how Great of a Genius must a person be to realize how important to success making sure your supply lines are secure is? (opps sorry my bad, I almost forgot you don't believe that securing supply lines is of stratigic importance either) Does a Genius make a plan to stop offensive on beaches and ignore the fact that without air superiority the daylight movement of forces required for this is impossible? (a genius does not make impossible plans-crap I did it again, sorry I forgot about you going straight to Pearl Harbor and capturing it) He was a good division commander made great by fighting the West. (meaning most any run-of-the-mill German Panzer Division commander would today be considered a genius and great general had they, not Rommel been sent to Africa) Smiling Albert would have captured Malta and been in Africa at least a year longer. Mac (who you will never get an dispute with me about being a Genius) was defeated by a numerically inferior enemy. Had no viable plan and blamed others for his failures. I am not a big Mac fan. I just don't think he was a dolt perhaps not as big as his rep but few men under microscopes are. It is hard to think of a replacment allied leader who whould have been able to turn things around. They may not have been as unprepared as caught by suprise and as easy as Mac. But the situation was one that called for a genius and von Manstein would have lost the Phillipines had he rather then Mac been in command there. (Mac lost PI for the same reasons Manstein cites in 'Lost Victories' he and the Germans lost. In your opening post you say Mac set us back 18 months meaning you feel Japan could have been forced to surrender in Feb 1943 I think this is nonsense and it tends to make your other statements suffer ('oh it's that nut who thinks the japs could have been beat in under 2 years'-now he is telling us what genuis is etc etc )(they hold the world record for losing as it is). I believe history to be that fable agreed upon. Patton I think your incorrect. Of all American field commanders he was the closest to my definition of a genius. First he took a defeated unit and turned it around and led it to victory (II Corps in North Africa) Then while in a secondardy role contributed through his actions to obtaining a stratgical goal (Sicily) He had vision, he saw how war would be fought in the future and was a leading exponent of armor (a genius must be able to adapt). He was the only allied commander who tried to fight battles of encirclment. He used combined arms (oh that makes him a 'Techno) [ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]

Mogami I think you need to be set straight on a few things.
First RE: Rommel, contrary to your statement there was no coastal RR in Libya. There was however a RR that ran partially along the Eygtian coast. How was he suppose to utilize this? How was he going to get a locomotive to this line hundreds of miles overland from his neareast functional port? Even if he could, what was it going to run on? You know wood is kinda scarce in a desert. So what ya going to do? Truck or camel tons of diesel or coal hundreds over hundreds of miles of desert just so you run this train over the last leg of a 1000 mile long supply line? Second: Rommel advocated despersing and deploying the panzers directly along the beaches. Precisely becuase he knew from first hand experience that Allied airsuperiorty would make it impossible to concentrate the panzers inland for the decisive counter attack that Rundstedt advocated. He had hoped that having the panzers fight in close combat on the beaches would nullify the allied abitlity to use their fighter bombers. Maybe it wouldnt have worked, but it certainly had a better chance that Rundstedts plan. As far as genius goes. Why dont you take a look at some of Rommels sketches of his invisioned beach defenses.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 49
- 2/18/2002 5:30:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Actually Mogami, IF the USA had made a TOTAL commitment to defeat
Japan, and had IGNORED what was happening in Europe. Yes I would say there was an excellent
chance that the Homeland Islands would be under
DIRECT USA attack by 1943. The replacement Carriers were mostly completed in early 1943
and only the crew training was needed. We had no need to play games with the Phillipines
et. al. I am talking about a straight line overseas
advance. Ignoring New Guinea and the PI. Yes the Japanese would easily concentrate their
forces against such an advance and doing that
would merely increase their losses. Having a carrier borne number of planes that numericly
exceeds the TOTAL Japanese planes by 300%
tends to side things just a bit. With 13 essex class carriers I strongly suspect
the Marianas could have easily been secured from the East. There was no need to dwadle as we did
with Mac constantly asking for diversions of
'mobile airfields' as he called them.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 50
- 2/18/2002 6:05:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
Another Mogomi correction. Not that I am picking and not that I want to defefend Mac, but.... Lets be fair. First, Numerically inferior foe? Mac. may have had 10 PA divisions on paper, but thats only where he had them. They were reserve divisions with basically no training, that had been called up only a few weeks before the attack. The had practically no artillry, A large percentage didnt even have rifles and most didnt have helmets or shoes! The only real force he had was 1 US army Regt. and 2 Philipino scout Regts. to pit against 2 IJA Divisions and numerous support units. Not to mention he had less than 150 aircraft against over 500 Japanese. Second; Actually Mac did have a plan. It was to defend the beaches and deny the Japanese a foothold. It [ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: TIMJOT ]



_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 51
- 2/18/2002 8:16:00 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
Chiteng and Timjot, You both forget that Mac had 10 HOURS advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attack before the IJAF descended upon him in the Phillipines. Also, everyone expected any Japanese attack to be on Guam, the Phillipines or Malayasia, not in Hawaii, so there is even LESS to excuse Mac's failure. A war with China in 1950 woulfd have been "the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemy at the wrong place" according to President Truman and the JCS. Mac failed to appreicate the efforts devoted to limiting the scope of that conflict and very nearly led us into a war that we might still be fighting today. Mogami, Manstein was really one the the best Germany had. At the time of Op Uranus, Manstein was in AG North preparing to assault Lenningrad with 11th Army. He was directed south (without his army to relieve Stalingrad, with no real forces at his initial disposal. He had to scrape them together. This is about the same time that mice had eaten through the wires of a Pz Div's tanks, where, incidently the Pz Division Cdr was relieved. Manstein had almost no hope of success in that operation unless Paulus and 6th army were to move west at the same time, which Paulus did'nt have the ba!!s to do against "the Feuhrer's orders". Nevertheless he later surrendered against the same orders. Yes Manstein took advantage of soviet formations that were wearing themselves out, but it took a cool head to remain calm when soviet tanks were within 15km of his HQ in early Feb 1943. Manstein properly positioned his forces and executed a well thought out reverse on the Soviets which was the last time the Germans scored any strategic level success against the Soviets. To Manstein's faults, he didn't object / refuse to carry out the Citadel offensive after it was posponed too long so that it was nearly a forgone conclusion in July 1943. He really should have stood up to Hitler better than he did, for Guderian was also against any offensive in the summer of 1943. The two of them together should have stood firm against hitler, but they were both too wrapped up around their own careers. This they cannot excuse themselves from and they can't explain away no matter how hard they tried. Lastly Manstein didn't quit in spring 1944, he and Kliest were both relieved by Hitler, who could no longer tolerate these two superb commanders lack of "loyalty" to Hitler.

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 52
- 2/18/2002 9:59:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Chiteng and Timjot, You both forget that Mac had 10 HOURS advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attack before the IJAF descended upon him in the Phillipines. Also, everyone expected any Japanese attack to be on Guam, the Phillipines or Malayasia, not in Hawaii, so there is even LESS to excuse Mac's failure. A war with China in 1950 woulfd have been "the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemy at the wrong place" according to President Truman and the JCS. Mac failed to appreicate the efforts devoted to limiting the scope of that conflict and very nearly led us into a war that we might still be fighting today. Mogami, Manstein was really one the the best Germany had. At the time of Op Uranus, Manstein was in AG North preparing to assault Lenningrad with 11th Army. He was directed south (without his army to relieve Stalingrad, with no real forces at his initial disposal. He had to scrape them together. This is about the same time that mice had eaten through the wires of a Pz Div's tanks, where, incidently the Pz Division Cdr was relieved. Manstein had almost no hope of success in that operation unless Paulus and 6th army were to move west at the same time, which Paulus did'nt have the ba!!s to do against "the Feuhrer's orders". Nevertheless he later surrendered against the same orders. Yes Manstein took advantage of soviet formations that were wearing themselves out, but it took a cool head to remain calm when soviet tanks were within 15km of his HQ in early Feb 1943. Manstein properly positioned his forces and executed a well thought out reverse on the Soviets which was the last time the Germans scored any strategic level success against the Soviets. To Manstein's faults, he didn't object / refuse to carry out the Citadel offensive after it was posponed too long so that it was nearly a forgone conclusion in July 1943. He really should have stood up to Hitler better than he did, for Guderian was also against any offensive in the summer of 1943. The two of them together should have stood firm against hitler, but they were both too wrapped up around their own careers. This they cannot excuse themselves from and they can't explain away no matter how hard they tried. Lastly Manstein didn't quit in spring 1944, he and Kliest were both relieved by Hitler, who could no longer tolerate these two superb commanders lack of "loyalty" to Hitler.
Hi Mike. Well, Like I said. I wasnt trying to defend Mac. Just correct some misinformation. Certainly being caught so unprepared with a 10 hour warning is inexcusable. A lot of the blame has to go to the air commander Gen.Brereton however. He was the same guy responsible for the Polesti fiasco by the way. Macs plan to defend the beaches was a sound one. It was developed, based on a force he was projected to have by April 42. Regardless, it was the only course of action he could have taken that offered at least a chance of victory. The Bataan plan could only delay defeat, because he knew full well the Navy had no intention of comming to his rescue. Re; Manstien. I agree with you and disagree with Mogami. For all the reasons you mentioned plus I would like to add his brilliant plan eventually adopted in the France 1940 campaign and for his equally brilliant crimea campaign.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 53
- 2/22/2002 12:27:00 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
Not to be a PITA, but everyone should realize that the COMMANDER is ultimately responsible and as the supreme commander in the phillipines, Mac was responsible for the air disaster on 7 Dec (8 Dec local time) 1941. Mac's strategy might have been viable had he the air cover that he allowed to be destroyed on the ground and if the date was the summer of 1942, but in Dec 1941, especially after the air fiasco, his strategy was very unsound. It only resulted in getting his best units chewed up and Mac's refusal to allow any supply buildup on Bataan was also an inexcusable failure.

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 54
- 2/22/2002 11:14:00 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Not to be a PITA, but everyone should realize that the COMMANDER is ultimately responsible and as the supreme commander in the phillipines, Mac was responsible for the air disaster on 7 Dec (8 Dec local time) 1941. Mac's strategy might have been viable had he the air cover that he allowed to be destroyed on the ground and if the date was the summer of 1942, but in Dec 1941, especially after the air fiasco, his strategy was very unsound. It only resulted in getting his best units chewed up and Mac's refusal to allow any supply buildup on Bataan was also an inexcusable failure.
Hi Mike, again not defending Mac. He seems to have been quite indecisive during that initial 10 hours. But I think there is an impression out there that his planes were just sitting on the ground waiting to be destroyed. The fact is most of the B-17s had arrived at Clark AF from Delmonte AF in Midano to be armed and refueled for a strike on Formosa. While waiting for a recon report. A warning of approaching enemy aircraft was reported. Not wanting his aircraft to be caught on the ground they were orded in the air. The report turned out to be faulse and the B-17s and P-40s had to land to refuel. It was at this time that the Japanese attacked catching the aircraft helpless on the ground. Actually the planed build up was to be completed by april 42. By which time there were to be 4 Heavy bmr. groups , a like number of fighter groups and his 10 PA div. were to be fully equiped and trained. The question is what would have happened if he had followed the pre-war plan and withdrew to Battan imediately? Well certainly they would have been able to hold out longer, but could they have held out until the Fall of 1944? The problem was that the WPO3 called for the PI garrison to hold out for 6 months, while the Navy plan envisioned an advance through the central Pacific that would take up to 2 years. Mac, knew this. The only chance for victory was to defend the beaches. Even if he didnt have sufficient forces to do so at the time. His only other choice would be admitting defeat without a fight. Say what you want about Mac. he was an egotistical blowheart, grandstander,and uncompromising, but he was NOT a coward. His exploits in WWI is proof of that.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 55
- 2/22/2002 11:29:00 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
Hi Mike, by the way. Mac did not get his best units chewed up defending the beaches. He kept his best units the Philipine Div. consisting of the 31st Rgt.US and 2 Philipine scout Rgts. in reserve. The units defending the beaches were poorly equiped and traind PA reservist Divisions. In fact I think that was his greatest mistake. Once he decided to defend the beaches he should have committed his best troops to do the job. The Japanese were most vunerable while landing. Wake Island and later attempts to outflank Bataan and the attack on Corrigedore are testimont to that. The Japanese had been successfully repulsed in the former 2 and suffered greivous calsualties in the latter

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 56
- 2/23/2002 7:14:00 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
A number of points that seem to have been over-looked: 1) MacArthur knew that the PI would be attacked. However, the PI was a Commonwealth with its own gov't that was slated for independence within a few years. The PI Gov't DID NOT want to provoke the Japanese with any aggressive moves, hoping that the Japs would consider the country neutral and/or independent. MacArthur bowed to these wishes. Berenton wanted to send a strike against Formosa, but was initially denied doing that for the reason cited above. However, he was told to have the planes fueled and ready to go at a moments notice. Several hours before the PI was bombed, Berenton WAS given the go ahead to plan a bombing mission against Formosa (from where the Jap planes originated that bombed the PI). Even so, because of warnings, the B-17s and fighters were airborne, but because of so many warnings being received and/or false info or incomplete dispatches being sent, or messages not being received, many fighters were flyng CAP over the wrong targets and/or had just landed to re-duel as the Japs were coming in to bomb the airfields. Many of the men and officers who were supposed to be manning the radios, radars and planes, were either eating or relaxing. The prevalent mood then, as it has always been throughout history, is, we almost always NEVER expect the worst to happen. In hind sight we can always second guess what "should have been". No one thought that the Japanese could plan a multiple strike operation (Pearl, PI, Singapore, Hong Kong, Wake, etc), within a short time frame, and carry it out over such vast distances.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 57
- 2/23/2002 7:58:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Even so, because of warnings, the B-17s and fighters were airborne, but because of so many warnings being received and/or false info or incomplete dispatches being sent, or messages not being received, many fighters were flyng CAP over the wrong targets and/or had just landed to re-duel as the Japs were coming in to bomb the airfields.
Hi VonRohm. I made this point and many of your others two post. The defeat of the PI was less due to imcompetense, than it was due to a combination of a series of mistakes, inexpeirience and just plan bad luck. Even so I think the US and PA forces aquited themselves quite well. Holding out for over 5 months with with an illequiped and untrained force.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 58
- 2/23/2002 10:39:00 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
TIMJOT: Yes, I noticed you mentioned a few of the points I covered, but I just wanted to write it all out in one place I agree with you, after a shakey start, MacArthur and the brave soldiers on PI acquited themselves well. Even the Japanese commander respnsible for invading the PI specifically praises MacArthur for his orderly, and strategic withdrawl to bataan. . . It says a lot when your enemy praises you

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 59
- 2/23/2002 11:07:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Actually Homma wasnt too happy with the Japanese
High Command. They Yanked two of his frontline divisions from him and left him actually outnumbered if Mac had known.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656