Where is FTL???

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:56 pm

We miss you....

by eddie Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:29 pm

I was wondering that.
I'll text nems tomorrow and ask her x

by Guest Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:37 pm

Thanks eddie.x

by Cass Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:35 am

Brasidas wrote:We miss you....

yeah we do x

by Original Quill Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:02 am

She's around. She just doesn't post as much as in the past.

by Guest Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:16 am

Original Quill wrote:She's around. She just doesn't post as much as in the past.

Absolutely, you can't get rid of me that easily Where is FTL??? Smiley10

xxx

by Original Quill Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:12 am

You and me in the next room, hon.

Where is FTL??? 1069003512

by Guest Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:15 am

Good to see you back FTL.

x

by Lone Wolf Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:35 am

I'D also noticed that this week ~ that while FTL and Nems had both been "around", dipping in and out of this forum semi-regularly, neither of them have posted as much so far this month...

I would have thought that with the former "evil witch" sassyfras being virtually dead to this site through her self-imposed 'hissy fit' exile some months ago now, her perpetually harangued targets on here [y'all know who we were..] are now able to post more freely without her constant personal attacks..

by Original Quill Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:05 pm

It has been more peaceful around here without the sassy posse, which is what I read you as saying LW.

But I have never smarted from a confrontation with somebody/anybody. How do you handle it, people ask? I just don't lose.

Where is FTL??? AddEmoticons04263

by Guest Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:05 pm

oh for fucks sake, FTL, nems etc are some of the nicest posters. To equate them to somebody else is just childish Quill and actually trying to be an antagonist, trying to stir up an argument.
You certainly lose historical arguments to me, maybe you need to recognise that fault before you move on.
Happy to share that wisdom with you.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:13 am

Brasidas wrote:oh for fucks sake, FTL, nems etc are some of the nicest posters. To equate them to somebody else is just childish Quill and actually trying to be an antagonist, trying to stir up an argument.
You certainly lose historical arguments to me, maybe you need to recognise that fault before you move on.
Happy to share that wisdom with you.

Oh my, you've gotten yourself all worked up unnecessarily, Didge. The point of the post was self-deprecatating...hence the emoticon.

Mention of the sassy-posse was ancillary to LW's post...what they call a segue.

by Irn Bru Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:14 am

This thread started off being about FTL and ended up being about someone else before moving on to two people argung with each other.

chuckle chuckle

by Lone Wolf Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:46 am

Irn Bru wrote:
This thread started off being about FTL and ended up being about someone else before moving on to two people argung with each other.

chuckle chuckle

(NOTE: THE above emoticon is the only remaining image of sassy that comes readily to hand these days...)

IT should be noted though, Irn, that those three items are inextricably intertwined these days..

So it's only natural that one should lead on to another throughout these threads.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:44 pm

Brasidas wrote:oh for fucks sake, FTL, nems etc are some of the nicest posters. To equate them to somebody else is just childish Quill and actually trying to be an antagonist, trying to stir up an argument.
You certainly lose historical arguments to me, maybe you need to recognise that fault before you move on.
Happy to share that wisdom with you.

I have never lost an historical argument to you. We have agreed to disagree at times, as for example exactly how Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt. But on questions of a purely factual nature--for example, whether Margret was Henry VIII's sister or cousin--I've never lost. Razz

by Guest Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:oh for fucks sake, FTL, nems etc are some of the nicest posters. To equate them to somebody else is just childish Quill and actually trying to be an antagonist, trying to stir up an argument.
You certainly lose historical arguments to me, maybe you need to recognise that fault before you move on.
Happy to share that wisdom with you.

I have never lost an historical argument to you. We have agreed to disagree at times, as for example exactly how Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt. But on questions of a purely factual nature--for example, whether Margret was Henry VIII's sister or cousin--I've never lost.

Wrong Quill, you have been corrected on many points on WW2, do I need to bring up how you though Wildcat fighters could fly too great a distance?
So yes you have been corrected often from your absurd claims to Henry V to countless others on here which all can see for themselves. It says more about you that you cannot recognise that.
We have certainly agreed on points but on somethings, you have been completely wrong.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:04 am

Brasidas wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I have never lost an historical argument to you. We have agreed to disagree at times, as for example exactly how Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt. But on questions of a purely factual nature--for example, whether Margret was Henry VIII's sister or cousin--I've never lost.

Wrong Quill, you have been corrected on many points on WW2, do I need to bring up how you though Wildcat fighters could fly too great a distance?

I've never heard of that from you. The Grumman F4F Wildcat Fighter was the predecessor of the F6F Hellcat, which in late 1941 upgraded the horsepower of the Allison engine from 1,100 hp to 2,200 hp making it a superior climber to the Japanese Zero. It wasn't about range. I would never argue over the range of those fighters; both the F4F and the F6F were Navy fighters and therefore didn't need a huge range. The aircraft carrier got you to the fight.

I think you have confused that debate with another, which was definitely about aircraft range. I believe you are thinking of the P-51D North American Mustang, which married the newly designed parabolic wing with the fuel-injected Merlin Rolls Royce engine, making it the fighter with the range that could defend the bombers all the way to Berlin and back.

The parabolic wing moved the thicker part of the wing back away from the leading edge, so that the wing blade cut the air better and focused the lift aft. This eliminated resistance to the aircraft's forward motion while at the same time refocusing that resistance into lift. The result of the parabolic wing was a fighter aircraft that got way much better fuel efficiency. With drop tanks, the North American P-51D could accompany the bombers across Europe and back and protect them all the way.

So you see, the discussion about aircraft range would never have been about Navy fighters; however, it was all about getting fighters to accompany bombers at long range in Europe.

To finish the point: the original P-51 had a carbureted internal combustion engine, the Allison V-1710, and of course carbureted engines depend upon the atmosphere for the fuel/oxygen mixture. As the Allison powered P-51 would climb to greater heights and thinner air, it would bleed thrust and therefore suffered in a dogfight. The Merlin engine, being a fuel-injected closed system, could arbitrarily mix any mixture the settings dictated. The result was probably the greatest fighter aircraft of WWII.

Brasidas wrote:So yes you have been corrected often from your absurd claims to Henry V to countless others on here which all can see for themselves. It says more about you that you cannot recognise that.
We have certainly agreed on points but on somethings, you have been completely wrong.

I have no problem with agreements we have reached regarding history. All I said is that I have never lost any of our factual disagreements. The point about Henry V is not a factual question, unless of course you were there in October 1415. It was a difference in opinion over what English weapon was more influential at Agincourt, the bow and arrow or the short sword. Most of the French knights died at the tip of the short sword, thrust into the seam in the armor at the neck. It seems the sword was the weapon that won the day at Agincourt.

by Guest Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:56 am

You are such a poor liar, when you claimed an aircraft carrier would not be carrying planes as they could be flown straight there and I had to show you that was impossible with wildcat fighters. This was based around just before Pearl Harbour and you did claim this, for fuck sake.
That proves you just lied again and the fact you cannot yet again admit you were wrong says all I need to know about you Quill.

You now decide to detract by going on about the Mustang, which had a British engine.
No point discussing the rest if you cannot admit an error.
Even your claim on Henry V has changed.

Sorry if you are going to tell porkies, do not expect this to continue, when the evidence is all there for people to see for themselves.

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:20 am

@Quill

To be fair you did say that Fighters could get themselves to Wake Island. and Midway Island without needing to be taken there from Pearl on carriers.

You're quite right of course in that you didn't argue about it because after Didge pointed out to you that they couldn't due to their distance from Pearl you had no argument.

by Guest Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:24 am

Thank you Irn and here is the proof.

Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6537p150-uk-terror-threat-level-raised-to-severe

Now you have the opportunity to admit your error

by Original Quill Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:29 pm

Brasidas wrote:You are such a poor liar, when you claimed an aircraft carrier would not be carrying planes as they could be flown straight there and I had to show you that was impossible with wildcat fighters. This was based around just before Pearl Harbour and you did claim this, for fuck sake.
That proves you just lied again and the fact you cannot yet again admit you were wrong says all I need to know about you Quill.

Disappointing response. I thought you would engage in a technical discussion about aircraft capabilities; instead I get this waste of an effort at antagonism.

I don't remember any discussion about Navy fighters at all. Perhaps it wasn't the Wildcat we were discussing. It is well-known that Navy aircraft were not designed for any kind of range...they were limited distance fighters, designed for a few hundred miles of combat flight away from their carrier base. Possibly we were talking about the Vought F4U Corsair, which had a 10-meter propeller giving it way more efficiency. It became the Marine Corps fighter, so it might have greater range...and the Marine Corps is a division of the Navy.

A couple of comments of the Mustang vs. the Corsair:

Mustang has better aerodynamics, F4U has better thrust to weight ratio. Mustang can turn tighter than the F4U and it is lighter so it's less prone to stress fractures. Then again, F4U has better climb rate. Mustang has better high speed flight characteristics where as F4U has better low speed characteristics. I guess it's down to pilot skill and how you fight with it. I really can't say who comes out a winner.

The Corsair's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp air-cooled radial engine could keep running with more damage than the Mustang's liquid-cooled V-1650 engine. If nothing else that made the F4U better for ground attack. Pilot skill is of course often the deciding factor, as we learned in The Right Stuff. Most of the victories from any given type came from the handful of most-skilled pilots flying it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lLlEp9I-Is

He's talking about the Allison engine for the Mustang, so I don't think we are getting a real comparison with the Merlin powered aircraft.

Brasidas wrote:You now decide to detract by going on about the Mustang, which had a British engine.
No point discussing the rest if you cannot admit an error.

Well I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't remember discussing any carrier based aircraft with you, particularly about range. I mention the Mustang simply because range was its best feature and the single asset that everyone discusses over and over.

But I don't know what you are talking about, so I simply give you my best guess. Certainly some detail is being left out of the discussion, because I doubt anyone would simply tout range on any Navy aircraft.

Brasidas wrote:Even your claim on Henry V has changed.

Sorry if you are going to tell porkies, do not expect this to continue, when the evidence is all there for people to see for themselves.

Well, clearly you are in over your head on expertise and details. I remember the discussion about Agincourt quite well. I prevailed in that debate by providing you with written accounts by the soldiers themselves as to how most of the French knights died. One letter in particular said that they went from body to body, finishing them off with a sword thrust into the neck.

But if you want to march off in a huff...well, I guess I won this one too.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:43 pm

Irn Bru wrote:@Quill

To be fair you did say that Fighters could get themselves to Wake Island. and Midway Island without needing to be taken there from Pearl on carriers.

You're quite right of course in that you didn't argue about it because after Didge pointed out to you that they couldn't due to their distance from Pearl you had no argument.

Hmmm...I don't remember the discussion. Midway is a part of the Hawai'ian Ishald chain, but pretty far off. Wake Island, never...it's not even on the same map. As I said to Didge, we must be missing some detail or other.

by Guest Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:15 pm

Jesus wept, thanks for the long winded excuse Quill but again you cannot admit you are wrong and there is plenty more to show on that thread how you were wrong. There is nothing missing it is as plain as day your claims
Time to man up.

As to Agincourt you made out some absurd claim to blood lust on Henry's part as to why he killed the prisoners, which I proved to not be the case,
As seen I have an excellent memory.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:45 pm

Brasidas wrote:Jesus wept, thanks for the long winded excuse Quill but again you cannot admit you are wrong and there is plenty more to show on that thread how you were wrong. There is nothing missing it is as plain as day your claims
Time to man up.

Right now, I have to conclude that you are wrong. You know how you get when you are excited...perhaps overlooking or forgetting things in the rush? I mean...a single-seater F6F making it from Pearl to Wake in one hop??? When would the pilot sleep? When would he pee? You must be referring to a B-29.

Brasidas wrote:As to Agincourt you made out some absurd claim to blood lust on Henry's part as to why he killed the prisoners, which I proved to not be the case,
As seen I have an excellent memory.

Well, that was an ancillary theme of the thing...that Henry V was the first mass murderer. However, the major argument was that, despite English contemporary claims, the Agincourt battle was not won by archers with bows, but archers with their short swords.

But as I recall, I won that one. Why are we discussing it again?

Oh yes, I brought it up as an example of one of the disagreements we have had.

by Guest Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:54 pm

The first mass murderer?
Really that shows even more your poor knowledge on history, I can give you way earlier examples of prisoners being killed but in this case there was reasons behind the order, none of which were blood lust as you poorly claimed. Actually it was won by the use of mallets, swords and light Armour, which did not hinder the English archers as it did the French knights, who literally became stuck in the mud.

Again you really are letting yourself down Quill, here is again what you said which follows on from talking about the Wildcats, hich you claimed would not be shipped in an Aircraft carrier that you claimed wrongly they could fly there.

Thank you Irn and here is the proof.

Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6537p150-uk-terror-threat-level-raised-to-severe

Thus proving as well as plenty other examples you cannot admit when wrong.
You have to live with that, not I and is no skin off my back if you refuse to stubbornly to try and save face

by Original Quill Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:01 am

Brasidas wrote:The first mass murderer?
Really that shows even more your poor knowledge on history, I can give you way earlier examples of prisoners being killed but in this case there was reasons behind the order, none of which were blood lust as you poorly claimed. Actually it was won by the use of mallets, swords and light Armour, which did not hinder the English archers as it did the French knights, who literally became stuck in the mud.

Yes, I stand corrected...he was not the first. But he was perhaps the most depraved. The French knights were dismounted, and with their heavy armor in the thin mud on the ground that rainy morning, they fell and could not get up. The entire French army was helpless. Henry V ordered his knights to kill them one-by-one, but the English knights (to their credit) refused to do such a cowardly thing. Then Henry ordered the lowly archers to kill them, but not with the bow and arrows. The archers won the day at Agincourt by slaying helpless men on the ground with their short swords.

Were it America, I wouldn't admit the victory.

Brasidas wrote:Again you really are letting yourself down Quill, here is again what you said which follows on from talking about the Wildcats, hich you claimed would not be shipped in an Aircraft carrier that you claimed wrongly they could fly there.

Thank you Irn and here is the proof.

Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6537p150-uk-terror-threat-level-raised-to-severe

Thus proving as well as plenty other examples you cannot admit when wrong.
You have to live with that, not I and is no skin off my back if you refuse to stubbornly to try and save face

Ah yes, I remember it now. It is just as I said...you are totally leaving out the primary point, twisting the the entire meaning of the discussion. Note, I said they didn't need capital ships, and the point was about 'delivery' of aircraft. That's significant. I did not say they didn't need carriers (they are called 'aircraft carriers' because they carry--or deliver--aircraft to the battle).

To the contrary, I was arguing the importance of the aircraft carrier. You were arguing that battleships were just as important (as carriers). So what I was saying in context was that naval war tactics had given over to aerial warfare, and "you don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft. " Ergo, battleships were of no utility.

You've twisted the whole meaning of the discussion. (That sort of deviousness is not like you; I'm disappointed.) The discussion was about why the carriers were missing from Pearl Harbor on the weekend of December 7, 1941. I suggested that they were deliberately out at sea because Roosevelt and Churchill had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack, and wanted to save the more important ships. Your response was that aircraft carriers were of no great significance and battleships were just as important, suggesting my argument was groundless. My rejoinder was that capital ships were useless as they would not deliver aircraft...thus aircraft carriers were far more important.

So you see, I was right. The missing piece was the context of the discussing...battleships were (are) of waning importance. And of course I was correct in my point...you don't see many battleships any more, do you? It's all carriers.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:08 am

One word bullshit and again not admitting you clearly stated they would not deliver aircraft as the fighters could fly there.
Thathas to be the worst case of lying to date and have not twisted anything because the simple facts are your views on this point are completely wrong and that Aircraft Carriers before Pearl Harbour were not Capital ships, the attack made them so.

So they were not deliberately out at sea, because if anythig the Battleships would have been because they were the Capital ships, showing again you have not the first clue about the strategy of the US navy at the time and all of this is in the link I gave you , so I willrepeat more t show you are being a poor liar:

It took until late 1942 before aircraft carriers were universally considered capital ships. The U.S. Navy was forced to rely primarily on their aircraft carriers after the attack on Pearl Harbor sank or damaged eight of their Pacific Fleet battleships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

I did not missed out anything showing again your lack of knowledge of America warship dispositions, where Yorktown was based with the Atlantic fleet at this time before Pearl Harbour so does not count, thus America had 3 not 4 in the Pacific Fleet. Even your understanding of Aircraft Carriers for this time is also poor with both the US and Japan, taking the view that the most important capital ships were Battleships as per the Mahan doctrine, as Aircraft Carriers were were classified as fleet scouting elements, and hence relatively expendable, which puts paid also to your view on Pearl Harbour that it would have been the Battleships being take to sea to avoid being taken out at Pearl Harbour. The view on Aircraft Carriers only changed after Pearl Harbour. Thus they would not have sacrificed their capital ships but the aircraft Carriers, which two of them at this time were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands, where Irn rightly states one was due back and due actually back one hour before the attack, which only weather delayed the Enteprise. It was only after Pearl Harbour that the world saw the significance of aircraft Carriers which could strike from distance. Again Japan could have had 8 at Middway, as 8 were in the area which would have obliterated the American Navy at that time, so again your understanding of history is amateur and also wrong to say the least.

Again you avoided every single point I made, in the vain hope I am just going to think I will ignore this when I will not. The daft claim made here is based around Roosevelt wanting to go to war with Germany, where as seen here had the very means to do this with U_boat dispositions, where in this case he used this intelligence to move ships away from their path and not into them, which if he was intent on war with Germany, he would have thus sacrificed these ships and he did not, proving beyond doubt such conspiracies are complete bullshit, this you neglect at every turn, because it proves there is no validity to your claim, because even after Pearl Harbour there was no public opinion with war with Germany, this though would have given him the public support he needed. Germany had every intention of war with America, the next points you glaringly avoid. It wanted Japan to enter the war to tie up the American fleets mistakenly believing that America would concentrate in the Pacific. Hitler had theorize that eventually war with America was inevitable and it was his success and his enticement that changed Japanese policies to attack America far earlier that they had planned to do which was in 1946 again all of which you ignore. America was due to withdraw from the Philippines in 1946, German success and the fact Hitler backed Japan to come to war with them, gave them the belief to attack, so again it had nothing to do with Roosevelt, where again, he would not have risked his capital ships let alone the fact to gamble on the fact his navy was inferior to the Japanese, no naval strategist would back such a gamble as much as many Germany Generals did not back the invasion of Russia based on inferior numbers, where their intelligence of Russian numbers were also misplaced.

It is now Roosevelt’s turn. I have already dealt with one of the myths about the president. There is time for a few more. There is extensive literature about Roosevelt’s policy toward war in 1940–41. Unfortunately most of it ignores the long available evidence. On the basis of decrypted Axis messages declassified in the mid-1970s, the noted German naval historian Jürgen Rohwer in 1984 published a
careful analysis that showed how intelligence on German submarine dispositions was carefully utilized to divert individual ships and convoys so that they would cross the North Atlantic safely. Far from seeking incidents, the United States was trying to avert them.

Roosevelt did utilize the minute number that occurred to try
to awaken the American people to the dangers ahead, but it would, of course, have been possible to utilize the available information to insure an incident every few days. Unfortunately the linguistic isolationists who predominate among American diplomatic historians have neither utilized Rohwer’s findings nor checked the records available in College Park themselves. Even without this information, there was the discovery by Robert Butow of tapes of the president’s confidential conversations when a recording machine was accidentally not turned off.30 This text, published in 1982—and in English—similarly shows the president’s interest in keeping the country out of formal participation in the war.

When one turns to the Pacific, there is equally solid evidence that has been equally generally ignored. Presidents, like all others, are limited to twenty-four hours per day. The demands on their time are fierce. It raises the question of why the president devoted such an enormous amount of time to the negotiations with the Japanese both in direct personal conversations and in discussions with Secretary of State Cordell Hull when the latter was to meet with the Japanese Ambassador. Was this merely because Roosevelt had nothing else to do? Is it not more likely that he was trying to stall off any attack by Japan until its leaders could see for themselves
that Germany might well lose, not win the war? Had they waited another two weeks they might have recognized in the German defeats on the Eastern Front and the British offensive in North Africa clear signs that a victory for Germany was by no
means as certain as they believed. Interestingly enough, Hitler had the opposite concern: he pushed the German army forward in its desperate effort before Moscow in December 1941 in part precisely because he feared that the Japanese might not take the plunge into war but make an agreement with the Americans instead.

The issue of the embargo on oil sales to Japan also deserves another look. When the Japanese occupied the northern part of French Indo-China in September 1940, one might see this as a means of their cutting off a possible route of supplies to Nationalist China over the Haiphong-Hanoi railway, and that therefore this move was connected with the Japanese conflict with China. But
the occupation of the southern part of French Indo-China in July 1941 obviously pointed away from their war with China and toward war with the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands. Unlike the allegedly smart Stalin, who provided the Germans with oil and other war materials until minutes before they invaded his country, Roosevelt did not believe it wise to provide the Japanese navy with the oil it wanted to stockpile for war with the United States. Also, unlike too many historians, he knew that the Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek did not have a navy for the Japanese to engage. In the final stage of the negotiations, the suggestion historians, he knew that the was made that if the Japanese would return to the situation of the summer by evacuating southern Indo-China, the United States would sell them all the oil they wanted. The Japanese diplomats in Washington were promptly directed that they
were under no circumstances to discuss such an idea.32 From Tokyo’s perspective, war with the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands was clearly preferable.

The single-minded determination on this may help explain why it never occurred to anyone in the Japanese government that if they conquered the lands for which they were already printing the occupation currency, there was no way to move the oil wells, rubber plantations, and tin mines from Southeast Asia to the Japanese home islands, but that is another story.

http://h-diplo.org/essays/PDF/JMH-Weinberg-SomeMythsOfWWII.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Weinberg

Also your views on Henry V are completely wrong also being as he thought he was facing another army coming up, the mount of men executed could not have amounted to more than a couple of hundred given the time frame, which I had to explain to you, with the fear he could have these men attack him in his rear. It had nothing to do with blood lust as I completely explained t you on speakfree where again you had no answer and I am happy to go through this at length to show again your knowledge of history is both poor and a complete shame, being the very fact here all can see you are now also lying about the fighters being able to fly to wake island.

Nothing worse than poor liars and I have given you ample opportunity to admit your error and you tried to worm your way out, well you have made your bed and I do not suffer fools, especially ones you give the opportunity to admit their failings, which of course you have as seen proven how incapable you have been of admitting your failings here.

I certainly do not recognise you as an authority on history, I suggest you stick to law.

by Irn Bru Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:57 am

Quill, you quite clearly said that the aircraft carriers were not needed to ferry the fighters to Wake Island or Midway because they were able to fly there on their own. That was just plain wrong and you know that.

And even if you had been talking about the Vought F4U Corsair, you would still have been wrong. That aircraft hadn’t even been delivered to the US Navy at that time and didn’t enter service until well after the Pearl Harbor attack due to several problems one of which was in the landing the aircraft on the deck of the carriers – a problem solved by the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. And even if the aircraft had been in service at that time they couldn’t have reached the islands either.

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake in getting something wrong because we are all capable of that. What is wrong however, is trying to cover up the mistake with a whole catalogue of endless deflection and downright denial of something you clearly stated in the thread that Didge directed you back to.

If you can't remember the discussion about this previously then I would suggest that you click on the link provided and remind yourself of what you said at the time.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:52 am

Irn Bru wrote:Quill, you quite clearly said that the aircraft carriers were not needed to ferry the fighters to Wake Island or Midway because they were able to fly there on their own. That was just plain wrong and you know that.

And even if you had been talking about the Vought F4U Corsair, you would still have been wrong. That aircraft hadn’t even been delivered to the US Navy at that time and didn’t enter service until well after the Pearl Harbor attack due to several problems one of which was in the landing the aircraft on the deck of the carriers – a problem solved by the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. And even if the aircraft had been in service at that time they couldn’t have reached the islands either.

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake in getting something wrong because we are all capable of that. What is wrong however, is trying to cover up the mistake with a whole catalogue of endless deflection and downright denial of something you clearly stated in the thread that Didge directed you back to.

If you can't remember the discussion about this previously then I would suggest that you click on the link provided and remind yourself of what you said at the time.

+ 3

And to show good grace, I was wrong to call Scots traitors, (which was more banter than anything) but still wrong and more about your refusal to admit that Maggie did not create the operation that led to Sikhs dying.

by Original Quill Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:55 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Quill, you quite clearly said that the aircraft carriers were not needed to ferry the fighters to Wake Island or Midway because they were able to fly there on their own. That was just plain wrong and you know that.

Ooooo...the sleeze you guys are leaving on this thread makes me run and wash my hands.

Irn Bru wrote:And even if you had been talking about the Vought F4U Corsair, you would still have been wrong. That aircraft hadn’t even been delivered to the US Navy at that time and didn’t enter service until well after the Pearl Harbor attack...

I suggested the Corsair only because didge was deliberately withholding the identity of the conversation to obscure the context. How did I know, until he identified it, what time frame the conversation was alluding to? In fact, it wasn't a conversation about aircraft at all. The passage mentions the Wildcat aircraft, but only rhetorically. The real conversation was about the worthlessness of battleships.

Irn Bru wrote:...due to several problems one of which was in the landing the aircraft on the deck of the carriers – a problem solved by the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. And even if the aircraft had been in service at that time they couldn’t have reached the islands either.

No shit Sherlock. The conversation wasn't about aircraft, but about ships. The point about aircraft was only to state how absurd it was to laud capital ships when warfare tactics were becoming aerial.

Yes, the Corsair had two problems. One, it's long nose obscured pilot vision; two, it had an undercarriage bounce upon landing, which made it dangerous in the tight confines of a carrier. That is why the Navy passed the plane along to the Marine Corps, who didn't fly off of carriers.

But we weren't talking about airplanes. Didge was touting the great advantages of battleships in aerial combat. I was merely pointing out that you can't fly an airplane off the deck of a battleship.

Irn Bru wrote:There is nothing wrong with making a mistake in getting something wrong because we are all capable of that. What is wrong however, is trying to cover up the mistake with a whole catalogue of endless deflection and downright denial of something you clearly stated in the thread that Didge directed you back to.

Let's face it, Irn. You are twisting this whole thread because you think you have gained some advantage. Therefore, you are pulling out the 'shaming' tactics to exploit it. It becomes my task, not only to expose your ploy in order to bring truth to the matter, but also to set the record that this is a tactic we will see again from you. It's important to know not only what a person's point is, but to know how he makes it.

This is another example of the old saying: A coincidence of words leads to a confusion of ideas. We start out talking about ships, but a casual rhetorical reference turns the entire conversation into one about aircraft. It's a ploy on the old tactic of arguing the example, rather than sticking to the point.

In my profession we have a term for those who do this: easy-language lawyers.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:09 pm

More bullshit and even worse cannot admit you are wrong,
Sorry no respect for people who cannot admit a glaring mistake.
Run along now.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:23 pm

Please post one example where I make a claim to battleships being an advantage in ariel combat?
Not once, I stated that many fleets included the US took battleships as their capital ships before Pearl Harbour, it as only because of the attack that this tactic then changed.
Seriously all can see what I have written and you just make things up, where again all can read what is written.

You really have lost the plot because on all the evidence given, your conspiracy theory on Roosevelt is embarrassing to read, especially after you keep being exposed on the facts I provide which keep proving you wrong, for you to then change your story and completely invent things never claimed.

The whole thing started out because you made unfounded claims about Roosevelt, not anything about ships, how you claimed he enticed Hitler to attack him, when Hitler had planned years before that he would attack America, hence his alliance with Japan. He was always going to go to war with America. Of course all these glaring facts you utterly ignore. Plus the fact Roosevelt did everything to avoid war, never seems to cross your mind.

Seriously admit your failings and move on its pathetic

by Original Quill Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 pm

Brasidas wrote:Please post one example where I make a claim to battleships being an advantage in ariel combat?
Not once, I stated that many fleets included the US took battleships as their capital ships before Pearl Harbour, it as only because of the attack that this tactic then changed.
Seriously all can see what I have written and you just make things up, where again all can read what is written.

You really have lost the plot because on all the evidence given, your conspiracy theory on Roosevelt is embarrassing to read, especially after you keep being exposed on the facts I provide which keep proving you wrong, for you to then change your story and completely invent things never claimed.

The whole thing started out because you made unfounded claims about Roosevelt, not anything about ships, how you claimed he enticed Hitler to attack him, when Hitler had planned years before that he would attack America, hence his alliance with Japan. He was always going to go to war with America. Of course all these glaring facts you utterly ignore. Plus the fact Roosevelt did everything to avoid war, never seems to cross your mind.

Seriously admit your failings and move on its pathetic

Didge it was in the context of the quote, which you went to great lengths to obscure. It was a conversation about why the US left battleships to be bait at Pearl Harbor. Your argument was, battleships are/were important capital ships. My response was, battleships are useless when aerial combat is becoming (hence the reference to 'fly to Wake or Midway') the more effective mo of warfare.

You are admitting it all right in the above. So what is your point if you admit I was right? A rhetorical comment about aircraft flying into battle over Wake or Midway was intended to say they ain't gonna be flying off the decks of battleships. Therefore, the carrier was more important than battleships.

Calling the underlying thesis absurd and unfounded is not argument; it is just repetition and...well, just a temper tantrum. Yes, the grander strategy of Churchill and Roosevelt was to sucker Hitler into forcing the US into WWII by manipulating the Tripartite Pact. The Tripartite Pact said if one of the three (Germany, Italy or Japan) went to war, then all went. If Churchill and Roosevelt could sucker Japan into attacking the US, Hitler would declare war on us and we would be in WWII. It was a strategy to get around the Neutrality Act, which said we couldn't enter Europe's War. It worked. Hitler declared war on the US on December 11th.

The US held the aircraft carriers out to sea on the weekend of December 7, 1941, because they were too valuable to sacrifice. Instead, they sacrificed the battleships, as the bait, which--contrary to your argument--were useless in the coming aerial conflict.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Please post one example where I make a claim to battleships being an advantage in ariel combat?
Not once, I stated that many fleets included the US took battleships as their capital ships before Pearl Harbour, it as only because of the attack that this tactic then changed.
Seriously all can see what I have written and you just make things up, where again all can read what is written.

You really have lost the plot because on all the evidence given, your conspiracy theory on Roosevelt is embarrassing to read, especially after you keep being exposed on the facts I provide which keep proving you wrong, for you to then change your story and completely invent things never claimed.

The whole thing started out because you made unfounded claims about Roosevelt, not anything about ships, how you claimed he enticed Hitler to attack him, when Hitler had planned years before that he would attack America, hence his alliance with Japan. He was always going to go to war with America. Of course all these glaring facts you utterly ignore. Plus the fact Roosevelt did everything to avoid war, never seems to cross your mind.

Seriously admit your failings and move on its pathetic

Didge it was in the context of the quote, which you went to great lengths to obscure. It was a conversation about why the US left battleships to be bait at Pearl Harbor. Your argument was, battleships are/were important capital ships. My response was, battleships are useless when aerial combat is becoming (hence the reference to 'fly to Wake or Midway') the more effective mo of warfare.
Wrong it was a poor claim you made about Roosevelt, it is there for all to see on the link, so please stop lying

You are admitting it all right in the above. So what is your point if you admit I was right? A rhetorical comment about aircraft flying into battle over Wake or Midway was intended to say they ain't gonna be flying off the decks of battleships. Therefore, the carrier was more important than battleships.
Nope you made comments to the fact that an aircraft carrier would not be taking aircraft to wake island, because they could fly there, your view was this is not what it would be doing ferrying aircraft as they could fly there, which as seen is wrong.

Calling the underlying thesis absurd and unfounded is not argument; it is just repetition and...well, just a temper tantrum. Yes, the grander strategy of Churchill and Roosevelt was to sucker Hitler into forcing the US into WWII by manipulating the Tripartite Pact. The Tripartite Pact said if one of the three (Germany, Italy or Japan) went to war, then all went. If Churchill and Roosevelt could sucker Japan into attacking the US, Hitler would declare war on us and we would be in WWII. It was a strategy to get around the Neutrality Act, which said we couldn't enter Europe's War. It worked. Hitler declared war on the US on December 11th.
No it is just complete bollocks, when you look at all the evidence most of which you never even countered or bothered to take on board, it shows that you are completely been taken in by poor crap you have read on the subject. The fact is Germany had plans to be at war with America, the details are all there and even Churchill for start if he wanted to go to war with Germany, certainly shied away from this when in 1938 he told the Czechoslovakia Ambassador, he would have done the same as Chamberlain if in power. That is not somebody trying to entice war

The US held the aircraft carriers out to sea on the weekend of December 7, 1941, because they were too valuable to sacrifice. Instead, they sacrificed the battleships, as the bait, which--contrary to your argument--were useless in the coming aerial conflict.

Babble, one was late and was meant to be in harbour, and had been delayed the same one delivering wildcats to wake Island. You would not send it back where only bad weather prevented it from being in Pearl harbour, something you really could not predict. One was on its way for repair, the other was not even part of the Pacific fleet at the time. So on all counts your views have no validity to them. Battleships were seen as the capital ships as seen until after Pearl Harbour. Again Roosevelt knew very well the dispositions of U-boats, from encrypted German intelligence and if he wanted to start a war, he could of done by ensuring plenty of ships were in the line of German U-Boats, he in fact did the opposite, all of which you never explained as to if he wanted to entice Hitler, that would have been the perfect opportunity to do so. All facts point to Roosevelt trying to stay out of a war

by Original Quill Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:11 pm

You can make up all the excuses you want. The aircraft carriers were held out of the battle deliberately.

You can say that the carriers were delivering aircraft to Wake Island--incidentally, does that mean the aircraft would be flying into Wake, or were they to be put on barges??--and I'm sure we heard that. But the US needed to convince the Japanese that their air attack had been successful. So we put out plausible excuses for the absence of the carriers. It was for the enemy's consumption.

I can see by your posts, you are becoming excited and, frankly, sounding desperate. Why not take a break?

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:You can make up all the excuses you want. The aircraft carriers were held out of the battle deliberately.

You can say that the carriers were delivering aircraft to Wake Island--incidentally, does that mean the aircraft would be flying into Wake, or were they to be put on barges??--and I'm sure we heard that. But the US needed to convince the Japanese that their air attack had been successful. So we put out plausible excuses for the absence of the carriers. It was for the enemies consumption.

I can see by your posts, you are becoming excited and, frankly, sounding desperate. Why not take a break?

No I have given you the facts, you have made poor unsubstantiated claims going off others who have made the same poor claims, who have also been utterly wrong. The Wildcat planes could not fly all the way to wake Island, so how do you transport fighters?
An Aircraft carrier, just like the British did to bring fighters and bombers as well to Malta, when they did not have the range to fly there. Again you miss the point that this same Aircraft Carrier was meant to be back at Pearl Harbour, and was thus actually meant to be there. So you are saying they planned for this aircraft Carrier to be at Pearl harbour and then banked on poor weather in the hope it could possible delay it? That is the lottery factor and nobody would plan such an eventuality, be the fact weather prediction was so limited for the time.
Hey that one is so far fetched, you will next be telling me Dorothy killed the wicked Witch of the East to entice Germany to attack Poland.

So there is no desperation, I am astounded how much bullshit you actually believe in when you are normally rational, where clearly at the moment you are anything but.

Go and read so reputable historians, I have given you and American German one, the most prominent WW2 historian around, one that you might actually learn from and understand you are just coming out with a load of crap.

This is like that "If WW1 was a bar Fight" America hitting Germany over the head, whilst she was on her last legs, knocking Germany out and claiming thy have won the fight all by themselves!
America was again very late in reacting to the global threats and did everything to attempt japan away from war, this is seen again, by the carrot on a stick of Oil, if they had withdraw from French IndoChina, where America offered them all the oil they needed.

Now you can continue or bow out with grace or do the honest thing and admit your errors, your next move will show more about your character than anything else.

by nicko Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Maximum range of Spitfire with full tanks and following wind, approx. 580 miles.

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm

nicko wrote:Maximum range of Spitfire with full tanks and following wind, approx. 580 miles.

Distance from Gibraltar to Malta 1101.68 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bowery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pedestal

by Guest Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:57 pm

The British proved torpedoes could be effective in their attack on the Regia Marina at Taranto on November 11, 1940. The U.S. Navy discussed this new development as can be seen in a June 1941 memo. The British attack method was not considered relevant to a torpedo attack at Pearl, as Taranto was about 75 ft (23 m) deep and Pearl less than 40 ft (12 m).

The Royal Navy had used Swordfish torpedo planes, and their low speed was part of the reason the Taranto attack succeeded. The Imperial Japanese Navy no longer had any similar planes, so they had to develop other methods, both hardware and delivery technique. They independently developed shallow water torpedo modifications (called "Thunder Fish") during the planning and training for the attack in 1941. Wooden fins were added to the tail and anti-roll "flippers" kept the torpedo upright once in the water. The fins kept the torpedo's nose level in the air and broke off on entering the water. The flatter "flight" trajectory helped keep them from diving so deeply as to encounter bottom mud. (Despite these modifications, some Japanese torpedoes did indeed reach the bottom and several remain unaccounted for.) These simple modifications were not anticipated by the USN, and Admiral Bloch (commander of the Pearl Harbor Naval District) did not push to install torpedo nets or baffles at Pearl. Nor, it seems, did anyone else. Practical considerations also were an influence. Due to the shallow anchorage (which continues to require regular dredging), installation of torpedo nets would have severely restricted the mobility of vessels in the harbor.

Kimmel and his staff testified regarding torpedo nets and booms: "(m) Fact XV ... The decision not to install baffles appears to have been made by the Navy Department. "That is, in Washington, DC, rather than in Hawaii.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hart/xha-019.html

None of the three U.S. Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor when the attack came. This has been alleged by some to be evidence of advance knowledge of the attack by those in charge of their disposition; the carriers were supposedly away so as to save them (the most valuable ships) from attack.

In fact, the two carriers then operating with the Pacific Fleet, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands, which were intended in part to protect the route used by planes (including B-17s) bound for the Philippines. (The third, Saratoga, was in routine refit in Puget Sound, at the Bremerton shipyard.) At the time of the attack, Enterprise was about 200 mi (170 nmi; 320 km) west of Pearl Harbor, heading back. In fact, Enterprise had been scheduled to be back on December 6, but was delayed by weather. A new arrival estimate put her arrival at Pearl around 07:00, almost an hour before the attack, but she was also unable to make that schedule.

Furthermore, at the time, aircraft carriers were classified as fleet scouting elements, and hence relatively expendable. They were not capital ships. The most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships (per the Mahan doctrine followed by both the U.S. and Japanese navies at the time). Carriers became the Navy's most important ships only following the attack.

At the time, naval establishments all over the world regarded battleships, not carriers, as the most powerful and significant elements of naval power. Had the U.S. wanted to preserve its key assets from attack, it would almost certainly have focused on protecting battleships. It was the attack on Pearl Harbor itself that first helped vault the carrier ahead of the battleship in importance. The attack demonstrated the carrier's unprecedented ability to attack the enemy at a great distance, with great force and surprise. The U.S. would turn this ability against Japan. Elimination of battleships from the Pacific Fleet forced the Americans to rely on carriers for offensive operations.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:15 pm

Brasidas wrote:
None of the three U.S. Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor when the attack came. This has been alleged by some to be evidence of advance knowledge of the attack by those in charge of their disposition; the carriers were supposedly away so as to save them (the most valuable ships) from attack.

In fact, the two carriers then operating with the Pacific Fleet, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands, which were intended in part to protect the route used by planes (including B-17s) bound for the Philippines. (The third, Saratoga, was in routine refit in Puget Sound, at the Bremerton shipyard.) At the time of the attack, Enterprise was about 200 mi (170 nmi; 320 km) west of Pearl Harbor, heading back. In fact, Enterprise had been scheduled to be back on December 6, but was delayed by weather. A new arrival estimate put her arrival at Pearl around 07:00, almost an hour before the attack, but she was also unable to make that schedule.

Furthermore, at the time, aircraft carriers were classified as fleet scouting elements, and hence relatively expendable. They were not capital ships. The most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships (per the Mahan doctrine followed by both the U.S. and Japanese navies at the time). Carriers became the Navy's most important ships only following the attack.

At the time, naval establishments all over the world regarded battleships, not carriers, as the most powerful and significant elements of naval power. Had the U.S. wanted to preserve its key assets from attack, it would almost certainly have focused on protecting battleships. It was the attack on Pearl Harbor itself that first helped vault the carrier ahead of the battleship in importance. The attack demonstrated the carrier's unprecedented ability to attack the enemy at a great distance, with great force and surprise. The U.S. would turn this ability against Japan. Elimination of battleships from the Pacific Fleet forced the Americans to rely on carriers for offensive operations.

You make up facts as you go along, didge. Busy, busy, busy...were those mighty aircraft carriers. Cleaning house and such. Laughing

Aircraft carriers were proven at Taranto in 1940. It blew everyone away how successful they were. Orders went in at war departments around the world for shipyards to build carriers. The US alone ordered nearly 20 Essex class carriers. By December 1941, everyone knew the destructive power of aircraft...and consequently, aircraft carriers.

December 1941 was the eve of war. Roosevelt had moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor to provoke the Japanese. The Japanese had just signed the Tripartite Pact. In late November the Japanese had assembled an incredible fleet of six carriers sailing east off the coast of Japan. And you've got American carriers doing ferry duty in the Philippines, picking their teeth at Bremerton, or just lolly-gagging around the Pacific Ocean in a weekend of fun??? A person would have to be stupid to do war-planning as you suggest.

And indeed you are stupid if you believe the War Department's excuses for why the aircraft carriers were not at Pearl on December 7th, 1941. Oh let's see...only the most important weekend of the second-half of the twentieth-century, and you've got them picking daisies in the Mariana Islands. You are too gullible, my friend.

by Guest Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:22 pm

So now insults, oh well, I guess you must concede faced with countless facts none of which you have been able to refute.
As seen the US looked into the attack and did not perceive this to be a threat based on the depth of the water in the harbour to their cost, where again they did not also change their view on Aircraft carriers until after the attack.

The British proved torpedoes could be effective in their attack on the Regia Marina at Taranto on November 11, 1940. The U.S. Navy discussed this new development as can be seen in a June 1941 memo. The British attack method was not considered relevant to a torpedo attack at Pearl, as Taranto was about 75 ft (23 m) deep and Pearl less than 40 ft (12 m).

The Royal Navy had used Swordfish torpedo planes, and their low speed was part of the reason the Taranto attack succeeded. The Imperial Japanese Navy no longer had any similar planes, so they had to develop other methods, both hardware and delivery technique. They independently developed shallow water torpedo modifications (called "Thunder Fish") during the planning and training for the attack in 1941. Wooden fins were added to the tail and anti-roll "flippers" kept the torpedo upright once in the water. The fins kept the torpedo's nose level in the air and broke off on entering the water. The flatter "flight" trajectory helped keep them from diving so deeply as to encounter bottom mud. (Despite these modifications, some Japanese torpedoes did indeed reach the bottom and several remain unaccounted for.) These simple modifications were not anticipated by the USN, and Admiral Bloch (commander of the Pearl Harbor Naval District) did not push to install torpedo nets or baffles at Pearl. Nor, it seems, did anyone else. Practical considerations also were an influence. Due to the shallow anchorage (which continues to require regular dredging), installation of torpedo nets would have severely restricted the mobility of vessels in the harbor.

Kimmel and his staff testified regarding torpedo nets and booms: "(m) Fact XV ... The decision not to install baffles appears to have been made by the Navy Department. "That is, in Washington, DC, rather than in Hawaii.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hart/xha-019.html

Now go back and counter my clams, you claim in all my posts are wrong, instead of giving very poor excuses

by Irn Bru Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:52 am

Quill, this part of thread started off about the capabilities of the Wildcat fighter indeed you were disappointed that it wasn’t about aircraft capabilities I just joined in that part of the discussion after you spent a great deal of time putting together a post telling us something we already knew about the Mustang and later the Corsair. In fact, in a response to Didge you even wrote this...

Quill wrote wrote:Disappointing response. I thought you would engage in a technical discussion about aircraft capabilities; instead I get this waste of an effort at antagonism. ..

Anyway, I’ve read through all the smoke and mirrors, all the defections, all the personal smears and all the other nonsense that you have written above but at the end of the day there is only one thing that you need to do and that is to explain how it would have been possible to get the fighters from Pearl Harbor to Wake Island and Midway without putting them on aircraft carriers. Here’s a reminder of what you said...

Quill wrote wrote:
Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up..

But you now know that it wasn’t possible to get themselves there and it’s for that reason that Didge can rightfully claim that you lost. And let's face it, claiming that you never lose a debate on historical issues was a really silly thing to say and I'm sure that having seen what has happened on this thread (and the previous one) you won't make the same mistake again.

As far as your profession goes I think you made the wrong choice and you should have tried your hand at being a post WWII Hollywood movie producer where you could have thrilled the nation with your ridiculous version of events being splashed on cinema screens coast to coast across the nation Laughing

by veya_victaous Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:15 am

@Irn Bru
this is for you couldn't be bothered making a new thread but think you'll Laughing

Where is FTL??? Enhanced-buzz-10912-1417105657-22

by Original Quill Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:12 am

Irn Bru wrote:Quill, this part of thread started off about the capabilities of the Wildcat fighter indeed you were disappointed that it wasn’t about aircraft capabilities I just joined in that part of the discussion after you spent a great deal of time putting together a post telling us something we already knew about the Mustang and later the Corsair. In fact, in a response to Didge you even wrote this...

Quill wrote wrote:Disappointing response. I thought you would engage in a technical discussion about aircraft capabilities; instead I get this waste of an effort at antagonism. ..

Anyway, I’ve read through all the smoke and mirrors, all the defections, all the personal smears and all the other nonsense that you have written above but at the end of the day there is only one thing that you need to do and that is to explain how it would have been possible to get the fighters from Pearl Harbor to Wake Island and Midway without putting them on aircraft carriers. Here’s a reminder of what you said...

Quill wrote wrote:
Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up..

But you now know that it wasn’t possible to get themselves there and it’s for that reason that Didge can rightfully claim that you lost. And let's face it, claiming that you never lose a debate on historical issues was a really silly thing to say and I'm sure that having seen what has happened on this thread (and the previous one) you won't make the same mistake again.

As far as your profession goes I think you made the wrong choice and you should have tried your hand at being a post WWII Hollywood movie producer where you could have thrilled the nation with your ridiculous version of events being splashed on cinema screens coast to coast across the nation

As usual Irn, you twist everything in an effort to turn it your way. It's the reason you can't be trusted...you are the ultimate passive aggressive manipulator in a debate.

In a discussion about whether aircraft carriers had eclipsed battleships, a ridiculous position was taken by Didge about how battleships could be useful in the new era of aerial battle. My response was that battleships were useless in an era of aerial combat; my way of putting it was, the Wildcats could fly themselves to Wake [better than battleships ferrying them there]. The stress was on the point that anything could get aircraft to a destination better than battleships. Battleships are useless in aerial combat.

So you see how you have twisted that around? It should be clear enough to everyone by now. The expression was hyperbole: anything can move aircraft but battleships...hell, they can fly to Wake more easily. A coincidence of terms does not have to lead to a confusion of ideas...unless someone like you orchestrates it. No one was ever arguing that fighter aircraft could fly from Pearl to Wake; the subject didn't even come up. It was only you, shit stirring.

by Guest Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:07 am

Original Quill wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Quill, this part of thread started off about the capabilities of the Wildcat fighter indeed you were disappointed that it wasn’t about aircraft capabilities I just joined in that part of the discussion after you spent a great deal of time putting together a post telling us something we already knew about the Mustang and later the Corsair. In fact, in a response to Didge you even wrote this...

Anyway, I’ve read through all the smoke and mirrors, all the defections, all the personal smears and all the other nonsense that you have written above but at the end of the day there is only one thing that you need to do and that is to explain how it would have been possible to get the fighters from Pearl Harbor to Wake Island and Midway without putting them on aircraft carriers. Here’s a reminder of what you said...

But you now know that it wasn’t possible to get themselves there and it’s for that reason that Didge can rightfully claim that you lost. And let's face it, claiming that you never lose a debate on historical issues was a really silly thing to say and I'm sure that having seen what has happened on this thread (and the previous one) you won't make the same mistake again.

As far as your profession goes I think you made the wrong choice and you should have tried your hand at being a post WWII Hollywood movie producer where you could have thrilled the nation with your ridiculous version of events being splashed on cinema screens coast to coast across the nation

As usual Irn, you twist everything in an effort to turn it your way. It's the reason you can't be trusted...you are the ultimate passive aggressive manipulator in a debate.

In a discussion about whether aircraft carriers had eclipsed battleships, a ridiculous position was taken by Didge about how battleships could be useful in the new era of aerial battle. My response was that battleships were useless in an era of aerial combat; my way of putting it was, the Wildcats could fly themselves to Wake [better than battleships ferrying them there]. The stress was on the point that anything could get aircraft to a destination better than battleships. Battleships are useless in aerial combat.

So you see how you have twisted that around? It should be clear enough to everyone by now. The expression was hyperbole: anything can move aircraft but battleships...hell, they can fly to Wake more easily. A coincidence of terms does not have to lead to a confusion of ideas...unless someone like you orchestrates it. No one was ever arguing that fighter aircraft could fly from Pearl to Wake; the subject didn't even come up. It was only you, shit stirring.

This is getting beyond a joke so time to put a stop to this once and for all.
You claim I stated this:

a ridiculous position was taken by Didge about how battleships could be useful in the new era of aerial battle.

Not once did I state this and dare to challenge you where I did.I stated categorically that the US Navy and the Japanese viewed the Battleship as the capital ship up until Pearl harbour.
Not only is this back up with military records but also countless evidence.

This started on a another debate, where you got educated on this event, where I produced countless evidence backed up by reputed historians.

You brought no evidence, hearsay and now denial to claims you made.

Not going to bother to entertain your lies any further.

All can see for themselves you got schooled on this.
Next time back it up with evidence, not claims to Taranto, where clearly you did not open the link to the intelligence report by the US Navy I posted on this very attack.

Up to Irn if he wishes to continue, but at every turn you have not countered the factual evidence I have given you, but continued to lie.

by Irn Bru Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:22 am

Quill wrote wrote:
Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up..

But you considered aircraft carriers to be capital ships at that time, didn't you? So if they were not needed to deliver the fighters to Wake and Midway then how else would you suggest they get there? Oh yes, you said they can get there all by themselves.

Quill wrote:
No one was ever arguing that fighter aircraft could fly from Pearl to Wake; the subject didn't even come up. ..

They were - and it did!!!

For someone who claims to have grown up during WWII living on US Naval air bases and whose father was a Rear Admiral in the US Navy you ain’t very well clued up on what was going on are you? You’re all over the place on this continually twisting what people are saying, as well as misrepresenting their views whilst at the same time contradicting yourself at every turn. I have every respect for your historical knowledge I really do but when you get something wrong its better just to admit it and move on or just say nothing more and let it drift into the archives.

One more thing though; who issued the orders for the carriers to deliver the fighters to Wake and Midway?

by Original Quill Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:55 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Quill wrote wrote:
Fighters could get themselves to Wake I. and Midway I. You don't need capital ships to deliver aircraft, FGS. Use of such a flimsy excused by the authorities, is further evidence that it was all a cover up..

But you considered aircraft carriers to be capital ships at that time, didn't you? So if they were not needed to deliver the fighters to Wake and Midway then how else would you suggest they get there? Oh yes, you said they can get there all by themselves.

Interesting question…because I wondered about that too. Again, place it into context. I was quoting off a Wiki piece that presumed a distinction between capital ships and aircraft carriers. That transition was the subject matter of the discussion. The presumption was we were carrying on the distinction. I was speaking with 19th-century classifications, and the carrier as the newcomer on the block.

At no point was it contemplated that small planes could fly from Pearl to Wake I. It was either battleship or carrier…and my point was that battleships were not good platforms for taking off and landing aircraft.

Irn Bru wrote:
Quill wrote:
No one was ever arguing that fighter aircraft could fly from Pearl to Wake; the subject didn't even come up. ..

Irn Bru wrote:They were - and it did!!!

It was hyperbole. The point being, aircraft were better suited to fly than land on battleships. I am perfectly willing to discuss the subject matter. But you keep insisting the discussion turn these into gotcha games. Well…to each his own.

Irn Bru wrote:For someone who claims to have grown up during WWII living on US Naval air bases and whose father was a Rear Admiral in the US Navy you ain’t very well clued up on what was going on are you? You’re all over the place on this continually twisting what people are saying, as well as misrepresenting their views whilst at the same time contradicting yourself at every turn. I have every respect for your historical knowledge I really do but when you get something wrong its better just to admit it and move on or just say nothing more and let it drift into the archives.

To the contrary, I think I am quite knowledgeable in the era. The history of military weaponry is a favorite pursuit of mine. What I am perhaps less skilled at are these semantic games that people play to avoid returning to the subject matter. Most of your post, for example…

Returning to the subject,

One more thing though; who issued the orders for the carriers to deliver the fighters to Wake and Midway?

You should be able to answer that yourself. As the Army Board itself concluded: "...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944.

“FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -
1. denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
2. on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
3. having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet“

Of course the Navy would have a cover story for the absence of the carriers on December 7th.

The idea that Pearl Harbor was an ideal target for a Taranto-style attack was well known. The US Navy itself had in fact attacked Pearl Harbor in war exercises. And...

“A Navy report by Bellinger and Martin predicted that if Japan made war on the US, they would strike Pearl Harbor without warning at dawn with aircraft from a maximum of 6 carriers.

“For years Navy planners had assumed that Japan, on the outbreak of war, would strike the American fleet wherever it was. The fleet was the only threat to Japan's plans. Logically, Japan couldn't engage in any major operation with the American fleet on its flank. The strategic options for the Japanese were not unlimited.

“On 23 Jun 1941 advisor Harold Ickes wrote FDR a memo the day after Germany invaded the Soviet Union,

"There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia."

Clearly, preparations were being contemplated. Having aircraft carriers ‘otherwise occupied’ would be the least of the worries.

by Guest Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:06 pm

Oh well not able to post up the poor lies he claimed I made.

Nothing to refute any of my facts.

Nothing to back with evidence that Aircraft Carriers were seen as Capital ships before Pearl Harbour, when they were classed as scouting ships. Ignoring all the evidence of Hitler planning to go to war with America.

The lists are endless and if people refuse to acknowledge facts, as Quill is doing when all his arguments are based off assumptions, then there is no point debating. He even failed to see the memo on the Taranto attack.

I think you are cool Quill but here you have been utterly dishonest and poor. The facts are there for all to see you got thing wrong, and I am not going to go around in circles again.

Laters

by Original Quill Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:18 pm

Brasidas wrote:Oh well not able to post up the poor lies he claimed I made.

Nothing to refute any of my facts.

Nothing to back with evidence that Aircraft Carriers were seen as Capital ships before Pearl Harbour, when they were classed as scouting ships. Ignoring all the evidence of Hitler planning to go to war with America.

The lists are endless and if people refuse to acknowledge facts, as Quill is doing when all his arguments are based off assumptions, then there is no point debating. He even failed to see the memo on the Taranto attack.

I think you are cool Quill but here you have been utterly dishonest and poor. The facts are there for all to see you got thing wrong, and I am not going to go around in circles again.

Laters

On the basis of semantics? You are quite a wordsmith, to be sure Didge.

But this was not supposed to ba a discussion about how to phrase things. It was to be a discussion about history. You seem to have ignored history, in the discussion as well as in life.

Do you see why I tire of these gotcha games on threads? They are not worthy of me. You and Irn go at Toms and nicko all the time in this way, so I guess y'all love this stuff. However, I was trained as an academic...and love of the subject matter is the only way to develop the theories and interpretations.

by Guest Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:26 pm

Yes I was talking about history so was Irn, but clearly you were talking fiction.
As I say, all can see for themselves here who has the evidence to back their case, and you have none, just assumptions incorrect information from the time.
It was nothing about how to phrase things, you made it clear what you said and back tracked and now lie.
You live without as all can see you did and even worse trying to worm out of it.

Hope you have a good weekend

by Sponsored content