|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 9:50:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 9:54:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 9:55:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 10:05:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 23, 2012 10:58:42 GMT -6
No mention of precision bombing was found till this from the US Survey:
"The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.
It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over"
Just the opposite of wild's claims and rather exactly what I posted. Anyone find the word precision elsewhere? You'd think it would be a chapter heading, since it was doctrine and all. I haven't read all these, so could be there.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 12:11:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 23, 2012 12:16:42 GMT -6
DARK CLOUD You said you'd never dissed England, I found sufficiency in the earliest records you had You went back 8 years to find a quote out of time out of context off subject to cover your falsehood. That is adding insult to injury.
wild damns the British for giving 'secrets' to Japan
and..
And just recently he accused some Brits of giving the Japanese 'secrets
What is the difference that you find so important? How does it exculpate you from anything? The first quote is false.The one you were called on.The second is an attempt to cover your falsehood. There is a difference between accused and damned.There is a difference between some Brits and the British.
I expect you to correct this inaccurate claim---- wild damns the British for giving 'secrets' to Japan
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 12:40:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 23, 2012 12:56:50 GMT -6
But wild, you DID damn them. And, for giving secrets to Japan, if anything so qualifies, so do I. If you wish to not be against treason - hardly a surprise - that's fine.
And no, the difference between some Brits and the Brits doesn't wash. Did Americans have the Bomb you advocated dropping on the Soviets? Not really. SOME did. Do the Irish wail and whine and contend they are perpetual victims, especially of genocide? Not really. Some, like yourself and others of your generation, do. And without evidence.
When we say the US won this or that war, we obviously only mean some of us, often not any still alive. You're trying to pull the same thing they pulled on Al Gore, who said 'when we invented the Internet' and it was presented if he himself claimed to have designed the servers. But it's no different then when his opponents say 'We won the war!' Hardly, given so few serve these days.
Still the drunk at the bar. "You can't count that!" I don't have to go back to your first posts, but I didn't need to continue forward, so stopped there. But if you said horrible things on the Web back then, it still counts. And you still cannot deny you said it, contended it, and still believe it. Although, we know, you just tried. Again.
Anyone found proof of 'precision' bombing in any of those reports? Use of the term, even? How does wild meld that to his contentions?
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 23, 2012 13:56:27 GMT -6
Gatewood: I have read Neptune's Inferno, and concluded that it was a good book, not a great book. It tells the story well, but think it ranks behind Guadalcanal by Richard Frank, a book I value greatly. Guadalcanal is a story of combined arms air-land-sea. Neptune limits itself to the naval side, and I think it therefore limited to a third of the story. Frank puts everything into the proper flow, sequence and context. Iwo is a battle that assured a Marine Corps, in Forrestal's words, for five hundred years. Guadalcanal is the battle, along with The Bois de Belleau, and the Banana Wars that MADE the modern United States Marines. Yes, Guadalcanal and the first year of the naval war in the Pacific, along with the Alamo and the Korean Conflict are the areas that I take special interest in. Books I find essential in the study of the former are Shattered Sword by Parchall and Tully Anything by Prange-Goldstein-Dillon Midway the Battle that Doomed Japan - A partially selfserving tome by Fuchida Mitsuo - early but a very good read Eric Hammel three or four dependant upon edition volume history of Guadalcanal Japanese Destroyer Captain by Hara Tamichi (sp) - again early but very good Neptune and Midway, very recent works put you in the picture quite well Lundstrum's First Team and First Team on Guadalcanal are supurb Potter's Nimitz gives you strategic insights and insights into the man not found elsewhere. A visit to the Nimitz museum should be on you to do list. It is located in Fredricksburg, Texas in the hill country north and west of San Antonio. And then there were the personal friends of my late father who fought these battles in the first year of the Pacific and once again in my living room and around our dining room table, early inspiration for a pre-teen and teenager. One of my dad's best friends was an officer on Edsall lost early in the war. A few years before my dad passed away I presented him with two of the models I made for him, Pennsylvania (his home state) and Edsall. He thanked me for Pennsylvania and Edsall brought a tear to an eigthy-eigth year old man's eyes, after so long. I would also be remiss if I did not mention that my extensive collection of models of the various early war ships of both navies aid me greatly in understanding detail. QC, good list but: The Pacific War: 1941-1945 by John Costello Outstanding overview of the pre-war and war. The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb by George Feifer The best book on the land battle. Fire In The Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific by Eric M. Bergerud Surprise! There was an air war in the Pacific that wasn't carrier based. Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 by D. M. Giangreco To me, the most important book on the war in the Pacific to come out in the past ten years. JV
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 23, 2012 16:31:39 GMT -6
DARK CLOUD Start a new thread and lets have this out once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 23, 2012 16:52:14 GMT -6
There must be someone British or Pakistani near to help you start a thread like a big boy. In any case, wild, your postings are still up. You can't deny them. Anybody who wants to read them can.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 23, 2012 17:00:30 GMT -6
DARK CLOUD Start a new thread and you can call us drunks and I'll call you fat pigs all to what purpose?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 23, 2012 17:15:39 GMT -6
Again, the perpetual tantrum. It was your idea, so you answer it.
Of course, your offered premise is false. See, when YOU are called a drunk, it doesn't mean anybody else is included, so don't try to hide in numbers or pretend that I wasn't specific to you. Apparently it's because you want to call us Americans fat pigs, as your first foray is in the plural, and you are unable to keep to the singular. Telling. In any case, I've posted I'm a monster and can hold softballs in orbit, so stating the already stated isn't particularly entertaining or true, necessarily.
Now, since you currently avoid discussion about precision bombing, we can guess why: qc and I were supported by the facts in those reports as the cut and paste I provided pretty much wipes the floor with you.
Has anyone found the word 'precision' yet applied to the bombing in those reports? You were wrong, wild. Yet again.
You've been dissing the English/British for many years. It was a fib to say you had not. That there had been a tv program released with new information no longer classified would have been appropriate to share rather than try to win an argument with it. As usual, you bolluxed that as well.
And for the point, your swing from idiotic belligerence to attempted reflective inclusion and empathy is exactly what drunks do.
You're a drunk at the bar, is all. You insist on keeping the term 'precision' because that means you can blame all the deaths in the missions you offer as precision runs on national policy. Then, you can lecture the US on morality as you've attempted in the past, accuse us of genocide, and begin to feel like Ireland is a real nation of import. Someday, and soon, but not on your watch.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 23, 2012 17:20:40 GMT -6
In all the verbage let's not lose sight of the issue .You cannot provide the quote to back your claim. That makes you a lier.
|
|