Page 17 of 20
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:30 pm
by mdiehl
The Japanese navy had NO MORE COMBAT experience than the United States Navy in May 1941.
I think he's referring to training rather than experience. if "we fought wars continually since" is the measure of experience then it's UK #1, US #2 and everybody else a distant third, since you can trace that heritage back to the days of sail.
But it is equally incorrect to suggest as he has implied that all US ships had untrained, inadequately trained, or even "not extensively trained" crews. It depends on the ship. The USN doubled in size from 1940-1942. Ironically, any US ship that the Axis met in 1939 was likely to be crewed with people who were extensively and intensively trained.
For ex the most intensively trained night fighting ship in the world in 1941 may have been USS
Augusta. Anyone who can recall *why* gets an "A for the day." Anyone who replies with "Omigod omigod like totally how can you SAY that mygod the Japanese were best everyone knows that under the rock from which I crawled" should crack a book now and then.
The IJN pilots would have more experience though, correct? Didn't the IJN operate in China quite a bit?
Mostly not and mostly the wrong kind of experience. Different opponent different aircraft different fighting doctrines etc.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:34 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I think he's referring to training rather than experience. if "we fought wars continually since" is the measure of experience then it's UK #1, US #2 and everybody else a distant third, since you can trace that heritage back to the days of sail.
Actually - as far as I care - that's exactly how I would rate them, for that same reason.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:37 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: el cid again
They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.
OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????
Call me crazy, but I think the original quoter was being sarcastic.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:39 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: el cid again
They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.
OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????
Call me crazy, but I think the original quoter was being sarcastic.
I won't call you crazy...
but what is anarchy-in-the-UK doing in .. Dallas?[X(]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:42 pm
by Speedysteve
More to the point....anarchy in the UK? You not like 'New' Labour? [;)]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:42 pm
by hawker
So you say that US was ready for war in 1941,and have the equal training with Japanese[:-]. Not true,history shows that fact
Demosthenes,you claim that US has superior quality and you didnt answer on simple question:
-What superior quality US has in 1941?
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:43 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: hawker
So you say that US was ready for war in 1941,and have the equal training with Japanese[:-]. Not true,history shows that fact
Demosthenes,you claim that US has superior quality and you didnt answer on simple question:
-What superior quality US has in 1941?
I'm not sure I follow your question at all?
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:44 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: el cid again
OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????
Call me crazy, but I think the original quoter was being sarcastic.
I won't call you crazy...
but what is anarchy-in-the-UK doing in .. Dallas?[X(]
Big fan of the sex pistols in my misspent youth. Was a good name for muds too, no one ever had it.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:46 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: Speedy
More to the point....anarchy in the UK? You not like 'New' Labour? [;)]
I think that was 'Old' Labor's position as well. [:)]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:49 pm
by hawker
Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812
I think that is your claim if i get it right[;)]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:53 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: hawker
Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812
I think that is your claim if i get it right[;)]
Yes, this is what I wrote:
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: el cid again
quote:
They would have been a pushover for the experienced US crews.
OK, I give up. WHAT US BATTLESHIP had an "experienced US crew" in MAY 1941? Where did it get that experience??????
Probably the same place the Germans got it before the battle of the Denmark Strait. Trials and "working up"
The original question also included the British navy - and I believe they HAD some experience!
The allegation was made that US battleships could eat the British ones (as well as German ones) due to their "experienced crews" - and I think that is wrong. RN had more experience - pretty clearly.
Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812
But what does any othat have to do with Japan and the USA?
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:53 pm
by mdiehl
More a Clash or Kinks type myself. "Victoria." Every time I hear that Kinks standard I almost wish I were a citizen of the UK.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:55 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
More a Clash or Kinks type myself. "Victoria." Every time I hear that Kinks standard I almost wish I were a citizen of the UK.
Hmm, 1980s punk rock I think - I'm lost , it's a generational gap
Now if you were talking about woodstock - I could follow it
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:56 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: hawker
Yes they (the RN) did have more recent experience in 1941 - however that does not necessarily negate training and superior equipment...as the USN painfully showed the RN in 1812
Please tell me,what superior equipment US has in 1941???
Which brings up another question, as far as I know The IJNs last surface action was Tsushima in 1905, so where would any IJN ship get experience in May 1941 ...in a "sea battle/surface action"?
Everyone knows that IJN has realistic and hard trinings in their program. Many Japanese sailors die in peacetime because of this training. When 1st air fleet left Japan to attack PH man and pilots in this fleet was most experinced in the world,far superior to US. Later that change.
No turret stiffeners is what the USN had in 1941. Weren't needed and made it a lot easier to load. Gave US gunships their high rate of fire.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:56 pm
by hawker
But what does any othat have to do with Japan and the USA?
Ok,if i translate wrong,i apologize.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:58 pm
by Skyros
Maybe the Who is more your Style?
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
More a Clash or Kinks type myself. "Victoria." Every time I hear that Kinks standard I almost wish I were a citizen of the UK.
Hmm, 1980s punk rock I think - I'm lost , it's a generational gap
Now if you were talking about woodstock - I could follow it
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:00 pm
by Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: Skyros
Maybe the Who is more your Style?
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
More a Clash or Kinks type myself. "Victoria." Every time I hear that Kinks standard I almost wish I were a citizen of the UK.
Hmm, 1980s punk rock I think - I'm lost , it's a generational gap
Now if you were talking about woodstock - I could follow it
hehe more my time timeframe - but never one of my favorites
(Beatles, Stones, CCR, Doors)
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:00 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
More a Clash or Kinks type myself. "Victoria." Every time I hear that Kinks standard I almost wish I were a citizen of the UK.
Great tune.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:07 pm
by mdiehl
The Clash are 1970s UK punk not 1980s. They saved American rock and roll listeners from endless hours of boredom at the hands of Steve Miller, the Eagles, and the J.Geils Band.
I'm really shocked you don't know the Kinks, Demosthenes. They were right up front there with the Stones, the Who, and Herman's Hermits.
And yeah, The Who are on my greats list too. And the Beatles too but of course that never needs mentioning. The All Pervasive Presence of Paul McCartney Is Manifest By The Absence Of Any Need To Mention His Name. And let us not forget Jeff Lynne, or Ian Anderson.
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:07 pm
by Skyros
Lots of great music from that period, I also like CSNY, Pink Floyd and the Band.
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: Skyros
Maybe the Who is more your Style?
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Hmm, 1980s punk rock I think - I'm lost , it's a generational gap
Now if you were talking about woodstock - I could follow it
hehe more my time timeframe - but never one of my favorites
(Beatles, Stones, CCR, Doors)