tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post2367479553384733055..comments2024-03-13T02:17:39.644-07:00Comments on Restating the Obvious: Book Review 356: British Battleships of World War IIHarry Eagarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-78955555986340452662015-11-19T11:58:11.152-08:002015-11-19T11:58:11.152-08:00* ... you know they didn't.*
I bet you haven&...* ... you know they didn't.*<br /><br />I bet you haven't read the post-WWII Strategic Bombing Surveys. <br /><br />And I am really reluctant to waste my time on someone who is so willing to rant the odious, and unwilling to learn anything. <br /><br />But here goes, truncated by the pain of typing on an iPad. <br /><br />The technology at the time forced what was supposed to be an offensive weapon to be also very defensive. Among a great many things, this meant bombers flew in formations that guaranteed most bombs would miss the target, never mind how well the lead airplane aimed.<br /><br />This has nothing whatsoever to do with Mitchell, who was a true visionary,<br /><br />Your profound, and impervious, ignorance notwithstanding. Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-70287966494909131462015-11-19T11:50:22.676-08:002015-11-19T11:50:22.676-08:00Harry, above you made some perfectly ridiculous st...Harry, above you made some perfectly ridiculous statements. When challenged, you do what you always do: you shifted the goal posts. <br /><br />So, either unshift them, or own your buffooneryHey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-18774865377908538662015-11-19T11:04:54.139-08:002015-11-19T11:04:54.139-08:00When I get time. For now -- Force K.
And you are ...When I get time. For now -- Force K.<br /><br />And you are not going to say they aimed, because we both know they didn't.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-65248523758274287172015-11-18T03:27:17.020-08:002015-11-18T03:27:17.020-08:00How about engaging your own nonsense?How about engaging your own nonsense?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-58533425081290213592015-11-16T08:10:12.921-08:002015-11-16T08:10:12.921-08:00Did you really? Was there a chapter on not aiming...Did you really? Was there a chapter on not aiming the bombs?<br /><br />There should have been.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-36851555733840884492015-11-15T12:15:13.501-08:002015-11-15T12:15:13.501-08:00Harry, you get shoot your own argument. Without a...Harry, you get shoot your own argument. Without air superiority, the British navy could not have survived in the Channel. I can't help but notice that when asked to provide a counter example, you couldn't. <br /><br />And while it is true enough that the strategic bombing campaign wasn't designed to destroy the Luftwaffe, that is undoubtedly one of its effects, which meant that Overlord could proceed with not just air supremacy, but total superiority. Had the Luftwaffe enjoyed that position instead, either the invasion would not have proceeded, or it would have failed. That sound you just heard was your argument sinking like a greased safe. <br /><br />Everything Mitchell predicted became true, regardless of your foolish irrelevancies (Pearl's woeful lack of readiness is a reflection on Mitchell? Seriously?), or your invoking nonsense as fact (that the British Navy would have been able to do something no Navy has ever managed).<br /><br />If you have someone who has made a a career out of air power, and wrote a thesis on the strategic bombing campaign, maybe you need to stop trotting out such inanities.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-87708900055571004662015-11-14T13:10:52.361-08:002015-11-14T13:10:52.361-08:00True, but that was not what the strategic bombing ...True, but that was not what the strategic bombing campaign was designed to do. <br /><br />And eliminating the Luftwaffe fighters contributed nothing to the outcome.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-14785418114306323792015-11-14T02:36:11.436-08:002015-11-14T02:36:11.436-08:00Who, the Luftwaffe?
That was the whole point of t...Who, the Luftwaffe?<br /><br />That was the whole point of the Battle of Britain! Use bombers to flush the fighters, and destroy the fighters through attrition.<br /><br />Which is exactly what the strategic bombing campaign against Germany achieved.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-8511851898527949432015-11-13T10:38:17.039-08:002015-11-13T10:38:17.039-08:00Well, why didn't it try to establish air super...Well, why didn't it try to establish air superiority?<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-49888867752600468422015-11-12T17:39:02.402-08:002015-11-12T17:39:02.402-08:00The German army was powerless to harm England, and...<i>The German army was powerless to harm England, and the combined German navy and air force were unwilling to risk an encounter with the Royal Navy in the Narrow Seas. So the Germans thought to substitute airpower for seapower.</i><br /><br />That is utter crap. <br /><br />The German army was no more powerless to harm England than the Allies were powerless to harm Germany. <br /><br />If the Luftwaffe had managed to establish air superiority, then the English Navy would have been completely routed had it tried to get anywhere near the Channel.<br /><br />Just like Midway.<br /><br />Of course, to make your point, you could show a case where a naval force not only survived, but succeeded in the face of enemy air superiority.<br /><br />You can't, because such a thing has never happened.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-54225032344532719302015-11-12T09:23:22.417-08:002015-11-12T09:23:22.417-08:00If I can find the time, I would like to write at l...If I can find the time, I would like to write at length on the "promise of airpower," but for now let me observe that the Battle of Britain demonstrated the dominance of seapower.<br /><br />The German army was powerless to harm England, and the combined German navy and air force were unwilling to risk an encounter with the Royal Navy in the Narrow Seas. So the Germans thought to substitute airpower for seapower.<br /><br />As happened more often than not in history, airpower failed to deliver on its promise.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-10870691565110544082015-11-12T09:21:26.530-08:002015-11-12T09:21:26.530-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-80738434766915037052015-11-12T02:47:11.587-08:002015-11-12T02:47:11.587-08:00Shenanigans, it is.Shenanigans, it is.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-78632701265502074462015-11-10T11:32:50.045-08:002015-11-10T11:32:50.045-08:00Pearl had the bulk of modern interceptors and mana...<i>Pearl had the bulk of modern interceptors and managed to get two -- count 'em, 2 -- into the air, and those by accident. No early warning, no fighter direction. </i><br /><br />What the hell does Pearl's readiness failure have to do with Mitchell?<br /><br />Perhaps you would be better served by referring to, oh, I don't know, the Battle of Britain. Or Midway, or the Battle of the Atlantic. Or ... oh, what's the point.<br /><br />Your willful ignorance is almost as astonishing as your misdirection.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-33449132545558491272015-11-10T09:01:11.159-08:002015-11-10T09:01:11.159-08:00And absolutely wrong about defense. Pearl had the ...And absolutely wrong about defense. Pearl had the bulk of modern interceptors and managed to get two -- count 'em, 2 -- into the air, and those by accident. No early warning, no fighter direction. <br /><br />Complete incompetence. None of Mitchell's claims achieved.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-10629247404442873722015-11-09T01:32:58.619-08:002015-11-09T01:32:58.619-08:00Again with the Jesuitical parsing. He was absolut...Again with the Jesuitical parsing. He was absolutely correct about the ends -- an attack on Pearl Harbor -- and as correct as he could know to be about the ends -- airpower.<br /><br />That he didn't know what he couldn't know, the astonishingly rapid development of carriers and carrier aircraft over the next 15 years is somehow enough to make him wrong right down the line?<br /><br />He was a heck of a lot more right than anyone else, which made him a visioniary, not a charlaton.<br /><br />No surprise here. Virtually everything you write about military matters is bizarro world wrong.<br /><br />And you excoriate Dr. Carson for bizarre beliefs.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-82680869893959175362015-11-08T17:37:12.271-08:002015-11-08T17:37:12.271-08:00Wikipediaquotes him:
In 1924, Gen. Patrick again ...Wikipediaquotes him:<br /><br />In 1924, Gen. Patrick again dispatched him on an inspection tour, this time to Hawaii and Asia, to get him off the front pages. Mitchell came back with a 324-page report that predicted future war with Japan, including the attack on Pearl Harbor. Of note, Mitchell discounted the value of aircraft carriers in an attack on the Hawaiian Islands, believing they were of little practical use as:<br /><br /> not only can they not operate efficiently on the high seas but even if they could they cannot place sufficient aircraft in the air at one time to insure a concentrated operation.[32]<br /><br />Rather he believed a surprise attack on the Hawaiian Islands would be conducted by land-based airpower operating from islands in the Pacific.[33] His report, published in 1925 as the book Winged Defense, foretold wider benefits of an investment in air power:<br /><br /> Those interested in the future of the country, not only from a national defense standpoint but from a civil, commercial and economic one as well, should study this matter carefully, because air power has not only come to stay but is, and will be, a dominating factor in the world's development.[34]<br /><br />Wrong right down the line, wasn't he?<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-35137572157452162032015-11-08T15:22:30.739-08:002015-11-08T15:22:30.739-08:00Mitchell's argument was not that airpower made...<i>Mitchell's argument was not that airpower made battleships obsolete but that airpower could substitute for seapower.</i><br /><br />No, it wasn't. There is your problem right there.<br /><br />His argument was that the battleship was obsolete, and that seapower required airpower to be effective.<br /><br />He was completely correct.<br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-17379090619537166042015-11-08T11:56:09.773-08:002015-11-08T11:56:09.773-08:00Under kamikaze attack, the machine guns proved ina...Under kamikaze attack, the machine guns proved inadequate. Heavy AA (the 5-inch proximity fuzed ones) were necessary. It took a very large ship to manage a lot of those with the their associated directors and the enormous supplies of ammunition that were required.<br /><br />Mitchell's argument was not that airpower made battleships obsolete but that airpower could substitute for seapower. His example was the battleship, but like most people he did not understand seapower.<br /><br />When the next big war came, airpower was not decisive in the outcome. In the war between Germany and Italy and the western powers, seapower provided the extension and the blockade that won the war. In the war between Germany and Russia, the Red Air Force was destroyed in June and July 1941 but the Red Army had won the war by December.<br /><br />In the war between the US and Japan, seapower was decisive. Airpower was not even able to engage without it.<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-42982841397401881732015-11-08T07:23:19.782-08:002015-11-08T07:23:19.782-08:00Yamato was sunk by dive and torpedo bombers.
That...<i>Yamato was sunk by dive and torpedo bombers.</i><br /><br />That is exactly what I mean by Jesuitical hair splitting. Mitchell's thesis was that airpower had made battleships obsolete, and that the insitutional Navy was completely resistant to the idea.<br /><br />He was right, in spades.<br /><br />Which makes you wrong, in spades.<br /><br /><i>... turned out that battleships were necessary antiaircraft platforms ... </i><br /><br />So your thesis is that battleships were necessary for small caliber rapid fire weapons?<br /><br />Clearly, you know nothing about air defense weapons.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-54538141280621145172015-11-07T16:52:48.588-08:002015-11-07T16:52:48.588-08:00Yamato was sunk by dive and torpedo bombers.
And ...Yamato was sunk by dive and torpedo bombers.<br /><br />And it turns out that carriers were not survivable against kamikazes -- the navy was losing one a week; and it turned out that battleships were necessary antiaircraft platforms to keep the carnage even that low. Expensive, it is true, but not as useless as, say, nuclear-powered airplanes.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-89213598284926477212015-11-07T11:08:58.841-08:002015-11-07T11:08:58.841-08:00The real story is that Mitchell was a charlatan .....<i>The real story is that Mitchell was a charlatan ... </i><br /><br />Once again, you shame the name of your blog. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br /><i>The fact is, no battleship was ever sunk — or even inconvenienced — by aerial bombing of the kind preached by Mitchell ...</i><br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato" rel="nofollow">Yamato</a>.<br /><br />And, please, none of your Jesuitical hair splitting. Mitchell knew what the institutional Navy refused to acknowledge -- that battleships were relics. Yes, tactics and weapons developed over the next couple decades, but the point remains: Mitchell was exactly right.<br /><br />Thank goodness enough people -- none of whom would have been you -- listened.<br /><br /><i>Unlike the flyboys, who sold moonshine ... </i><br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic#Convergence_of_technologies" rel="nofollow">Shenanigans</a>.<br /><br />Battleships consumed a lot of resources, but except for being floating artillery during invasions, were irrelevant to WWII.<br /><br />You couldn't possibly say the same about aircraft.<br /><br /><br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.com