December 7, 1941
Charles G. White
montgomery
... I am sure there are many fine resourses on the Net re: Pearl
Harbour ... this is what I came up with a blink of the keyboard.
3. (April 10, 1997).The History Place.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pearl.htm
4. (April 10, 1997).December 7, 1941
http://www.execpc.com/~dschaaf/overview.html
5. (April 10, 1997).Pearl Harbor.
http://www.thisweek.com/PearlHarbor.html
montgomery
dave gaither
Charles G. White wrote in message ...
>The day which will live in infamy!
>
And pray we never forget it! Being from a generation whose father fought in
WW2 (4th Marine Division- Iwo Jima) its called "Slap a Jap" Day around here.
No racial slurs intended, thats just the way it is!
Dave
A 1/52 198th LIB
Americal 69-70
Yeff
"Charles G. White" <whit...@abanet.org> wrote in message
news:s4q7g8d...@corp.supernews.com...
> The day which will live in infamy!
From someone who spent 10 years watching to
ensure it never happened again, it will indeed
live in infamy.
May we never forget.
-Jeff B. (Signals Intelligence Analyst, USAF)
yeff at erols dot com
Steven W. Smith
While far be it from me to denigrate the United States or the men and
women who serve, one does have to admit that the attack was a well
executed and effective use of naval air power. Don't forget that WWII
had been in progress for nearly three years or more... depending on
what you call the start of it. Some writers claim that WWI was never
finalized. Others point to the economic collapse of Germany.
Whatever, the US had been waging an economic war with Japan for at
least a year.
It's certainly infamous from a US perspective, however, battleships are
a valid military target. The US forces have executed similar attacks;
Pershing's raid into Palo Duro Canyon jumps to my mind here. The two
are similar in many respects: all of the Commanches were asleep, the
attack came as a complete surprise, the primary objective, which was
accomplished, was to capture all or most of the Commanche's horses.
Remember also that, prior to that day, naval air power was pretty much
theory. The men who flew off of those carrrier decks didn't know that
they would be successful; no precedent existed. There would have been
a whole different outcome had the US ships suddenly steamed out of the
mist just as they were launching their aircraft and every pilot knew
that.
Thus, I salute all of the men and women who served their respective
countries honorably.
Smith
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
William Langston
Socrates? I am also somewhat that way but I have the presence of mind to
know when things are best left for a later time, something of which you
don't seem to have a clue about. Remember the distasteful comments before
the bodies were cold on the Aggie thing? Why don't you wait a bit on these
controversial issues? I have this picture of you sitting at your terminal
with a wicked grin on your face with each one of the provocative posts.
Screw you, respectively of course, Bill Langston.
Steven W. Smith <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:09920fb9...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
Steven W. Smith
Isn't a discussion group supposed to provoke the participants to think?
If I trot out some half-baked idea, then blow it out of the water.
DT1942
between Japan and Russia in (I think) 1903, the inept Russian fleet sailed into
the very narrow Strait of Tsushima. The Japanese artillery was able to destroy
the entire Russian fleet with direct fire, resulting in Russia, despite its
vast size and resources, having to sue for peace.
It was one of those epiphany moments for me, a forehead-slapper. "Holy shit!
That explains Pearl Harbor." Obviously, their thinking was that if they could
destroy our Pacific fleet, we would have to sue for peace, taking us out of the
war in the East.
And Bill, I don't see a thing wrong with what Smith wrote. He went out of his
way to be respectful to the servicemen who lost their lives there. His post was
not in any way outrageous.
I find Smith to be the most intelligent and entertaining poster here at this
time. Unfortunately, he once in a while comes up with some comment that makes
everyone ask, "Did he say that? Damn!" A lot of guys were furious with him when
he invited Ted (on Ted's 60th birthday as I recall) to meet him at the gym for
a punchup. Overlooked is the fact that Smith's offer was preceded by Ted's
description of the punch sequence he favored. Not trying to be Smith's new best
friend, but I think this NG would be a duller place without him.
Dave Travis
Yeff
"DT1942" <dt1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991207162104...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> I remember when I was taking a World History class and read that during
the war
> between Japan and Russia in (I think) 1903, the inept Russian fleet sailed
into
> the very narrow Strait of Tsushima. The Japanese artillery was able to
destroy
> the entire Russian fleet with direct fire, resulting in Russia, despite
its
> vast size and resources, having to sue for peace.
> It was one of those epiphany moments for me, a forehead-slapper. "Holy
shit!
> That explains Pearl Harbor." Obviously, their thinking was that if they
could
> destroy our Pacific fleet, we would have to sue for peace, taking us out
of the
> war in the East.
I remember reading (please don't ask for a cite - time and alcohol, you
know?)
that alot of their (the Japanese) thinking went along the lines that after
defeating us at Pearl Harbor, the only honorable thing for us to do would be
to sue for peace and to cede Asia to the Asians (the Japanese).
Being the gaijin barbarians that we were, we went on the offensive and
attacked.
Not exactly different from what you wrote but not the same either. Even if
we'd
had a second Pacific fleet the exact size and composition that was moored at
Battleship Row sitting in San Francisco Bay, the Japanese would have still
expected
us to bow out of the fight.
Very different cultures seeing the same thing totally differently.
-Jeff B.
VBede1
people of Japan for owning up to their acts after the war.
Also, it is pretty clear that even tactically the Pearl Harbor strike was not
all it could have been. Thankfully, the carriers were out to sea. No one at the
time seems to have realized they were the ship that would win the war. And of
course from a strategic point of view, the attack was an utter disaster for
Japan.
Jeff
BobS
It was definitely a surprise to the men at PH,
But was it a Surprise to Roosevelt or Churchill ?
bOb
"Bob (RS)" wrote:
> Steve;
> This is one subject that you can't have your cake and eat it too. To even
> imply that the Japanese were in any sense "honorable" is totally
> ludicrous(sp). Aside from the attack on us, with whom we were in
> negotiations, what about their conduct in China. Dont even attempt to bring
> up the Nazi's. Today is not the time to be a "2 legged spoon"
> Regards
> Bob
>
Lou Redmond
-Lou-
William Langston <l...@cei.net> wrote in message
news:dWd34.3$Is3.14...@typhoon.cei.net...
Charles G. White
> The US forces have executed similar attacks;
> Pershing's raid into Palo Duro Canyon jumps to my mind here. The two
> are similar in many respects: all of the Commanches were asleep, the
> attack came as a complete surprise, the primary objective, which was
> accomplished, was to capture all or most of the Commanche's horses.
Steve, it was not Pershing. It was Col. Ranald Mackenzie who led the raid
into Palo Duro Canyon. The Commanche was essentially defeated when
Mackenzie killed 1,400 of their horses. However, take note that the Army
afterwards killed another 2,000 Commanche horses North of Fort Sill. A
major oversight was the smell that emanated over to Fort Sill.
Steven W. Smith
<pis...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Steve;
> This is one subject that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> To even
> imply that the Japanese were in any sense "honorable" is totally
> ludicrous(sp). Aside from the attack on us, with whom we were in
> negotiations, what about their conduct in China. Dont even attempt
> to bring
> up the Nazi's. Today is not the time to be a "2 legged spoon"
> Regards
> Bob
Sir;
Sometimes you can have your cake and sometimes you can eat your cake;
you just can't do both at the same time with the same cake.
Bombing an adversary's war ships is not a dishonorable act for a
warrior. The Japanese people, like any other people, are capable of
both extremes of behavior. I'll have to admit that my knowledge of
history is poor wrt Japanese conduct in China; the little that I know
would suggest that it would be an intractable position to try to defend
it.
Similarly, I'm not an apologist for the Nazis, although (and I'm about
to open a can of worms on this one) the behavior of the Jewish people
during the worldwide depression of the 1930s may have contributed to
their rise to power.
As to the negotiations: the US position in these was to appeal to the
Japanese to be reasonable and to do it our way. The Japanese position
was symmetrical. War between the US and Japan was probably inevitable;
we should have sunk the Japanese fleet first. I wouldn't be wringing
my hands over how nasty we were to bomb *their* war ships! In fact, we
*did* bomb them. (Hiroshima... remember?) I'm not knocking it! Heck,
if they'd developed the A-bomb first, then we could have kissed LA
goodbye.
Buck
If he wasn't sticking his finger in someone's eye, he wouldn't know he was
alive.
I don't have a handy reference on the Indian Wars, but I'm fairly confident
that these Comanches already knew that they were "on the mattresses" with
the Army. The Empire of Japan knew they were giving the big "Wake Up" to the
U.S.Forces. (And later, of course, expressed horror at our reaction to it.
Their feeling being that if we'd read some history, we would have known that
they ALWAYS surprise attack because, "we are so small and our enemies are so
big. You should have known we always do this. You don't have the right to be
so pissed off!" "Yeah, right Mr. Sato. Shut up! Have Mama-san get me a beer,
and where's your daughter?"
As to a "well educated and effective use of naval air power", the attack on
Pearl Harbor was a failure. They had three targets:(1)The American carrier
force, (2)The American battleships, (3)The fixed naval support installations
at Pearl Harbor.
The carriers weren't there, they got a large piece of the battlewagons (Only
one of which was never refloated.), and did almost no damage to the naval
support facilities (the important stuff being all of the fuel storage and
handling capacity and the dry-docks.)
That carrier force sent most of theirs to the bottom six months later,
almost to the day. Historians say that the Battle of Midway decided the War
in the Pacific (though it didn't conclude for three more years, the outcome
was decided.), and was one of the two battles of WWII that changed history.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was absolutely a strategic and political disaster
for Japan.
On a somber note, something I am deeply touched by is the fact that as the
veterans of the day of infamy pass on, many are having their ashes taken
down by divers into the hull of the old Arizona, so they can finally rest
with their shipmates. Those fellows have lived with it for so very, very
long. I know some of what they feel.
Regards,
Buck
William Langston wrote in message ...
>Arrggggggg! Shit! You just LOVE being the Devil's Advocate don't you, or
>Socrates? I am also somewhat that way but I have the presence of mind to
>know when things are best left for a later time, something of which you
>don't seem to have a clue about. Remember the distasteful comments before
>the bodies were cold on the Aggie thing? Why don't you wait a bit on these
>controversial issues? I have this picture of you sitting at your terminal
>with a wicked grin on your face with each one of the provocative posts.
>
>Screw you, respectively of course, Bill Langston.
>
>
>Steven W. Smith <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
>news:09920fb9...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
>| In article <s4q7g8d...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles G. White"
>| <whit...@abanet.org> wrote:
>| > The day which will live in infamy!
>|
>| While far be it from me to denigrate the United States or the men and
>| women who serve, one does have to admit that the attack was a well
>| executed and effective use of naval air power. Don't forget that WWII
>| had been in progress for nearly three years or more... depending on
>| what you call the start of it. Some writers claim that WWI was never
>| finalized. Others point to the economic collapse of Germany.
>| Whatever, the US had been waging an economic war with Japan for at
>| least a year.
>|
>| It's certainly infamous from a US perspective, however, battleships are
>| a valid military target. The US forces have executed similar attacks;
>| Pershing's raid into Palo Duro Canyon jumps to my mind here. The two
>| are similar in many respects: all of the Commanches were asleep, the
>| attack came as a complete surprise, the primary objective, which was
>| accomplished, was to capture all or most of the Commanche's horses.
>|
>| Remember also that, prior to that day, naval air power was pretty much
>| theory. The men who flew off of those carrrier decks didn't know that
>| they would be successful; no precedent existed. There would have been
>| a whole different outcome had the US ships suddenly steamed out of the
>| mist just as they were launching their aircraft and every pilot knew
>| that.
>|
>| Thus, I salute all of the men and women who served their respective
>| countries honorably.
>|
Charles G. White
> The attack on Pearl Harbor was absolutely a strategic and political
disaster
> for Japan.
It was literally "kicking the sleeping dog" -- not very smart -- in fact the
dumbest thing that they ever did -- and who was it that called that
"brilliant strategy"?
Bill Clarke
Charles G. White wrote in message ...
Bill Clarke
F Troop, 17th Cav
>
Bill Clarke
Yeff wrote in message <82jurh$qg7$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>
>sue for peace and to cede Asia to the Asians (the Japanese).
>
I don’t think the other Asians thought too much of Japan’s “Asia to the
Asians” propaganda. Not when they started getting their heads chopped off
anyway.
Bill Clarke
VBede1 wrote in message <19991207163442...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>Although the attack was completely unhonorable and devious I do admire the
>people of Japan for owning up to their acts after the war.
>
I might have missed something but I think Japan has blacked out and
sanitized that part of their history much less owning up to their acts. And
then there is the matter of the “comfort girls”, the rape of Nanking and
their POW camps, none of which they have ever “officially” apologized for.
Everyone seems to like to talk about atrocities and I say they should study
the conduct of Japan from China to the Philippines. They made Calley look
like a nice guy and my Uncles that served in the Pacific will hate them to
their dying day.
Bill Clarke
F Troop, 17th Cav
PS; Not so long ago I believe that there was some apology from Japan about
the comfort girls. Can’t remember right now.
Steven W. Smith
<whit...@abanet.org> wrote:
> Steve, it was not Pershing. It was Col. Ranald Mackenzie who led
> the raid
> into Palo Duro Canyon. The Commanche was essentially defeated when
> Mackenzie killed 1,400 of their horses. However, take note that
> the Army
> afterwards killed another 2,000 Commanche horses North of Fort
> Sill. A
> major oversight was the smell that emanated over to Fort Sill.
Ooooh nooooooo! No! It can't be!
Crap!
Yes, indeed, it was Mackenzie (although, I'm not certain you're
spelling his name correctly. I'm done with my nose rubbing for now!)
who assaulted Palo Duro. Let's see: a Commanche rading party attacked
a supply train near Ft. Richardson (Jacksboro, TX) where Gen. Mackenzie
happened to be visiting. They picked up the trail and (to vastly over
simplify) followed them to Palo Duro.
Whenever we travel to Lawton, we nearly always camp at Ft. Richardson.
I have followed Gen. Mackenzie's route to Palo Duro... how did I say
Pershing?
I didn't say that! It was someone else posing as "Smith", that's it!
It's all Dino's fault!
Smith
P.S. Next summer, we'll be traveling through the area and up for a Palo
Duro visit. We're on our way to Seattle. If you'll be around. we'll
look you up.
Steven W. Smith
<rfea...@prairieweb.com> wrote:
> Thank you, William, it came out much gentler when you said it!<G>
> -Lou-
If *that's* what you call "gentle", Lou, then I'm glad we're not queer
lovers!
Smith
Steven W. Smith
dt1...@aol.com (DT1942) wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, he once in a while comes up with some comment
> that makes
> everyone ask, "Did he say that? Damn!"
It was my evil twin, Skippy!
> A lot of guys were furious
> with him when
> he invited Ted (on Ted's 60th birthday as I recall) to meet him at
> the gym for
> a punchup. Overlooked is the fact that Smith's offer was preceded
> by Ted's
> description of the punch sequence he favored.
And quite a few other things as I recall. But, hey! Why reopen
finished business? I sincerely apologized to Mr. Gittenger and
everyone else. It's a dead issue. Over! It won't happen again!
dave gaither
Bill Clarke wrote in message ...
Bill
I dont believe they ever "apologized" for any of it. Might be wrong but I
dont think so. Dad loathed them till his death last year.
Dave
A 1/52
William Langston
American military veterans. We don't all agree with everything, that's
obvious as hell but we have a 'general' mindset that we all agree on. Even
Dino as warped as his thinking can be sometimes, is in general agreement
with most of the things we talk about.
My point was not about the subject matter it was about the timing of the
thing. Timing is everything. Both of the last two issues could be brought up
and discussed but not at the time they were. Jeeze, no wonder you go in
trouble in the Army!
Now before anybody else points out some screw up of mine, sure I'll even
admit it in advance, don't waste the paper. I'm very, very far from perfect,
but I don't do it over and over again with the frequency Steve does.
Steve, I think what this newsgroup means to most of us and what it means to
you are diametrically opposed viewpoints. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how it
looks to me. Now that's a subject that might have good timing! (I wish I had
an interrobang on my keyboard)
Yours truly, Bill Langston.
Steven W. Smith <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:283beef1...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
| Hey, Bill;
|
| Isn't a discussion group supposed to provoke the participants to think?
|
| If I trot out some half-baked idea, then blow it out of the water.
|
William Langston
going on today and the sadness for many people and that tomorrow or the next
day would be a better time. I agree with you, Steve is thought provoking at
times, I have said before that he's interesting to listen to. What I'm
actually trying to do is to keep him from fucking up so much so maybe he
will be better received here. Lot's of the men here are far less generous to
him than I am. Most of the things that he says don't bother me but I know
damn well they bother others quite a bit.
Maybe I'm trying to do too much and am stepping out of my place. If that's
the case I apologize, after all we are all civilians now and I can tell Wild
Bill to get screwed and not have to worry about my career! (G) (Just kidding
Bill C., using you as a quick example, maybe Colonel Joe would be a better
one)
SF, Bill Langston.
DT1942 <dt1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991207162104...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
| I remember when I was taking a World History class and read that during
the war
| between Japan and Russia in (I think) 1903, the inept Russian fleet sailed
into
| the very narrow Strait of Tsushima. The Japanese artillery was able to
destroy
| the entire Russian fleet with direct fire, resulting in Russia, despite
its
| vast size and resources, having to sue for peace.
| It was one of those epiphany moments for me, a forehead-slapper. "Holy
shit!
| That explains Pearl Harbor." Obviously, their thinking was that if they
could
| destroy our Pacific fleet, we would have to sue for peace, taking us out
of the
| war in the East.
|
| And Bill, I don't see a thing wrong with what Smith wrote. He went out of
his
| way to be respectful to the servicemen who lost their lives there. His
post was
| not in any way outrageous.
|
| I find Smith to be the most intelligent and entertaining poster here at
this
| time. Unfortunately, he once in a while comes up with some comment that
makes
| everyone ask, "Did he say that? Damn!" A lot of guys were furious with him
when
| he invited Ted (on Ted's 60th birthday as I recall) to meet him at the gym
for
| a punchup. Overlooked is the fact that Smith's offer was preceded by Ted's
William Langston
classified any more but we had broken the Japanese code and knew the attack
was coming and that it would be at either Midway or Pearl. We did not have
the network that I worked under and the message sat in the Western Union
(coded, of course) office for something like 12 hours (I believe) before
being delivered. There was also a rivalry going on at that time between the
services and one of them (can't remember which) did not let the other know
in a timely manner. It's a fascinating story actually, I wish I could point
you to somewhere on the net to read it.
SF, Bill Langston.
BobS <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:384D8427...@hotmail.com...
|
| It was definitely a surprise to the men at PH,
| But was it a Surprise to Roosevelt or Churchill ?
| bOb
|
William Langston
sleeping dragon. How right he was.
SF, Bill Langston.
Charles G. White <whit...@abanet.org> wrote in message
news:s4r7jci...@corp.supernews.com...
William Langston
Yours, Bill Langston.
Steven W. Smith <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:2a1814d4...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
| In article <82jv5...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Lou Redmond"
| <rfea...@prairieweb.com> wrote:
| > Thank you, William, it came out much gentler when you said it!<G>
| > -Lou-
|
| If *that's* what you call "gentle", Lou, then I'm glad we're not queer
| lovers!
|
Steven W. Smith
<Buck_W...@HotMail.Com> wrote:
> Bill,
> If he wasn't sticking his finger in someone's eye, he wouldn't
> know he was alive.
You got *that* right!
> I don't have a handy reference on the Indian Wars, but I'm fairly
> confident that these Comanches already knew that they were "on the
> mattresses" with the Army.
Somebody should have told the Commanches that.
> The Empire of Japan knew they were giving the big "Wake
> Up" to the U.S.Forces.
[...]
> "Yeah, right Mr. Sato. Shut up! Have Mama-san get
> me a beer, and where's your daughter?"
She's not in right now and we're out of beer. Have a 1,000 Kilo bomb,
instead.
> As to a "well educated and effective use of naval air power",
"...well *executed*..."!
> the attack on Pearl Harbor was a failure. They had three >
targets:(1)The American carrier
> force, (2)The American battleships, (3)The fixed naval support
> installations at Pearl Harbor.
Yes, they failed to get the carrier force. That was just bad luck for
the Japanese. If the carrier force had been there, they'd have been
sitting on the bottom of Pearl Harbor with the battleship fleet and we
may well have been eating sushi! They didn't get the submarine pens,
either. Heck, they only had so many bombs. The pilots put them where
they thought that they'd do the most good.
Everybody thought in terms of battleships in those days. Even the
carrier people saw themselves in a support role.
> The carriers weren't there, they got a large piece of the
> battlewagons (Only one of which was never refloated.),
The Oklahoma and the Arizona were never put back into service. It has
to do more than "float".
[ discussion of Midway snipped. Different battle, you know. ]
> The attack on Pearl Harbor was absolutely a strategic and
> political disaster for Japan.
Yeah, I just *hate* it when I sink my enemy's whole Pacific fleet in
two hours! Think how much better off Japan would have been had we had
all of those ships and men!
> On a somber note, something I am deeply touched by is the fact
> that as the
> veterans of the day of infamy pass on, many are having their ashes
> taken
> down by divers into the hull of the old Arizona, so they can
> finally rest
> with their shipmates.
On a serious note: may they rest in peace! May they be forever honored!
Those fellows have lived with it for so
> very, very
> long. I know some of what they feel.
And to you, too... peace! And honor, of course.
> Regards,
> Buck
Mokieman
"Steven W. Smith" <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> Yes, they failed to get the carrier force. That was just bad luck for
> the Japanese. If the carrier force had been there, they'd have been
> sitting on the bottom of Pearl Harbor with the battleship fleet and we
> may well have been eating sushi! They didn't get the submarine pens,
> either. Heck, they only had so many bombs. The pilots put them where
> they thought that they'd do the most good.
Pretty bold assumption, the flat tops would have had a radar fix on them
incomming, our carriers may have sustained some real damage, but I doubt
that the zero's would have found a place to land either. It would have
decided the out come much earlier, alot of people assume that because they
caught us flatfooted in the peacful harbour, that would have been the case
with the carriers at sea, I totaly doubt that.
It seems I remember reading a series of comuiniques between the Japanese
Fleet and there command what they really wanted was the carrrier groups, but
they decided that looking for the carrier groups would surely end any kind
of suprise that they had at Pearl Harbour, they knew they couldn't sneak up
on the groups like they could a sleepy island.
The first inbound bombers were mistaken for some training flights from the
mainland.
If it would have happened that way I don't think they would or could have
sunk a single naval vessel. It's a rather uneducated mind, militarily that
would think our carriers would have ended up on the bottom. No way, the
first scout planes and those carriers would have emptied there decks in an
attempt to find and destroy what would and could have only been considered
hostile forces.
VBede1
I wasn't trying to defend the Japanese. I am wrong...my comment I wrote did
not come out to well. What I meant was that I admire them for renouncing war,
and saying "never again." Of course this wouldn't have happened had they not
lost the war, and perhaps it really stems from shame instead of remorse. But
either way I see it as positive. Sorry about the error. I stand corrected. I
will do some extra PT for this one.
Jeff
p.s. in listing Japanese atrocities the one that always gets to me is the use
of plague bacillus in China. Not only is that a horrid way to die, but it was
used indiscriminately against civilians who had no idea they had even been
exposed.
BobS
I just saw a program on where many people
who were directly involved with receiving and
breaking the code . I didn't really want to post
all of it , and in fact I will wait a little , because
I do believe in timing. However it seems there was
a lot more than 12 hours notice.
bOb
BobS
The Japanese knew that war with us was inevitable.
They wanted all of SE Asia and with Guam and the Philippines
as our possessions we were in there way. They new because
of our industrial base that the only chance they had was to
knock us out quickly i.e. surprise attack.
The Japanese in general treated their soldiers not
much better . Witness the fact that their pilots flew without
parachutes because to surrender was a disgrace, also kamikaze
attacks in which 1000s died were routine . Can you imagine
being told to take your plane and crash it into some ship
Life was a lot less important to the Japs ,to surrender a disgrace
to die in combat honorable and expected . Because of that they
had no respect for POWs and treated them brutally.
bOb
Bill Clarke wrote:
> VBede1 wrote in message <19991207163442...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
> >Although the attack was completely unhonorable and devious I do admire the
> >people of Japan for owning up to their acts after the war.
> >
> >Jeff
>
Steven W. Smith
wrote:
> The Japanese knew that war with us was inevitable.
> They wanted all of SE Asia and with Guam and the Philippines
> as our possessions we were in there way. They new because
> of our industrial base that the only chance they had was to
> knock us out quickly i.e. surprise attack.
> The Japanese in general treated their soldiers not
> much better . Witness the fact that their pilots flew without
> parachutes because to surrender was a disgrace, also kamikaze
> attacks in which 1000s died were routine . Can you imagine
> being told to take your plane and crash it into some ship
I heard that the first "Kamikaze" was am American pilot who
deliberately crashed into a Japanese ship. Damn. now I'm going to have
to go look something up!
Steven W. Smith
<ancien...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Pretty bold assumption,
Yes it is; I'm aware of that fact. Wasn't there a (really bad) movie
made once where a modern carrier goes back in time?
[...]
> the first scout planes and those carriers would have emptied there
> decks in an
> attempt to find and destroy what would and could have only been
> considered
> hostile forces.
I didn't think that an aircraft can take off from a WWII carrier
sitting in the harbor. I agree that one cannot intelligently make a
blanket statement about what would have happened.
Now, if Eleanor Roosevelt had been there... , further, if she could
have flown...
Bill Clarke
William Langston wrote in message ...
>
>Yours, Bill Langston.
>
>
on the ng and I salute you for being the peacemaker you are. Hell, I
believe you could have rode in F Troop.
Bill Clarke
William Langston wrote in message ...
>the case I apologize, after all we are all civilians now and I can tell
Wild
>Bill to get screwed and not have to worry about my career! (G) (Just
kidding
>Bill C., using you as a quick example, maybe Colonel Joe would be a better
>one)
>
>SF, Bill Langston.
>
>
No sweat Marine. That’s OK coming from a friend. Besides, a Lt. is much
more used to hearing “screw you” than a Colonel. One needs to be very
careful about telling a colonel “screw you”.
Bill Clarke
VBede1 wrote in message <19991208002212...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>Sorry about the error. I stand corrected. I
>will do some extra PT for this one.
>
>Jeff
>
Aw hell Jeff, we’re getting a little old for push-ups.
Al Zeller
"Steven W. Smith" wrote:
>
> In article <384E32AF...@hotmail.com>, BobS <rob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The Japanese knew that war with us was inevitable.
> > They wanted all of SE Asia and with Guam and the Philippines
> > as our possessions we were in there way. They new because
> > of our industrial base that the only chance they had was to
> > knock us out quickly i.e. surprise attack.
> > The Japanese in general treated their soldiers not
> > much better . Witness the fact that their pilots flew without
> > parachutes because to surrender was a disgrace, also kamikaze
> > attacks in which 1000s died were routine . Can you imagine
> > being told to take your plane and crash it into some ship
>
> I heard that the first "Kamikaze" was am American pilot who
> deliberately crashed into a Japanese ship. Damn. now I'm going to have
> to go look something up!
>
> Smith
Think that was Marine Major Lofton Henderson, for whom the air field on
Guadalcanal was named. But if I rememeber correctly, he didn't set out
to be a kamakazi, but when shot down rode it into a Japanese ship. A lot
different than waking up one morning and knowing you're going to jump
int a plane to commit suicide.
Al Zeller
Steven W. Smith
<zel...@nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
> > I heard that the first "Kamikaze" was am American pilot who
> > deliberately crashed into a Japanese ship. Damn. now I'm going
> > to have to go look something up!
> >
> > Smith
> Think that was Marine Major Lofton Henderson, for whom the air field
> on Guadalcanal was named. But if I rememeber correctly, he didn't set
> out to be a kamakazi, but when shot down rode it into a Japanese
> ship. A lot different than waking up one morning and knowing you're
> going to jump int a plane to commit suicide.
> Al Zeller
Hey, Mr. Zeller;
That sounds like what I read.
I would think that the Kamikazis were somewhat over rated as a
weapon... just speculating here, mind you. I would expect that a
delayed fuse bomb would do more damage to the ship's structural
integrity since it would tend to penetrate better where as the aircraft
wouldn't have enough mass. History, it seems, would tend to support
that idea, since no ships were actually sunk by Kamikazis.
I'm curious what the hit ratio was for Kamikazis; i.e. did they have
any better accuracy than the dive bombers? The point being that I can
practice dive bombing until I become reasonably proficient at it; how
do you train suicide pilots? (Didn't Monty Python have a skit on that?)
Yeff
"Steven W. Smith" <swsmith...@delmar.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <82kjuv$lca$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Mokieman"
> <ancien...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Pretty bold assumption,
>
> Yes it is; I'm aware of that fact. Wasn't there a (really bad) movie
> made once where a modern carrier goes back in time?
"The Final Countdown".
They caught one of the F-14's almost pancaking into the
ocean in real life when it was playing slap-n-tickle with
that Japanese Zero.
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Al Zeller
"Steven W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Hey, Mr. Zeller;
>
> That sounds like what I read.
>
> I would think that the Kamikazis were somewhat over rated as a
> weapon... just speculating here, mind you. I would expect that a
> delayed fuse bomb would do more damage to the ship's structural
> integrity since it would tend to penetrate better where as the aircraft
> wouldn't have enough mass. History, it seems, would tend to support
> that idea, since no ships were actually sunk by Kamikazis.
>
I think you're wrong on this point. The intial attacks were made on the
Navy in the Philippines in late 1944. Their success lead to the massive
attacks on ships around Okinawa from April of 45 onward. I don't have
the numbers here, but if I remember correctly the total number of sunken
ships was a couple of dozen, with many more damaged.
I believe you're mostly correct about the bomb causing the major damage,
but the ignition of the avegas was no small contributer.
> I'm curious what the hit ratio was for Kamikazis; i.e. did they have
> any better accuracy than the dive bombers? The point being that I can
> practice dive bombing until I become reasonably proficient at it; how
> do you train suicide pilots? (Didn't Monty Python have a skit on that?)
>
> Smith
>
Don't know what the hit rate was, either. It's a little hard to know
exactly since a lot of planes were shot down long before the got near
enough to dive. So which one was a kamakazi and which was just a
standard bomber?
Al Zeller
Herb F.
true believers say "no," the conspiracy buffs say "yes." One can only
hazard an opinion.
We know that we had broke their code, but it is believed that all we
knew is that the fleet was at sea. Most books indicate that our Navy
expected that attack to fall on French Indochina or even the PI. I
don't think anyone at that time believed that those people who we
thought were little cross-eyed buck-toothed makers of junk to be sold in
America would dare attack us. You have to think 1940s.
The British were also monitoring their fleet movement, and some say they
warned us, other say no. Churchill would certainly have welcomed the
attack since it would drag us into the war. Roosevelt might have
welcomed the attack because he had already broken several neutrality
laws by giving the British 50 American destroyers etc.
So, did they know? I think Roosevelt probably had an inkling, and I
also think that he did not believe that the Japanese Navy could do much
damage. I suspect he let it happen, using it as a means to enter the war
in Europe as he had been wanting to do since 1939. I believe he expected
only nominal damage and a very minor loss of life. Again, this is just
an opinion so don't get bent out of shape.
Herb F.
his statement that naval aircraft was still a theory. I don't remember
exactly, but hadn't their already been a shallow water attack on naval
ships that was successful? I seen to remember it having been done
earlier, and I think by the Italians. I am not sure enough to argue
about it.
Steven W. Smith
<zel...@nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
> I think you're wrong on this point.
STOP THE PRESS!
> The intial attacks were made
> on the
> Navy in the Philippines in late 1944. Their success lead to the
> massive
> attacks on ships around Okinawa from April of 45 onward. I don't
> have
> the numbers here, but if I remember correctly the total number of
> sunken
> ships was a couple of dozen, with many more damaged.
Damaged, yes; sunk, no. I could be wrong. Can anyone name a ship
*sunk* by suicide divers?
> I believe you're mostly correct about the bomb causing the major
> damage,
> but the ignition of the avegas was no small contributer.
"It's OK! It's just a flare! It's only a flare! Get it outta here!"
[...]
> Al Zeller
see...@the.end
[snip]
> they have any better accuracy than the dive bombers?
I've wondered about this too. Never found anything definitive though.
> The point being that I can practice dive bombing until I
> become reasonably proficient at it; how do you train suicide
> pilots? (Didn't Monty Python have a skit on that?)
>
> Smith
Suicide planes were employed by a desperate navy. The idea was: flying
a plane into a target is easier to accomplish - and takes less time to
learn - than learning to lob a bomb. Especially very late in the war,
teenagers were taught the basics of flying and then turned loose, their
a/c packed with HE. Like I said, the Japs were desperate.
--
Michael
---
NOTE: Reply_To has been forged to foil SPAM.
Please reply via this NewsGroup.
BobS
The other day on The history channel they had a program
on called I believe "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor".Before the
attach on another part of the island intelligence agents were
intercepting messages from the japs. None of this information
was ever shared with the commanders in Pearl harbor. As
a matter of fact they were very careful not to let them find
out . According to this program Churchill absolutely knew
,maybe not the exact date but he knew because the English
had all the Jap codes cracked. The US had all the codes cracked
but one.
Maybe Roosevelt didn't know where we would be attacked
but our pacific fleet would have to have been high on the list.
Therefore why were the commanders at PH Never Warned
and let in on this intelligence!
This program was reporting this as FACT not Speculation.
They were corroborating it with intelligence officers and Officers
that were high up in the command while all this was taking place.
I found it Most Disturbing
"Herb F." wrote:
> an opinion so don't get bent out of shape.
Herb F.
warned the previous week, and a few weeks before that, etc. etc. There
had been a couple of false alarms, and like the "boy who cried wolf,"
the warnings get less urgent as time goes on.
I also suspect the fact that the Japanese had two envoys in Washington
on that very day talking peace might tend to mislead some of our
leaders.
And of course, the final answer, like it or not, is that climatic
conditions had made the radio signals OOS that day, and they had to send
the damn message by telegraph. It would seem to be one of those cases
where everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
BobS
I most certainly hope you're right . This program mentioned
nothing of any previous warnings etc. This program told the story
as fact . They also claimed that the commanders of PH were forced
to resign , but said they were TOLD they needed them to be scapegoats.
Much like the Kennedy assassination we will probably never know the
whole
story.
bOb
Ted Gittinger
William Langston wrote in message ...
>sleeping dragon. How right he was.
>
>SF, Bill Langston.
>
Admiral Yamamoto. A good man.
>
>Charles G. White <whit...@abanet.org> wrote in message
>news:s4r7jci...@corp.supernews.com...
>| Buck wrote in message
>| > The attack on Pearl Harbor was absolutely a strategic and political
>| disaster
>| > for Japan.
>|
Ted Gittinger
Steven W. Smith wrote in message
<071bb362...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>...
>In article <19991207162104...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
>dt1...@aol.com (DT1942) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Unfortunately, he once in a while comes up with some comment
>> that makes
>> everyone ask, "Did he say that? Damn!"
>
>It was my evil twin, Skippy!
>
>> A lot of guys were furious
>> with him when
>> he invited Ted (on Ted's 60th birthday as I recall) to meet him at
>> the gym for
>> a punchup. Overlooked is the fact that Smith's offer was preceded
>> by Ted's
>> description of the punch sequence he favored.
Quite so. But that message had nothing to do with Smif. I did not have him
in mind, as is indeed is usually the case. He chose this episode as a
window of opportunity to issue a challenge.
>
>And quite a few other things as I recall. But, hey! Why reopen
>finished business? I sincerely apologized to Mr. Gittenger and
>everyone else. It's a dead issue. Over! It won't happen again!
Well that's a load off.
As to the alleged apology, a quick survey of the memory banks does not come
up with same. Did I miss something? It is not a matter of heavy moment,
just curious.
Warm regards,
ted gittinger (not gittenger, but let it go)
>
>Smith
Ted Gittinger
Steven W. Smith wrote in message
>In article <384EA76F...@nscl.msu.edu>, Al Zeller
><zel...@nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think you're wrong on this point.
>
>STOP THE PRESS!
>
>> The intial attacks were made
>> on the
>> Navy in the Philippines in late 1944. Their success lead to the
>> massive
>> attacks on ships around Okinawa from April of 45 onward. I don't
>> have
>> the numbers here, but if I remember correctly the total number of
>> sunken
>> ships was a couple of dozen, with many more damaged.
>
>Damaged, yes; sunk, no. I could be wrong. Can anyone name a ship
>*sunk* by suicide divers?
[During the battle for Okinawa], Japanese suicide planes had inflicted
extensive damage on Nimitz' naval forces, sinking about twenty-five ships
and damaging nearly 165 more. . . ":
*Army Historical Series, American Military History* Maurice Matloff, General
editor. Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 522.
If you like, I can cite eyewitness accounts, from my brother-in-law, who was
an Aviation Radioman, 2d Class, aboard the USS San Jacinto, and who watched
the USS Franklin "taking it" at Okinawa. It didn't sink, btw. But the
casualties and damage were terrible.
Flip attitude and shooting from the hip noted.
Again. Yawn.
ted gittinger
Ted Gittinger
William Langston wrote in message ...
>classified any more but we had broken the Japanese code and knew the attack
>was coming and that it would be at either Midway or Pearl.
Bill, I had never heard that we knew anything that specific. Are you sure?
Warm regards,
ted
Ted Gittinger
"Climb Mt. Niitaka."
Right. Only, who knew what that meant?
FDR?
I'm willing to be convinced.
ted gittinger
BobS wrote in message <384EB49E...@hotmail.com>...
>> an opinion so don't get bent out of shape.
>
Ted Gittinger
Steven W. Smith wrote in message
>In article <s4r2r41...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles G. White"
><whit...@abanet.org> wrote:
>
>> Steve, it was not Pershing. It was Col. Ranald Mackenzie who led
>> the raid
>> into Palo Duro Canyon. The Commanche was essentially defeated when
>> Mackenzie killed 1,400 of their horses. However, take note that
>> the Army
>> afterwards killed another 2,000 Commanche horses North of Fort
>> Sill. A
>> major oversight was the smell that emanated over to Fort Sill.
>
>Ooooh nooooooo! No! It can't be!
>
It appears that it can indeed be so. Again
Who is keeping score? Never mind, it amounts to very little, in this case.
BobS
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> As I recall, the order to attack Pearl Harbor consisted of this message:
> "Climb Mt. Niitaka."
>
> Right. Only, who knew what that meant?
>
> FDR?
>
> I'm willing to be convinced.
>
> ted gittinger
>
Ted
Noone was suggesting that they knew the exact day that PH
would be attacked . What was pointed out that the British and
the US had broken most of the Japs codes and from interviews
of some of the intelligence officers and others, (I wish I had taped
this program so I could be more specific) a surprise attack wasn't
exactly a surprise . None of this intelligence was ever relayed to
the commanders at PH, they were left completely in the dark even
though some in the know wanted that information made available to them .
I must say this documentary blew my mind .
It was either on the learning Channel or the History Channel 12/6/99
bOb
Also the reason they gave for Roosevelt not warning our fleet
was that he wanted us in the war but there was great resistance in
the US . PH certainly put that to rest
BobS
Kamikaze pilots actually were very unsuccessful
They were left wide open to be shot down ,which
they regularly were . Also by that point in the war
these pilots had no experience and were flying
planes not quite on the cutting edge.
bOb
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> Steven W. Smith wrote in message
BobS
Also I would like to make it clear
that this is not necessarily my opinion.
My opinion is I don't Know what to believe!
bOb
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> As I recall, the order to attack Pearl Harbor consisted of this message:
> "Climb Mt. Niitaka."
>
> Right. Only, who knew what that meant?
>
> FDR?
>
> I'm willing to be convinced.
>
> ted gittinger
>
> >> an opinion so don't get bent out of shape.
> >
Steven W. Smith
<te...@jump.net> wrote:
> Quite so. But that message had nothing to do with Smif.
I will attempt to spell your name correctly. When I fail in this, then
you may bring it to my attention.
> I did not have him
> in mind, as is indeed is usually the case.
I have made no secret of the fact that I simply do not believe you.
Why drag it out?
> He chose this episode as a
> window of opportunity to issue a challenge.
> >And quite a few other things as I recall. But, hey! Why reopen
> >finished business? I sincerely apologized to Mr. Gittenger and
> >everyone else. It's a dead issue. Over! It won't happen again!
> Well that's a load off.
I think everyone is happier for it. Let's leave it there.
> As to the alleged apology, a quick survey of the memory banks does
> not come up with same. Did I miss something?
Then I will reiterate. The fact that you're a jerk does not excuse my
boorish behavior. Therefore I apologize to you and to the rest of the
group for such action on *my* part. Whether Mr. Gittinger chooses to
do so or not, *I* will take the full responsibility for my own actions.
> It is not a matter of heavy moment, just curious.
> Warm regards,
Save them.
> ted gittinger (not gittenger, but let it go)
Your correction is noted. Please see my comment above wrt your similar
misspelling.
Steven W. Smith
<te...@jump.net> wrote:
> If you like, I can cite eyewitness accounts, from my
> brother-in-law, who was
> an Aviation Radioman, 2d Class, aboard the USS San Jacinto, and
> who watched
> the USS Franklin "taking it" at Okinawa. It didn't sink, btw.
> But the
> casualties and damage were terrible.
You are right. I am wrong. May we have no further communication? I
do not consider you to be an honorable person.
Smith
> ted gittinger
Steven W. Smith
<te...@jump.net> wrote:
> It appears that it can indeed be so. Again
> Who is keeping score? Never mind, it amounts to very little, in
> this case.
Mr. Gittinger;
I consider you as a person with which I refuse to hold dialog.
I prefer that this conversation would end.
Smith
Al Zeller
"Steven W. Smith" wrote:
> Hey, Mr. Zeller;
>
> That sounds like what I read.
>
> I would think that the Kamikazis were somewhat over rated as a
> weapon... just speculating here, mind you. I would expect that a
> delayed fuse bomb would do more damage to the ship's structural
> integrity since it would tend to penetrate better where as the aircraft
> wouldn't have enough mass. History, it seems, would tend to support
> that idea, since no ships were actually sunk by Kamikazis.
>
October 15, 1944: Jeep carrier St. Lo hit by Kamikaze, sent to bottom in
one half hour.
Dec. 7, 1944: Kamikazes penetrate air defenses and sink two destroyers
Jan. 2, 1945 Kamikazes sink escort carrier and destroyer.
Kamikazes sinking ships off Okinawa at the rate of 1.5 per day
From "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII":
"Kamikazes were the most serious threat to the safety of the fleet
during the war."
Ships sunk:
Escort carriers: 3
Destroyers: 13
Destroyer Escorts: 1
Minesweeps: 2
Other: 64
Total sunk: 83
Total damaged: 350
> I'm curious what the hit ratio was for Kamikazis; i.e. did they have
> any better accuracy than the dive bombers? The point being that I can
> practice dive bombing until I become reasonably proficient at it; how
> do you train suicide pilots? (Didn't Monty Python have a skit on that?)
>
> Smith
Also from "Dirty Little Secrets: "Altogether 3900 aircraft were expended
by the Japanese as Kamikazes." So the hit ratio was:
(83+350)/3900 = 11%
Al Zeller
William Langston
mistaken. Remember when I was so insistent to Dino and by damn he turned out
to be right, my wording was wrong!
It's possible that we just put what we knew together and determined that it
was going to be an attack. I seem to remember that not only were the
transmissions encrypted but the actual wording was cryptic as well.
No matter how I have my facts arranged Ted, it is an absolutely fascinating
story about the 'Purple Codes' and our preparations just before the start of
W.W.II. Maybe we can find something on the web about it, like I said, the
stuff is no longer classified.
SF, Bill Langston.
Ted Gittinger <te...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:82mtbo$gd1$1...@news.jump.net...
Steven W. Smith
scholarship.
William Langston
but I believe we did not know for sure if the attack would be Pearl, there
were interservice rivalries that hurt us and the notification was to the
Army and they were supposed to transmit to the Navy (This is both services
on the Island) and the simple SNAFU of the message laying around in the
Western Union office was critical.
I imagine that, just like so many other episodes that are not fully known by
everyone, this too has it's conspiracy buffs.
The British really deserve the lion's share for the entire industry that I
belonged to. They were the first, and we only came on stream later. The
Brits were absolutely top drawer and they never get the credit they deserve.
Nigel, I'm here to tell you publicly that your people were
in-fucking-credible when it came to codebreaking, without question!
SF, Bill Langston.
BobS <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:384EFFEE...@hotmail.com...
|
|
|
| Ted Gittinger wrote:
|
| > As I recall, the order to attack Pearl Harbor consisted of this message:
| > "Climb Mt. Niitaka."
| >
| > Right. Only, who knew what that meant?
| >
| > FDR?
| >
| > I'm willing to be convinced.
| >
| > ted gittinger
| >
|
William Langston
decline.
Thank you sir, and Semper Fi,
Bill Langston.
Bill Clarke <cla...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:_js34.4685$BS4.1...@newscene.newscene.com...
|
| William Langston wrote in message ...
| >Well Steve, I tried!
| >
| >Yours, Bill Langston.
| >
| >
| You have tried and tried again, not only with Mr. Smith but other
flare-ups
| on the ng and I salute you for being the peacemaker you are. Hell, I
| believe you could have rode in F Troop.
|
| Bill Clarke
| F Troop, 17th Cav
|
|
|
|
Nigel N. Brooks
EMUFP HZLRF AXYU SDJK ZLDKR NSHGN FIVJY
YQTQU XQBQV YUVLL TREVJ YQTMK YRDMF
FPJU DEEHZ WETZY VGWHK KQETG FQJNC
GWHKK?
Regards
Nigel
William Langston" <l...@cei.net> wrote in message news:4_E34.28
VBede1
>
>Bill Clarke
>F Troop, 17th Cav
Well, some of us, sir. Some here are still in their 20s <g>.
Jeff
Buck
Tom Lanphier, a Stanford man, got him.
Isoroku Yamamoto was aghast that the Declaration of War was handed to
Cordell Hull by Ambassador Nomura about thirty or forty minutes after the
first bomb went in.
If it had been handed to him right AS the first bomb went in (or possibly
they planned it for five minutes ahead), it would have been OK with
Yamamoto. That was the original plan, and Yamamoto knew about it.
Yamamoto could have spent ten years at Harvard, and he still wouldn't have
understood the gravity of what they had done.
Now, of course, things may be different.
If a like attack were to occur, with a similar Declaration of War, I'm sure
Mister Clinton would demand that Congress should immediately pass a
'strongly worded' Declaration of Negotiations!
Buck
Ted Gittinger wrote in message <82ms7g$g5c$1...@news.jump.net>...
>
>William Langston wrote in message ...
Lou Redmond
an SK1 on the USS San Pablo, a DE. It was hit and sunk in Leyte Gulf,
refloated and sunk again off Okinawa both times by Kamikazes.
Someone asked earlier about the Italian raid. It was at Taranto by the
Brits - effectively put the Italian Navy out of action for some 6 months.
As to whether Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the attack. There was a
lot of information being fed to the US Intel assets from about September
1941 to just before the PH attack that was conflicting at times. The
program the other night barely touched on the information being passed to
both the US and UK by the Dutch which tended to put the main Japanese fleet
on a southerly course heading for SE Asia/Java, etc. I believe the first
messages to put PH on a "war footing" were sent out on something like
November 9th, and then several times after that up to a week before the
actual attack. The HI's were on and off alert for the entire month before
the attack. When the full story is looked at, it appeared that there may
actually be two Japanese fleets steaming out of Japan at the same time.
From the information from both the Dutch Intel assets and British at
Singapore (I believe), it appeared that the larger of the two fleets was
steaming south. There was a lot of confusion from the radio intercepts at
the time, added to the confusion as Bill L. stated, that not only were the
messages themselves encrypted, but the text of those messages was cryptic.
From watching the program the other day, it seemed that although what was
presented was pretty accurate, not all of the story was be presented. Only
that part of the story that dealt with the producers agenda seemed to be
getting a large play. Everything else that could have shown other
possibilities was kind of glossed over if it was addressed at all. Anyhow,
JMHO.
-Lou-
Al Zeller <patz...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:384f1490$0$80...@news.voyager.net...
Al Zeller
Lou Redmond wrote:
>
> Seems to be a discrepancy here, Al. My step-father, Francis J. Dieter, was
> an SK1 on the USS San Pablo, a DE. It was hit and sunk in Leyte Gulf,
> refloated and sunk again off Okinawa both times by Kamikazes.
>
Gee, Lou, how do you score that anyway? Was it one or two sunk? Since I
don't have clue about the difference between a destroyer and a DE, maybe
the author didn't either.
Also need to correct the percentage of success: 83 and 350 were the
number of ships sunk and damaged, but some ships were hit more than
once. One destroyer was hit 6 times and survived, so the actual success
rate may have been a lot higher than 11%.
Al
William Langston
know the airspeed velocity of an coconut laden, African swallow! (G)
SF, Bill Langston.
Nigel N. Brooks <nbroo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObuPqrkQ$GA.220@cpmsnbbsa04...
Bill Clarke
William Langston wrote in message ...
I
>decline.
>
>Thank you sir, and Semper Fi,
>
>Bill Langston.
>
>
Semper Fi,
Bill Clarke
Buck wrote in message ...
>Now good and dead!
>
>Now, of course, things may be different.
>
>If a like attack were to occur, with a similar Declaration of War, I'm sure
>Mister Clinton would demand that Congress should immediately pass a
>'strongly worded' Declaration of Negotiations!
>
>Buck
>
>
meant it by god!
Nigel N. Brooks
http://www.nai.com/asp_set/products/tns/pgp_freeware.asp
Nigel Brooks
"Bob (RS)" <pis...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:d3dv4ssd80bvjflss...@4ax.com...
> Nigel;
> Have you ever been to Symantec's sight and looked at a program called
> "Secret Stuff" it's a freebee encryption program you can download. This
> address should take you right to it. Pretty cool for small stuff.
> Regards
> Bob
>
http://www.symantec.com/ns-search/region/uk/product/nss/fs_nss.html?NS-sear
ch-set=/384fb/aaatYPXh_4fb61b&NS-doc-offset=1&
Steven W. Smith
<cla...@livingston.net> wrote:
> Or our chicken shit CIC might have told Yamamoto to suck my &. ,
> and really meant it by god!
> Bill Clarke
> F Troop, 17th Cav
That positively *reeks* of disrespect!
William Langston
to use it yet. Nice to know it's there tho. (G)
SF, Bill Langston.
P.S. I think if you want it, you can get it from the Finnish site with the
highest level of encryption.
Nigel N. Brooks <nbroo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eqW2B9lQ$GA.255@cpmsnbbsa04...
Bill Clarke
Steven W. Smith wrote in message
>
>That positively *reeks* of disrespect!
>
>Smith
>
>
DT1942
eliminated. When the lady who was giving me my walking papers entered the date,
I noticed that it was December 7, 1989. Reacting to the date and Roosevelt's
famed description of it, I muttered "A day that will live in infamy."
The lady looked up with an obviously forced smile and said, "You weren't THAT
bad."
Dave Travis
Herb F.
original concept was one plane - one ship. I thought that I had read
that in fact it was something like 100 aircraft to sink a ship, but it
would seem to be about half that amount.
We should also mention that all the pilots were not ordered to kamikaze
squadrons. There were many cases where they were, but numerous other
cases where brave patriotic young lads volunteered.
Finally, what about the German Kamikaze. Never heard of them? There were
a group of idealistic young German glider pilots who had volunteered to
fly bomb-laden FW190s into Allied ships on D-Day. This story came out
during the interrogation of Hanna Reitsch, the Nazi test pilot who flew
the V-1 rocket, cut barrage-balloon cables with r-enforced wings on a
fighter aircraft, and who was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler.
Willy Messerschmitt had designed a small test aircraft (ME-328) which
would be used to carry a 1000-pound bomb. That plan never came to
fruition, and teaching glider pilots to fly the FW-190s also was
unsuccessful. Hitler finally vetoed the entire project. Another
"what-if?" for the historians.
Herb F.
miracles at Bletchley (sp?) but they had a headstart. Polish
codebreakers had already built an enigma as I recall, and the British
started off with all the Polish data. The Americans came in after 1941
and I believe the British taught them the "ropes." The Poles get very
little credit and are the butt of many jokjes, but they even "kidnapped"
a fallen V1 under the noses of the Germans and got the data to England.
Herb F.
won't quibble. What is interesting about him is that after we broke the
code and knew what island he was inspecting, we sent a flight of P-38s
that were to "accidentally" run into him and shoot him down. The plan
was successful. He received a heroes burial and the Japanese never
caught on that we were reading their mail.
William Langston
tiny bit of that story too.
If you have a continuing source of information coming in, the last thing you
want to happen is for the folks to know you have figured them out, even if
this means you have to act in ways that end up with some of our guys getting
hurt. It depends on the 'grade' of the source. The hardest thing, in my
estimation, anyone in my field EVER had to do was to know beforehand about
something and not be able to effectively do anything about it because
'source' is too valuable overall. These are the things that give us the
'survivors guilt' that you bush troops feel.
I'm not trying to lead you guys on about me, I have no remembrance of
anything like that and it would not have been my job to do anything about it
anyway. It is true and it hurts and you can't tell a damn fuckin person
about it. All you end up doing is listening to people on the outside
guessing about what went on and getting it wrong most of the time.
SF, Bill Langston.
Herb F. <Be...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25520-384...@storefull-125.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Yeff
> Herb, therein you have touched on one of our BIGGEST problems. I remember
a
> tiny bit of that story too.
>
> If you have a continuing source of information coming in, the last thing
you
> want to happen is for the folks to know you have figured them out, even if
> this means you have to act in ways that end up with some of our guys
getting
> hurt.
Think I read in "The Puzzle Palace" that the Brit code-breakers knew the
Germans were going to attack Coventry and that's where their families
were staying. They couldn't move their families out for fear it would
show the Germans that Ultra had been compromised.
Anyone else hear this?
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Nigel N. Brooks
height of the blitz - the Germans were bombing the shit out of everything
they could reach. So to warn one particular city really wouldn't make too
much of a difference. I'm not too sure that decryption was instantaneous
either. I think it was more like having the ability to study traffic
decrypt it and make assumptions about events.
Nigel Brooks
"Yeff" <ye...@nospam.erols.com> wrote in message
news:82p4ja$jad$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
William Langston
when the Brits got the messages BEFORE the German troops did. They could
decode them faster than the Germans could at times. I believe that was
before the 4 rotor machine. Or was that 5 rotor? I think the CRS is kicking
in but the first part is true.
SF, Bill Langston.
Nigel N. Brooks <nbroo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Op0OkepQ$GA.305@cpmsnbbsa05...
Herb F.
of Coventry. Allegedly, Churchill knew from reading the German mail that
the massive air raid was coming. He had the choice of warning the
citizens and emptying the city, or protecting his source. Allegedly, he
chose the latter. In the light of the Allied victory, it would seem to
have been a good choice. It must have been very tough on Churchill, and
even tougher on the people of that city.
Nigel N. Brooks
November 1940. The following is a letter to the Observer by the author of
the book Churchill's War. Irving paints an unflattering picture of
Churchill.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ReadersLetters/Observer0989.html
Regardless, even if it is true it is highly unlikey that any warning would
helped due to the fact that the time was so short.
The other view I found is the popular one at
http://home.edu.coventry.ac.uk/cyberclass/blitz/BLITZ.HTM
Which is true? - judge for yourself, there is probably truth in both
accounts.Churchill after all was a politician, and they're basically all
cut from the same cloth (nuff said)
Nigel Brooks
"Herb F." <Be...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2902-385...@storefull-128.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Steven W. Smith
Recall the movie *Twelve O'clock High* about an allied raid deep into
Germany. (Swinefert? [sic] )
This happened just prior to the invasion when allied intelligence was
trying to convince the Germans of the existence of a fictitious unit
poised to strike the Northern coast. So that the enemy would believe
that they were receiving valid information, allied intelligence
deliberately discussed the details of the pending attack, then sent the
bombers directly into the alerted German air defenses exactly as
planned. Of course, the result was heavy bomber losses.
Is that story reasonably factual?