US what do they teach you about WW2

Discussion in 'History' started by Asguard, Jul 6, 2013.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    if you want to know something about naval battles then read up on the british sinking of the scarnhorst and bismark.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    The Battle of the Coral Sea and the Marianas Turkey Shoot were not the same thing.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, my bad.
    the Phillipean (spelling?) sea was the arena of the turkey shoot.
    the corral sea battle was between carriers.
    sorry about that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Fixed.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Naval aircraft were used during those battles but that doesn’t change the fact that those were naval battles fought by naval personnel. You have been told many times now that just because the technology of naval warfare changes it doesn’t mean that naval forces are not engaged in naval warfare when they use those technologies.

    If those battles were not naval battles as you contend, how do you explain the loss of 7 carriers and numerous cruisers, destroyers, and various other warships that were sunk in those battles? How do you explain the loss thousands of sailors during those battles while fighting on those ships? The battles at Midway and the Coral Sea were battles that unquestionably were fought at sea, and by definition, that means they were naval battles. That is why everyone with half a brain realizes and recognizes those battles as naval battles.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    wow this has wandered off topic, from a person saying that he thought the "world" in world war was 3 countries vs the US and having no idea who Churchill was to arguing about whether navy pilots are navy
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Well leopold started posting, so what else do you expect.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    if you are refering to me:
    first, WW2 involved almost all of the european counries and most of the asian, the only continents unaffected were south america and antarctica.
    second, i never said a word about navy pilots or their navy planes or their navy ships or their navy clothes or their navy customs.
    i said, listen veeeeeery carefully:
    the battles of the corral sea and midway were AIR BATTLES, they were not naval bombardments using navy destroyers.
    these 2 battles were fought with AIRCRAFT, not naval guns.
    it's that simple.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    9 months.
    day in, day out.
    hour after hour.
    the marines STILL took heavy losses, and how many japs were killed?
    less than 10% surrendered and most of those were captives, the rest had to be slaughtered in brutal fighting.
    my assessment is correct, the naval bombardment of iwo was almost 100% ineffective at neutralizing the enemy.
    carriers are part of the navy but in WW2 they weren't able to defend themselves very well.
    this was the reason for task forces, to group destroyers, mine sweepers, sub patrols, and carriers together to provide each other protection.
    uh, huh.
    maybe because todays technology is irrelevant to the events of WW2.
    maybe even rightfully called the queen of the seas, but the military might not like the queen idea.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, you are something else.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Gorlitz Iron Man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    This is correct as nations had stopped building battleships before the end of the second world war, aircraft carrier were indeed considered the new premier capital ships, it was considered that their ability to use aircratf meant their effective strike range would always be much greater than battleships limited by the range of their guns, which were now sitting ducks against enermy aircraft. Even during the start of the war battleships were an out dated concept, it just took the war to impress upon nations this fact.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Your neurosis is showing.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Thanks for the laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I see you haven't seen your psychiatrists yet. Is that neurosis compelling you to stalk me in an attempt to get in the last word? Oh, no, you are not neurotic?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,806
    Ships shot down a great many aircraft with naval guns.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    That's why carrier battles are considered to be naval battles. The ships are the targets and the aircraft are the weapons. Shooting down an enemy aircraft as he attacks your ship is the equivalent of destroying his gun batteries.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It's better than crying through your persecution complex, I guess.
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, I guess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    It was not until I was in my thirties through reading The Young Guard which led me to reading other material that I understood the major role of the Russians in WW2. In fact, all through high school history the Russians involvement was barely noted, what a crock of shit! Of course I went to public schools in the South, so go figure.:bugeye: Although this has nothing to do with WW2, I highly recommend Red Star Over China about the birth of the Communist Party in China.


    @ Geoff, My hubby has served in both Navy and Army and he was never called a soldier until he joined the Army. These two forces are as different as night and day in just about every way.
     
  22. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,233
    Those of us who attended school during the cold war probably didn't get a lot of info on the Russian involvement in WWII. My primary awareness came from Col Klink's fear of being shipped to the Russian front in Hogan's Heros.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    Yeah.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And us Canadians used to snicker at the Germans' inability to handle the Russian winter. Imagine a tank with no block heater.
     

Share This Page