[ChronoReverse]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with the morale problem of the "dishonour".

I'm just stating that thinking that telling someone just before your fist connects with their face, "I challenge you to a duel!" isn't exactly "honourable".

What do I know?  It's just my own view and has no bearing at all on how the japanese thought back then.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Fergus
EDIT: also in response to Anon, it was very unlikely that Japan we even interested with the UK at this point.  Thier main concern was with Hong Kong and other Empire controlled areas.

Any blow to the American navy would've reduced their ability to defend British supply lines and expedited the fall of Great Britain, which in turn would've freed up Axis resources and allowed Hitler and Mussolini (and the Romanians and other backwater countries) to basically cut a swathe through Russia and China. And with the Royal Navy out of the way there'd be a ****load of German U-boats free to come help defend the Pacific. Combined, that would've allowed Japan free-run of the entire Pacific Ocean with hundreds of islands and neighbouring countries to invade as it pleased without fear of the sea routes being blockaded by Allied ships.

Basically, anything that weakened the American Navy would strengthen the Axis' position across the board. Unfortunately they failed to capitalize on the loss of the Pacific Fleet and underestimated the USA's industrial capacity.

[Gank]

Not really, Great Britain was never in danger of being invaded, Hitler dropped that plan in 1940 when it proved unfeasible to mount an amphibious invasion. After the BEF was routed in France he figured correctly that it'd be a good few years before the brits could muster up the forces to invade continental europe by which time he'd have dealt with Russia. German U-Boats didnt have the range to operate in the pacific anyways.  Besides Japan had quite a large submarine fleet themselves including some of the biggest boats at the time, including a few capable of carrying and launching planes. they were quite capable of conducting a similar campaign against US convoys in the pacific as the atlantic  but chose instead to use them against warships, with limited success.

[Clave]

I thought Japan had secured it's oil supply by invading Singapore?

But whatever...  Lets hope their ambitions stay limited to trade from now on eh?

Because you know the next time it would be some kind of nano-tech war, and it would be all over before George could push the button...

[Flipside]

Theres a little watermark on the circuitry between the Red Button and the Silo's, that Watermark is on the all the circuitry, and it says 'Made in Japan'.....

[aldo_14]

I think it says 'Made in Taiwan' nowadays; much cheaper

[Gank]

Mainland China mostly, much cheaper than Taiwan.

[Liberator]

I don't know which is more depressing and frightening, the fact that Red China is manufacturing several major weapons systems for Western powers, or the fact that we're letting them.

[Janos]

Or the fact we're selling weapons to them!

Even though it's bussiness, I don't like the idea of selling hi-tech weaponry to goddamn China. Even though it would propably benefit my own country, but **** it. **** it up the ass.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Gank
Not really, Great Britain was never in danger of being invaded, Hitler dropped that plan in 1940 when it proved unfeasible to mount an amphibious invasion.

The only reason for that was because the Nazi's believed the RAF to have seemingly unlimited numbers of fighters, when they were pretty much ****ed. Reducing the American Navy would've increased the superiority of the German Navy in the Atlantic, reduced British supply lines and made it impossible for the Americans to keep supplying the British with the supposed squadrons of new fighters that had prevented the initial invasion attempts during Operation Sealion.

After the BEF was routed in France he figured correctly that it'd be a good few years before the brits could muster up the forces to invade continental europe by which time he'd have dealt with Russia.

Moot.

German U-Boats didnt have the range to operate in the pacific anyways.  Besides Japan had quite a large submarine fleet themselves including some of the biggest boats at the time, including a few capable of carrying and launching planes. they were quite capable of conducting a similar campaign against US convoys in the pacific as the atlantic  but chose instead to use them against warships, with limited success.

A penny saved is a penny earned. For every U-boat defending a Japanese harbour, there'd be another Japanese submarine free to go cruising the Pacific.

[Gank]

Originally posted by an0n
The only reason for that was because the Nazi's believed the RAF to have seemingly unlimited numbers of fighters, when they were pretty much ****ed.

No it was because he didnt have the ships needed to mount an amphibious assault against the UK. He also didnt want to spare the manpower needed to take the island from his assault on bolshevik slav russia.

 

Originally posted by an0n
Reducing the American Navy would've increased the superiority of the German Navy in the Atlantic,  

The German navy never had anything approaching superiority in the Atlantic, in fact most of its ships were either sunk very early or hid in harbours.

Originally posted by an0n
reduced British supply lines and made it impossible for the Americans to keep supplying the British with the supposed squadrons of new fighters that had prevented the initial invasion attempts during Operation Sealion.

there were no initial invasion attempts, air attacks dont count as such. Neither did the US supply the UK with any substantial amounts of fighters in the early years of the war. Neither would fighter planes, designed for air to air combat have had any great influence in a ground invasion.

Originally posted by an0n
Moot.

like your whole argument?

Originally posted by an0n
A penny saved is a penny earned. For every U-boat defending a Japanese harbour, there'd be another Japanese submarine free to go cruising the Pacific.

U-Boats dont defend harbours.

[Clave]

You're letting facts get in the way of the argument...

[CmdKewin]

We all know that history is written by winners.  

Have you ever asked yourself on the real motives that made america react so quickly on the Pearl Harbor attack? And why in the world would 2/3 of the Pacific fleet be present at a given time in a single Harbour? And why would the only 3 ships in the whole U.S navy who could possibily have a chance to defeat the four JIN attack groups (the 3 carriers the U.S had in the Pacific at that time, the Lexington, the Saratoga and the Enterprise) be at large, really FAR away from Hawaii?....  Something that no one ever say, possibily in respect for all the victims (on all sides, both civilian and military), but it's become a personal belief lately.... i do seriously think that what the U.S needed after the 29's crack was a war. Nothing is better than a war to revive a degrading ecomomy. That's an historical fact: every major empire that as existed on earth has gone to war for that same reason, an the U.S where (and are) no different. They needed a war and they got one. A simple, but deadly equation.


p.s.: The Japanese invented the so called "Air-Power Combined Fleet" tactic. Not the U.S.
p.s.s: Never, never base your opinions on war films from the 50's. They are obviously Pro-American. In every sense.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Gank
No it was because he didnt have the ships needed to mount an amphibious assault against the UK. He also didnt want to spare the manpower needed to take the island from his assault on bolshevik slav russia.

He didn't have the resources to invade directly, that was the entire point of Operation Sealion's opening stages - to weaken Britain enough to make the invasion viable.

The German navy never had anything approaching superiority in the Atlantic

They would have if the Japanese had done their job, which was my point.

there were no initial invasion attempts, air attacks dont count as such.

The air attacks were to weaken the RAF, reduce the UK's ability to bomb the **** out of invading troop transports and destroy any hope of Great Britain being able to mount anything resembling a viable defence of England.

And as part of Operation Sealion, I class the air attacks as being part of the planned invasion.

Neither did the US supply the UK with any substantial amounts of fighters in the early years of the war.

....he says with hindsight.

Neither would fighter planes, designed for air to air combat have had any great influence in a ground invasion.

Are you dense? The only way to invade Britain would've been to have ****ed up all the infrastructure, destroyed bridges - basically bombed the **** out of us. Which is what they were trying to do. But the British fighters kept kicking the asses of all the bombers, which ****ed the attempts to destroy airfields, which resulted in massive Nazi bomber losses and few RAF fighter losses, which ****ed the attempts to pave the way for a ground invasion, which caused Hitler to go "**** it" and abandon plans to invade England.

The key to taking Britain is and always will be - maintaining air superiority. With control of the skies, the Nazis could bomb ships and troops at their leisure. The RAF denied them that.

The Luftwaffe resigned themselves to the 'fact' that the British were building and/or shipping in fighters faster than the Luftwaffe could destroy them and thus the entire invasion would be subject to the RAF pounding the **** out of the Nazi army.

U-Boats dont defend harbours.

Attacking the enemy is defending.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by CmdKewin
Have you ever asked yourself on the real motives that made America react so quickly on the Pearl Harbor attack?

Oh and the 1500+ plus dead and dying in Hawaii had nothing to do with it...

I love how people assume that the USA always has ulterior motives in everything they do.  There is such a thing as Right and Wrong and it's still something that children get taught in this country.  It was the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that caused the USA to join open hostilites in WW2.  We would've joined eventually anyway.  Most of the populace was more than willing to sit in the safety that the Atlantic provided...until the Japanese attack.

[CmdKewin]

I clarely stated that i respect all the deads from WW2. The fact his, that the US goverment needed a pretext to force the population to support the entrance in Europe's War. That's what I'm trying to say. They "put a bait", as you may want to call it, impossible for the Japanese to resist (remember they where already stressed by the resource embargo).


p.s.: Everyone has an hidden agenda. Even you and me, poor common people. And, i'm sorry, there's no other country as the U.S to prove that.

[Flipside]

Well, et's not say ulterior motives, let's instead say....

There is not a person in the world that will not try and get the best for themselves out of any situation.

I think that's possibly a more accurate description of what happened

[an0n]

The US government wanted to get into the war anyways. And I wouldn't rule out the massing of the ships in Pearl Harbour to have been the beginnings of an attack on Japan.

They simply used Pearl Harbour as a propaganda tool.

[Gank]

Originally posted by an0n
He didn't have the resources to invade directly, that was the entire point of Operation Sealion's opening stages - to weaken Britain enough to make the invasion viable.

Meh, you're partially right, the RAF did put up a good fight and it did put the germans off somewhat but there were a lot of other reasons it was cancelled. The german navy couldnt guarantee they would be able to defend the invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, the length of time needed to prepare the fleet would have interfered with Hitlers plans to invade russia, plus the fact that Hitler never wanted to invade anyways, he regarded the existence of the British Empire as a neccessity to the world. Anyways its all got jack **** to do with your original argument, the sinking of the US Pacific fleet would have had no effect on Hitlers plans for Britain, because he was off playing in Russia at the time, and we all know what happened there.

Originally posted by an0n
They would have if the Japanese had done their job, which was my point.

No they wouldnt Anon, the British had the german Navy effectively bet before the Pearl harbour attack, the US Pacific fleet had absoloutly nothing to do with it. the Royal Navy outnumbered the Kreigsmarine 10:1.

Originally posted by an0n
....he says with hindsight.

Umm, do you think the Germans were that stupid that they had no way of knowing the planes they were flying against were British made or not?

Originally posted by an0n
Attacking the enemy is defending.

You usually dont find the enemy in your own harbour.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Gank

Meh, you're partially right, the RAF did ............... the Kreigsmarine 10:1.

I'm totally ignoring all this as you're failing to grasp the simple concept of cause-and-effect in regards to deployment of forces.

Umm, do you think the Germans were that stupid that they had no way of knowing the planes they were flying against were British made or not?

So you can tell the size of a car's spark plugs by the colour of it's paint, can you?

And the Germans had no idea what the **** was going on. All they knew was that the Americans were shipping **** to the UK to help the war effort and the RAF seemed to have unlimited numbers of fighters.

You usually dont find the enemy in your own harbour.

No, because if you do, you've already lost the battle.

If they're out patrolling near the harbour, they're still defending it.

Like if you decided to come to my house and burn it to the ground, but I went to the end of the street and sat in a tree with a sniper rifle and waited for you to come around the corner, I'd still be defending my house from your hostile intentions.