US what do they teach you about WW2
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
The Battle of the Coral Sea and the Marianas Turkey Shoot were not the same thing.
yes, my bad.
the Phillipean (spelling?) sea was the arena of the turkey shoot.
the corral sea battle was between carriers.
sorry about that.
Fixed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your neurosis is showing.
Thanks for the laugh
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? Ships shot down a great many aircraft with naval guns.
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.
It's better than crying through your persecution complex, I guess.
LOL, I guess.
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.
@ 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.
Yeah.
And us Canadians used to snicker at the Germans' inability to handle the Russian winter. Imagine a tank with no block heater.