Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on March 12, 2007, 12:23:20 AM
-
Posted this link in another thread in the O'club but thought some of you might be interested in it here
Looks like if they havent already. the Japaneese are comming out with a movie
IJN Battleship YAMATO UnOfficial Promotion Movie. (from Toei-Video)
Included historical pictures version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IGTmHNNco&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IGTmHNNco&mode=related&search=)
Watch it through,
Its worth it
-
Great site of info including pic's of her on the bottom... Yamato (http://www.battleshipyamato.info/)
-
I dunno... this might be a biased view, but to me it looks like more unapologetic reminiscing of the "conquering days" as if they hadn't commited some of the worst atrocities of the war.
But, I could be wrong.
-
Yeah that promo is a little sappy but just like every war movie you gotta watch it with a grain of salt and don't believe everything as fact.
-
Yeah it looks a bit :cry ish.
Unfortunately I dont understand what the dude is singing. I guess one can only make up one's mind if one knew what the lyrics are all about.
Until then it looks really a bit like a movie to press tears from those who cannot get over that Japan started a war and didnt win.
Could be entirely wrong on that.
OTOH, I always found the Yamato class to be an absolute engineering highlight of that age. Excellent fire control, guns, armor; optics quality which could rival the effectiveness of US radar firecontrol.
Regards,
Matt
-
The Yamato was indeed formidible...but it wasn't all that. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
-
There was a documentary on the National Geographic channel last year about the finding of the wreck. It was so tilted toward the poor Japanese and their brave fight against the nasty Americans that I had to quit watching it the first time it was on. They built the Yamato up but somehow failed to mention the Musashi at all.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I dunno... this might be a biased view, but to me it looks like more unapologetic reminiscing of the "conquering days" as if they hadn't commited some of the worst atrocities of the war.
But, I could be wrong.
Yea I guess NONE of them fought honorably for their country :rolleyes:
During war atrocities are commited by all sides.
Only the loosing side ever really tends to get highlighted
Just curious.
How many on the Yamato committed the atrocities of which you speak?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
The Yamato was indeed formidible...but it wasn't all that. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
Im not going to dispute those findings as being non factual in nature. II dont know
But who is the author of the webpage and what qualifies him as being an expert in the matter other then him reading a few books and asking a few peopleon the subject?
Something we all could do.
I gotta give him this much.
He writes a hell of a disclaimer ;)
-
Sounds like the Yamato fan club is disappointed :D I don't know of
any atrocities committed by the crew, but then they did get their butts
kicked by Taffy 3's DD and DEs :D
-
I nominate that clip for WORST music selection since the 9/11 Hijackers playing Britney Spears as they flew into the towers.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yea I guess NONE of them fought honorably for their country :rolleyes:
During war atrocities are commited by all sides.
Only the loosing side ever really tends to get highlighted
Just curious.
How many on the Yamato committed the atrocities of which you speak?
word
-
Originally posted by Rino
Sounds like the Yamato fan club is disappointed :D I don't know of
any atrocities committed by the crew, but then they did get their butts
kicked by Taffy 3's DD and DEs :D
and HO'n FM2s :D
-
Originally posted by Rino
Sounds like the Yamato fan club is disappointed :D I don't know of
any atrocities committed by the crew, but then they did get their butts
kicked by Taffy 3's DD and DEs :D
LMAO
Im not in any fan club so there is nothing to be dissapointed about.
Just seems like a good story. We all know how it ends just as we know how the movies "Tora Tora Tora" and "Midway" ends.
And why not hear the story as it was experienced from the other side?
Doesnt make the story any less interesting just "Das Boat" was a good story
I'd also be for a Band of Brothers type story as told from the Germans as well.
Doesnt mean I support them or feel bad for them.
But it would be interesting to hear how they experienced the war.
Really, some of you claim to be historians.
But true history cant be studied without studying the story of all sides without predjiduce, or bias. Without having contempt or compassion for any side and just learning.
Anything less is just half arsed
-
I'd rather see a movie that portrays the forces, even though once our enemy, as proud and confident, rather than the screaming buck toothed propaganda types they usually are in movies.
-
LOL
Filth
-
Drediock, my comments are based on a common perception that the Japanese as a culture are reluctant to admit they were in the wrong for any atrocities that occured during the war. There's a cultural sense of racial superiority and bias against "outsiders" -- and like I said, I could be wrong but this promo clip just feels like more of the same.
-
What? no wave motion cannon? I think I'll pass....
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yea I guess NONE of them fought honorably for their country :rolleyes:
During war atrocities are commited by all sides.
Only the loosing side ever really tends to get highlighted
Just curious.
How many on the Yamato committed the atrocities of which you speak?
Fair questiona all -- but ignoring the differences between nations' treatment of prisoners and subjects is more "open minded" than honest. And outright lies love the opportunity to hide behind the banner of fairness.
Would any honest student of history argue that the allies had a Buchenwald or and Auschwitz? When "open minded" revisionists claim each country was the same, maybe citing the (absolutley unjust) Japanese american detention camps, it's like spitting in the eyes of those who went to the ovens. There is no comparison, none at all.
And that's true for the brutality of Japan's leadership cadre during the war. Read Prisoners of the Japanese. Read about the 200,000 women enslaved by the Japanese military to be forced unpaid prostitutes. . Read about the numerous front line allied prisoners found tied to trees and used for live bayonet practice. Look at hard data -- like dramtically lower survival rates for prisoners of Japan as compared with those of Germany -- and try to argue that we were all the same.
And I challenge you to find anything as chiling as this: An officer's diary captured in the Guadalcanal campaign described an incident in which a US airman was tied to a table, and used by the regimental surgeon for anatomy instruction -- while still alive. Worst of all, the officer's only comment in his diary was "It was most instructive."
Yeah, some allied soldiers committed atrocities. But there was NEVER an institutionalized brutality, unthinking callousness to torture and abuse, in the allied armies like there was in both the Japanese and German armies. (Though the German brutalities were focused on specific "racial" groups.)
But I can't imagine beliving that the only difference was that the allies won. That idea is a lie, and those who believe it are deceived.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Drediock, my comments are based on a common perception that the Japanese as a culture are reluctant to admit they were in the wrong for any atrocities that occured during the war. There's a cultural sense of racial superiority and bias against "outsiders" -- and like I said, I could be wrong but this promo clip just feels like more of the same.
I'd enjoy the film and even moreso if it were presented from the japanese perspective. the war in the pacific was no quarter asked or given by all combatants. war is brutal by nature. why should the japanese or the germans or anyone else need to feel inferior for acts they had collectively committed? were not the responsible leaders hanged and then tried? or was it the other way 'round I don't recall? atrocities are what ever the victors say are atrocities. in some cultures what you and I consider to be atrocious is acceptable. how do you feel about our national hero chuck yeager being a chute shooter? in my opinion it was a smart thing to do. kill your opponent, shorten the war, but it's barbaric and in today's military it would be a prosecutable offense.
the japanese should be proud of their history and they should celebrate it as well.
now I wish the germans would get over their swastika ban.
-
The ban is there for a reason Storch. Remember that.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Fair questiona all -- but ignoring the differences between nations' treatment of prisoners and subjects is more "open minded" than honest. And outright lies love the opportunity to hide behind the banner of fairness.
Would any honest student of history argue that the allies had a Buchenwald or and Auschwitz? When "open minded" revisionists claim each country was the same, maybe citing the (absolutley unjust) Japanese american detention camps, it's like spitting in the eyes of those who went to the ovens. There is no comparison, none at all.
And that's true for the brutality of Japan's leadership cadre during the war. Read Prisoners of the Japanese. Read about the 200,000 women enslaved by the Japanese military to be forced unpaid prostitutes. . Read about the numerous front line allied prisoners found tied to trees and used for live bayonet practice. Look at hard data -- like dramtically lower survival rates for prisoners of Japan as compared with those of Germany -- and try to argue that we were all the same.
And I challenge you to find anything as chiling as this: An officer's diary captured in the Guadalcanal campaign described an incident in which a US airman was tied to a table, and used by the regimental surgeon for anatomy instruction -- while still alive. Worst of all, the officer's only comment in his diary was "It was most instructive."
Yeah, some allied soldiers committed atrocities. But there was NEVER an institutionalized brutality, unthinking callousness to torture and abuse, in the allied armies like there was in both the Japanese and German armies. (Though the German brutalities were focused on specific "racial" groups.)
But I can't imagine beliving that the only difference was that the allies won. That idea is a lie, and those who believe it are deceived.
Amen.
There is no moral equivalency, none at all.
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
The ban is there for a reason Storch. Remember that.
Unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.
Illuminate us.
-
w00t! the Yamato!
(http://www.scifijapan.com/Miyagawa/Yamato.jpg)
-
The Japanese have every right to have pride in their military history, just as much as we do. They are no more Imperialistic hooligans than we are. It has been 60+years since the end of WW2, and the generations that live there now have no connection to the criminal offences that you want to continue to hold over their heads. They are not to be held responsible for the war crimes any more than I am to be held responsible for slavery or percecutions of my ancestors whatever they may be. I would argue that no society has changed as much as a whole as Japan has following the end of WW2. I have spent time in Japan, talked to the people, including actual veterans of the war, and they are no different from you and I. Every one that I spoke to are incredibly greatfull for the assistance and kindness they recieved from the Americans, following the war. They are much further down the path of reconciliation than we are if we continue to hold such opinions of the Japanese people. Let them construct their history in the way they choose to remember it. We have done the same with our history.
-
But Tracer, this isnt an "either/or" -- there's no logical reason that a people can't both admire their heroes and condemn their criminals. That's the way Germany has approached things, and IMHO its an honest way to do it.
"Constructing history" implies that there is no such thing as truth. That is also a lie, if that's what the construction crew means. In our history community, there are many interpretations of data, many theories of why things were done. And if someone proposes a theory that cannot stand up to scrutiny, it's rejected. If its wrongly rejected, it doesnt go away...and usually it proves its worth given tume. (If nothing else, old fogies die off leaving the field to the young guns.)
I'd never blame an entire people for anything. The sortie of the Yamamoto was "A Glorious Way to Die" (great book btw), a heroic effort. The men who died, did so doing their duty for their country. The men who ordered the sortie, some believe, were motivated not by military considerations but by a prideful desire to not see the flagship sunk at her moorings. Understandable, but was it worth the sacrifice of so many who would have otherwise lived?
That's another question.
Anyone who "blames" modern Japanese for the crimes of the past is ignorant. But, it can be equally dangerous to ignore the parts of the past that are unpleasant -- especially if that includes denial that they ever happened. There's a reason it's illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany, a country that initiaed two world wars within 25 years....
And that's why some thoughtful people get concerned at the way Japan has chosen to present its past to itself.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Drediock, my comments are based on a common perception that the Japanese as a culture are reluctant to admit they were in the wrong for any atrocities that occured during the war. There's a cultural sense of racial superiority and bias against "outsiders" -- and like I said, I could be wrong but this promo clip just feels like more of the same.
The reason on a whole, they are reluctant to admit they started the war is that they believe that they were forced into the war by our policies at the time such as the embargo on steel and other natural resources that were vital to the Japanese.
ack-ack
-
Was that a Hellcat the video shows dropping a torpedo?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Fencer51
It was so tilted toward the poor Japanese and their brave fight against the nasty Americans that I had to quit watching it the first time it was on.
I guess then you'd never be able to sit through Das Boot.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I guess then you'd never be able to sit through Das Boot.
ack-ack
Nope, I own the DVD. That was fairly told from both sides and it was a MOVIE, this was supposed to be a documentary. I also have read many times Iron Coffins by Werner, an excellent book, as is Escort Commander by Robinson. It takes both sides to tell a story.
I do not appreciate any "historical" program which attempts to rewrite history in the modern venacular of PCness.
I must appologize to National Geographic. The progam I saw was a NOVA program on PBS. "Sinking the Supership" see the program's website here. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/supership/)
-
I just got home from an early dinner with my Mom and Dad and mentioned having read this thread and watching the film clip. Dad's a U.S Navy veteran of the Pacific and Atlantic theaters. He also took part in the Atomic tests at Bikini and was part of the detail that prepared the Nagato and even went back aboard afterwards. He knows who was resposible for what but I still find it somewhat amazing that he holds no animosity towards his former foes. Anyway, he (and I) appreciated the opportunity to talk about it again. Thanks for the post Drediock.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Fair questiona all -- but ignoring the differences between nations' treatment of prisoners and subjects is more "open minded" than honest. And outright lies love the opportunity to hide behind the banner of fairness.
Would any honest student of history argue that the allies had a Buchenwald or and Auschwitz? When "open minded" revisionists claim each country was the same, maybe citing the (absolutley unjust) Japanese american detention camps, it's like spitting in the eyes of those who went to the ovens. There is no comparison, none at all.
And that's true for the brutality of Japan's leadership cadre during the war. Read Prisoners of the Japanese. Read about the 200,000 women enslaved by the Japanese military to be forced unpaid prostitutes. . Read about the numerous front line allied prisoners found tied to trees and used for live bayonet practice. Look at hard data -- like dramtically lower survival rates for prisoners of Japan as compared with those of Germany -- and try to argue that we were all the same.
And I challenge you to find anything as chiling as this: An officer's diary captured in the Guadalcanal campaign described an incident in which a US airman was tied to a table, and used by the regimental surgeon for anatomy instruction -- while still alive. Worst of all, the officer's only comment in his diary was "It was most instructive."
Yeah, some allied soldiers committed atrocities. But there was NEVER an institutionalized brutality, unthinking callousness to torture and abuse, in the allied armies like there was in both the Japanese and German armies. (Though the German brutalities were focused on specific "racial" groups.)
But I can't imagine beliving that the only difference was that the allies won. That idea is a lie, and those who believe it are deceived.
Ok and that has exactly what to do with tha Yamato?
nobody is denying any atrocities
Just that they are irrelevent to where this story is concerned
-
That movie is just as bad as Pearl Harbor (TM)
-
Originally posted by TracerX
The Japanese have every right to have pride in their military history, just as much as we do. They are no more Imperialistic hooligans than we are. It has been 60+years since the end of WW2, and the generations that live there now have no connection to the criminal offences that you want to continue to hold over their heads. They are not to be held responsible for the war crimes any more than I am to be held responsible for slavery or percecutions of my ancestors whatever they may be. I would argue that no society has changed as much as a whole as Japan has following the end of WW2. I have spent time in Japan, talked to the people, including actual veterans of the war, and they are no different from you and I. Every one that I spoke to are incredibly greatfull for the assistance and kindness they recieved from the Americans, following the war. They are much further down the path of reconciliation than we are if we continue to hold such opinions of the Japanese people. Let them construct their history in the way they choose to remember it. We have done the same with our history.
I find this interesting on the same day I read about Prime Minister Abe's
little misstep claiming that the Japanese army never coerced women into
becoming hospitality girls at army brothels. This has understandably
annoyed the chinese and koreans who are putting pressure on the US to
pressure Japan to apologize.
Sorry that doesn't fit the PC moral equivalency world view, but there you
are.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
But Tracer, this isnt an "either/or" -- there's no logical reason that a people can't both admire their heroes and condemn their criminals. That's the way Germany has approached things, and IMHO its an honest way to do it.
"Constructing history" implies that there is no such thing as truth. That is also a lie, if that's what the construction crew means. In our history community, there are many interpretations of data, many theories of why things were done. And if someone proposes a theory that cannot stand up to scrutiny, it's rejected. If its wrongly rejected, it doesnt go away...and usually it proves its worth given tume. (If nothing else, old fogies die off leaving the field to the young guns.)
I'd never blame an entire people for anything. The sortie of the Yamamoto was "A Glorious Way to Die" (great book btw), a heroic effort. The men who died, did so doing their duty for their country. The men who ordered the sortie, some believe, were motivated not by military considerations but by a prideful desire to not see the flagship sunk at her moorings. Understandable, but was it worth the sacrifice of so many who would have otherwise lived?
That's another question.
Anyone who "blames" modern Japanese for the crimes of the past is ignorant. But, it can be equally dangerous to ignore the parts of the past that are unpleasant -- especially if that includes denial that they ever happened. There's a reason it's illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany, a country that initiaed two world wars within 25 years....
And that's why some thoughtful people get concerned at the way Japan has chosen to present its past to itself.
So I guess I should ask, have we adequately recognized the criminals of our history? Have we recognized the sins of Slavery and the treatment of the Native Americans and Mexian Citizens under the banner of Manifest Destiny? I am not asking that we open these old wounds of the American past. I would not think that we would accept some of the ideas that were then so easily adopted. So what makes us think that the Japanese have not learned the lessons of their past? I don't see any danger in the portrayal of this movie the way it is. Even if it paints America in a bad and menacing light, it has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or Manchurian atrocities. We need not assume that these lessons are not also being appropriately taught as blemishes on their national history.
-
I'd reckon that their navy was probably more honorable than the rest, but it doesn't make up for the fact that 1 US soldier out of every THREE died in captivity, or that they arbitrarily slaughtered 37 THOUSAND innocent Chinese at Nanking after the battle was over--all comes, as said before, from the fact that they were taught human life was insignificant, esp. non Japanese. (COOL ship though:aok )
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I'd also be for a Band of Brothers type story as told from the Germans as well.
Look up a 70's flick called "Cross of Iron." It's been 7-10 years since I last saw it, so I don't remember all the details, but it is told from a German perspective on the East Front.
-
Erich Maria Remarque, "All Quiet on the Western Front", also.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Erich Maria Remarque, "All Quiet on the Western Front", also.
True, but wrong war. ;)
-
True, but "the other perspective" definitely :P
-
What a beautifull ship.:cool:
-
Originally posted by TracerX
So I guess I should ask, have we adequately recognized the criminals of our history? Have we recognized the sins of Slavery and the treatment of the Native Americans and Mexian Citizens under the banner of Manifest Destiny? I am not asking that we open these old wounds of the American past. I would not think that we would accept some of the ideas that were then so easily adopted. So what makes us think that the Japanese have not learned the lessons of their past? I don't see any danger in the portrayal of this movie the way it is. Even if it paints America in a bad and menacing light, it has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or Manchurian atrocities. We need not assume that these lessons are not also being appropriately taught as blemishes on their national history.
First, a brief aside: I would not consider the attack on Pearl Harbor as an "attrocity". I would consider it a strategic mistake, but at the operational level, arguably a flawlessly planned and executed attack on a military target.
Now, my brief response:
We reopen the debate on slavery every time the Civil War is discussed. Further, go into the Smithsonian, and there is much discussed regarding all of the above listed U.S. "issues" in our checkered history--all openly presented and paid for by the taxpayer dime.
An interesting annecdote: If you've been to the museum in Nagasaki that commemorates the dropping of the second bomb, there is a timeline that greets you as soon as you enter. The title at the top is written "Events Leading Up To The Dropping of The Atomic Bomb on Nagasaki". The timeline starts in 1942, with the formation of General Grove's command. I took one look at that and said to myself, "there's another very important date missing..." I would hate to make assumptions, but I believe it could be argued that the Japanese collectively like to disassociate Pearl Harbor with the U.S. "atrocities" that occurred in early August, 1945.
For a great read on how the cultural misunderstandings between the Japanese and U.S. completely aggravated the heightened brutality on both sides of the Pacific War, look for a book called "War Without Mercy". Very enlightening book. Nothing like pictures of Marines on Guadalcanal boiling Japanese skulls to send home as paper weights--and I am a former Marine, and have no problem stating that. Attempting to understand the actions of participants in WWII (or any conflict for that matter) without accounting for the context with which their decisions were made is an unjust and naive exercise in self-righteousness...
And with respect to battleship comparisons:
The other comparisons aside, the comparison of Fire Control is dead-on. When the Navy recommissioned the Iowa Class ships in the 80's, there was a lengthy debate regarding upgrading the fire control computers on board. Ultimately, it was decided that the capability of the WWII technology when compared with a cost-effective replacement, was still viable as an accurate means to move those gnarly shells 30 miles, even though it was a bit clunky. As a result, they hired a bunch of old WWII gunnersmates, and they taught the new breed how to run the old computers. So, in effect, the Fire Control in the 40's was good enough to last the U.S. Navy almost 60 years.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not going to dispute those findings as being non factual in nature. II dont know
But who is the author of the webpage and what qualifies him as being an expert in the matter other then him reading a few books and asking a few peopleon the subject?
Something we all could do.
I gotta give him this much.
He writes a hell of a disclaimer ;)
Well Dred, since 90% of the ships in the competition are no longer with us so we can't just sail them into a harbor, give them various tests first hand, and then declare a winner, this is as close to a thorough detailed comparison is I've found. Alot of it is based on Nathan Okuna's guns and armor tables that are thoroughly researched. If you can find a more detailed and thorough comparison I'm all ears....errr, eyes.
He had to have that disclaimer from the original comparison he did years ago. Enough Yamatofans/Bismarckfans/KG5fans acked about his results he needed to make things clear; it's just the opion of one person who has done a lot of research on the subject. Still, the fanboi's whined.
-
indeed the cost should be counted. BBs were a gargantuan expense.
-
EDIT (supposed to be above Storches reply) ;)
An interesting item they seemed to overlook in the comparisons though, despite being quite thorough (im talking the BBs here), is the cost to each country in comparable dollars. To really declare which BB was "best" shouldn't cost also come into it? also range, didnt see a comparison on that either.
I think much of it is subjective.
I also think any straight gun duel would also heavily depend on who got a good hit in 1st, in any case such duels were not how navies fought in WW2. Too many aircraft and subs around for that.
Yamato is a fascinating ship, and very interesting history.
-
Cost was out of the scope. It was based on the capability of each ship compared to the other. If cost was factored you'd have to included D.O.E. as well. The Yamato's were fuel hogs, which is factored into the comparison.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Was that a Hellcat the video shows dropping a torpedo?
ack-ack
Looked like it.
-
For those that missed it in the original post in the O'Club.
The Yamato sinking. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kaR_we3TlY)
-
I have to say I think BBs the tonnage of Yamato were simply beyond common sense to build. The IJN would have been better off building BBs of a tonnage perhaps 2/3 that size, say Kongo class? but 2-3 times the #. Especially considering Japan had limited heavy industry and needed to import their oil. Several surface groups with BBs are better than one, even if that one is the best. Bragging rights? sure, but not built for war.
-
Yeah, some allied soldiers committed atrocities. But there was NEVER an institutionalized brutality, unthinking callousness to torture and abuse, in the allied armies like there was in both the Japanese and German armies. (Though the German brutalities were focused on specific "racial" groups.)
Unfortunately, to the rest of the world the US is as much an organized and institutionalized machine of brutality as well.
Name one instance since 1945 up to date in which US engaged in a highly controversial/illegal military operations throughout the world ranging from intelligence/covert ops to anti-communist incursions, paramilitary activities, invading the sovereighnity of another nation without international consent, "War against terror", "The hunt for WMDs", and on and on and on. A variety of military operations were carried out which resulted in untold number of civilian casulaties and human rights violations, and not one official acknowledgement and apology from the US.
That's right. The US never apologizes, never, ever.
Even if they go so far as to acknowledge that a certain event which they are being accused of did happen, they still don't apologize. The clever diplomatic think-thanks coming up with a million-and-one excuses to claim the 'neccessity of it all'. Frankly, how anyone expects anything different from the Japanese is beyond me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm as much against Mr. Abe's rightwing Japanese policies as any other. However, bringing the past histories against every movie the Japanese make which is based on WW2 is just plain ol' silly.
Oh sure, I understand why some people are concered about the 'glorification of past history', and yet for some reason, the same people who are concerned about such things never seem to be to be as much concerned with the ugly aspects of their own country.
Weird, ain't it?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Snip
Do you think you'd be able to write this now if the evil US had not been involved in Korea?
Just asking.
Bronk
-
Amazing how twisted a simple post about a battleship gets, eh bronk?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Name one instance since 1945 up to date in which US engaged in a highly controversial/illegal military operations throughout the world ranging from intelligence/covert ops to anti-communist incursions, paramilitary activities, invading the sovereighnity of another nation without international consent, "War against terror", "The hunt for WMDs", and on and on and on.
As Bronk alluded to, U.S. involvement in Korea was sanctioned by U.N. mandate. Also, the first Persian Gulf War...also sanctioned by U.N. mandate. Bosnia, U.N. mandate. Kosovo, U.N. mandate. Somalia, U.N mandate.
Not saying we haven't strayed from the straight and narrow, just countering your argument.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I have to say I think BBs the tonnage of Yamato were simply beyond common sense to build. The IJN would have been better off building BBs of a tonnage perhaps 2/3 that size, say Kongo class? but 2-3 times the #. Especially considering Japan had limited heavy industry and needed to import their oil. Several surface groups with BBs are better than one, even if that one is the best. Bragging rights? sure, but not built for war.
The IJN would have been better off building more CV's, their escorts, airplanes and pilot training centers.
BB's were obsolescing as the war began, just no one knew it yet. You could argue that the U.S. Navy saw the future demise of the battlewagon (after witnessing their instant effectiveness as artificial reefs in Hawaii), since they only built 4 BB's after the war began in contrast to the other types of tonnage that were built. They did have 2 more under construction, and plans for 5 more after that eventually, but the last 5 were cancelled, and the other two were cancelled and scrapped. In contrast, 24 ESSEX class CV's were built during the war.
-
Well, Yamato was built before the war and Musashi was mostly done by the time the war started. Shinano was almost finished as a CV when she was sunk.
As to Kweassa's salient point, the US never apologizes either. We make excuses, or just hand out medals. Look at what we did when we shot down an Iranian air liner. Look at our response to Mai Lai, or Abu Garaib, or our backing of Pinochet. We never apologize either.
I do think the Japanese need to look deep and hard at the attrocities in their history, but I don't think that jingoistic Americans who can't find fault with their own country's behavior are the ones to show it to them.
-
Kweassa nailed it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As to Kweassa's salient point, the US never apologizes either. We make excuses, or just hand out medals. Look at what we did when we shot down an Iranian air liner. Look at our response to Mai Lai, or Abu Garaib, or our backing of Pinochet. We never apologize either.
I'll repeat my earlier post by saying that "Attempting to understand the actions of participants in WWII (or any conflict for that matter) without accounting for the context with which their decisions were made is an unjust and naive exercise in self-righteousness..."
I could modify that statement by substituting "Captain Rogers" for "participants in WWII" for the Iranian Air Liner shoot-down, "Lt. Calley" for Mi Lai, and "the U.S. during the Cold War" for Pinochet. I am not saying that these things weren't bad, but to pull them out of their context is the path that leads to not understanding why they happened in the first place, which helps us to not repeat them. I've talked to people that were involved in the Iranian airliner incident, and a member of the Army that operated in and around the area of Mi Lai during the time the incident happened. There are layers of context that have to be taken into account for both those incidents. That doesn't excuse them--just don't point your finger and say "that was wrong" because you read about it in some book or magazine article and it offended your sense of decency.
-
well... if that video bothers you then you shouldn't watch it. Some people dig it, some people don't, that's the way it is in life.
As for the rest, I as a Japanese have already made my stance known and I believe that is adequately conveyed to people from Korea like Kweassa on this BBS. That is what is important for me.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I have to say I think BBs the tonnage of Yamato were simply beyond common sense to build. The IJN would have been better off building BBs of a tonnage perhaps 2/3 that size, say Kongo class? but 2-3 times the #. Especially considering Japan had limited heavy industry and needed to import their oil. Several surface groups with BBs are better than one, even if that one is the best. Bragging rights? sure, but not built for war.
It was to make up for other ...ummm...deficiencies :lol
-
"It was to make up for other ...ummm...deficiencies"
What is that bj?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Squire
I have to say I think BBs the tonnage of Yamato were simply beyond common sense to build. The IJN would have been better off building BBs of a tonnage perhaps 2/3 that size, say Kongo class? but 2-3 times the #. Especially considering Japan had limited heavy industry and needed to import their oil. Several surface groups with BBs are better than one, even if that one is the best. Bragging rights? sure, but not built for war.
One reason for building BBs of such enormous size was the expectation that any US battleship built to answer that threat would have been too big to use the Panama canal.
-
The primary reason size of the Yamato class was the realization that Japanese industry could never patch U.S production of capital ships (at the time primarily battleships), so they opted for trying to build a few that would simply overpower U.S numerical superiority.
P.S
LOL at people still trying to find equality between Buchenwald and Guantanamo. DEY ARE TEH SAME!!
-
And the bigger gun is always better which causes the superstructure to be bigger and heavier to (probably) withstand the recoil effects. The smaller deck guns need to be turreted to protect the gun crews of the huge blasts of 18" cannons which causes further requirements for superstructure because of added weight.
Before the WW2 there were treaties that all the biggest seafaring nations had to comply and those laid restrictions to weigths and sizes of guns. When the war began the treaty had already expired so the new ships could be vastly bigger than before, and notice that many warships where rather old and many had already served during WW1.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2MiscPreWar.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship
If the Japanese could have provided potent aircover for Yamato the ship would have been a considerable threat, maybe not on open sea, but in limited area combat as in Okinawa vicinity. But if the planes would not have got it it would have meen sunk by the US fleet sooner or later... but if it had got to Okinawa it might have had some kind of effect on Okinawa defences. But it was on suicide mission and to the fortune of US troop ships and landing craft it didn't get to them.
-C+
-
what happened to Yamato was that that no matter how large or well armored no ship could withstand the onslaught of a well co-ordinated air attack. aerial superiority was a must from the beginning of WWII until forever. this was aptly demonstrated by the loss of repulse and prince of wales and further cemented at the coral sea.
-
No, I wouldnt not have built BBs at all for the IJN (or any other navy), just saying if they were going to... the Kongo class made more sense. Probaly cost 1/4 of what Yamato did.
Fleet CVs of @30,000 tons max (as many as they could build), Cruisers and other escorts, a sizable ASW force, and a lot of long range subs in the 2000 ton range, for use against the west coast of N. America, Hawaii, and Australia.
...and a Merchant force. They needed transports and oilers, not BBs with 18 inch guns sitting in port.
-
Isnt Yamato 「大和」 the former name of Japan 「日本国」?
-
Originally posted by Squire
No, I wouldnt not have built BBs at all for the IJN (or any other navy), just saying if they were going to... the Kongo class made more sense. Probaly cost 1/4 of what Yamato did.
Fleet CVs of @30,000 tons max (as many as they could build), Cruisers and other escorts, a sizable ASW force, and a lot of long range subs in the 2000 ton range, for use against the west coast of N. America, Hawaii, and Australia.
...and a Merchant force. They needed transports and oilers, not BBs with 18 inch guns sitting in port.
You are back to a capacity issue. If you have a limited number of naval yards and production capacity, you can not hope to overwhelm your enemy with numbers.
I could be off base here, but if the choice was to make two super battleships in a production yard or three smaller battleships / heavy cruisers in the same amount of time (the most precious resource), I can see why super-battleships made sense to them.
Smaller may mean less steel, but does not necessarily mean you could put the excess steel to better or even productive use.
-
Kongo class were junk. They are Battlecruisers that were talked up as Battleships.
Japan only had four Battleships, Nagato, Mutsu, Yamato and Musashi. All other so called battleships were actually battlecruisers.
So was the Hood.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Look up a 70's flick called "Cross of Iron." It's been 7-10 years since I last saw it, so I don't remember all the details, but it is told from a German perspective on the East Front.
Pick up the book if you can find it. Vastly better than the movie, which kinda sucked in comparison having already read the book over 35 years ago.
-
DiabloTX already pointed to this site, but, I'll mention it again....
Combined Fleet (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, I dont know about them being junk (the Kongos), are you judging them as a line vessel thats supposed to "gun duel" a BB (like Washington), they are not up to par, but im talking more in line with a realistic WW2 fleet, where your heavy ships are going to be screening your CVs, and providing bombardment on occasion. Lets remember the whole idea of "Jutland" was not going to happen in the pacific war. Sure its an interesting "what if" debate, but I wouldnt be building them for that in real life, back then.
I still say the Yamatos were a huge expense, for a ship that was never going to do what its supporting BB Admirals envisioned, and even if it was, the idea of a "super BB" is a flawed concept, imho, compunded by the fact its produced by a nation with the smaller industry. 8 Kongos would have served the IJN better than 2 Yamato BBs. You could afford to use them, and the loss of one isnt the end of your navy.
...its still an impressive ship, not taking anything away from that. I would not have wanted to shoot it out with that monster.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kongo class were junk. They are Battlecruisers that were talked up as Battleships.
Japan only had four Battleships, Nagato, Mutsu, Yamato and Musashi. All other so called battleships were actually battlecruisers.
So was the Hood.
Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro and Fuso were not BC's. They were definitely BB's of WWI vintage. Far too slow to be classed as BC's.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And why not hear the story as it was experienced from the other side?
Doesnt make the story any less interesting just "Das Boat" was a good story
I'd also be for a Band of Brothers type story as told from the Germans as well.
Das Boot was excellent. I also highly recommend Downfall.
I, too, would love to see a Band of Brothers style show about German or Japanese soldiers. Letters from Iwo Jima was sort of like that, but both Letters and Flags of Our Fathers were not nearly as good as Band of Brothers, especially in terms of depth and character development.
As for the movie about the Yamato, I'd certainly go see it -- regardless of how any other aspect of the movie turns out, I know that at least it visually looks good. In Flags of our Fathers, a couple of my favorite parts are the brief depictions of Corsairs flying over the fleet and of them attacking at Iwo.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Well, I dont know about them being junk (the Kongos), are you judging them as a line vessel thats supposed to "gun duel" a BB (like Washington), they are not up to par, but im talking more in line with a realistic WW2 fleet, where your heavy ships are going to be screening your CVs, and providing bombardment on occasion. Lets remember the whole idea of "Jutland" was not going to happen in the pacific war. Sure its an interesting "what if" debate, but I wouldnt be building them for that in real life, back then.
I still say the Yamatos were a huge expense, for a ship that was never going to do what its supporting BB Admirals envisioned, and even if it was, the idea of a "super BB" is a flawed concept, imho, compunded by the fact its produced by a nation with the smaller industry. 8 Kongos would have served the IJN better than 2 Yamato BBs. You could afford to use them, and the loss of one isnt the end of your navy.
...its still an impressive ship, not taking anything away from that. I would not have wanted to shoot it out with that monster.
A couple of points . . . first, remember that the Yamato was built before the carrier was "proven" as a combat platform, therefore a Jutland-like confrontation was exactly what the admirals/planners of the time expected to happen eventually. BBs were captial ships, not screening vessels. To use your logic that screening vessels would be more useful, then BBs should not have been built at all, only destroyers and destroyer escorts.
Second, I don't think you can say they could have had 4 Kongos for each Yamato. That is like saying that Ford should be able to convert an Explorer assembly plant and be able to produce 4 Focuses for every Explorer they used to produce. The conversion in terms of material, personnel and support facilities just does not convert that easily.
Finally, the "operating cost" of four smaller ships vs. one larger one is much greater. This evening when I have more time I will try to put better numbers to this, but to use a hypothetical in terms of trained naval personnel . . . for sake of arguement, lets say the Yamato had a crew of 4,000, and each Kongo had a crew of 2,000. 4 Kongos would then require 8,000 crew, or twice as many "resources" in terms of personnel than a single Yamato. Like I said, those are made up numbers, but hopefully you see where I am going with it. Similarly, a single Yamato uses more fuel than a single Kongo, but I would wager two Kongos would use more fuel than the single Yamato.
Bottom line, it is easy in hindsight to say the decision looks like a poor one. But when attempting to plan for the future, these decisions are neither easy nor clear-cut.