|
|
Post by The Inspector on Feb 11, 2014 16:12:53 GMT -5
Also keep in mind the cultural balance between Asian and Anglo mind sets. The Japanese would sacrifice 50 people to retrieve a truck and were slack jawed when we would sacrifice 50 trucks to get one guy back. They also had to husband resources since just about all their raw materials came from captured sources across perilous waters and most of our raw materials were either already here or, were close by across well protected waters, plus we were a juggernaut at making stuff by the thousands every shift every day around the clock and parts from the first one attached on the last one made with few, if any issues.
Ever wonder why post war autos had so much brightwork? At the end of hostilities there were hundreds of thousands of miles of stainless steel thin sheet stock sitting around. Some auto company discovered that the stuff made really cheap 'dressup' trim on otherwise 1941 body stampings. That's why you find 1950's cars with pitted cruddy looking door handles (cast pot metal) that all have beautiful shiny dress up trim (Cres). My 1963 T Bird's body edge trim is all Cres and looks pretty nice (it would be better if I took it off and polished it on a buffing wheel)at 52 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by *BYE BYE* on Feb 13, 2014 10:17:50 GMT -5
I think we would ALL look better if we were polished up on a buffing wheel!!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 11:03:39 GMT -5
On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters every where you looked. As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?" Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make or God was taking care of America. Which do you think it was?" Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?"
Nimitz explained.
Mistake number one: the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two: when the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow everyone of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America. And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three: every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or God was taking care of America.
I've never forgotten what I read in that little book. It is still an inspiration as I reflect upon it. In jest, I might suggest that because Admiral Nimitz was a Texan, born and raised in Fredricksburg, Texas--he was a born optimist. But anyway you look at it--Admiral Nimitz was able to see a silver lining in a situation and circumstance where everyone else saw only despair and defeatism. President Roosevelt had chosen the right man for the right job.
We desperately needed a leader that could see silver linings in the midst of the clouds of dejection, despair and defeat.
Written By: Brian Eiland
|
|
garym
Propeller Driven
Posts: 144
|
Post by garym on Jun 29, 2014 15:52:21 GMT -5
I disagree with Nimitz on his #1 with the ships being sunk at sea. Had they run out to sea, they would have been FAR harder to track down and sink. At PH the IJN had the fleet not only cornered, but tied to the docks and not even moving!
The Japanese were very short on two things, metal and oil. When the US cut them off for metal/steel we actually forced them to take military action for the raw goods/materials and oil in Indonesia which was then the Dutch East Indies. With the German U-boats having already sunk a USN destroyer and had already attacked another that resulted in USN deaths, any attacks on the Dutch might have triggered a call to war for the US.
Keep in mind that Australia was bombed many, many times in various towns across the north coast and the US was a strong ally of theirs. There's no way that the Aussies would have stood by and watched the Dutch East Indies be over run without thinking that they were next and they would have jumped into a war with Japan.
Yamamoto knew that the only chance was a decisive sneak attack on PH and then go after the PI, Indonesia, etc. Without an attack, I'd say that it would have only been a matter of time before the US was in the war anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:52:28 GMT -5
I disagree with Nimitz on his #1 with the ships being sunk at sea. Had they run out to sea, they would have been FAR harder to track down and sink. At PH the IJN had the fleet not only cornered, but tied to the docks and not even moving! Can you rephrase your statement here and I'm curious why you disagree with Nimitz on this? I'm curious about this? ... Thanks garym! |
|
garym
Propeller Driven
Posts: 144
|
Post by garym on Jul 1, 2014 10:45:36 GMT -5
Mistake number one: the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800
It sounds like Nimitz is assuming that we would have lost the same ships out at sea as we did while tied to the docks. I'd say that with all these ships running to all points of the compass coming out of PH, that we'd have lost far less ships, although the loss in men would no doubt had been higher.
This weekend, I will be visiting the D-Day beaches. Just last night I read that the USS Nevada was there on D-Day, pounding the shoreline with her big guns. It was the Nevada who DID get off her dock and later was driven aground rather than to risk being sunk in the PH channel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 15:11:54 GMT -5
Okay, I can see where you are coming from; but I find your logic in italic a bit confusing to me.
It sounds like Nimitz is assuming that we would have lost the same ships out at sea as we did while tied to the docks. I'd say that with all these ships running to all points of the compass coming out of PH, that we'd have lost far less ships, although the loss in men would no doubt had been higher.
I think your thinking here doesn't make any sense to me - but, I'm not arguing with you but I'm a great admirer of Admiral Nimitz and what he said from the post that Brian Eiland wrote in the first place makes a lot of sense to me. But, its seems that you said that the loss in men would no doubt had been higher is all these ships running to all points doesn't compute with me. Care to explain this for (in red) me?
Anyway, thanks for your contribution here and I'm so happy that you will get a chance to visit the D-Day Beaches at Normandy.
|
|
garym
Propeller Driven
Posts: 144
|
Post by garym on Jul 2, 2014 5:57:11 GMT -5
I'm saying that if all ships had scrambled out to sea to avoid an upcoming attack, that they most likely would have scattered in different directions, at full speed. Otherwise, they all would have had to idle just offshore, waiting for all the ships to come out, then form a convoy. Keep in mind that the only reason that all would have left PH in the first place was to run from an upcoming attack!!
Imgaine a corral full of horses. If you open the gates wide open, they'd RUN out and scatter. If they are left locked up, how easy would it be to shoot them? How MUCH harder would it be to chase them, running at full speed, zig-zagging all over the ocean?
I think that the point that Nimitz is making is that we'd have lost more MEN had the ships been at sea and I agree with him. But I seriously do not see how the same total of ships could have been sunk had they scattered coming out of PH before the attack.
I hope that makes a bit more sense...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:26:25 GMT -5
I'm saying that if all ships had scrambled out to sea to avoid an upcoming attack, that they most likely would have scattered in different directions, at full speed. Otherwise, they all would have had to idle just offshore, waiting for all the ships to come out, then form a convoy. Keep in mind that the only reason that all would have left PH in the first place was to run from an upcoming attack!! Imgaine a corral full of horses. If you open the gates wide open, they'd RUN out and scatter. If they are left locked up, how easy would it be to shoot them? How MUCH harder would it be to chase them, running at full speed, zig-zagging all over the ocean? I think that the point that Nimitz is making is that we'd have lost more MEN had the ships been at sea and I agree with him. But I seriously do not see how the same total of ships could have been sunk had they scattered coming out of PH before the attack. I hope that makes a bit more sense... Now, I can see where you are coming from ... this is much more clearer! |
|
garym
Propeller Driven
Posts: 144
|
Post by garym on Jul 2, 2014 12:35:45 GMT -5
I'd like to know what Nimitz thought of all the MANY red flags and early warnings that we had well before the attack, yet we still were surprised!
|
|
