Argue With Everyone Political Forums  

Go Back   Argue With Everyone Political Forums > Non-Political Debates > History

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:16 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback View Post
You often hear rumblings about how we are "lucky" the 262 was never used till the end of the war
Closet nazis I take it :-)

It is a strange subset of the enthusiasts of any field, the "only iffers". But generally the operate in a vacuum. They only factor in one change and only for a pure positive, and then discount any natural reaction or countering fact to come up with their counterfactual conclusion.

This is a fairly large industry in Japan. Towards the end of the war they had a bunch of new airplanes and submarines in the prototype stage that some think would have helped Japan avoid defeat. Neat technology, but hardily the revolutionary ground breakers they imagine them to be.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:17 PM
smart makes a comeback's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 2,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho View Post
These are tough to discuss because so many factors enter into it. It had crappy range, so I am not sure how much an impact it would have had on the Battle of Britain.

Also the US and UK came up with tactics fairly quickly, and this would have mostly nullified any advantage (the 262 was faster, but the P-51 and Corsairs were more maneuverable).

Furthermore, the US and UK also probably would have come up with their own jet technology fairly quickly if forced to.

In the end I would say probably not much. The US and UK had far more resources and safe areas to operate them from.

Of course an argument can be made for a serious change, based on further assumptions regarding increases in range and further development. But additional "what ifs" really become tenuous to argue.
Thanks !

I know you hate the "what if " thing...and in a lot of instances, i am right there with ya

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:25 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback View Post
Thanks !

I know you hate the "what if " thing...and in a lot of instances, i am right there with ya
I think I might have said that before :-) But really, I don't hate them per se, I dislike that most of them are stupid.

Good "what ifs" based on rational possibilities are interesting to talk about (with an informed person who can use context), but most "what ifs" really are juvenile counterfactual wish fulfillments. These remind me of the old Saturday Night Live skit (back in the 70's) where they did a couple of "what ifs" such as: "what if Superman had crashed in Germany" or "What if Napoleon had found a fully crewed and functional B-52 equipped with tactical nuclear weapons the night before Waterloo"
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:30 PM
patriot2342001's Avatar
Political Mastermind
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho View Post
Closet nazis I take it :-)

It is a strange subset of the enthusiasts of any field, the "only iffers". But generally the operate in a vacuum. They only factor in one change and only for a pure positive, and then discount any natural reaction or countering fact to come up with their counterfactual conclusion.

This is a fairly large industry in Japan. Towards the end of the war they had a bunch of new airplanes and submarines in the prototype stage that some think would have helped Japan avoid defeat. Neat technology, but hardily the revolutionary ground breakers they imagine them to be.
Japan could have had all the planes, ships or whatever they wanted, their problems were man power and oil. If they hadn't built those battleships and used the steel for airplanes AND training pilots they might have been able to put up a better fight.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:43 PM
Gummer's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The deep end of the gene pool
Posts: 2,759
Blog Entries: 1
Default

What if the dog had not stopped to shit? Can we assume he would have caught the rabbit?

While we are "what iffing" ...... what if we had the atomic bomb functional in 1940?

You can "what if" and speculate for the next 1000 years ..... and that is all you will have done...... Liberals have had much greater success ...... rewriting history .....
__________________
CHECK THIS OUT ..... graybeard's "tribute" to Humble Lasher -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwFjt2x9Rws ...and another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECK3Ed1CN0

Political Correctness defined :
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:53 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriot2342001 View Post
Japan could have had all the planes, ships or whatever they wanted, their problems were man power and oil. If they hadn't built those battleships and used the steel for airplanes AND training pilots they might have been able to put up a better fight.
Well, that is part of the context that what iffers leave out.

As for the battleships, without a doubt, but I think they were too emotionally invested in those two ships (the third one they converted to a carrier, that was sunk by a single submarine) to back out.

An interesting side note, did you ever hear (and I think we discussed this before, but I love the story) that the Japanese actually had a fleet of submarines that were capable of launching a couple of airplanes, and immediately before surrendering they had been dispatched to attack the Panama canal.

One of them sank the Indianapolis, and in revenge after the surrender, the US navy towed it out and sank it (while filming it in color!). The others were scuttled to keep the Soviets from seeing them. It really makes one wonder what other secrets there are out there.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 01:58 PM
jebe's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 5,531
Default

Smart. they had 190's gaurding the airfields so the 262's could land and take off with out being shot down. the real surprise was, why wernt the germans in tune as to shut down the allies. all they had to do was take out the aruba refinery. there. now the allies only have 75% of the gasoline they need. as it was, in 1940-1941, englandwas just holding on for lack of fuel. in 42, so was malta. so take 25% of all gasoline production off line at any time during the war, and now youve delayed any allied initiative for at least 8 months. there. now the dorneir 635 is in production, new haven, boston, groton, manchester, and bangor are off the map. london, paris and moscow being eliminated yesterday, truman surrenders unconditionaly.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2008, 04:21 PM
smart makes a comeback's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 2,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jebe View Post
Smart. they had 190's gaurding the airfields so the 262's could land and take off with out being shot down. the real surprise was, why wernt the germans in tune as to shut down the allies. all they had to do was take out the aruba refinery. there. now the allies only have 75% of the gasoline they need. as it was, in 1940-1941, englandwas just holding on for lack of fuel. in 42, so was malta. so take 25% of all gasoline production off line at any time during the war, and now youve delayed any allied initiative for at least 8 months. there. now the dorneir 635 is in production, new haven, boston, groton, manchester, and bangor are off the map. london, paris and moscow being eliminated yesterday, truman surrenders unconditionaly.
Hummmm....very interesting, and a bit scarry
__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


» Navigation

Political Links Page

Blogs by AWE Members

Advertisers support this site - if you're interested in their product, take a look!


$5 monthly donation:

$10 monthly donation:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0