Military Review

The death of the Japanese fleet

106
The death of the Japanese fleet

“I will die on the deck of Nagato, and by this time Tokyo will be bombed 3 times”

- Admiral Yoroku Yamamoto


The defeat of Japan in World War II seems so natural that there can be no options and different interpretations. The total superiority of the United States in natural, human and industrial resources, multiplied by a powerful economy and a high level of science development - in such conditions, America’s victory in the war became only a matter of time.

If everything is extremely obvious with the common reasons for the defeat of the Japanese empire, then the purely technical aspect of the sea battles in the Pacific is of genuine interest: the Imperial fleet of Japan, once one of the most powerful fleets in the world, died under the blows of numerically superior enemy forces. He died in terrible agony, suffering and agony. Armor recovered, and rivets flew out, sheathing burst, and streams of rushing water collided in a roaring whirlpool on the decks of the doomed ship. The Japanese fleet went to immortality.

However, before their tragic death, the Japanese sailors were marked by a number of bright victories. The “Second Pearl Harbor” near the island of Savo, the pogrom in the Java Sea, a daring raid of aircraft carriers into the Indian Ocean ...

With regard to the famous attack on the naval base Pearl Harbor, the role of this operation is greatly exaggerated by American propaganda: the US leadership needed to rally the nation in the face of the enemy. Unlike the Soviet Union, where every child understood that a terrible war was going on in the territory of his own country, the United States was to wage a naval war on foreign shores. This is where the tale of the “terrible attack” on the American military base came in handy.


Memorial on the corps of the deceased "Arizona" (the battleship was launched in 1915 year)

In reality, Pearl Harbor became a pure failure of the Japanese deck aviation - all “success” was the sinking of four decrepit battleships from the First World War (two of which were raised and restored by 1944). The fifth damaged battleship - "Nevada" was taken aground and returned to service by the summer of 1942. In total, 18 US Navy ships were sunk or damaged as a result of the Japanese raid, while a significant part of the “victims” escaped with only cosmetic defects.

At the same time, not a single bomb fell on:

- power plant, ship repair enterprises, port cranes and mechanical workshops. This allowed the Yankees to begin restoration work within an hour after the end of the raid.

- Giant dry dock 10 / 10 for the repair of battleships and aircraft carriers. The unforgivable mistake of the Japanese carrier-based aviation will become fatal in all subsequent battles in the Pacific: with the help of their superdoc the Americans will restore damaged ships in a matter of days.

- 4 barrels of oil! The capacity of the tanks of the US Navy refueling point in Pearl Harbor at that time exceeded all the fuel supplies of the Imperial fleet Japan

Fuel, hospitals, moorings, ammunition depots - Japanese pilots "donated" the US Navy the entire infrastructure of the base!

There is a legend about the absence in Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack of two aircraft carriers of the US Navy: they say, if the Japanese had sunk the Lexington and the Enterprise, the outcome of the war could have been different. This is an absolute fallacy: during the war years, the US industry passed the aircraft carrier 31 fleet (many of whom did not even have to participate in the battles). Destroy the Japanese all aircraft carriers, battleships and cruisers in the Pearl Harbor, along with Pearl Harbor and Hawaii - the outcome of the war would have been the same.

It is necessary to dwell separately on the figure of the “Pearl Harbor Architect” - the Japanese admiral Yoroku Yamamoto. No doubt, it was an honest military and competent strategist who repeatedly warned the Japanese leadership about the futility and disastrous consequences of the impending war with the United States. The admiral argued that even with the most favorable development of events, the Imperial fleet of Japan would last no more than a year - then the inevitable defeat and death of the Japanese Empire would follow. Admiral Yamamoto remained faithful to his duty - if Japan is destined to die in an unequal battle, he will do everything so that the memory of this war and the exploits of the Japanese sailors forever entered into history.

[/ Center]
Japanese aircraft carriers on the way to Hawaii. In the foreground - Zykaku. Ahead - "Kaga"

Some sources call Yamamoto one of the most prominent naval commanders - around the admiral's figure, an image of an “Eastern sage” was formed, whose decisions and actions are full of genius and “incomprehensible eternal truth”. Alas, real events have shown the opposite - Admiral Yamamoto was completely incompetent in tactical issues of fleet management.

The only successful operation planned by the admiral - the attack on Pearl Harbor - demonstrated a complete lack of logic in the selection of targets and the abominable coordination of the actions of Japanese aviation. Yamamoto was planning a "stunning blow." But why were the fuel storage facilities and base infrastructure intact? - The most important objects, the destruction of which could really complicate the actions of the US Navy.

"They do not hold punch"

As Admiral Yamamoto predicted, the Japanese military machine uncontrollably moved forward for half a year, bright flashes of victories, one after another, illuminated the Pacific theater. Problems began later - the continuous strengthening of the US Navy slowed the pace of the Japanese offensive. In the summer of 1942, the situation was almost out of control - the tactic of Admiral Yamamoto with the fragmentation of forces and the release of "shock" and "anti-ship" groups of carrier-based aviation led to the disaster at Midway.

But the real nightmare began in 1943 year - the Japanese fleet suffered defeats one after another, the shortage of ships, airplanes and fuel became more acute. The scientific and technical backwardness of Japan made itself felt - when an attempt was made to break through to the squadrons of the US Navy, Japanese planes crumbled from the sky, like cherry petals. At the same time, the Americans confidently flew over the masts of the Japanese ships. There was a shortage of radar and hydroacoustic stations - increasingly, Japanese ships became victims of American submarines.

The Japanese defensive perimeter cracked at the seams - the colossal reserves allowed the Americans to land assault forces simultaneously in different regions of the Pacific Ocean. In the meantime ... more and more new ships appeared in the vast expanses of the Pacific theater - the US industry daily handed over a fleet of a couple of new combat units (destroyers, cruisers, submarines or aircraft carriers).

The ugly truth about the Imperial Navy of Japan has opened up: Admiral Yamamoto's bet on the carrier fleet has failed! In conditions of total superiority of the enemy, the Japanese aircraft carriers were killed, barely reaching the combat zone.

Japanese carrier-based aircraft achieved notable success in raiding operations - a raid on Ceylon or Pearl Harbor (if you do not take into account lost opportunities). The surprise factor and a large combat radius of aviation allowed to avoid return fire and return to the base after successfully completing the mission.

The Japanese had an equal chance of winning a squadron with the US Navy (Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz). Here, everything was decided by the quality of training of pilots, crews of ships and, most importantly, His Majesty Chance.

But in terms of the numerical superiority of the enemy (that is, when the probability of being hit by the return fire was equal to 100%), the Japanese carrier fleet did not have even a ghostly hope for any favorable outcome of the situation. The principle “to win not by number, but by skill” turned out to be useless - any fire contact ended with the imminent and inevitable death of an aircraft carrier ship.

It turned out that the once formidable aircraft carriers completely "do not take a punch" and drown like puppies, even with the weak influence of enemy fire. At times, for a sinking of an aircraft carrier, several hits from ordinary aerial bombs were enough. It was a death sentence for the Imperial Navy - aircraft carriers and carrier-based aviation were extremely ineffective in a defensive war.

On the disgusting survivability of aircraft carriers best told the battle of the Midway Atoll: the bursting group of 30 dive bomber "Dontless" under the command of Captain McClasky literally in a minute burned two Japanese attack aircraft carrier "Akagi" and "Kaga" (burned out, in a row, a line, a line, a line, a line, and a line, a line, a line, a line, and a wall, a line, a line, a line, a line, and a wall, a line, a line, a line, a line, and a wall, a line, a wall, a line, a wall, a line, and a wall, a line, a wall, a line, a line, a line, and a wall, a wall, a line, a wall, a wall, a line, a wall, a wall, a wall, and a wall, Kagan (KAA), burst on the air, burned two Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi and Kaga (burnt, ). A similar fate befell the same day the aircraft carriers "Soryu" and "Hiryu".


American attack aircraft carrier Bellow Wood after kamikaze attack

Everything is relative: in October 1944, the Japanese squadron of 12 battleships and cruisers walked for several hours under continuous attacks by more than 500 American carrier-based aircraft. Without any air cover and with primitive air defense systems. The result was only the death of the cruiser "Suzuya" and heavy damage to a couple of other ships. The rest of the squadron of Admiral Takeo Kurita safely left the zone of action of American aircraft and returned to Japan.

It is even scary to imagine what would happen if large aircraft carriers were in the place of the Yamato and Nagato battleships — a hail of small-caliber bombs would cause uncontrollable fires on the flight and hangar decks, and then a quick death of the ships from internal explosions.


The reason for the poor state of Nagato add-ons is a nuclear explosion with a power of 23 kt.
The old Japanese battleship was stronger than nuclear fire!

Admiral Kurita's squadron happily escaped death. In the meantime, a real massacre was taking place in the vast Pacific Ocean:

19 June 1944, the heavy aircraft carrier Taiho was sunk. The only hit of a torpedo from an Albacore submarine did not cause significant damage, but caused a depressurization of the fuel line. A small imperceptible problem turned out to be a catastrophe - after 6,5 hours after the torpedo attack, the Taiho was ripped apart by the explosion of gasoline vapors (1650 of the dead sailors).
The trick was that the new aircraft carrier "Taiho" was destroyed in its first combat campaign, just three months after launching.

One day later, 20 June 1944, the attack aircraft carrier Hiyo was killed under similar circumstances. With the only difference that the fatal torpedo dropped the deck plane.

The fantastic sinking of the Shinano supercarrier after 17 hours after its first outing into the sea is just an ordinary curiosity in the history of sea battles. The ship was not completed, the bulkheads are not sealed, and the crew is not trained. However, in every joke there is a joke share - eyewitnesses reported that one of the torpedo hits had to be exactly in the area of ​​the aviation fuel tanks. Perhaps the crew of the aircraft carrier was lucky - at the time of drowning, the Shinano was going empty.


It seems that the aircraft carrier Sekaku has flight deck problems

However, aircraft carriers were out of order for less significant reasons. In the course of the battle in the Coral Sea, three bombs permanently knocked out the heavy aircraft carrier "Shokaku".

The song of the rapid destruction of the Japanese aircraft carriers would not be complete without mentioning their opponents. The Americans faced the same problem - the slightest impact of enemy fire caused terrible fires on board aircraft carriers.

In October, the 1944 of the year, just from hitting two 250-kg bombs, the light aircraft carrier Princeton completely burned down.

In March, 1945 was heavily damaged by the aircraft carrier "Franklin" - only two 250-kg bombs got into the ship, which caused one of the largest US Navy tragedy victims. The bombs fell in the center of the flight deck - a fire instantly engulfed the 50 fully filled and ready-to-fly aircraft. Result: 807 dead, completely destroyed air wing, uncontrolled fires on all decks of the ship, loss of travel, 13-degree lurch to the port side and readiness to sink the aircraft carrier.
"Franklin" was rescued only due to the absence of the main enemy forces nearby - in real combat, the ship would certainly be flooded.


The aircraft carrier "Franklin" has not yet decided - to stay afloat or sink
Survivors pack their bags and prepare for evacuation.



Kamikaze got aircraft carrier Interpid



Fire on the aircraft carrier "Saint-Lo" as a result of a kamikaze attack (the ship will die)


But the real insanity began with the appearance of Japanese kamikazes. The “living bombs” falling from the sky could not damage the underwater part of the hull, but the consequences of their falling on the flight deck lined with airplanes were simply terrible.

The case on the Bunker Hill carrier aircraft became a classic: 11 in May 1945, the ship was attacked by two kamikazes near the shores of Okinawa. In a terrible fire, Bunker Hill lost its entire wing and more than one crew of 400.

From all these stories follows a very obvious conclusion:

The imperial fleet of Japan was doomed - the construction of a heavy cruiser or a battleship instead of the aircraft carrier "Taiho" would have no meaning. Opponent had 10-fold numerical superiority, coupled with an overwhelming technical superiority. The war was lost at the very hour when Japanese aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that having highly protected artillery ships instead of aircraft carriers, the Imperial fleet, in the situation in which it found itself at the end of the war, could prolong its agony and cause additional damage to the enemy. The American fleet easily crushed the Japanese carrier group, but every time, when meeting with a heavy Japanese cruiser or battleship, the US Navy had to pretty much "tinker."

Admiral Yamamoto’s bet on aircraft carrier ships was disastrous. But why did the Japanese continue to build aircraft carriers until the very end of the war (they even rebuilt the last Yamato-type battleship into the Shinano aircraft carrier)? The answer is simple: Japan’s dying industry could not build anything more complex than an aircraft carrier. It sounds incredible, but 70 years ago, an aircraft carrier was fairly simple and cheap, much simpler than a cruiser or a battleship. No electromagnetic supercaptaps or nuclear reactors. The simplest steel box for servicing the same small and simple aircraft.

True, the aircraft carrier trough will sink even from small caliber bombs, but the aircraft carrier crew hopes that they will have to fight only against a deliberately weak and unprepared enemy. Otherwise - manners "overkil".

Epilogue

Low survivability inherent in the very idea of ​​an aircraft carrier. Aviation needs SPACE - instead, it is driven to the cramped decks of a rocking ship and forced to carry out take-off and landing operations with a runway length three times shorter than the required one. The dense layout and density of aircraft inevitably serves as a source of increased accident rate of an aircraft carrier, and the general lack of security and constant work with flammable substances lead to a natural result - a serious sea battle is contraindicated to an aircraft carrier

8-hour fire on board the aircraft carrier Oriskani (1966 year). The explosion of a magnesium signal rocket (!) Led to a voluminous fire in the hangar, with the destruction of all aircraft in it and the 44 sailors from the crew.



A terrible fire on the aircraft carrier Forrestal (1967 year), which became the largest tragedy in the number of victims in the post-war history of the US Navy (134 dead sailor).

A repetition of similar events on board the aircraft carrier Enterprise (1969 year).

Emergency measures were taken to increase the survivability of aircraft carrier ships, automatic deck irrigation systems and other special equipment appeared. It would seem that all the troubles behind.

But ... 1981 year, unsuccessful landing of the aircraft EW EA-6B "Prowler". On the flight deck of the nuclear aircraft carrier "Nimitz" explosions thunder, flames rise above the ship's superstructure. 14 victims, 48 injured. In addition to the Prauler and its crew, the three F-14 Tomcat interceptors were burned in the fire. Ten Corsar II and Intruder attack aircraft, two F-14, three anti-submarine Viking aircraft and Sea King helicopter were seriously damaged. At one moment, the Nimitz lost a third of its wing.


A similar case on the aircraft carrier "Midway"

Inexhaustible problems with safety and survivability will pursue aircraft carriers as long as there is a circus called "carrier-based aircraft".
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fzr1000
    fzr1000 April 26 2013 08: 11 New
    +6
    Yamamoto could not die on the deck of the battleship, the Americans kept him on guard in the Solomon Islands and shot down.
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk April 26 2013 08: 18 New
    20
    To be honest, the article is not quite intelligible. The Japanese fleet was a very serious combat formation, but disgusting military planning put an end to all the attempts of the Japanese.
    Perhaps this is more than fair, the Japanese got their own Port Arthur, Shantung and Tsushima. As the saying goes, if luck at one moment favors you greatly, then soon it will turn its back on you.
    In general, studying the most “high-profile” victories of the Japanese over the sub-mattresses, I personally never cease to be amazed at the poor mind and inability to choose priority goals from the Japanese command, Pearl Harbor was the apotheosis of stupidity ... the purpose was to set floating Arizona-type antiques .. well the author correctly noted this moment, Mikawa’s equally stupid victory over the cruisers of the “second Pearl Harbor” sub-mattresses ... what a sheep should be, to be able to demolish the combat guards of an airborne assault and not to release a single projectile on the airborne landing gear.
    In my opinion, the Japanese, with their poor planning and execution of military operations, dug up a grave for themselves.
    1. avt
      avt April 26 2013 10: 27 New
      +5
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      To be honest, the article is not quite intelligible. The Japanese fleet was a very serious combat formation, but disgusting military planning put an end to all the attempts of the Japanese.
      Moreover, not at the stage of decision-making, but at the highest level when it was made. I already said that Minoru Genda planned to land in Hawaii, but she was rejected by the high command. Attack on Midway, instead of moving to Australia, was all nonsense, and even on such a far-fetched pretext of Yamamoto .
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Well, the author correctly noted this point, Mikawa’s equally stupid victory over the cruisers of the “Second Pearl Harbor” sub-mattress cruiser .. what kind of sheep should I be in order to demolish the combat protection of the landing party and not to release a single shell on the landing assault.
      A very characteristic example of the selection of the cunning. We didn’t get to the landing in two ways, the first was not gyroic, the second was the start of light, the aircraft carriers were scared and left [Asians did not read Kaptsov laughing ]
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      In my opinion, the Japanese, with their poor planning and execution of military operations, dug up a grave for themselves.

      I completely agree .
    2. Syrdon
      Syrdon April 26 2013 16: 06 New
      0
      the aim of the attack on Harbor was not battleships at all, namely aircraft carriers, but by the time the group approached they were no longer there, no one would cancel the attack and got what they got.
      1. Sergl
        Sergl April 28 2013 15: 22 New
        0
        IMHO, the goal of the attack on the main Navy base in the Hawaiian Navy was to indicate the weakness of the Pacific Navy fleet in its main parking lot (the Japanese planned to write off 30% of their carrier-based aircraft to zero) and, in a desirable perspective, sign an honorary peace recognizing the Japanese post-factum areas of co-prosperity (this can explain the absence of an attack on port infrastructure in terms of attack). But the damage was too great, and it ended with the complete and unconditional surrender of Nippon.
  3. Hunghuz
    Hunghuz April 26 2013 08: 26 New
    +8
    hi Absolutely not reflected in the article the role of the Eguayan partisans and papolshchikov Romals ....... ???
  4. smart ass
    smart ass April 26 2013 08: 39 New
    +1
    The article is a complete obscurity, in all, even enumerate nebudu. Yamamoto was the best water strategist, like Rommel on earth.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 09: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: Clever man
      Yamamoto was the best water strategist, like Rommel on earth.

      By the way, yes, and the Americans, realizing this, ambushed him.

      I also didn’t see in the text that the Americans had cracked the Japanese naval ciphers and read all their messages. If it weren’t for the Yankees with ugly combat training and the lack of qualified leading personnel, they would have suffered much more damage. And so shameful moments. for example, the surrender of Fort Drum.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 09: 58 New
        +2
        In the form of a bonus.
        If anyone wants to read the history of the Pacific War from Pearl Harbor to Midway. (By the way, Midway Americans would have lost the destruction in 1941, the Japanese docks and pearl harbor shipyards.) I can recommend one book in a fantastic performance --- I read it myself - and I think somewhere I already saw it))))

        For millennia, berserkers - killer cars have frantically raged in the vastness of the Galaxy, spreading death everywhere. And so they met people. The bloody battle began. In battles with berserkers, people showed miracles of fortitude and courage. But the family is not without a freak - there were traitors and simple cowards ...

        Berserkers are Japanese, Earthlings are American, and then all are one to one.
      2. smart ass
        smart ass April 26 2013 12: 43 New
        +3
        The Americans drove out Midway only THANKS TO OPEN CODES !! If it weren’t for that, then the handsome Yamamoto hung them DULES.
        1. Delta
          Delta April 26 2013 13: 00 New
          -1
          Quote: Clever man
          The Americans drove Midway only THANKS TO OPEN CODES !! If it weren’t this, then the handsome Yamamoto hung them DULES

          if yes ....
        2. Sakhalininsk
          Sakhalininsk April 27 2013 01: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Clever man
          The Americans drove out Midway only THANKS TO OPEN CODES !! If it weren’t for that, then the handsome Yamamoto hung them DULES.


          If my grandmother had a member, she would be a grandfather.
    2. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk April 26 2013 10: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Clever man
      Yamamoto was the best water strategist, like Rommel on earth.


      Where did his genius appear?
  5. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 26 2013 08: 44 New
    +6
    Carriers were poorly protected against ... enemy aircraft taking off from enemy aircraft carriers, the author concludes that aircraft carriers are useless. But if the Japanese had set up a Yamato-type LC of about ten, then the Japanese would have shown Kuzkin’s mother to the Americans ... But the life path of both Yamato and Musashi seemed to be not very brilliant ...
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 26 2013 09: 18 New
      +1
      The article is nonsense
      1. Beck
        Beck April 26 2013 19: 05 New
        +2
        In the middle of the 20th century, Japan could not defeat the United States under any circumstances, in principle.

        After centuries of self-isolation, Japan, like China, began to develop economically, scientifically, and productively only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And by the 40s of the 20th century, its means of production were at the level of Europe in the mid-19th century. And Japan did not have colonies to provide its industry with raw materials, but the ambitions of the Japanese establishment were ambitious in terms of creating a great power. Somehow gathering military potential, Japan entered the war for the redistribution of the colonial "pie" of Asia. Similarly, Germany, lagging behind in the capture of the colonies, unleashed a war in Europe.

        After Pearl Harbor, the United States did not conduct active operations until 1943 as it did not have the military potential to wage a major war. But there were production facilities. And the USA has been riveting Weapons for 2 years.

        At least the fact that Japan started the war on the Zero fighter and ended it on the level of industry and scientific groundwork. And the Americans created about ten varieties of fighter jets.

        The defeat of Germany and Japan completed the colonial era in the history of mankind. It was a purulent abscess of colonialism.
        1. avt
          avt April 26 2013 22: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Beck
          Japan, as it began the war on the Zero fighter, ended it. And the Americans created about ten varieties of fighter jets.

          In principle, I agree besides this statement. But unlike armored vehicles, they actually made new planes, and of different types. Zero is simply heavily promoted by Amer propaganda.
        2. Scythian 35
          Scythian 35 April 27 2013 21: 33 New
          +1
          But Russia in 1905 hung, and moreover. And do not talk about the backwardness of Japan, there at the turn of 19-20 Art. everyone was literate, which neither the USA nor Russia could boast of !!! The Japanese fleet was a powerful machine, only Yamato and Musashi were worth it. The only problem is their illiterate application !!!
          1. I think so
            I think so April 29 2013 21: 13 New
            -1
            "... But Russia in 1905 hung ..."

            Any one of Russia would be hung up ... One thing, that joining the war without knowing how to produce high-explosive fragmentation shells for artillery is the height of the insanity and incompetence of the military leadership of TOY Russia ... The Japanese simply had no choice but to sink a fleet armed with armor-piercing ONLY (without explosives) shells ...
  6. anip
    anip April 26 2013 09: 11 New
    +2
    And why does the article write about the roll at 13 degrees of the Franklin aircraft carrier on left board, while in the photo roll on right board.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 26 2013 17: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: anip
      And why in the article it is written about the roll at 13 degrees of the aircraft carrier "Franklin" to the port side, while in the photograph there is a roll to the port side.

      for Kaptsov, this is the norm. His articles are designed for his friendship, of the same development. He and submarine torpedo tubes are located PERPENDICALLY to the longitudinal axis))))
    2. Delta
      Delta April 26 2013 17: 36 New
      -2
      Quote: anip
      And why in the article it is written about the roll at 13 degrees of the aircraft carrier "Franklin" to the port side, while in the photograph there is a roll to the port side.

      for Kaptsov, this is the norm. His articles are designed for his friendship, of the same development. He and submarine torpedo tubes are located PERPENDICALLY to the longitudinal axis))))
  7. Black
    Black April 26 2013 09: 17 New
    +5
    streams of gushing water collided in a roaring whirlpool on the decks of a doomed ship. The Japanese fleet went into immortality.

    What? To cry? Or just seppuku ...
  8. fenix57
    fenix57 April 26 2013 09: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: anip
    And why in the article it is written about the roll at 13 degrees of the aircraft carrier "Franklin" to the port side, while in the photograph there is a roll to the port side.

    Mirror you understand reflection. Hmm .. laughing
  9. avt
    avt April 26 2013 09: 38 New
    +2
    DEATH TO AIRPLANES! laughing ---- ,, Nevertheless, it can be assumed that having high-protected artillery ships instead of aircraft carriers, the Imperial Fleet, in the situation in which he found himself at the end of the war, could prolong his agony and cause additional damage to the enemy "---- These are half measures, the Japanese lacked fuel, they had to go to the galleys, then you look and the solarium wasn’t needed and it wasn’t visible on the radars. But the author was right in evaluating the planned attack on Pearl. But Minora was originally planning landing in Hawaii. But the high command rejected this option, like Nagumo repeated attack. And the political assessment of the attack is given correctly.
  10. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil April 26 2013 09: 50 New
    +5
    Everything is very simple, the Japanese, after their absurd victory over the Russian Empire led by the Tsar rag, the nikolashka the bloody (now a holy martyr, etc.), so believed in the feeling of their own greatness and military genius that they decided that they had a sea (ocean), and decided to do his vile trick with a surprise attack only now against the United States, but only at the head of the United States there was no king-rag, as well as a holy martyr and so on, but I generally am silent about the industrial potential, and they quickly showed the Japanese what they had to show more in 1905, namely, do not meddle when big uncles talk with their crazy ideas about the Great Eastern Empire, but apparently the Japanese tops were so blind (dumb) to understand this before a couple of nuclear mushrooms appeared over their cities.
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 26 2013 12: 48 New
      -4
      LEARN HISTORY
  11. Delta
    Delta April 26 2013 10: 17 New
    +3
    There will be no peace while Javdet is alive laughing laughing
    1. Delta
      Delta April 26 2013 10: 48 New
      -3
      yesterday's offended minuser appeared)))))))))
  12. Delta
    Delta April 26 2013 10: 31 New
    +7
    “In reality, Pearl Harbor was a complete failure of Japanese carrier-based aircraft - all“ success ”was the sinking of four decrepit battleships from the First World War (two of which were raised and restored by 1944). The fifth damaged battleship, Nevada, was stranded and returned to service by the summer of 1942. In total, 18 US Navy ships were sunk or damaged as a result of the Japanese raid, while a significant part of the "victims" escaped with only cosmetic defects. "

    The author ascribes the stupidity of Japanese military leaders to the weakness of carrier-based aviation. The premise is this: but if it were not deck, but the same planes, but from the bases, then everything would be different)))))))))

    "The battle at Midway Atoll told the disgusting survivability of aircraft carriers: a bursting group of 30 Dontless dive bombers under the command of Captain McKlaska literally burned two Japanese attack aircraft carriers Akaga and Kaga in a minute (burnt through the boxes evening). The same fate befell the same day aircraft carriers "Soryu" and "Hiru."

    Well, you need .... carrier-based aviation can do something?))))) Kaptsov, how did you allow this?

    “Admiral Yamamoto’s bid on carrier ships was fatal. But why did the Japanese continue to build aircraft carriers until the very end of the war (even rebuilt the last battleship of the Yamato type into the Shinano aircraft carrier)? The answer is simple: Japan’s dying industry could not build anything more complicated than an aircraft carrier. It will sound incredible, but 70 years ago the aircraft carrier was structurally quite simple and cheap, much simpler than a cruiser or a battleship. No electromagnetic super catapults or nuclear reactors. The simplest steel box to serve the same small and simple aircraft. "

    Yeah, only people who read something smarter than Kaptsov’s statues know that an aircraft carrier needs to be equipped with an air wing. And this is not only airplanes, but the most important thing is experienced pilots. With what in Japan at that time there was already a big problem. And the same "Sinano" began to be completed as an aircraft carrier not at the end of the war, but immediately after Midway, when it became clear how important the carrier-based aircraft. Was it a mistake or not, but to build battleships ... with whom would they fight? By the way, yesterday I asked Kaptsov if he remembers how many battleships were sunk. This is so that it does not seem that the aircraft carriers died in batches, unlike other ships.


    And the article, as always, shows tendentiousness, fantasy has no limits, conclusions are false
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 11: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: Delta
      And the article, as always, shows tendentiousness, fantasy has no limits, conclusions are false

      drinks
  13. Fuzeler
    Fuzeler April 26 2013 10: 34 New
    +3
    On this site, the idea of ​​aircraft carriers is very critical. Whatever article about them, the conclusion is: expensive, useless, and not necessary.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 26 2013 10: 47 New
      +1
      So you pay attention to the author. Only he is always against aircraft carriers (and it is not clear what he is trying to achieve. Except for the opposite effect, especially considering the quality of the articles). The rest are quite calm
    2. Andy
      Andy April 26 2013 11: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: Fuzeler
      On this site, the idea of ​​aircraft carriers is very critical. Whatever article about them, the conclusion is: expensive, useless, and not necessary


      So this is the same "expert" writes.
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 11: 44 New
    +6
    M-d ... worse and worse ...
    In reality, Pearl Harbor was a pure failure of Japanese carrier-based aircraft

    I must say, modern journalism just touches me - Well, why does the author not consider it possible for himself to even study the question a little before writing about it? Why today to THINK about what you write becomes bad form?
    Let's look at the question a little bit.
    Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aviation played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean (Oleg Kaptsov doesn’t count :). But we know about this TODAY. But before the Second World War and at the beginning of it, NOBODY knew about it. The battleship, and only the battleship was considered the ruler of the seas, and the aircraft carrier was assigned the role of an extremely useful, but still secondary ship. The task of the aircraft carriers included reconnaissance and cover of their own battleship squadrons from the air, as well as weakening the enemy squadron until it was within range of artillery fire. But, as it was believed, only "big good guys" could "solve problems".
    That’s why the idea "if the Japanese had invested in artillery ships" is absurd in the bud. At the beginning of the war, the Japanese were firmly convinced that it was LINCOR who ruled the seas and planned to strike at Pearl Harbor on the basis of this understanding. Therefore, the "discovery":
    The only successful operation planned by the admiral - an attack on Pearl Harbor - showed a complete lack of logic in choosing targets and disgusting coordination of Japanese aircraft.

    if it demonstrates a lack of logic, then not Yamamoto, but the author of the article. If the author really wants the Japanese to see the battleship as the ruler of the seas (and they saw), then it was them who should be destroyed first.
    But in order to understand who is hu in these matters, you must first understand how the Japanese and Americans were going to fight at sea.
    The Americans' plan was as simple as a lowing. With the outbreak of war, their Pacific fleet was supposed to advance to the defense of the Philippines. Somewhere in the Philippine Islands, he was to meet with the main forces of the Japanese fleet, give him a general battle and, relying on general superiority in forces to destroy him, thereby depriving Japan of the ability to carry out landing operations.
    But the Japanese plan was much more complicated. Firstly - it should be understood that the Japanese considered their fleet weaker than the American - because the Americans had more battleships :))) At the same time, the Japanese needed to capture Indonesia’s oil fields (without leaving the Philippines in the rear) and quickly so that
    1) To organize the supply of oil, which Japan so needed and without which Japan could not continue the war.
    2) To deprive the USA and its allies of bases on these islands and thereby protect "koranovy" with oil from the forces of the US, British and Dutch navies
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 11: 44 New
      +6
      Those. Japan was faced with a "thousand-armed strike" - it was necessary to capture a lot very quickly. Naturally, the main threat to their plans, the Japanese saw the United States Pacific Fleet.
      The Japanese believed that the appearance of the US fleet "in the power of the grave" is just a matter of time, but they needed to move this time to the latest possible date. The Japanese wanted to capture many islands, create a defensive perimeter, and then, relying on the network of their new bases (with aircraft overtaken by them and light fleet forces) to meet the enemy fully equipped. So they had more chances to succeed in the general battle.
      So it was EXACTLY on the erroneous understanding of battleships as the main strength of the fleet that the attack of Pearl Harbor was planned. The main objective of Nagumo was the destruction of American battleships so that the American fleet came out to cover the Philippines weakened or (ideally) did not come out at all.
      Therefore, the Pearl Harbor attack plan is TOTALLY and TOTALLY a consequence of Japan’s battleship strategy.
      Moreover. The highest training of Japanese decks - this (surprisingly) is also a consequence of the battleship strategy - greatly inferior to the United States in battleships and unable to balance this disparity, the Japanese could only rely on asymmetric answers, i.e. the famous concept of night battle and ... carrier-based aviation :))))
      That is why all reconstructions of the type "the Japanese had to lead their linear fleet to Pearl Harbor" or (even worse) "and it was necessary to capture Pearl Harbor by landing on it" - are categorized as severe cruelty. It was possible to plan the landing on Pearl Harbor (or at least bring battleships to it) only under one single condition - you had to know, no, not even that - you had to KNOW that the role of the ruler of the seas passed from battleships to aircraft carriers. But the Japanese did NOT KNOW this, they still thought the battleship ship No. 1!
      The aircraft carriers of Nagumo - this is nothing more than a sabotage, an important, but a secondary detachment of the combined fleet :) He was thrown to commit sabotage at Pearl Harbor. If he succeeds, great! Well, if not, it’s unpleasant, of course, but it’s okay - the main forces of Japan, its linear fleet is still ready to meet the enemy, the absence of aircraft carriers did not greatly reduce its chances ... - LIKE THIS thought the Japanese admirals. It would never have crossed their minds to throw their main forces at distant lands - why risk the fleet, trying to give a general battle away from their bases to a superior enemy?
      The Japanese considered Nagumo's detachment a kind of ninja who would quietly sneak up, strike stealthily and immediately dissolve into the vastness of the ocean. Japanese TRAGICALLY UNDERSTIMATED the power of carrier-based aviation. The fact that the carriers of Nagumo is not a killer stylet, but a sledgehammer capable of crushing Pearl Harbor, together with all its ships, airfields, storage facilities and other infrastructure, no one could think of.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 11: 45 New
        +7
        The Japanese admirals did not perceive the aircraft carriers as we know about them now. They could not run into the Internet and read about the battles of aircraft carrier aviation. The death of Glories seemed to confirm the priority of the battleships (really - it didn’t confirm anything, because ... well, about that another time :))), and the English raid on Taranto showed only that deck aircraft could be a dangerous saboteur - not more. But this is what the Japanese foresaw. That deck aviation is now becoming the main force of the fleet - no one yet knew about this.
        Nagumo's success turned out to be a bolt from the blue ... primarily for the Japanese themselves. SUCH success they simply did not expect. And that is why Nagumo did not dare to strike a second blow, finish off the remaining ships and destroy the infrastructure of Pearl Harbor. Ganda made up his mind, and Yamamoto would probably have done the same, but Nagumo simply could not go beyond battleship thinking - it seemed to him that after such incredible luck, he urgently had to flee before they nailed :)))) WAS THE BASIC FORCE OF THE NAVY, and could not resist him at Pearl Harbor NO ONE - but Nagumo himself, remaining a “battleship” admiral, felt like a kind of ninja, whom accurate calculation and lucky chance helped to fill up the oyabun, but now you need to urgently do your legs, for the personal guard samurai are already running, rattling with swords, and there is no way to resist them in an open ninja battle can not...
        So - it’s insanely funny to read an author who proves in every possible way that an aircraft carrier is NOT the main force of the fleet and at the same time requires that the Japanese, when planning operations, proceed from the fact that the main force of the fleet is an aircraft carrier laughing
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 26 2013 17: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Nagumo's success turned out to be a bolt from the blue ... primarily for the Japanese themselves. SUCH success they simply did not expect. And that is why Nagumo did not dare to strike a second blow, finish off the remaining ships and destroy the infrastructure of Pearl Harbor. Ganda made up his mind, and Yamamoto would probably have done the same, but Nagumo simply could not go beyond the limits of battleship thinking

          You are beautifully painting here. drinks
          But it seems to me that the point here is not so much in “battleship thinking” (Nagumo was unlikely to understand the value of the infrastructure of the base) but rather in the fact that Nagumo did not fully understand how Japan can win this war.
          After all, this whole war from Japan is a pure bluff. A country without resources, without self-sufficiency in food, with limited production capabilities and not the most powerful fleet decided to fight against the United States and the British Empire. This is pure madness, poker bluff. And you can only win such a war becoming a madman himself, taking the lead and taking risks. And from this point of view, an attack on Pearl Harbor, which was considered impossible, giving a gain in time, looks quite right.
          But Nagumo’s retreat is not. He simply did not take risks and began to act "as taught."
          The surprise factor is lost, there is little fuel, tankers don’t want to risk it, where the enemy’s aircraft carriers are not clear, we must retreat.
          But it was possible to win the battle, but it was impossible to win this war.
          1. avt
            avt April 26 2013 17: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Odyssey
            After all, this whole war from Japan is a pure bluff. A country without resources, without self-sufficiency in food, with limited production capabilities and not the most powerful fleet decided to fight against the United States and the British Empire. This is pure madness, poker bluff.

            Poker is Yamamoto's favorite game, the memories of his contemporaries were preserved that he often asked his interlocutors if they knew how to play it and there was no answer, deliberately lost all interest in them and interrupted the conversation.
            1. avt
              avt April 26 2013 18: 36 New
              +1
              By the way, one of the main creators of the raid on Pearl Harbor has a very interesting fate. Minoru Genda, after the war, commanded the Japanese Air Force and retired in 1952, was awarded the American Order of Merit laughing
            2. Odysseus
              Odysseus April 28 2013 19: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: avt
              Poker is Yamamoto's favorite game, the memories of his contemporaries were preserved that he often asked his interlocutors if they knew how to play it and there was no answer, deliberately lost all interest in them and interrupted the conversation.

              Thank you. I did not know. This characterizes him very well smile
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 01: 15 New
            +2
            Phew, I couldn’t answer :)))
            Quote: Odyssey
            how much is that Nagumo did not fully understand how Japan could win this war.

            Nuuuu, it is not the admiral’s business - he suffers from similar questions :))))
            Quote: Odyssey
            After all, this whole war from Japan is a pure bluff

            But the whole point is that the Japanese already succeeded in one such bluff - the Russo-Japanese war :)
            Quote: Odyssey
            But it was possible to win the battle, but it was impossible to win this war.

            That's right :))))
            By the way, I would look with great interest at what Japan’s aircraft carrier fleet would do when it was placed under Gand’s leadership :))))
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus April 28 2013 17: 07 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Nuuuu, it is not the admiral’s business - he suffers from similar questions :))))

              The war is generally too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military :))
              But seriously, since Japan decided to get involved in such a crazy war, all responsible executives should clearly understand how they need to act and what exactly are the chances for Japan in this war.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But the whole point is that the Japanese already succeeded in one such bluff - the Russo-Japanese war :)

              There was a bluff, but a relative bluff. The war was initially fought with limited goals, and behind the back of Japan was a mighty British Empire ally.
              Here, even if Japan had managed to completely destroy the US Pacific Fleet, there was very little hope for a separate peace. And Japan had no allies at sea.
              That is, the bluff was absolute.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              By the way, I would look with great interest at what Japan’s aircraft carrier fleet would do when it was placed under Gand’s leadership :))))

              The man whom the landing in Hawaii offers cannot be trusted with fleet command :))
              But on the other hand, it was for such a war that Japan Ganda was going to wage that fit perfectly :)))
    2. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 12: 22 New
      -2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.

      Unfortunately, many people confuse causes and effects.
      Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation. And with a number of demarches and provocations, including a notorious mistake in the Indochina / China note that started this war.

      And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

      Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 12: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Kars
        Unfortunately, many people confuse causes and effects.

        let's get a look
        Quote: Kars
        Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation

        This argument can be attributed to the creation of a powerful US Navy (which was done before Roosevelt) and / or to the US entry into the war. What does the aircraft carriers and battleships have to do with it? :)
        Quote: Kars
        And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

        The specified superiority does not win the war. I don’t remember anything about military operations in which the gross domestic product, firmly holding the defense, pulled the main forces of the enemy and allowed to concentrate the largest oil fields for a strategic strike on the flank, after which the light industry enterprises broke through the front and entered the enemy’s communications thus completing his entourage.
        "Solves" is not industrial power as such. The ability to transform this power into military force and the ability to use this very military force decides. The gross domestic product of Poland, France and England in 1939 exceeded the German gross domestic product by a factor of one and a half - what good?
        Quote: Kars
        Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.

        Perhaps because they are not visible at all from this silhouette? :))))
        1. Kars
          Kars April 26 2013 13: 19 New
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This argument can be attributed to the creation of a powerful US Navy (which was done before Roosevelt)

          Take Wikipedia and read
          Franklin Delano Roosevelt [1] (Eng. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, IPA: [ˈfræŋklɪn ˈdɛlənoʊ ˈroʊzəˌvɛlt] [2] [3]) (1882-1945) - 32nd US President 1933-45,
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The specified superiority does not win the war

          They just win.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I don’t remember something about military operations,

          And I don’t remember operations that won without weapons, ammunition, uniforms, food (this refers to the period of the industrial era)
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It is not industrial power as such that decides. The ability to transform this power into military force and the ability to use this very military force decide

          If it doesn’t exist, then what to educate is a smart man and he doesn’t see the cause-effect connections at close range. And the Americans just had no skills, brute force and total superiority,
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The gross domestic product of Poland, France and England in 1939 exceeded the German gross domestic product one and a half times - what good is it?

          Are you sure of this? Give me the numbers, and if you could of course apply the already mentioned cause-and-effect relations, would you see that Germany lost the war or not?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Perhaps because they are not visible at all because of this silhouette? :)))

          Only with very superficial glances)))))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 13: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            Take Wikipedia and read
            Franklin Delano Roosevelt

            But Wikipedia did not accidentally say that Roosevelt did not plan military operations? :))))
            Quote: Kars
            If it doesn’t exist, then what to adapt it to? A freak is an intelligent person, but he does not see the cause-effect connections at point blank range. And the Americans did not have the skills

            No comments. Tell it to Ozawa after the battle of the Mariana Islands
            Quote: Kars
            Are you sure of this? Give me the numbers, and if you could of course apply the already mentioned cause-and-effect relations, would you see that Germany lost the war or not?

            Check out your favorite wiki. Drive in "military production during the Second World War :)))
            Quote: Kars
            Only with very superficial glances)))))

            I already answered this - below :)))
            1. Kars
              Kars April 26 2013 13: 42 New
              -3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But Wikipedia did not accidentally say that Roosevelt did not plan military operations? :))))

              Well, why so babble --- war is a continuation of politics and economics)))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              No comments. Tell it to Ozawa after the battle of the Mariana Islands

              Easily.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Check out your favorite wiki. Drive in "military production during the Second World War :)))

              Well, why did I copy the necessary information to you, copy to me where it turns out that Germany won the war,
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I already answered this - below :)))

              do not be fooled.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 13: 51 New
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                Well, why babble

                For the lack of sane argumentation - we begin to dare? :) How are you predictable ...
                Quote: Kars
                Easily.

                Exactly. Put the keyboard back and forth - beyond the spiritual saucer.
                Quote: Kars
                Well, why did I copy the necessary information to you, copy to me where it turns out that Germany won the war,

                That is, you are not aware of either the occupation of Poland, or the surrender of France, or the flight of the British military contingent from the continent? :))) Take the school textbook, everything is clearly written there :))
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 26 2013 13: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  For the lack of sane argumentation - we begin to dare? :) How are you predictable ...

                  You, too, do not know the years of Roosevelt's reign)))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This argument can be attributed to the creation of a powerful US Navy (which was done before Roosevelt)
                  Maybe you still don’t know how Roosevelt fought the Great Depression)))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Exactly. Put the keyboard back and forth - beyond the spiritual saucer.

                  Well, if you contact Ozawa like that)))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Tell it to Ozawa after the battle of the Mariana Islands
                  then it’s clear why you are appealing to him)))

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That is, you are not aware of either the occupation of Poland, or the surrender of France, or the flight of the British military contingent from the continent? :))) Take the school textbook, everything is clearly written there :))


                  So Germany won the victory in your universe? And France did not participate in the victory parade in Berlin?
                  are you really so fragile that you can’t connect the defeat of Germany with the fact that its opponents surpassed it economically, private success only confirmed the rule - Germany remained in ruins like Japan)))
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 14: 38 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Kars
                    Maybe you still don’t know how Roosevelt fought the Great Depression)))

                    For "wise men and wise women" who think that they know the story
                    The first one. Roosevelt became president for the first time in 1933. The Washington Maritime Agreement, which affirmed the equality of the British and American fleets (and the right of Japan to have only 3 battleships for every 5 American), was signed by the parties in 1922. Will we argue?
                    The second one. In my words about the decisive role of carrier-based aviation in the Pacific War, you managed to write that
                    Quote: Kars
                    Roosevelt played a decisive role

                    Over the course of many comments, I have been trying to find out why you contrast Roosevelt with American carrier-based aircraft. Was he her personal enemy? She arose against his will? Aviation didn’t achieve anything, did the Japanese navy personally drown Roosevelt personally, digging through the finger with the skin of Japanese ships? Or what?
                    So far, it has only been possible to find out that you are aware that Roosevelt was the president of the United States during the Second World War. This is a big step forward. laughing
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, if you contact Ozawa like that)))

                    I don’t mess with him. You wrote that you EASY to contact Ozawa.
                    Quote: Kars
                    then it’s clear why you are appealing to him)))

                    Those. the level of training of American pilots and sailors for the battle of the Mariana Islands, in your opinion, remained at the same level as before, i.e. at Pearl Harbor and Midway, yes? :) you here http://alternathistory.org.ua/
                    Quote: Kars
                    So Germany won the victory in your universe? And France did not participate in the victory parade in Berlin?
                    are you so weak that you cannot connect the defeat of Germany with the fact that its opponents exceeded it economically, private success only confirmed the rule

                    Would you even write in Word first, and then copy here, or something ... or is your Russian not native? Well, you can’t do that - in every sentence by mistake.
                    I, unlike you, look a little deeper, and I understand that no superiority of the economic potential of England, France, Poland and all the Benelux there did not prevent Germany from winning the war against the Anglo-French coalition. And that after this win, Germany in the economy was already superior to her only remaining opponent - England. Nevertheless, WWII Germany lost.
                    However, this only happened after the USSR and the USA were drawn into the war. And if you still gave yourself the trouble to think about the stereotypes of historical literature, then you could conclude that the difference in economic potentials plays a role, but only when it has the potential to manifest itself, i.e. incarnate on the battlefield. The German blitzkrieg, against the background of the completely anomalous actions of the Anglo-Franco-Polish “union”, turned out to be stronger - these countries HAD an economic advantage, but they could not realize it in military force in 1939-1940. The USSR, without having any economic advantage against the coalition of countries attacking it (Germany, Romania, Finland), nevertheless, was able to stop the Germans in 1941. I could say that the USSR strategically won its war just in 1941, but this is too difficult for you :)))
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 26 2013 14: 51 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      5 American) signed by the parties in 1922. Will we argue?

                      What is there to argue this is a well-known fact, only it’s measured in the displacement and not in pieces. But you can start this way with Woodrow Wilson))))
                      Maybe you can ascribe to me what I said that the US fleet at all under Roosevelt began with you))))))
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Over the course of many comments, I have been trying to find out why you contrast Roosevelt with American carrier-based aircraft. Was he her personal enemy?

                      For starters, I did not contrast Roosevelt with either carrier-based or coastal aviation --- You wrote about the decisive role in the war in the Pacific Ocean - The decisive role is behind Roosevelt. As its initiator and ideologist.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      So far, it has only been possible to find out that you are aware that Roosevelt was the president of the United States during the Second World War. This is a big step forward.

                      All the same, you really are slowing down, you can even understand that Roosevelt became the president BEFORE the start of the third world war, already in 1933)))

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I don’t mess with him. You wrote that you EASY to contact Ozawa.

                      are you sure? that you’re not getting involved? I wondered how you would pass it on, since you remembered about him and asked to say)))
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      .e. the level of training of American pilots and sailors for the battle of the Mariana Islands, in your opinion, remained at the same level as before, i.e. under Pearl Harbor and Midway, yes

                      Generally the American army, no fancy, one brute force, and a numerical superiority.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 14: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Would you even write in Word first, and then copy here, or something ... or is your Russian not native? Well, you can’t do that - in every sentence by mistake.
                        I always notice how the opponent is blown away, immediately begins to write about spelling --- before that I read, somehow answered and how I understood that in the span - spelling started)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I, unlike you, look a little deeper, and I understand that no superiority of the economic potential of England, France, Poland and all the Benelux there did not prevent Germany from winning the war against the Anglo-French coalition.

                        England surrendered? This is the number))))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And that after this win, Germany was already superior in the economy to the only remaining enemy - England

                        Do you know that England is an empire? And had dominions? Australia, India, Canada))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I could say that the USSR strategically won its war just in 1941, but this is too difficult for you :)))

                        Why I said this repeatedly, there are opinions that it is just near Smolensk.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        . The German blitzkrieg, against the background of completely anomalous actions of the Anglo-Franco-Polish “union”, turned out to be stronger - these countries HAD an economic advantage, but they could not realize it in military force in 1939-1940

                        Well, you have to start displaying periods)))) You didn’t go crazy about the full program, congratulations.

                        I repeat for you to remember
                        Quote: Kars
                        Unfortunately, many people confuse causes and effects.
                        Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation. And with a number of demarches and provocations, including a notorious mistake in the Indochina / China note that started this war.

                        And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

                        Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 15: 53 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Kars
                        I always notice how the opponent is blown away

                        You can not continue further :)))) Everything is clear with you.
                        Let those who read our correspondence judge which of us is blown away.
                        But I’ll still drive you the last cloves:
                        Quote: Kars
                        England surrendered? This is the number)))))))

                        England did not give up. But your indescribable distortion is inappropriate here - I wrote about the loss of the Anglo-French Coalition :))) But she just died :))) I understand you perfectly, it’s difficult, England is one country, France is another, and the globe is big such - how to figure it out? :))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Do you know that England is an empire? And had dominions? Australia, India, Canada))))

                        Well, add up the GDP of the UK itself, its dominions, France, Poland - and compare with the GDP of Germany as of 1939-1940 laughing And how did Germany manage the Anglo-French Union? :)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        I repeat for you to remember

                        no, I’m indifferent to mantras.
                  2. Odysseus
                    Odysseus April 26 2013 17: 09 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I could say that the USSR strategically won its war just in 1941.

                    In terms of military strategy, yes.
                    But in fact, no.
                    Here the point is that the USSR was the first in the world socialist by the state.
                    Therefore, the USSR was not enough to win the war, even it was not enough to achieve peace better than the pre-war.
                    The USSR needed to win the war so that capitalism was liquidated, or at least the USSR could achieve economic superiority over the captain countries. And after the events of 1941, it became clear that this could not be done.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 26 2013 17: 11 New
                      0
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      Therefore, the USSR was not enough to win the war, even it was not enough to achieve peace better than the pre-war.

                      so it would be possible to declare if the USSR began the war.
    3. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 12: 55 New
      -2
      By the way, I can recommend reading an interesting book.

      Roscoe, Theodore Roscoe, Theodore
      US submarine fighting in World War II
      http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/index.html
      IV. A summary table of the losses of the Japanese merchant fleet with the reasons, the number of sunken ships and the total tonnage {~ 1}

      Year and month Ground aviation {~ 2} Navy-based airplanes based on airfields Aircraft carrier {~ 3} Submarines {~ 4} Mines Artillery fire Non-military losses For unknown reasons Total
      amount total tonnage amount total tonnage amount tonnage, t amount tonnage, t amount tonnage, t amount tonnage, t amount tonnage, t amount tonnage, t amount tonnage
      In total, 300 909682 144,5 383168 393 1453135 1154,5 4870317 358 818144 18,5 85956 150 370720 18 32918 2615,5 8924195 sunk and disabled

      http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/31.html

      And if by preference, then I am most interested in heavy cruisers from the Japanese fleet
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 13: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        By the way, I can recommend reading an interesting book.

        Thanks, read. So what? Are you terribly impressed by the numbers of losses of Japanese transports at the hands of American submariners?
        Without detracting from the merits of the American submarine forces, I still urge you to look at this table, "Reducing Japanese Imports," of the book you recommended
        http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/30.html
        1940 g - 22 million tons
        1941 - 20 million tons
        1942- 19,4 million tons
        1943 - 16,4 million tons
        1944 - 10,1 million tons
        1945 - 2,7 million tons
        So, it will be decisively obvious to any impartial researcher that one can talk about the significant successes of American submariners from the end of 1943 - the beginning of 1944 - i.e. when the dominance of the US surface fleet could no longer be challenged. In the period of relatively weak US surface fleet (Pearl Harbor - Midway) and roughly equal forces (Midway - the end of the Battle of Guadalcanal), the US submarine fleet was able to do a little more than nothing.
        In essence, his success came at a time when US aircraft carriers returned bases to the southeast Pacific to American submariners. And if you read the book carefully, you should remember this fragment here (quote)
        Therefore, it is clear that torpedo attacks against Japanese ships on the enemy’s external communications and the war of attrition, which weakened not only the power of the “internal defense zone”, but also the Japanese metropolis itself, are in no way separable from the offensive operations to capture the islands carried out by the American armed forces in 1944 year in the Pacific.
        http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/19.html
        Without a powerful U.S. carrier-battleship fleet, there would simply be no U.S. successes
        1. Kars
          Kars April 26 2013 13: 26 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So, it will be decisively obvious to any impartial researcher that one can talk about the significant successes of American submariners from the end of 1943 - beginning of 1944 - i.e.

          Well, again, you don’t understand simple things. Japan Island --- imports are carried out in transparencies, transports are not rubber and their number is limited, as well as the ability of Japanese shipyards to build them ---- therefore there is a domino effect, and of course the acquisition of combat experience by American submariners, and reduction of operating units of the Japanese fort. But I see that you do not want to accept information that does not correspond to your minds.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In essence, his success came at a time when US aircraft carriers returned bases to the southeast Pacific to American submariners

          what a hug is due to the fact that the USA was able, thanks to its industrial power, to increase the number of warships, transports, arm and provide the invading troops.
          everything rests precisely on the industrial power of the United States.

          By the way, the years of Roosevelt’s presidency were revered?))))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 13: 44 New
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            Well, you again do not understand simple things

            Yah?:)))
            Quote: Kars
            .Japan island --- imports are carried out in transparencies, transports are not rubber and their number is limited, as are the possibilities of Japanese shipyards to build them ---- therefore there is a domino effect

            Sorry, but you don’t understand the obvious things. The success of the submarine war against Japan appeared when the American submarines began to operate on communications between Indonesia, the mainland and the Japanese metropolis, is it really not clear? :))) And the WWII submarine is not an atomic ship with almost infinite autonomy, and in order to American submarines were able to achieve impressive results in the area of ​​the East China Sea and others like them; submarine BASES were needed. Which would be placed "a little" closer than the US coast or Pearl Harbor. The success of the American submarines really began when they returned the bases in areas of Indonesia
            Quote: Kars
            But I see that you do not want to perceive information that does not correspond to your objections.

            Whose cow ...
            1. Kars
              Kars April 26 2013 14: 00 New
              -2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Whose cow would ..

              Not all the same, you are numb in your ignorance))))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The success of the submarine war against Japan

              So the American submarines did not fight before 1943))))
              1. Kars
                Kars April 26 2013 14: 28 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                American submarines have become action

                It’s interesting how the interlocutor considers the effectiveness of the action of submarines to increase from the number of built? You know since 1941 the number of American submarines has grown and grown, have been technically improved, torpedoes have improved - have heard about problems with American torpedo fuses in the initial period of the war))))))
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                A WWII submarine is not an atomic ship with almost infinite autonomy

                USS Wahoo (SS-238), under the command of one of the most famous US submariners, Dudley "Mash" Morton, the first of the American submarines entered the Sea of ​​Japan. It was sunk in 1943 upon returning from the second campaign to that region.
                Range: 11 nautical miles (000 km) surfaced at a speed of 20 knots (000 km / h) [10]
                Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3,7 km / h), submerged [3]
                75 days on patrol


                These boats were approved appropriations for fiscal year 1941, as part of a proclamation by the president Franklin Roosevelt "Limited Emergency Society" in September 1939. [15] The first boat set out was actually the USS Drum at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on September 11, 1940. It was put into operation on November 1, 1941 and was the only Gato-class boat in operation when the war broke out. Gato himself was laid down on October 5, 1940, by the Electric Boat Company in Groton, Connecticut and commissioned on December 31, 1941. [16] Of
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 14: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  So the American submarines did not fight before 1943))))

                  Why not fight? We fought. But the results are not impressive at all - they could not interrupt or significantly limit imports to Japan in 1941-1943. Will we argue? :))) Or will you read YOUR links more closely for a start? :)))
                  Quote: Kars
                  USS Wahoo (SS-238), under the command of one of the most famous US submariners, Dudley "Mash" Morton, the first of the American submarines entered the Sea of ​​Japan

                  So what? Single cases are single cases. If the German submarine did crawl into Scapa - what, we assume that the Germans could go to the main WWII of the British as to their home? And if the "guantonomo" crossed the Atlantic - will we declare the monitors seaworthy ships?
                  Yes, the Americans went there. But there is no result! See YOUR link :)))
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 14: 55 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Why not fight? We fought. Only here the results are not impressive at all - they could not interrupt or significantly limit imports to Japan in 1941-1943.

                    Do you know the domino effect? ​​While your beloved aircraft carriers just couldn’t do this task))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    what? Single cases are single cases.

                    are you sure that the unitary? and this completely refutes your stories about the increase in victories happened ONLY due to the fact that the aircraft carriers captured some islands))))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Yes, the Americans went there. But there is no result! See YOUR link :))

                    Well, you obviously, though you are watching, but you are not able to understand)))
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 15: 57 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Do you know the domino effect? ​​While your beloved aircraft carriers just couldn’t do this task))

                      No one ever set the task of destroying the merchant fleet, and that’s not their job.
                      Quote: Kars
                      are you sure that unitary?

                      See your own link.
                      1940 g - 22 million tons
                      1941 - 20 million tons
                      1942- 19,4 million tons
                      1943 - 16,4 million tons
                      1944 - 10,1 million tons
                      1945 - 2,7 million tons
                      Where are the heroic victories of the American submarine in 1941-1943? :)))))
                      Quote: Kars
                      and this completely refutes your story about the increase in victories happened ONLY due to the fact that the aircraft carriers captured some islands))))

                      M-dya. To the therapist!
                    2. Kars
                      Kars April 26 2013 16: 11 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      No one ever set the task of destroying the merchant fleet, and that’s not their job.

                      Really? I thought their job was to sink the ships of the antagonist))) They mean the transporters of Yapes let go.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      1940 g - 22 million tons
                      1941 - 20 million tons
                      1942- 19,4 million tons
                      1943 - 16,4 million tons
                      1944 - 10,1 million tons
                      1945 - 2,7 million tons

                      And? Do you really want to say that everything here sunk from the Sea of ​​Japan)))))) comes to repeat - read carefully)))
                      Quote: Kars
                      It’s interesting how the interlocutor considers the effectiveness of the action of submarines to increase from the number of built? You know since 1941 the number of American submarines has grown and grown, have been technically improved, torpedoes have improved - have heard about problems with American torpedo fuses in the initial period of the war))))))


                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      M-dya. To the therapist!

                      what a cool answer is probably on the range and autonomy of American submarines
                      Quote: Kars
                      Range: 11 nautical miles (000 km) surfaced at a speed of 20 knots (000 km / h) [10]
                      Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3,7 km / h), submerged [3]
                      75 days on patrol
  15. Ascetic
    Ascetic April 26 2013 12: 56 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.


    The losses of the Japanese merchant fleet as a result of the actions of American forces were as follows:



    American submarines simultaneously launched sensitive attacks on Japanese warships, especially during the period when Japan left its positions in the central and southwestern Pacific. More than 250 warships were sunk by boats, including: battleships - 1, aircraft carriers - 13, cruisers - 13, destroyers - 38 and submarines - 22.
    Significant losses of the Japanese merchant and navy as a result of the actions of American submarines were caused primarily by weak anti-submarine defense in the Japanese fleet and, secondly, by the fact that the combat activity of the submarines took place in the conditions of the superiority of the American naval and air forces in the Pacific ocean over japanese forces.
    Nevertheless, the Americans lost 52 submarines: in 1942 - 8; in 1943–17; in 1944–19 and for eight months of 1945 - 8 boats. Most of them were sunk by Japanese surface ships.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 13: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Ascetic
      battleships - 1, aircraft carriers - 13, cruisers - 13, destroyers - 38 and submarines - 22

      not bad plus 1150 transports with tonnage over 500 tons
      Quote: Ascetic
      amid the superiority of the American naval and air forces in the Pacific over Japanese forces.

      it is strange that the stretched communications were forgotten, and simply complete superiority, since the submarines acted in those places where the American Air Force did not fly, especially it should be interesting looking at the number of Japanese aircraft carriers sunk, as we see the planes did not protect them.
      but read the book anyway.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 26 2013 15: 12 New
        0
        Battleships along with heavy cruisers sank 1 aircraft carrier of 1916 + 1 small escort boat for 8000 tons. The first evacuated fighters, the second did not have heavy weapons. Not a lot! aircraft carriers sank at least Musashi and Yamato, and only a few dozen battleships and cruisers. 21 aircraft carriers sank submarines, counting air transport. And they lost ?! enemy boats. Behind him is the aircraft carrier “Card” - 180 boats and “Block Island” and “Croatan” - 1943 boats each. another 1945 aircraft carriers were sunk by the aircraft carriers themselves. + ships of other classes, transports, air battles, work along the coast.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 26 2013 15: 22 New
          -1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Incor, together with heavy cruisers, sank 1 aircraft carrier of 1916 + 1 small escort boat for 8000 tons.

          can not be.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Of 180 German, Italian and Japanese boats operating on Europe

          here in general we are talking about American submarines

          what's next?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol April 26 2013 15: 53 New
            0
            we are talking about the effectiveness of aircraft carriers
            1. Kars
              Kars April 26 2013 15: 58 New
              -1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              we are talking about the effectiveness of aircraft carriers

              Really? Beginning of article
              The defeat of Japan in World War II seems so natural that there can be no options and different interpretations. The total superiority of the United States in natural, human and industrial resources, multiplied by a powerful economy and a high level of science development - in such conditions, America’s victory in the war became only a matter of time.

              Where is there even a word about avinostsev?

              You answered my comment Kars (1) Today, 13:09 ↑ ↑
              And I solemnly))) I declare that there we are talking about American submarines and their influence on the war in the Pacific Ocean.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 16: 04 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                Where is there even a word about avinostsev?

                All the same, you need to read a little more than the first paragraph of the article :))) Because (surprise!) After the first paragraph begins
                If with the general reasons for the defeat of the Japanese empire everything is extremely obvious, then the purely technical side of the naval battles in the Pacific is of genuine interest:

                Then follow the epic descriptions of the failures of aircraft carrier :)))
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 26 2013 16: 17 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  If with the general reasons for the defeat of the Japanese empire everything is extremely obvious, then the purely technical side of the naval battles in the Pacific is of genuine interest:

                  You will find it in my comment from
                  Quote: Kars
                  Kars (1) Today, 13:09 p.m. ↑ ↓

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Then follow the epic descriptions of the failures of aircraft carrier :)))

                  Well, with your reading skills, you can get anything you want, because you don’t even need the power to win.

                  I will conduct an experiment on you)) 0
                  There are Japan and the USA changing their places - the USA is becoming an island with 80 millions of people and corresponding resources, and Japan is becoming most of the large content and 200 millions of people with the same resources. (Of course, everything is rounded, otherwise you will start to freeze on trifles, all changed)
                  Will the US win the war?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 16: 30 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    You will find it in my comment from

                    Yes you ?!!! Well, you have to ?! ?!)))))
                    Then explain why the hell you climb into MY commentary, pull out the phrase about carrier-based aviation and start treating me on the subject of Franklin Roosevelt? :)))))
                    Quote: Kars
                    I will conduct an experiment on you))

                    The wire did not operate :)
                  2. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 16: 55 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The wire did not operate :)

                    What is weak? You so crucified)))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The specified superiority does not win the war. I don’t remember something about military operations in which the gross domestic product, firmly holding the defense, pulled over the main enemy forces and allowed the largest oil fields to be concentrated for a strategic strike on the flank

                    So answer, do not be shy)))
                    Quote: Kars
                    There are Japan and the USA changing their places - the USA is becoming an island with 80 millions of people and corresponding resources, and Japan is becoming most of the large content and 200 millions of people with the same resources. (Of course, everything is rounded, otherwise you will start to freeze on trifles, all changed)
                    Will the US win the war?

                    or just balabol?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.

                    You see, there is war and there is a concretization of the theater of operations. And my comment

                    Quote: Kars
                    Unfortunately, many people confuse causes and effects.
                    Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation. And with a number of demarches and provocations, including a notorious mistake in the Indochina / China note that started this war.

                    And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

                    Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.

                    Everything is clearly a decisive role, the Pacific Ocean, the silhouette of an aircraft carrier. I did not begin to tell, but at that time in the steppes near Stalingrad.
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 20: 06 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    or just balabol?

                    Y-little little smiles :))) Okay, so be it, the last time I will answer :)))
                    Quote: Kars
                    There are Japan and the USA changing their places - the USA is becoming an island with 80 millions of people and corresponding resources, and Japan is becoming most of the large content and 200 millions of people with the same resources. (Of course, everything is rounded, otherwise you will start to freeze on trifles, all changed)
                    Will the US win the war?

                    Unknown Maybe yes, maybe no - it all depends on, as I said, whether a power with large resources can realize its advantage on the battlefield. And, importantly, DOES she WANT to do this :)
                    Here are three wars in which the economically weakest side has won:
                    1) Russian-Japanese
                    2) Vietnamese
                    3) Korean
                    IF the largest power decides to win no matter what, IF for this it is ready to fight for years until the last soldier / ship, IF this same power can rebuild its economic power in the military and provide quantitative and qualitative superiority, as well as military superiority art, then she will win.
                    But in Russian-Japanese Russia, being unprecedentedly stronger both in the economy and in the number of armed forces, it managed to lose twice as many armadillos than Japan had. And she agreed to peace without introducing into the war a tenth of the personnel troops at her disposal. In Korea and Vietnam, the United States, being epic more powerful than the opposing enemy, were forced to retreat without achieving their goals. No, if the United States rested its horn and waged a total war, and Korea and Vietnam were simply wiped off the face of the earth, however ... this did not happen and there were many reasons for this.
                    During World War II, the Japanese did not intend to wage a long war of attrition. They believed that the United States would stop fighting after the destruction of the American Pacific Fleet. As comrade S. Dall wrote
                    Therefore, the Japanese believed that the rapid and complete destruction of the American Pacific Fleet would lead to the end of the war and the signing of peace on Japanese terms. And then the Great East Asian Orb of Prosperity will become a reality.

                    Quote: Kars
                    Everything is clearly a decisive role,

                    Yeah, I'm happy for you :))))) Just at least write a comic - Who is cooler - Roosevelt or "Hellcat" :))))))
                  4. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 21: 02 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Unknown Maybe yes, maybe no - it all depends on

                    Yes, with people like you, it’s pointless to talk))))

                    japas) with limited resources and a lack of oil drove the Americans out of the net for two years, and then they siphoned off as many as superior forces)))))))
                  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 21: 16 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Yes, with people like you, it’s pointless to talk))))

                    You, yes. Finally it dawned on you that it wasn’t with your thesaurus :))))
                  6. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 21: 19 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You, yes. Finally it dawned on you that it wasn’t with your thesaurus :))))

                    Well, it’s really so deep down to you that it’s only possible to open your eyes to reality using the surgical method. And then they probably all have already been framed and rejects new information.
              2. Kars
                Kars April 27 2013 12: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                IF the largest power decides to win no matter what, IF for this it’s ready to fight for years to the last soldier / ship,

                Yes, it’s strange, we’re talking about the Second World War)))) everything is basically similar.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In Vietnam, the United States, being epic more powerful than the opposing enemy, was forced to retreat without achieving its goals.

                And imagine the United States had aircraft carriers, and they lost like in Korea.
                But if you were an intelligent person, you would have realized that China and the USSR were behind Korea and Vietnam, and nuclear deterrence --- but an intelligent person would understand this.

                As for Russo-Japanese, Great Britain was behind Japan. And RI may have been big, but it was backward technically, and the war was more due to a misunderstanding.

                But the World Prev --- Entente won, as it was
                Quote: Kars
                o economic, industrial and resource excellence.

                even Schlieffen’s plan could not help.

                World War II - Germany lost a bit on blitzkrieg, Japan despite betting on aircraft carriers.
                And note the first and second are World Wars, and you brought some regional conflicts.

                Would be smarter would try to use the Arab-Israeli war, but there are nuances there, such as the USSR and the USA.
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 17: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                Yes, it’s strange, we’re talking about the Second World War)))) everything is basically similar.

                Only there are two nuances
                1) In World War II, the Americans were able to realize their economic advantage by building an aircraft carrier fleet of a multi-state standard, and it was carrier-based aviation that became a decisive force in the vastness of the Pacific :)))
                2) The Japanese, planning Pearl Harbor, absolutely did not plan to fight as it happened in reality. they hoped for a blitzkrieg - the destruction of the US fleet and a peace agreement.
                Quote: Kars
                And imagine the United States had aircraft carriers, and they lost like in Korea.

                Do you have a personal problem with aircraft carriers? Did your aircraft carrier step on your foot in childhood? Offended by something? Did you commit depraved acts against you? (well, there language showed you, or what :)
                Quote: Kars
                But if you were an intelligent person, you would have realized that China and the USSR were behind Korea and Vietnam, and nuclear deterrence --- but an intelligent person would understand this.

                I am a smart person, and therefore I understand that there wasn’t and couldn’t be any "nuclear deterrence" during the war in Korea - then the USSR nuclear arsenal consisted of 5 RDS-1 nuclear bombs - but the USSR did not have a means of delivery to the United States . I also perfectly understand the size of the assistance of the USSR and China in comparison with the forces involved by the USA in Korea and Vietnam. But I am especially delighted with your passage about the "technically backward Russian Empire" :))) It's five! :))) And the "war of misunderstanding" is generally six plus :)))
                In general, there is definitely nothing to talk about with you - except for a few stamps of the school textbook, miraculously clinging to your gyrus, you do not own material
                Quote: Kars
                even Schlieffen’s plan could not help.

                This is lovely! Especially given the fact that the Germans did not implement Schlieffen’s plan in WWI :)))
                Quote: Kars
                World War II - Germany lost a bit on blitzkrieg, Japan despite betting on aircraft carriers

                And the USSR won this war using the German Panzerwaffe tactics, moreover, bringing it almost to the ideal. The United States won this war by building more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world. AND?
              4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 17: 29 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                And note the first and second are World Wars, and you brought some regional conflicts

                You are hopeless :))) Japan did not intend to get involved in a total war, she was counting on a blitzkrieg. Germany counted on the same. Both the one and the other had at their disposal a superweapon that their opponents did not have - the Germans had a Panzerwaffe and the Japanese had excellent carrier-based aircraft. There were no tanks or planes capable of landing and taking off from aircraft carriers from their opponents — tank troops and carrier-based aviation.
                Like the USSR, the Americans were faced with a new tactic for using weapons - only the USSR opposed the German tank armies, and the United States - aircraft carriers. Like the USSR, the United States drenched in blood, faced with what they could not resist. Like the USSR, the United States was able to learn from its defeats and create even more effective carrier fleets than the Japanese (the USSR created tank troops) were able to improve their operational skills and the training of officers and soldiers (sailors). Like the USSR, the United States, due to its better training and better materiel, as well as more equipment (which was given to them by a more powerful economy), reached a turning point in the war and then they began to hit the enemy in the tail and mane.
                The difference is in scale. While millions of soldiers lashed in Soviet-German, tens of thousands were chopped off in the Pacific by force. Accordingly, the price of victory was not comparable. But the principle of its achievement was approximately the same.
              5. Kars
                Kars April 27 2013 17: 54 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Japan did not intend to get involved in a total war, she counted on a blitzkrieg. Germany counted on the same.

                You see one more proof of the main factor in the victory of economic and so on power.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                NOT GOING

                True, they forgot to ask others about it.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Like the USSR, the United States drenched in blood, faced with what they could not resist

                What are you, what a huge threat was the mainland USA.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Like the USSR, the United States, due to its better training and better materiel, as well as more equipment (which was given to them by a more powerful economy), reached a turning point in the war and then they began to hit the enemy in the tail and mane.
                The difference is in scale. While millions of soldiers lashed in Soviet-German, tens of thousands were chopped off in the Pacific by force. Accordingly, the price of victory was not comparable. But the principle of its achievement was approximately the same.

                This passage is already nothing at all, a pathetic attempt to give yourself a clever look at the expense of the number of BukAf. Elementary testimony, but you would prove how to do it without shipyards and tank factories.
              6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 19: 25 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                This passage is already nothing at all, a pathetic attempt to give oneself a smart look due to the number of BUKAF.

                Which you (as usual) could not master :)
              7. Kars
                Kars April 27 2013 21: 37 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Which you (as usual) could not master :)

                Why, esteemed, appreciated
                Quote: Kars
                This passage is already nothing at all, a pathetic attempt to give oneself a smart look due to the number of BUKAF.

                a very pathetic attempt by otmazats, even the economy was decided to interweave
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                what gave them a more powerful economy
        2. Kars
          Kars April 27 2013 17: 49 New
          0
          Do you continue to dodge? How can you do this from your heights and to me))))
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only there are two nuances

          There are no nuances of pure logic. The war was organized by Roosevelt, if the country is arming itself, it must fight, Roosevelt ensured a victorious war.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          realize its economic advantage by building a multi-state standard carrier fleet

          So, were you convinced that there was an economic advantage? And the Americans could have built a MULTINATIONAL FLEET, there were not only aircraft carriers in it))) without economic and industrial, raw material advantages.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          2) The Japanese, planning Pearl Harbor, absolutely did not plan to fight as it happened in reality. they hoped for a blitzkrieg - the destruction of the US fleet and a peace agreement

          But vet is their problem? If they were wrong. Plan a little)))
          And this is more likely not planning but a hope,
          but the FINAL result was affected by their economic weakness.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Do you have a personal problem with aircraft carriers?
          Do you have any personal relationships with aircraft carriers? Love?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Did your aircraft carrier step on your foot in childhood?
          Did the aircraft carrier bring gifts to you as a child?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Did you commit depraved acts against you?
          Satisfied you in pastels like not one other partner from among women, men and ships?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I am a smart person, and therefore I understand that there is no "nuclear deterrence" during the war in Korea

          Do not praise yourselves, but you will not be able to get out of the puddle where you sit pulling words out of context.
        3. Kars
          Kars April 27 2013 17: 49 New
          -2
          Quote: Kars
          But if you were an intelligent person, it would have come to you what kind of Korea and Vietnam China and the USSR stood, and nuclear deterrence --- but an intelligent person would understand this.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          before the territory of the USA the USSR did not have

          The United Nations fought in Korea if that, and the United States had allies in Europe, this is for your overall development.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I also understand very well the size of the assistance of the USSR and China in comparison with the forces involved by the USA in Korea and Vietnam.

          True, and so they wrote
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In Korea and Vietnam, the United States, being epic more powerful than the opposing enemy, is forced to

          that it’s not visible that apart from Korea and Vietnam themselves, there was someone, but you are strong in the back mind, but it's late.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Your passage about the "technically backward Russian Empire" :))) This is five! :))

          By the way, the dreadnought has been building for seven years, and before the dreadnought ekoha it also does not shine.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          - this is generally six plus :)))
          Well, in your mouth it doesn’t mean anything - among the people, the REV was a war for wood concessions in Korea (something like that)
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In general, there’s definitely nothing to talk to you about
          Chelyabinsk cried, moaned and continued to gnaw a cactus))
        4. Kars
          Kars April 27 2013 17: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          except for a few stamps of the school textbook, miraculously clinging to your gyrus, you do not own material
          Well, yes, a person unfamiliar with causal relationships said. Personally, you got some kind of information in your head and cemented it tightly, and now you can’t interpret it in any other way.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is lovely! Especially considering the fact that the Germans did NOT implement Schlieffen’s plan in WWI :)

          Well, again twenty-five, they CANNOT implement it, but try to say that they did not try))) And the plan didn’t help them)))
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And the USSR won this war using the German Panzerwaffe tactics, moreover, bringing it almost to the ideal
          Really? And how would he do it without the tanks that the Urals made? Machine-building plants, steel production like that were taken with bare tactics. Millions of tons of materials from the USA and Great Britain with dominions did not send it.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The United States won this war by building more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world. AND?
          She also built a lot of tanks, more than all the others (albeit not together), she also built thousands of Libertys, destroyers, watchdogs, cruisers, submarines, battleships (addition)
          Could she do it without
          Quote: Kars
          economic, industrial and resource superiority
        5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 19: 32 New
          +1
          How many words ... not a single argument.
        6. Kars
          Kars April 27 2013 21: 42 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How many words ... not a single argument.

          Read carefully, try to understand the context.
          For example, about the Schlieffen Plan, you went to the fullest, and again try to jump off.
          Strange the construction period of the dreadnought RI is also not an argument for you))
          add

          barbiturate Today, 20:25 New
          EVEN Austria-Hungary (which everyone rightly considered to be weaker than Russia, militarily) was able to fire 20 MILLION (!!!) gun shots at the enemy more than Tsarist Russia. About the rest of the country and say nothing.
          Germany ONLY LARGE CALIBER shells fired 116 million (and Russia - ALL shells of all types - about 50 million), England - also fired only large-caliber shells - 47 million pieces, France - fired FOUR more shells than Russia on all fronts.
          These statistics vividly characterize AT what level REALLY was the industrial development of Russia and the power of its artillery.
        7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2013 02: 26 New
          +1
          Kars, you are an amazing person. For the entire time of our "discussion" you managed to make a mistake on absolutely all the questions you raised
          I, in principle, have long understood that for you the mention of carrier-based aviation in a positive way is much worse than a red rag for a bull - you rush into battle, meaningless and merciless, piling ridiculous one another steeper.
          This time my phrase infuriated you
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.

          Since carrier-based aviation REALLY rules the ball at the Pacific theater of war, you have nothing to object to, but the blood is boiling! And you write
          Quote: Kars
          crucial role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

          The fact that the industrial potential is absurdly opposed to weapons systems does not occur to you. Recall that they write about the potential difference sources - even more so. This is the so-called selective assimilation of information - when a person seems to be reading a source, but sees in it only what fits into his worldview. And the fact that he contradicts his views, he does not see.
          Unclear? Here is a simple example for you
          When reading Roscoe, you noticed that American submarines sank several times more of the commercial tonnage of Japan than carrier-based aircraft. This is what you remembered, because in your picture of the world “an aircraft carrier is a terrible kaka” this fact fully fits into. But the fact that this very effectiveness of American submarines was achieved only in the 1944-1945 years, when the US aircraft carriers tightly nipped the tail of the Japanese imperial (in 1941-1943, the achievements of US submariners were very small and could not affect the defense of Japan) - this you just missed - because it breaks your concept. What Roscoe wrote DIRECTLY about the interconnection of successful submarine actions with the offensive actions of surface ships, you missed too. Well, when I pointed this out to you - of course, you had nothing to object to, but to keep quiet (I don’t say about the acknowledgment of a mistake - it wasn’t for people like you). Well, he began to be rude. However, I was not upset - what else did you have? :)
          So, we were distracted, we will return to the potential potentials. Why am I talking about the absurdity of comparing carrier-based aviation (or any other weapon system / tactics of its use) and economics? Yes, because you tore the phrase about the difference in potential potentials out of context. Take almost ANY source that mentions the economic superiority of the Allies over the axis countries, or is there the United States over Japan - and what do you read there? Yes, there are words that the victory of the Allies over the axis (USA over Japan) was predetermined, since the economy of the Allies (USA) was much more powerful than that of the axis (Japan) ... But HERE this statement is justified by VOLUMES OF MILITARY PRODUCTS, and namely, that the United States produced so many combat aircraft, and Japan - so much that the tanks in the USA did so much, and in Japan - much less, etc.
          In other words, promotion potential alone is far from everything; how it is used is important.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          "Solves" is not industrial power as such. The ability to transform this power into military force and the ability to use this very military force decides.
        8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2013 02: 27 New
          +1
          This very simple thought, with all its obviousness, could not reach you. And, it seems, I know the reason - if you compared the efforts spent by the Americans to create an aircraft carrier fleet and ensure its activities with other shipbuilding programs, your theory of “Aircraft Carrier Byak” would again not have left stone unturned. And you don’t need it.
          And here is the result. Of course, you cannot justify your opposition to the US economy with its carrier-based aviation (but do not complex, it would even be an impossible task for me). You cannot admit your mistakes all the more. And what is left for you?
          You "gracefully" distort. Instead of justifying your words about the economy and aviation, you began to stress that it was the difference in industrial potentials that ALWAYS determines the victory of a more developed country.
          And naturally, right there you flop into a dug hole in your hard work. Because the outcome of a military conflict is far from always determined by the difference in industrial potential :)))
          When I reminded you of the loss of Russia in the REV, the loss of the United States in the Korean and Vietnamese war (which kills your theory to death) then you (finally! Appreciate !! praise !!!) tried to say something on the merits of the issue.
          But you'd better be silent.
          The thing is that you first need to think, and then talk, but never the other way around. You managed to immediately declare nuclear deterrence, which supposedly prevented the United States from defeating Korea. And well, you don’t know the state of the USSR’s nuclear arsenal in those years. But it didn’t even occur to you - how is it - nuclear deterrence doesn’t interfere with fighting for three years, but it doesn’t stop winning a war? :)))
          Moreover - you managed to show the world a terrific discovery - it turns out that the United States could not win the Korean War due to the intervention of China and the USSR! laughing
          This "argument" seemed so irresistible to you that with the grin of a connoisseur and a victor gave out:
          Quote: Kars
          But if you were an intelligent person, you would have realized that China and the USSR were behind Korea and Vietnam, and nuclear deterrence --- but an intelligent person would understand this.

          Of course, I tried to give you a hint about the amount of assistance to the USSR and China that they provided to North Korea ...
          You see, Kars, the industrial power of the USSR and China combined in 1950-1953 was SEVERAL TIMES inferior to the US industrial potential. And taking into account the fact that not only the USA fought for North Korea, but the UN troops (Great Britain, etc.), this is the superiority of the industrial potentials, of which you are an adherent, from South Koreans, the USA and the UN were simply BIG.
          In other words, if you were right about the potentials, the United States would have won this war even if China and the USSR OPENLY entered the war with the United States :)))))) But they did not enter, limiting themselves to reinforcements in North Korea. Nevertheless, the United States lost.
        9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2013 02: 28 New
          +1
          In general, Kars, whatever your thesis is, it’s a masterpiece. Here we take Schliffen.
          Quote: Kars
          For example, about the Schlieffen Plan, you went to the fullest, and again try to jump off.

          As for Schlieffen, you are simply EPICALLY wrong. If you at least gave yourself the trouble to get acquainted with the questions about which you undertook to write with such an aplomb, then you would know that the Germans did NOT APPLY Schlieffen’s plan AT ALL. The Schliffen plan's Alpha and Omega - a massive blow through Holland - the German army did not dare to strike. Absolutely. This, in essence, Schlieffen’s key requirement was crossed out by Moltke, who became the chief of the German General Staff after Schlieffen. Moreover - even in this case it could still have worked out, but Moltke unacceptably weakened the German group on the border with France, sending the troops there necessary to the Russian border ...
          The thing is that Moltke, having become the chief of staff in 1906, redid Schlieffen’s plan very strongly :))) And you thought - the Germans fought in the WWI according to Schlieffen’s plan, right? :) Go already to read books, granite materiel crying with burning tears for you :)))))
          But the Nazis are another matter :)))) They did not hesitate to concentrate their forces where it was needed and struck through the Netherlands and Belgium ... thereby forcing the French mobile forces to rush to the Benelux to the rescue and encircling the English-French after the break at Sedan ... Strictly speaking, the fascist plan was certainly not Schlieffen’s plan either, but Schlieffen’s noble madness was definitely present in it :))) And - the result was not slow in coming.
          Kars, dear, come on already, goodbye! :)))) First of all, you are very dogmatic, for you there are two points of view, yours and yours, you don’t see or hear the opponent’s arguments. Secondly, you make up for the lack of sound reasoning with rudeness. Thirdly, conversations with you are absolutely meaningless - you know very little about the issues that you undertake to judge.
          Well, why are you so beautiful to me?
          Come on, scribble something in the style of “Ahhhh, etat, from Chilyabinsk, laughed and slipped away!” (You don’t know how otherwise :))), and let's end there :)))
        10. Kars
          Kars April 28 2013 09: 28 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Come on, scribble something in the style of “Ahhhh, etat, from Chilyabinsk, laughed and slipped away!” (You don’t know how otherwise :))), and let's end there :)))

          Well, you really wrote a lot of bukaf, and there’s no argument that you have all the same slobbery. I’ve already sorted out your actual mistakes.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The thing is that Moltke, having become the chief of staff in 1906, redid Schlieffen’s plan very strongly :))) And you thought - the Germans fought in the WWI according to Schlieffen’s plan, right? :) Go already to read books, granite materiel crying with burning tears for you :)))))

          Moltke’s plan is based on the Schlieffen Plan, and you won’t be able to refute that it was modernized to the new realities, yes, but the basic tenets remained. Would you read some books and not Wikipedia in a hurry. August guns for example.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Kars, dear, come on already, bye! :))))
          but who keeps you, go wherever you want, heal the wounded pride. And then there’s plagiarism from Timati? your idol?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Firstly, you are very dogmatic

          Whose carova would mumble. I’m just contesting dogmas that have stuck with cement in someone’s brain.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          argument of the opponent you do not see
          it is not, just verbiage and attempts to get out.


          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Thirdly, conversations with you are absolutely meaningless - you know very little about the issues that you undertake to judge.

          But at the same time, YOU support this conversation, it means that it contains (that’s why you ran around again) and it’s gnawing that you turned out to be wrong. But you can’t be reconciled.
      2. Kars
        Kars April 28 2013 09: 30 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You "gracefully" distort. Instead of justifying your words about the economy and aviation, you began to stress that it was the difference in industrial potentials that ALWAYS determines the victory of a more developed country.

        But vet is true, and aviation is a matter of ten. I will repeat for those who are hard-to-reach.
        Quote: Kars
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.
        Unfortunately, many people confuse causes and effects.
        Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation. And with a number of demarches and provocations, including a notorious mistake in the Indochina / China note that started this war.

        And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

        Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.
      3. Kars
        Kars April 28 2013 14: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you see, Kars, the industrial power of the USSR and China taken together in 1950-1953 was SEVERAL TIMES inferior to the US industrial potential. And taking into account the fact that not only the USA fought for North Korea, but the UN troops (Great Britain, etc.), this is the superiority of the industrial potentials, of which you are an adherent, among the South Koreans, the USA and the UN was simply BIG.



        But, as usual, you are not catching up)) In North Korea, a cease-fire has been established, and the state of war is still there, so there is no victory.

        And it is already impossible to exclude the factor of nuclear deterrence (especially in Vietnam_ it can be said a joker. Which can affect everything.

        And by the way


        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In other words, if you were right about the potentials - the United States would have won this war even if China and the USSR OPENLY entered the war with the United States :))))))

        Well, following the results of the Cold War, the United States survived the USSR, while not forgetting that China was already a selfless USSR Ally, and they cannot be considered a complementary pair.
    2. Kars
      Kars April 28 2013 09: 19 New
      -2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Kars, you are an amazing person. For the entire time of our "discussion" you managed to make a mistake on absolutely all the questions you raised



      Wow

      Andrey from Chelyabinsk, you are an amazing person. For the entire time of our "discussion" you managed to make a mistake on absolutely all the questions you raised
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What Roscoe DIRECTLY writes about the interconnection of successful submarine actions with the offensive actions of surface ships, you missed too

      You never learned to read
      Quote: Kars
      However, many people behind the silhouette of a formidable aircraft carrier do not notice the huge successes of American submariners.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In other words, the promotion potential itself is far from everything, the way it is used is important

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "Solves" is not industrial power as such. Decides the ability to transform this power into military force and the ability to use this very military force


      if it is not, how do you transform it?
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol April 26 2013 16: 16 New
    +1
    don’t scuff, you know perfectly well what Oleg has been writing about for several months, about which fuss.
    in your quote, you are talking about both of them - I compared the effectiveness of submarines and aircraft carriers. let's do without sophistry stop
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 16: 20 New
      -2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      cry, you know perfectly well what Oleg writes about for several months now

      This is not a reason to respond to my comments. You want to say a word - down the tape, but when you turn to me, contact me correctly.
      Quote: Tlauicol
      compared the effectiveness of submarines and aircraft carriers. let's do without sophistry

      I don’t know what you did, but you didn’t take into account many of the factors that I mentioned above, got in with the German in the Atlantic, where the Anglo-Americans had a huge advantage in material resources.
      So down the tape.
  • polida
    polida April 26 2013 22: 47 New
    +2
    Carriers, battleships, submarines - no need to look for a miracle weapon. The fleet must be diverse - any small minesweeper can be more useful than the whole herd of battleships and aircraft carriers in the right place and at the right time !!!
  • Symbiotos
    Symbiotos April 27 2013 00: 05 New
    0
    ... "provocations including a notorious mistake in the note Indochina / China that started this war" ....

    And where can I read about this provocation. I'm interested.
  • smart ass
    smart ass April 26 2013 13: 09 New
    +1
    The Pearl Harbor attack was such a brave and successful military operation that it forever occupied a special place in military history. With one masterful strike, Japan not only opened the initial phase of the Pacific War, but also inflicted terrible losses on the powerful American fleet, which was taken by surprise.

    The success of this attack should be fully attributed to the brilliant planning and decisive measures taken by Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, Commander-in-Chief of the United Fleet. Even 18 years ago, with almost religious fervor, he devoted all his efforts to creating powerful naval aviation.

    When our intelligence summed up the results of the Hawaiian operation (that was its official name), we found that the sudden attack inflicted much more heavy losses on American ships in Hawaii than the most optimistic forecasts predicted. The failure of the largest and most powerful part of the American fleet allowed the Japanese fleet to rush through the Pacific and Indian Oceans without fear. [73]

    Most of our former enemies, with considerable surprise, should find out that the Pearl Harbor attack was not supposed to be a treacherous blow, although things turned out so that the public did not perceive it differently. The time attack was coordinated with the diplomatic actions of our embassy in Washington. However, an unfortunate combination of circumstances led to the fact that | our fleet unwittingly struck a bit earlier than the formal declaration of war.

    Edition: Horikoshi D., Okumiya M., Kaydin M. “Zero!” (Japanese Aviation in World War II) - M: ACT, 2001.

    Link for adequate people http://militera.lib.ru/h/zero/index.html
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 13: 39 New
      +1
      From a military point of view, Morison criticized the raid on the basis of the American Rainbow 5 military plan. He argued that the Japanese were much more profitable to wait until the American fleet rushed to the aid of the Philippines, and intercept him on the high seas. In this case, there would be no question of any restoration of sunken ships. Indeed, to raise battleships sunk at a depth of 5 kilometers ...

      However, the venerable historian admits a completely frank overexposure. During the raid on Pearl Harbor, the American fleet was served to Japanese pilots on a silver platter. Could the fleet be intercepted in the open ocean, even if it was heading towards the Philippines? No, no one could give such a guarantee, the Americans probably would not have chosen "a straight line segment connecting two points." In this case, a very serious threat loomed over the entire Philippine operation.

      When planning the operation, other fundamental errors were made, for example, the selection and reconnaissance of targets, which we will talk about further when we touch on the prospects of a second raid on Pearl Harbor.

      From my point of view, at the planning stage, another major mistake was made that military historians did not notice, who were influenced by the same cliches as the Japanese admirals preparing the operation. It's about flying time. It is generally accepted that it is best to attack early in the morning when the enemy is sleeping. But this is true for a land war, not a naval war. On Sunday morning, all crews were completely aboard the ships. That is why the Americans managed to quickly return fire, and almost full crews participated in the struggle for survivability. If the Japanese attacked not at dawn, but at noon, their chances would have increased significantly, because in this case - Sunday! - the ships would remain half empty. Their combat readiness would not increase compared to the morning, but rather would fall markedly. You can also add that in this case there would have been no incident with a radar station on Mount Opan, which detected the approach of Japanese aircraft. By this time, it would have been off for a long time.

      [/ Quote]

      [quote] Abstract

      On December 7, 1941, Japanese aircraft carrier aircraft struck the base of the American Pacific Fleet. This event was of exceptional importance, since now the war has become truly world wide and swept the entire globe. And literally on the same day, the first of the legends associated with Pearl Harbor was born, namely, the legend of the note, which the special Japanese envoy Kurusu did not have time to hand over to the US Secretary of State before the raid. And, they say, as a result, the attack turned out to be sudden and treacherous.
      Over time, the number of myths and legends piled up around Pearl Harbor has grown incredibly. In this paper, we will try to consider only the main ones, since a full analysis of the topic seems completely impossible since the number of legends continues to increase, especially thanks to the efforts of recently so conspiracy theorists
      [/ Quote]
      1. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 13: 39 New
        +1
        [quote = Clever man] Edition: Horikoshi D., Okumiya M., Kaydin M. “Zero!” (Japanese aviation in World War II) - M: ACT, 2001. [/ quote]
        The Japanese do not praise themselves.
        there are other opinions

        [quote] Usually the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is called "brilliantly planned and no less brilliantly conducted." However, in the film Seventeen Moments of Spring, the Gestapo-Muller advises Stirlitz: “Leave the adjectives to journalists and politicians. Use only nouns and verbs. " And if you forget about adjectives, the picture is slightly different.
        Abstract

        On December 7, 1941, Japanese aircraft carrier aircraft struck the base of the American Pacific Fleet. This event was of exceptional importance, since now the war has become truly world wide and swept the entire globe. And literally on the same day, the first of the legends associated with Pearl Harbor was born, namely, the legend of the note, which the special Japanese envoy Kurusu did not have time to hand over to the US Secretary of State before the raid. And, they say, as a result, the attack turned out to be sudden and treacherous.
        Over time, the number of myths and legends piled up around Pearl Harbor has grown incredibly. In this paper, we will try to consider only the main ones, since a full analysis of the topic seems completely impossible since the number of legends continues to increase, especially thanks to the efforts of recently so conspiracy theorists



        The first serious doubts about the correctness of the Japanese plan were expressed by the official historian of the American Navy, Samuel Elliot Morison. In his book The Rising Sun Over the Pacific, he criticizes the very concept of the operation, calling it political stupidity and military error. Indeed, from the point of view of politics and propaganda, the Japanese made a monstrous, unforgivable mistake by giving the Americans a beautiful slogan: "Remember Pearl Harbor." The best opinion of Americans was formulated by Admiral Halsey when on the Enterprise carrier arrived after a raid in smoking Pearl Harbor: "When all this is over, they will only speak Japanese in hell." And the belated pseudo-ultimatum helped President Roosevelt a lot.
        1. Standard Oil
          Standard Oil April 26 2013 13: 48 New
          0
          The British torpedo bombers raid on Taranto was a success, the Italian fleet had practically "blown away" and had no influence on the war in the Mediterranean, but what did Pearl Harbor give to the Japanese? Did it anger the Americans? Did it give Roosevelt an end to the isolationists? He gave away. He destroyed the American fleet ? No. Maybe at least neutralized in time? Again no. So, based on the foregoing, is it a file or wines?
          1. smart ass
            smart ass April 26 2013 14: 26 New
            +1
            But, yap, you needed to declare war, and then chase the US Navy across the Pacific Ocean ?? Ohhh, that would be more ingenious! The Japanese attacked first, won the time for conquests in the south) everything was done correctly
          2. smart ass
            smart ass April 26 2013 14: 35 New
            0
            The Italian fleet was blown away long before the raid ... the only division of the Italian Navy, from which there was a use, is combat swimmers. Well, the divers
          3. Alex
            Alex 30 August 2013 21: 58 New
            +2
            Quote: Standard Oil (2)
            The raid of British torpedo bombers on Taranto is a success, the Italian fleet was practically "blown away" and had no effect on the war in the Mediterranean


            And he, the poor one, tried so hard, tried so hard ... Yes, they were still in the WWI at the bases, they were more afraid of the “ghost of Lissa” than the sinner of the devil.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt April 26 2013 18: 05 New
        0
        Well, maybe the Japanese attacked at dawn, not for the sake of directly catching the ships with an incomplete crew, but in order for the patrol planes, which they supposed to take off at dawn from Pearl Harbor, to not find their formations before striking.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 April 26 2013 13: 51 New
    +2
    Kaptsov, tired of it!
    By the way, can we also look for cases of emergency at aerodromes with heavy losses?
  • smart ass
    smart ass April 26 2013 14: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Remember Pearl Harbor. The best opinion of Americans was formulated by Admiral Halsey when on the Enterprise carrier arrived after a raid in a smoking Pearl Harbor: “When all this is over, they will only speak Japanese in hell”


    Yapam was deeply purple, what the Americans would think there and what slogan to be guided by, another culture what to do)
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 14: 56 New
      -1
      Quote: Clever man
      Yapam was deeply purple, what the Americans would think there and what slogan to be guided by, another culture what to do)

      Read those book, you will become smarter.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt April 26 2013 15: 28 New
        0
        As I understand it, the author is again trying to prove that aircraft carriers suck wink

        I would like to advise him to relax wink it is unlikely that the choice for / against aircraft carriers is determined by the opinion of lovers of glue tanks wink

        What are the Americans, what are the British admirals (actually those who won the war at sea in WWII) after the war unequivocally decided that aircraft carriers (or, more precisely, aircraft carrier aircraft) are the basis of striking naval power.

        Surprisingly, the stubbornness of a man with hundreds of times less experience in naval battles, building a fleet, naval operations compared with Nimitz, Sherman, Halsey, Mitsher, A.B. Cunningham, to prove their opinion on the issue that they knew better.

        The development of even the most “anti-aircraft” fleet — the USSR Navy — came to a logical conclusion — the construction of aircraft carriers wink

        Those who disagree can build their own personal fleet wink
  • Arct
    Arct April 26 2013 14: 58 New
    +4
    I have not heard Kars for a long time. Today I read, and realized that a person understands a strictly defined area (beyond which it is advisable not to get out). Instead of argumentation, far-fetched figures and sources, a complete denial of opinions that does not correspond to our own choice, plus a lack of understanding of the simplest things. Let's just say that you should not argue with those who are much better versed in this matter, especially if you are "swimming". Dropshipping pleased the sources: the odious Roscoe and the Polish crap about the cruiser, well, of course, the pearls of the Patients are finite - this is our everything))
    P.S. Discussions about the time of flying from the lips of an amateur are generally the top of today's Kars opus. Personally, I have nothing against it, but I don’t need to go into an area of ​​which you have only superficial knowledge. And Kaptsov, too, is not worth the trouble, he has his own language)
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 15: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Arkt
      I have not heard Kars for a long time.

      and I am you for the first time.
      Quote: Arkt
      . Instead of argumentation, far-fetched figures and sources

      are you sure?
      Quote: Arkt
      complete denial of opinions that does not correspond to the one chosen by ourselves,

      strange to others means acceptance? so why are they arguing against mine.
      Quote: Arkt
      Dropshipping pleased the sources: the odious Roscoe and the Polish crap about the cruiser, well, of course, the pearls of the Patients are finite - this is our everything))

      and what is all yours?
      and Polish crap is just a magazine with heavy cruisers - we would carefully read it - we could understand that this is bonus information.
      Quote: Arkt
      P.S. Discussions about the time of flying from the lips of an amateur are generally the top of today's Kars opus.

      Specialist? American American WWII? Congratulations.

      Quote: Arkt
      And Kaptsov, too, is not worth the trouble, he has his own language)

      it's up to me to decide what to do, what to do
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol April 26 2013 15: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Incor, together with heavy cruisers, sank 1 aircraft carrier of 1916 + 1 small escort boat for 8000 tons.

    can not be.
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Of 180 German, Italian and Japanese boats operating on Europe

    here in general we are talking about American submarines

    what's next?
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol April 26 2013 16: 02 New
    +1
    accident rate: since 1945 there were several dozen accidents on submarines, 32 of them died. a number more were sunk during the fighting. how many aircraft carriers died? zero
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 16: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      accident rate: since 1945, several dozen accidents occurred on submarines, 32 of them died. a number of sunk during the fighting

      Submarine sc ... uko dangerous. You listen after 1945 the submarine was removed from service)))))
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 26 2013 17: 14 New
        0
        WWII won you to listen to submarines, aircraft carriers removed from service
        1. Kars
          Kars April 26 2013 17: 21 New
          -3
          Quote: Tlauicol
          WWII won you to listen to submarines, aircraft carriers removed from armament

          What are you? Maybe you need to wash your ears to hear better?
          Quote: Kars
          Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.

          How you managed to interpret the huge successes so))))
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 17: 35 New
            -2
            And okay, our Chelyabinsk citizen
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.

            said. I would have forgiven him if he had said the numerical superiority of the US aircraft carriers. And so categorically. EVERYTHING KNOW. Namely aircraft carrier, base aviation did not fly. Strategies did not bomb Japan. Submarines did not destroy communications and did not sink as many ships as 13 aircraft carriers, and this it means that there was no cover for U.S. aircraft carrier nearby. Otherwise, they didn’t sink. The infantry didn’t occupy the islands. You couldn’t transport millions of tons of cargo. Nakanets already dropped the nuclear bomb too. The lightning carriers didn’t kill Yamamoto didn’t take off from the aircraft carriers, Japanese ciphers also not aircraft carriers handed out.
            and here everyone knows))))))
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol April 26 2013 17: 46 New
              0
              and again on one side of the scale you have aircraft carriers, on the other all the other types of troops combined and nuclear weapons in addition
              1. Kars
                Kars April 26 2013 17: 56 New
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                again on one side of the scale you have aircraft carriers

                For me)) no, you really read badly. It's not with me, but with a Chelyabinsk citizen.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                then carrier war aviation played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific

                Read carefully .. EXACTLY aircraft carrier aircraft .. how can you advise objecting to such a statement, just as if you were saying that you shouldn’t put the scales on one side))))
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol April 26 2013 18: 35 New
                  0
                  all right "in the war on the Pacific Ocean, aircraft carrier aviation played a decisive role." not submarines, transports, or a nuclear bomb. DECISION ROLE. What is there to mind?
                  and the admiral aircraft carriers were killed much more
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 18: 45 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    all right "in the war on the Pacific Ocean, aircraft carrier aviation played a decisive role."

                    I did not ask you right or wrong. The question was elementary, but you could not understand it, even though you read it.
                    Quote: Kars
                    how can you advise to object to such a statement, just as you say, do not put down one scale))))


                    Can you answer?
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    . DECISION ROLE. What is there to mind?

                    I personally can, because I see the problem is much wider than narrow-minded ..professional ..
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    and the admiral aircraft carriers were killed much more

                    as it died on aircraft carriers, certainly no less.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol April 26 2013 19: 16 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      all right "in the war on the Pacific Ocean, aircraft carrier aviation played a decisive role."

                      Quote: Kars I did not ask you right or wrong. The question was elementary, but you couldn’t understand it, even though you read it. How can you advise to object to such a statement, just as if you were saying that you shouldn’t put the scales on one side))) ) (C) how can one object to a true statement? most importantly why?
                      and which of the above you played a decisive role in the war on TO: ground aviation, infantry, transports, submarines, lightnin

                      who killed the Yamamoto, a nuclear bomb?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 19: 20 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        How can one object to a true statement?

                        Then why are you sick
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and again on one side of the scale you have aircraft carriers, on the other all the other types of troops combined and nuclear weapons in addition

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        most importantly why?

                        the fact that you think something is true is not true that you are not mistaken.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and which of the above you played a decisive role in the war on TO: ground aviation, infantry, transports, submarines, lightnin


                        who killed the Yamamoto, a nuclear bomb?

                        Well, the user doesn’t really read))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Roosevelt played a decisive role in his desire to pull the US out of a policy of self-isolation. And with a number of demarches and provocations, including a notorious mistake in the Indochina / China note that started this war.

                        And then the decisive role was played by economic, industrial and resource superiority.

                        Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.


                        Japan also had aircraft carriers, as well as infantry, ships, planes - but it lost, so it’s not a matter of aircraft carriers. But secretly this is not for the average mind.
                      2. tlauicol
                        tlauicol April 26 2013 19: 28 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        "the main why?"

                        "Kars: just because you think something is true is not true that you are not mistaken."
                        so, what is next? Should I object to myself? to challenge the statement with which I agree? You are crazy ?
                        Quote: Kars "Roosevelt played a decisive role"
                        You are crazy !
                      3. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 19: 47 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        "the main why?"

                        Strange, why are you even writing here?
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Kars: just because you think something is true isn’t mean you’re not mistaken. "
                        so, what is next? Should I object to myself?

                        Why can't you lie? So that I can build a literary phrase so that you don't vomit about the scales.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Quote: Kars "Roosevelt played a decisive role"
                        You are crazy !

                        Rather, you are behind in development if you do not understand this. It is Roosevelt who the United States should be grateful for the victory over the world economy.
                      4. Pashhenko Nikolay
                        Pashhenko Nikolay April 26 2013 20: 17 New
                        0
                        Convincing Kars about anything is like Kaptsov’s useless battleships.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 21: 02 New
                        0
                        Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
                        To convince Kars of anything, it’s all the same

                        Another connoisseur of Kars))
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 21: 18 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Another connoisseur of Kars))

                        So the thing is simple.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 21: 33 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So the thing is simple.

                        bully
                        It’s a pity you’ve disgraced yourself for this simple matter))) and the proof is that you answer so stubbornly))))
                        Where on the surface- (I can’t give you a depth of soul))) you understand that I’m right, why the hell out of fiction, where Germany wins the second world war, and Roosevelt does not insist on expanding the shipbuilding program when Congress wants to reduce it))) don’t worry, All will pass)))
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 17: 35 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Where on the surface- (I can’t give you depth of soul))) you understand that I’m right, why the hell are you swans of fiction, where Germany wins the second world war, and Roosevelt does not insist on expanding the shipbuilding program when Congress wants to reduce it))

                        One of my friends said in such cases:
                        Aminazine intravenously and a glass of polonium at night
                      9. Kars
                        Kars April 27 2013 17: 59 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        One of my friends said in such cases:
                        Aminazine intravenously and a glass of polonium at night

                        A strange acquaintance, could help society and apply his recipe to you.
                      10. Kars
                        Kars April 27 2013 18: 22 New
                        0
                        By the way, let me give you an example to show that you are a petty crook and a crook)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Without detracting from the merits of the American submarine forces, I still urge you to look at this table, "Reducing Japanese Imports," of the book you recommended
                        http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/30.html
                        1940 g - 22 million tons
                        1941 - 20 million tons
                        1942- 19,4 million tons
                        1943 - 16,4 million tons
                        1944 - 10,1 million tons
                        1945 - 2,7 million tons
                        So, to any impartial researcher it will be decidedly obvious



                        That's just an impartial observer needs to look not so, but in so
                        1942- 19,4 million tons
                        1943 - 16,4 million tons
                        1944 - 10,1 million tons
                        1945 - 2,7 million tons

                        There will probably be news for you, but the war began in DECEMBER 1941, so before 1942 it makes no sense to take indicators.
                        And everything fits perfectly into the Yankees' invasion of the beginning of the war, increasing the number of MEANS, including the commissioning of new submarines, and the treatment of childhood diseases of torpedoes.

                        But to you an unbiased observer of training and training.
                      11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2013 03: 01 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, let me give you an example to show that you are a petty crook and a crook)))

                        Wow :))) Let's see, see :)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        That's just an impartial observer needs to look not so, but in so

                        I wonder why?
                        It turns out
                        Quote: Kars
                        There will probably be news for you, but the war began in DECEMBER 1941, so before 1942 it makes no sense to take indicators.

                        What are you! In xnumx? Well, well - what is the depth of analysis:)))))) ...
                        ... Of course, you were wrong again. That's the whole trick that you need to not just compare the dynamics of imports, but watch how much it has been reduced compared to the pre-war :))) Generally speaking, it seems to be obvious :))))
                        In 1941, despite the fact that Japan has not yet fought with the United States, its imports fell from 22 million in 1940 g to 20 million, i.e. by about 9,1%. For some reason, Japanese imports tended to decrease ... But when American submariners came into operation in 1942, the rate of reduction in imports DECREASED from 9,1% to 3% :)))) Are you sure that the Americans drowned Japanese transports? :))) Maybe, on the contrary, they helped the Japanese transport goods? :))))))
                        3%! THREE PERCENT! Compare this with the activities of German submarines and perhaps you will understand the difference. Although unlikely.
                        In 1943, it was possible to reduce Japanese imports by as much as 18% compared with the pre-war year of 1941. Is this the result?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And everything fits perfectly into the yangkes' invasion of the beginning of the war, increasing the number of MEANS

                        Well, what can you take from you, “you are impartial ours”? :)))) But it’s nothing that the German submarines, acting against a much more serious British PLO having a minimum of submarines, managed for 4 months from July to October 1940 g ONLY WESTERN APPROACHES to Britain filled 1,5 million tons of tonnage, while American submarines FOR TWO YEARS - 1942-1943 could not fill 2 million tons of trade tonnage? :)))
                      12. Kars
                        Kars April 28 2013 09: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        HOW HAS IT REDUCED COMPARED TO THE PRE-WAR? :))) Generally speaking, it seems to be obvious :))))


                        Strange you prove the postulate
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So, it will be decisively obvious to any impartial researcher that one can talk about the significant successes of American submariners from the end of 1943 - beginning of 1944 - i.e. when the dominance of the US surface fleet could no longer be challenged. In the period of relatively weak US surface fleet (Pearl Harbor - Midway) and


                        And then I decided what should be compared with the pre-war period, when it is considered the dynamics during the war
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In 1941, despite the fact that Japan had not yet fought with the United States, its imports fell from 22 million in 1940 to 20 million, i.e. about 9,1%. For some reason, Japanese imports tended to decline ...

                        Surely you did not hear about the American AGAIN ECONOMIC Sanctions and the Embargo)) otherwise you would not have asked silly questions.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But it’s nothing that the German submarines, acting against the much more serious British PLO having at least the submarines managed for 4 months from July to October 1940. ONLY WESTERN APPROACHES to Britain filled 1,5 million tons of tonnage, while the American submarines FOR TWO YEARS - 1942-1943 could not fill even 2 million tons of trade tonnage? :)))

                        You would pay attention to the number of submarines here and there, the intensity of cargo traffic in the Atlantic, elementary to the geographical differences between theaters of military action. And maybe you could answer this question yourself. And so you can read Dennitsa.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In 1943, it was possible to reduce Japanese imports by as much as 18% compared with the pre-war year of 1941. Is this the result?
                        Naturally, the result, a lot is hidden behind the percentage.

                        Do not burn you so pride would admit that they are wrong.

                        If we divide the victory into percentages, the contribution of submarines is somewhere around 20 percent, aircraft carriers 30, base aviation strategic aviation, transport fleet, logistics, marines will also receive their interest.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        everyone knows that aircraft carrier aviation played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean
                        and it turns out that your favorite has played an important role, but far from decisive, and against the background of political and economic factors will generally go into the shadows.


                        import reduction REDUCED from 9,1% to 3% :)))
                        This is also an indicator of the nearness of our Chelyabinsk commentator, although he could have guessed that at the first stage of the war Japan seized vast territories and began to take out material resources and trophies, so we need to discuss why import did not increase more.
                      13. Kars
                        Kars April 28 2013 16: 11 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Surely you did not hear about the American AGAIN ECONOMIC Sanctions and the Embargo)) otherwise you would not have asked silly questions.


                        That Chelyabinsk citizen could read the tablet more carefully
                        would notice interesting.
                        1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

                        Scrap metal 2 104 000 246 000 50000 43 000 21000 12000 XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX
                      14. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 28 2013 22: 42 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        You would pay attention to the number of submarines here and there, the intensity of cargo traffic in the Atlantic, elementary to the geographical differences between theaters of military action. And maybe you could answer this question yourself. And so you can read Dennitsa.

                        If the Americans by 1944, the performance of the submarine increased, the Germans, on the contrary, decreased.
                        Dennits twisted as best he could.
                        Losses of German submarines in World War II amounted to: in 1939 - 9, in 1940–21, in 1941–36, in 1942–92, in 1943–230, in 1944–243 and in 1945 - 137.
                      15. Kars
                        Kars April 28 2013 23: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        If the Americans by 1944, the performance of the submarine increased, the Germans, on the contrary, decreased.

                        So what? The Germans lost the war, the Americans won.
                      16. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 29 2013 10: 32 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        So what? The Germans lost the war, the Americans won.

                        Yes, the Germans did not have the military-economic power, the loss of dominance in the air and at sea, as indeed with the Japanese, which confirms what you wrote about.
                      17. Kars
                        Kars April 29 2013 11: 45 New
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Yes, the power of the military-economic was not enough for the Germans,

                        Do not forget that the Americans built merchant ships faster than the Germans drowned them, the Japanese did not get this number.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2013 13: 16 New
                  +1
                  Honestly I wanted to finish, but this ... THIS :))))) Kars, you surpassed yourself :)))
                  Quote: Kars
                  This is also an indicator of the nearness of our Chelyabinsk commentator, although he could have guessed that at the first stage of the war Japan seized vast territories and began to take out material resources and trophies, so we need to discuss why import did not increase more.

                  You just need to be fabulous ... ehhkm ... a character so as not to understand that the word IMPORT means ALL goods that were delivered to the metropolis :))) Or do you think that what the Japanese exported from the occupied territories on the islands and in China was a separate line? laughing And 29 and 16 million tons - is that what Japan acquired from other countries? laughing laughing laughing
                  Kars you fool
                3. Kars
                  Kars April 29 2013 13: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I honestly wanted to finish, but

                  And they could try to preserve the remnants of dignity.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  that the word IMPORT here means ALL goods that were delivered to the metropolis :)

                  Have you ever read the tablet?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  in China went a separate line?

                  No, it went on the general list, divided by name.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Kars you

                  C'mon, here you’ll burn to the full, you couldn’t even understand why imports to Japan began to decline before the war. I didn’t know that the United States imposed a ban on the supply of scrap metal to Japan and then tried to prove something by calculating the interest)))
                4. Kars
                  Kars April 29 2013 14: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And 29 and 16 million tons is

                  Quote: Kars
                  1940 g - 22 million tons
                  1941 - 20 million tons
                  1942- 19,4 million tons
                  1943 - 16,4 million tons
                  1944 - 10,1 million tons
                  1945 - 2,7 million tons
                  So, to any impartial researcher it will be decidedly obvious

                  What kind of 29 is that?
                  the fall in exports in 1941 fits perfectly into the embryo with scrap metal. At the same time, Japan did not lose tonnage (here it is interesting to know how many Japanese ships were transported at the same time, and how many foreigners, including American, who carried metal)
                  1941 roughly corresponds.
                  in 1942, the mass of goods should increase, but Japan’s merchant fleet increased the construction by a negligible amount, while the freight of foreign ships became more complicated, but a certain number of captured ones was captured, so the cargo turnover should have increased in relation to 1941, but as we can see no. since it should be considered as lost opportunities from hostilities, and not as stupid otminusovovanie as you suggest.
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2013 15: 23 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  And they could try to preserve the remnants of dignity.

                  Kars, do you seriously think that I am discussing with you? :) At first I wrote to explain the real state of affairs to those who would read our correspondence, but quite a while ago I am writing to you solely so that you amuse the forum users with your answers.
                  Quote: Kars
                  Have you ever read the tablet?

                  Yeah, and I advise you http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/30.html
                  Quote: Kars
                  No, it went on the general list, divided by name.

                  And why then your fiery speech
                  Quote: Kars
                  Although he could have guessed that at the first stage of the war, Japan seized vast territories and began to export material resources and trophies, so we need to discuss why import did not increase more.

                  (I’m just wondering what you’re still composing)
                  Quote: Kars
                  C'mon, here you’ll burn to the full, you couldn’t even understand why imports to Japan began to decline before the war. I didn’t know that the United States imposed a ban on the supply of scrap metal to Japan and then tried to prove something by calculating the interest)))

                  Kars, unlike you, I do not make childhood mistakes. You see, I know perfectly well not only that the United States imposed an embargo on deliveries to Japan, but also that the United States virtually stopped trading with Japan on 25 on July 1941, and the embargo on so dear to your heart metal was introduced only on 26 of September 1941 .
                  And it’s quite clear to me that if you were right, and this embargo would have served to reduce Japan’s imports from 22 to 20 million tons, then in the next, 1942 year, when this embargo would have acted not from July-September, but from January - i.e. not a quarter or six months, but an ALL year — then (in the absence of other sources of import), Japan’s imports would not be 20, but it would be good if 16-17 million tons. And he made up 19,4.
                  It is clear that such sources appeared - but the joke was that import to Japan actually INCREASED compared to the end of 1941, when the embargo was reduced.
                  That is why I joked, did the American submariners help to transport goods to the Japanese, instead of disturbing them?
                  But for you this is higher mathematics, alas :)))
                6. Kars
                  Kars April 29 2013 19: 18 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Kars, do you seriously think that I'm discussing with you? :)

                  You just disgrace
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/30.html

                  It’s strange I’ve been the first to get you when you gave a quote
                  Quote: Kars
                  That Chelyabinsk citizen could read the tablet more carefully
                  would notice interesting.
                  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

                  Scrap metal 2 104 000 246 000 50000 43 000 21000 12000 XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Kars, unlike you, I do not make childhood mistakes. You see, I know perfectly well not only that the United States imposed an embargo on deliveries to Japan, but also that the United States virtually halted trade with Japan on July 25, 1941, and the embargo on the metal so dear to your heart was introduced only on September 26, 1941

                  OFFICIALLY introduced
                  Well, look at the tablet, everything is written there. And since you yourself are a child’s mistake, and trying to get out of it, you don’t already know why there’s enough.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  then in the next year, 1942, when this embargo would have acted not from July-September, but from January - i.e. not a quarter or six months, but an entire year — that (in the absence of other sources of import), Japan’s imports would not be 20, but it would be good if 16-17 million tons. And he was 19,4.

                  NTs, this also shows that I was right because the Japan began to use the resources of the conquered lands.
                  Are you giving up:
                  Look at the tablet again. I’m placing it with scrap metal for the second time.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That’s why I joked if the American submariners helped to transport goods to the Japanese, instead of stopping them

                  Dumb, you wanted to say. Your conclusions only show your helplessness.
                7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2013 22: 25 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  You just disgrace

                  That the abundance of minuses to your "comments" is clearly and confirmed.
                  Quote: Kars
                  .And so you yourself are a childhood mistake

                  Said a child’s surprise
                  Quote: Kars
                  OFFICIALLY introduced
                  Well look at the tablet, everything is written there.

                  Kars, Kars, Kars ....
                  I generally wonder how you managed to master a computer with such a level. Or is it for you the younger brother is pushing Claudia?
                  Quote: Kars
                  Scrap metal 2 104 000 246 000 50000 43 000 21000 12000

                  Remember what I said about selective perception? Here is another example of the same
                  You looked at the statistics
                  1940 g - 2 104 thousand tons of scrap metal, and in 1941 g - total 246 thousand tons. Noticed the difference. Even you were able to realize that the embargo imposed in September could not in any way reduce the volume of scrap supplies by almost an order of magnitude. Well ... I decided that it was OFFICIALLY an embargo was announced in September, and in reality it was introduced much earlier laughing
                  I, Kars, are not surprised at all - the tendency to spy and conspiracy theory is generally characteristic of an undeveloped mind.
                  But what you didn’t pay attention to was that the embargo was not only and not so much scrap metal - it was about iron and steel in particular. The import of which, by the way, in 1941 compared to 1940 increased by 300 thousand tons :))) As well as the import of iron ore increased - by 236 thousand tons :)))
                  What kind of embargo is this, huh? Scrap metal - no, no, but steel, iron and ore - at least flood, eh?
                  Kars, you just look and don’t see. And the chest opens very simply
                  In 1940, Japan imported 6073 thousand tons. iron ore, 621 thousand tons of iron and steel, 2104 thousand tons of scrap metal, 100,1 thousand tons of lead, 10,5 thousand tons of tin 23,5 thousand tons of zinc. And all 8932,1 thousand tons of metal and ore. In 1941, all the same was imported only 7575,9 thousand tons or 84,8% of the level 1940. Got it? Yes, where are you ... okay, so be it, I’ll explain
                  In 1941, the embargo on the supply of metal to Japan was a little more than a quarter. Thus, IF Japan purchased metal and ore ONLY from embargoed countries, it would receive less than a quarter of its annual supply. (because a quarter is a quarter of a year :))) A quarter is 25%, Kars :))) But in reality, of course, metal and ore didn’t come to Japan from the UK and the USA only, so the supply volume was not reduced by 25 %, but only on 15% :)))
                  Thus, we can say that before the embargo, the Japanese metropolis imported approximately 40% of the total volume of metals and ores and sources controlled by it, and 60%
                8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2013 22: 34 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  You just disgrace

                  That the abundance of minuses to your "comments" is clearly and confirmed.
                  Quote: Kars
                  .And so you yourself are a childhood mistake

                  Said a child’s surprise
                  Quote: Kars
                  OFFICIALLY introduced
                  Well look at the tablet, everything is written there.

                  Kars, Kars, Kars ....
                  I generally wonder how you managed to master a computer with such a level. Or is it for you the younger brother is pushing Claudia?
                  Quote: Kars
                  Scrap metal 2 104 000 246 000 50000 43 000 21000 12000

                  Remember what I said about selective perception? Here is another example of the same
                  You looked at the statistics
                  1940 g - 2 104 thousand tons of scrap metal, and in 1941 g - total 246 thousand tons. Noticed the difference. Even you were able to realize that the embargo imposed in September could not in any way reduce the volume of scrap supplies by almost an order of magnitude. Well ... I decided that it was OFFICIALLY an embargo was announced in September, and in reality it was introduced much earlier laughing
                  I, Kars, are not surprised at all - the tendency to spy and conspiracy theory is generally characteristic of an undeveloped mind.
                  But what you didn’t pay attention to was that the embargo was not only and not so much scrap metal - it was about iron and steel in particular. The import of which, by the way, in 1941 compared to 1940 increased by 300 thousand tons :))) As well as the import of iron ore increased - by 236 thousand tons :)))
                  What kind of embargo is this, huh? Scrap metal - no, no, but steel, iron and ore - at least flood, eh?
                  Kars, you just look and don’t see. And the chest opens very simply
                  In 1940, Japan imported 6073 thousand tons. iron ore, 621 thousand tons of iron and steel, 2104 thousand tons of scrap metal, 100,1 thousand tons of lead, 10,5 thousand tons of tin 23,5 thousand tons of zinc. And all 8932,1 thousand tons of metal and ore. In 1941, all the same was imported only 7575,9 thousand tons or 84,8% of the level 1940. Got it? Yes, where are you ... okay, so be it, I’ll explain
                  In 1941, the embargo on the supply of metal to Japan was a little more than a quarter. Thus, IF Japan purchased metal and ore ONLY from embargoed countries, it would receive less than a quarter of its annual supply. (because a quarter is a quarter of a year :))) A quarter is 25%, Kars :))) But in reality, of course, metal and ore didn’t come to Japan from the UK and the USA only, so the supply volume was not reduced by 25 %, but only on 15% :)))
                  Thus, on the basis of the data on this plate, it can be assumed that prior to the embargo, the Japanese metropolis imported approximately 40% of the total volume of metals and ores from sources controlled by it, while 60% was purchased from countries adhering to the embargo
                  Well, in 1942 g, if Japan had kept the supply of metal at 1940-1941 g from sources controlled by it, it would have received approximately 40% of the volume of 1940 g - or approximately 3,5 million tons. It also delivered ore to 1942 g and metals 5,76 million tons.
                9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 29 2013 22: 37 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  NTs, this also shows that I was right because the Japan began to use the resources of the conquered lands.

                  That shows, Kars, only one thing. What did you really strain :)))) We actually argued here about the effectiveness of American submariners, I say that in 1941-1943 they didn’t do anything outstanding, you paint their exploits and justify INCREASING metal imports to Japan to justify their position: )))))
                  so I repeat the question - do you think that the Americans helped the Japanese to carry metal on their submarines, or what? :)))))
                  PS Kars, throw it off to you - all sorts of digits to read and analyze :)))) Well, it's not yours ever :))))
                10. Kars
                  Kars April 30 2013 10: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That the abundance of minuses to your "comments" is clearly and confirmed.

                  Kakin is all powerful people
                  Delta
                  tlauicol
                  engineer74
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Pashhenko Nikolay
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Said a child’s surprise
                  This is an indicator of your superiority)))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  1940 - 2 104 thousand tons of scrap metal, and in 1941 - a total of 246 thousand tons. Noticed the difference. Even you were able to realize that the embargo imposed in September could not in any way reduce the volume of scrap supplies by almost an order of magnitude

                  The embargo was released OFFICIALLY in September.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But what you didn’t pay attention to was that the embargo was not only and not so much scrap metal - it was about iron and steel in particular. The import of which, by the way, in 1941 compared to 1940 increased by 300 thousand tons :))) As well as the import of iron ore increased - by 236 thousand tons :)))

                  And you didn’t think that they could be imported from China and Korea, but there’s so much scrap metal as in the USA,
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But in fact, of course, metal and ore came to Japan not only from the UK and the USA, so the supply volume fell not by 25%, but only by 15% :)))

                  What a great discovery, for sure it would have been otherwise the delivery of the same scrap metal after the embargo would have been equal to zero)))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  then shows kars only one

                  That you already dodge as you want, while writing banalities and confirm my statements.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Here we actually argued about the effectiveness of American submariners, I say that in 1941-1943 they did nothing outstanding

                  Well, for this I could look at the tablet
                  http://militera.lib.ru/h/roscoe_t/31.html
                  And I would have looked at how many carrier carriers sank and how many submarines in the period you have chosen, even though you will stomp anyway.
                11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 30 2013 11: 10 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  That you already dodge as you want, while writing banalities and confirm my statements.

                  yes, yes, yes :))) What else remains for you? :)))
                  Quote: Kars
                  And I would have looked at how many carrier carriers sank and how many submarines in the period you have chosen, even though you will stomp anyway.

                  Carriers during this period almost did not sink. They had a more important task - they needed to gain dominance at sea :)) Because ONLY after that domination was won and Indonesia was recaptured - only then can we count on the suppression of Japanese sea lanes.
                  The whole digital is reduced to this. And, yes, try to overpower the book to the end, and not fragments.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Therefore, it is clear that torpedo attacks against Japanese ships on the enemy’s external communications and the war of attrition, which weakened not only the power of the “internal defense zone”, but also the Japanese metropolis itself, in no way separable from the offensive operations to seize the islands conducted by the American armed forces in the 1944 year in the Pacific Ocean.
                12. Kars
                  Kars April 30 2013 11: 16 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  yes, yes, yes :))) What else remains for you? :)))

                  It is natural if you continue borotza with my such wrong opinion, while arguing that nothing hurts you.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Carriers during this period almost did not sink. They had a more important task - they had to conquer sea dominance :))

                  Something they sucked it in 1941 42 did.
                  And the submarines already violated communications and made it difficult to supply both the metropolis and the expeditionary units of the imperial army.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The whole digital is reduced to this. And, yes, try to overpower the book to the end, and not fragments.

                  You didn’t read it at all, you have an aircraft carrier fetish, I suppose you didn’t read it besides the Sherman in the war in the Pacific Ocean.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Therefore, it is clear that torpedo attacks against Japanese ships on the enemy’s external communications and the war of attrition, which weakened not only the power of the “internal defense zone”, but also the Japanese metropolis itself, are in no way separable from offensive operations


                  Well, in your first word this wasn’t, it was when they started poking around with a face poke.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Everyone knows that aircraft carrier aircraft played a decisive role in the war on the Pacific Ocean.

                  Quote: Kars
                  Also, many people behind the silhouette of the formidable aircraft carrier unnoticed the huge successes of American submariners.
                13. Kars
                  Kars April 30 2013 11: 23 New
                  0
                  Submarine "Barb" (USS Barb SS-220) class "Gato" in the sea after modernization at the shipyard Mare Island January 29, 1944. The photo shows the signature by hand of Commander Eugene B. Fluckey, nicknamed Lucky Flaki - “The Submarine that Sank the Most Tonnage According to Japanese Reports”.
                  One of the most famous U.S. Navy submarines since World War II. In addition to the large number of sunken ships with torpedo weapons and guns, it went down in history for two reasons. The first is like the first missile carrier boat. It carried a volley fire system with 5-inch rockets, which it successfully used in settlements on the coasts of the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and Hokkaido, causing fires. The most interesting thing is that the submariners after the salvo did not go to the depths, but from the heart made fun of watching the air defense searchlights rummaging through the sky. The second fact - the train was destroyed by her crew! A landed group of 8 people under the command of Lieutenant Walker blew up a train consisting of a locomotive, 24 freight, 12 passenger and mail wagons with a 2 kilogram charge and returned safely aboard. It was the only ground operation of the Americans directly on the Japanese islands.

                  On December 13, 1954, the boat was sold to Italy and became part of its fleet under the name Enrico Tzolli (S-511).

  • Lopatov
    Lopatov April 26 2013 19: 53 New
    0
    A vital role? Is not a fact.

    What were the tasks?
    First: the naval blockade of Japan. There are no irreplaceable ones. The Americans chose the submarine, but at the same time their activities were provided by the entire fleet, including the aircraft carrier
    Second: according to the Douai doctrine, force Japan to surrender. It is impossible to do without basic aviation, marines and the navy, providing its actions to capture and equip aerodromes, from which it was possible to use basic aviation.

    On aircraft carrier aircraft: no "decisive role." They have always been a means of ensuring the actions of other branches of the armed forces.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 20: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      A vital role? Is not a fact.

      Fact
      Quote: Spade
      What were the tasks?
      First: the naval blockade of Japan.

      I agree. And what was the first condition for performing this task? And here's what - the neutralization of the Japanese imperial fleet. Without this condition, all other methods simply did not work. And in order to neutralize the Japanese fleet aircraft carriers were needed :)))
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 26 2013 20: 31 New
        +1
        Let us turn our eyes to Britain. German submarines had a similar task - blocking the island. Great Britain helped her powerful fleet? No. Aircraft carriers? No. Battleships? No. Base aviation and anti-submarine ships launched in large quantities.

        Could the Japanese imperial fight the blockade effectively? No, it's like chasing flies with a hammer. Would the Japanese be able to carry out a program for the urgent construction of anti-submarine ships and transport ships, as the United States and Britain did? Also no.
        So from which side are the aircraft carriers here?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2013 21: 14 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Let us turn our eyes to Britain

        Let's reverse :)))
        Quote: Spade
        German submarines had a similar task - blocking the island

        Did they complete this task? Not.
        And after all, they did not fulfill their task despite the fact that the German submarines were, in fact, in ideal conditions. Their bases were located on the eastern coast of France, which was 150-250 km away from the British, although, although the British could bomb the same Brest, they did not have air supremacy over the French coast.
        Of course, neither the battleships nor aircraft carriers could help the British here - they were not able to destroy the coast of France :)))
        But as a result of the actions of the Japanese fleet, which established temporary supremacy in Asia, it was possible to carry out a number of landing operations and destroy any US bases thousands of kilometers from Japan - and if the Japanese nihon-kaigun could not be stopped - they would expand their "Area of ​​Prosperity" more :)) Under these conditions, an American submarine would have to operate from the same Pearl Harbor, from which up to 6,5-7 THOUSAND kilometers one way to Japan-Indonesia communications. But in fact, without the aircraft carriers, the Americans and Pearl Harbor would not have been able to - they would have lost Midway first, and then ...
        Thus, the English fleet could not influence the proximity of the German submarine bases to England, while the Japanese fleet influenced this very decisively:) Fighting over long distances, the American submarine fleet did not demonstrate the ability to cause significant damage to almost unprotected shipping Japan. Only the appearance of submarine bases relatively close to the Japanese metropolis led to a spasmodic increase in Japanese losses
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 26 2013 22: 12 New
        0
        And what was the distance from the bases of the German submarine fleet to the "black hole" of the Atlantic? In 42, the Germans could no longer operate near the coast of Britain, and moved to this area, inaccessible to the base patrol aircraft. And they sank 1664 ships, with a total displacement of 6,3 million tons.

        Why were the boats necessarily based in Pearl Harbor? Australia did not fit religious dogma.
        Further: why couldn’t basic aviation be used, for the same religious ones? Why could not a non-navian fleet be used? Oh yes, only an aircraft carrier is a child prodigy capable of everything: from replacing “super-fortresses” during bombing in Japan and ending with replacing bulldozers that cleaned the jungle area during the construction of airfields.

        Who really played a decisive role? American industry that performed titanic work during the war. Did you know that in order to make up for losses during the Battle of the Atlantic, the Americans launched three Liberty-type transport vessels per day?
      4. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 22: 20 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Who really played a decisive role? American industry that performed titanic work during the war.

        Sorry, but what you write is useless. He is ashamed to admit that he is wrong, such as pride.
      5. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 26 2013 22: 45 New
        +1
        In fact, the Japanese themselves recognize this
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 01: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      And what was the distance from the bases of the German submarine fleet to the "black hole" of the Atlantic?

      I don’t know for sure, but before New York it was about 5,5 thousand km :)))
      Quote: Spade
      Why were the boats necessarily based in Pearl Harbor? Australia did not fit religious dogma.

      Because without aircraft carriers, the Americans could not have defended Port Moresby, and then northern Australia. The Yapis had such plans.
      Or should I talk about the battle in the Coral Sea?
      Quote: Spade
      Further: why couldn’t basic aviation be used, for the same religious ones?

      And where should she apply? Doolittle that, in your opinion, was excessively religious and therefore piled his bombers on aircraft carriers? Sorry, the intercontinental bombers haven’t arrived yet.
      Quote: Spade
      Why could not a non-navian fleet be used?

      Because it would have been destroyed by the Japanese imperial - preliminary airstrikes, a night attack, and then, the remaining ones would be finished off by the battleships and TKR of Mikado
      Quote: Spade
      Oh yes, because only the carrier is a child prodigy capable of anything

      You specially brought my words to absurdity, or did it happen by chance? I haven’t written anywhere that carrier-based aircraft are a prodigy capable of replacing the rest of the armed forces. I wrote that she played a decisive role. Because only the carrier fleet could defeat the Japanese imperial. And with unbroken Japanese, neither basic aviation nor submarines nor surface raiders will achieve anything.
      Quote: Spade
      Who really played a decisive role? American industry that performed titanic work during the war.

      Do you also like to compare soft with white?
      You see, dear sir, the power of American industry was also manifested in the fact that it built an aircraft carrier fleet that surpassed all other aircraft carrier fleets in the world combined and over 50 thousand deck aircraft.
      Quote: Spade
      Did you know that in order to make up for losses during the Battle of the Atlantic, the Americans launched three Liberty-type transport vessels per day?

      Oh, where can I, you just open my eyes to the world :)))
      Do you know who won the underwater war in the Atlantic? :)
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 27 2013 02: 35 New
      -3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Because without aircraft carriers, the Americans could not have defended Port Moresby, and then northern Australia.

      And as soon as the USSR won a war without a single aircraft carrier, I won’t know. After all, aviation can only be based on aircraft carriers.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And where should she apply? Doolittle that, in your opinion, was excessively religious and therefore piled his bombers on aircraft carriers?

      Protecting Pearl Harbor? For the first time I hear this. And how, helped, repelled another attack on their base?

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You specially brought my words to absurdity, or did it happen by chance?

      No, it’s entirely your merit. If I said that tanks played a decisive role in the Great Patriotic War, this would be an absurd statement. As much as declaring the decisive role of aircraft carriers in the Pacific War.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Do you also like to compare soft with white?

      And what, someone else came up with the simple truth that the economy wins the war of attrition? I am glad.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Do you know who won the underwater war in the Atlantic? :)

      I know. The American economy, which was able not only to fully make up for losses in transport vessels, but also to ensure the production of new anti-submarine vehicles.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2013 03: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      And as soon as the USSR won a war without a single aircraft carrier, I won’t know.

      And you read books - not all the same to sit on the Internet
      Quote: Spade
      After all, aviation can only be based on aircraft carriers.

      M-ya ... If these are attempts at wit, then I can still somehow understand, but if you are serious ... The level of your erudition is truly amazing.
      Dear sir, do not remind the world of cases when land-based land-based aviation was able to repel aircraft carrier attacks? And also - do not tell me where the planes come from? In your opinion, they are cut by bushmen from local trees, or what? In order for planes to start somewhere (in Australia, for example), they must be brought there. By the sea, which is characteristic. And in the sea, there are all kinds of situations ... Such a name - Langley air transport speaks of something?
      Quote: Spade
      Protecting Pearl Harbor?

      You are rapidly losing the thread of conversation. I will have to remind you that it was not about protecting the base, but about actions on the enemy’s communications. Perhaps you will defend the base, although the statistics of the actions of the decks against the ground air forces are not impressive. But here's the thing - generally speaking, you have to win the war, and defense wars do not win
      Quote: Spade
      No, it’s entirely your merit. If I said that tanks played a decisive role in World War II, this would be an absurd statement.

      In World War II, tank troops played a decisive role. I’m sorry that you are not in the know.
      Quote: Spade
      And what, someone else came up with the simple truth that the economy wins the war of attrition?

      And what does this "wise" maxim have to do with carrier-based aviation?
      Quote: Spade
      I know. American economy,

      Clear:)))
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol April 27 2013 05: 37 New
    0
    did the aircraft carriers help against the submarines? Yes, one escort Bog drowned 13 boats, not counting those that his destroyers aimed at. A total of more than 50 boats in only two years and only escort boats
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Arct
    Arct April 26 2013 19: 32 New
    +3
    Yeah, Kars, not a single normal answer. Solid water. Apparently epaulettes hit in the head and allowed to remind oneself as a specialist in all areas. I have not seen trolls in high ranks for a long time ...
    And finally, how can Polish crap be bonus information? Would you still model designer 70-80x dragged here))
    Oh, by the way, didn’t you try to learn the Russian language, otherwise it makes you sick of Nubian mistakes?
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 19: 52 New
      -1
      Quote: Arkt
      Yeah, Kars, not a single normal answer.

      Those whose clone? From the banned?
      Well, for your development cool, maybe they are not normal.
      Quote: Arkt
      Apparently epaulettes hit in the head and allowed to remind oneself as a specialist in all areas.

      On the topic of aircraft carriers, I always wrote like that.
      Quote: Arkt
      And finally, how can Polish crap be bonus information?

      Read the comment you will understand, at least probably vryatli))))
      Quote: Kars
      And if by preference, then I am most interested in heavy cruisers from the Japanese fleet

      Quote: Arkt
      Oh, by the way, didn’t you try to learn the Russian language, otherwise it makes you sick of Nubian mistakes?

      Go make your way, it may make your head easier.

      on the cover, by the way, is a heavy Japanese cruiser. It has a pretty close relationship with the main photo of the article.
  • tomaz99
    tomaz99 April 26 2013 20: 02 New
    +1
    The American sailor takes part in lifting the body of a Japanese pilot, caught in the bay of the naval base Pearl Harbor after an attack by a Japanese aircraft carrier.
  • tomaz99
    tomaz99 April 26 2013 20: 16 New
    +1
    The funeral with military honors of the Japanese pilot in the rank of lieutenant who died during the attack of Pearl Harbor.
    Hatred and respect ....
  • vkrav
    vkrav April 26 2013 22: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Odyssey
    Country without resources

    For some reason, no one recalls that in the pre-war US one of the most profitable and prestigious types of business was the supply of scrap metal to Japan.
  • Arct
    Arct April 26 2013 22: 29 New
    +2
    Kars, it’s worth it for you to get out, maybe your brains will be cleaned. Since you always write about aircraft carriers, it’s better to keep quiet, then it will not be so offensive) The article is not about heavy cruisers, so your preferences - you yourself know where they belong. And learn the Russian language, maybe reasonable thoughts will appear ...
    About a clone, in contrast to hollow-headed post-hovers, I rarely write and only on topics I know;)
    1. Kars
      Kars April 26 2013 22: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Arkt
      Kars, it’s worth it for you to get out, maybe your brains will be cleaned.

      But you wrote that you are nauseous.

      Quote: Arkt
      Since you always write about aircraft carriers,

      yes I write
      Quote: Arkt
      keep quiet, then it will not be so insulting)

      what's next?
      Quote: Arkt
      The article is not about heavy cruisers, so your preferences - you yourself know where they belong

      as I said bonus))) but you couldn’t catch up. about the place of my preference --- does it bother you? Do you want to talk?

      Quote: Arkt
      ro clone, in contrast to hollow-headed post-hovers, I rarely write and only on topics I’m familiar with

      write less often, in this thread you did not show anything.
      Quote: Arkt
      And learn the Russian language, maybe reasonable thoughts will appear ...

      Nationalist? It happens.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 28 2013 17: 45 New
        -1
        Quote: Kars
        as I said bonus)))

        In the photo, the drifting skeleton of the cruiser Mikum abandoned by the crew. MIKUMA received no serious damage as a result of the collision with the Mogs. In the photo under the front superstructure there is a long hole at the waterline. Oil tanks were broken and a trace remained on the water, which was noticed by the pilots of Catalina from at. Midway. (The story is very similar to the sinking of Bismarck). But the Mogami suffered seriously and lost his nasal extremity.

        The cause of the death of the ship was a fire from the hit of 5 bombs, which caused the explosion of the entire torpedo ammunition. 24 TORPEDS of 850 kg of explosives and this was kept on the water for another 7 hours. The senior officer, Captain 2nd Rank Takashima, who took command, ordered the cruiser to remain in view of the impossibility of fighting for survivability. (The book "Japanese Heavy Cruisers" Sergei Suliga "1997 p33)

        The correct signature for the photo: June 7, 1942. The cruiser Mikumo, badly damaged and abandoned by the crew, was photographed by a pilot from the aircraft carrier Enterprise.
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 26 2013 22: 49 New
    +1
    The Emperor of Japan was a puppet of the GP.
    Japan’s war with the United States was needed to redistribute the world in favor of the latter.
    Based on this thesis, all the so-called "failures" and "miscalculations" of Japan are planned.
    So, no aircraft carriers would have helped Japan, it would have been leaked anyway.
    Yes, there were nationally oriented politicians and generals, but they could not do anything.
    Unless, in the mid-30s, to overthrow the puppet - the Emperor, reformat the political system and establish a national leader.
    Only now, in foreign policy, such a leader had no one to rely on.
    Stalin was still shackled at that time, and the rest hardly supported, they needed a game, a very thoughtful game ...
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 27 2013 06: 01 New
    +1
    Japan lost the war, where the aircraft carrier reigned, both countries built dozens of them, the feverish preparation of the air groups ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 27 2013 17: 17 New
    0
    Well, if the aircraft carriers are so explosive, why are they afraid of them? :)) In figs we have such hemorrhoids, apparently the Russian naval leaders think so :))
  • Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 April 27 2013 19: 21 New
    +2
    Oleg, have you gone to extremes again? .. Well, everyone has already understood for a long time that you don't like aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft. Why repeat it? .. Right-wing word, this is already starting to look not very solid ... Moreover, after your articles no one will reanimate battleships and write off carriers from the fleet ...
    And finally, understand one simple thing in the headquarters of the Navy is not downs are sitting. And these same “not downs” understand much more in their profession than you and I combined. And if they decided that they needed aircraft carriers, but there weren’t battleships, then that’s how it is, and so it will be ...
    1. Kars
      Kars April 27 2013 21: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Moreover, after your articles no one will reanimate battleships

      He does not want this, this is my fix idea)))
  • Asturiel
    Asturiel 10 March 2018 00: 15 New
    0
    The author laments that the Japanese did not bomb the warehouses, fuel supplies, cranes and ... hospitals.

    Hospitals. Hospitals b * capybara * b !!! There are no worthy curses in the world for such, sorry, people ...