Robdab just can't stop making typos in,
robdab wrote:Yes indeed, well after April 18/42 when most of Japan's other overseas invasions were either long over or were winding down and the Japanese were no longer stretched so thin everywhere else.
Robdab, Robdab, Robdab Seriously "well after" April 18/42? How is an operational order handed down April 30/42, and an attack beginning mid-May/42, considered "well after April 18/42"? The order goes out 12 days after the raid and within a month the attack is begun.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Ichi-Go attacks of 1944, that tool place "well after" 1944...
robdab wrote:I long ago realized that your opposition to any of my ideas has become a personnal vendetta for you.
Sorry you feel that way, I guess you have forgotten the Alternative story for the battleship Yamato??? thread @ http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... it=Musashi
. We went 2 pages back and fourth because you had not given a reason for completing the Yamato early. When you finally posted the fact for the Yamato's rush, and horror of horrors, I AGREED
Takao wrote:Thank you for better fleshing out your ATL, this would have saved a lot of back and fourth between us had I known this in the beginning. Now, I can see your "pay off" for rushing the Yamato in construction.
Although, I did disagree with you on some of the more technical aspects of that thread.
So don't say that I have a personal vendetta against you, while they are few and far between, I have agreed with you.
If you were 100% right - I would agree with you, if you were 75% right - I would give you the benefit of the doubt, if you were 50% right - I would toss a coin; heads I give it to robdab & tails I go against him, below 50% and I am against. So, therefore, most of your posts have yet to reach the 50% mark.
Come up with a good idea and I will agree with you. So far, your track record has been 1 for 3.
robdab wrote:All that I want here is a polite discussion. With sources, so that further facts can be drawn out "into the light of day".
That's what we all want. But stop mis-quoting your own sources and please read the sources others have provided you.
robdab wrote:I believe that I typed "for the British" rather than "by the British" in order to indicate that the AVGII's A-29s had a much longer recon range and thus could keep all of the Allies of the ABCD alliance much better informed on the subject of Japan's future intentions.
Why mention the British at all? From Currie's list that you posted; Tactical Objective #4: Attack Japanese supply vessels, transports, tankers and small naval vessels in harbors of Indo-China and Hainan Island and at sea between those places. From your own source, your attacking Japanese shipping, not reporting it!
Or is there another Indo-China and Hainan Island that Currie could be referring to?
robdab wrote:As I have typed several times already, A-29s in the hands of the Chinese Air Force could have provided a potent strike force that could also deliver a strong deterent message along with it's bombloads.
And as I have typed several times, with sources you didn't read, I highly doubt it.
robdab wrote:Perhaps, if my ATH British and ATH Americans did know, via better AVGII flown A-29 recon flights, then the Japanese might have seen different choises made by the Allies?
That is not a leap of faith I am willing to make. As we have seen, better air recon is not the issue. The American PBYs first noted 20 transports in Cam Ranh on Dec.2, 30 transports on Dec. 3, No transports on Dec. 4, the British reacquire the transports at sea on Dec. 6, and Dec. 7. Yet, they still do not know the convoy's intentions.
Now do you really, really think that spotting no transports in Cam Ranh on Nov. 30, and then 10 transports in Cam Ranh on Dec. 1, will change Allied thinking any? I don't.
robdab wrote:Certainly bombs dropped by the AVGII pilots could have clearly told the Japanese that their Pacific War invasion plans were no longer secret.
How and why would the Japanese know their Pacific invasion plans had been found out? Since Japan was at war with China and not(this is important)
with Britain and the US. An attack by China against Cam Ranh Bay or Hainan Island would be seen as an escalation of the Sino-Japanese War, would it not. Now, given that these are aircraft sporting the insignia of the Nationalist Chinese Air Force(or the Japanese hinomaru, as you had speculated about earlier), what conclusion do you think they will logically
Now, if the aircraft were still under the British or Americans, and using their respective insignia, then the Japanese would probably conclude that their invasion plans had been found out. But being attacked by Chinese aircraft, no, I don't see the Japanese drawing your conclusion.
robdab wrote:China had been at war with Japan for some years already and considering the amount of Chinese territory occupied by Japan at that point in time, no one was going to mistake China as the aggressor.
Chinese Air Force marked warplanes would make the strikes so how could America be seen as the aggressor ?
American planes, flown and serviced by American airmen & aircrews, dropping American bombs, on a nation with long-standing disagreements with the FDR administration? Hell, the Isolationists, the many anti-FDR newspapers, and the Republicans will have a field day with that.
robdab wrote:Neither did I reference a "Norwegian Blue" parrot. Get over it, please.
You forgot to mention Star Trek too.
Nor did I reference the Eagles or Track 1 off their "Hell Freezes Over" album. Nice touch with the Eagles reference, an "E" for effort, but no points this round.
robdab wrote:IIRC the earlier postings in this thread indicated that the Chinese were initially asking for some 350+ warplanes, so it was recognized that many more than 66 bombers would be required. You have to start somewhere ...
You really don't read my sources, do you? Page one, my first post, first link: 350 fighters and 150 bombers.
You are right, the Chinese recognized the fact that many more than 66 bombers would be required
Read the second link of my first post and you will find out that [/quote] Despite this discouraging record the Chinese had not been deterred from requesting additional Lend-Lease aircraft. China Defense Supplies on behalf of the Chinese government made a series of both long and short-term requests for aircraft by the first half of 1942. Their requests totaled 2,586 aircraft including 1,489 pursuit planes, 462 bombers, 478 training planes and 157 transports.[/quote] Looks like the Chinese needed a lot more than 66 bombers.
Yet, here you are, up on your soap box, expecting us to believe that your 66 bombers will some how, reduce Japanese cities to rubble, defend the DEIs, sink ships, upset Japanese timetables, etc. And then have the gall to ask me why I doubt you and that my doubt is just a "personal vendetta"
and not based on logic, logistics, and history.
You sir, and I use the term loosely, have no shame.
robdab wrote:Once again, I thought that we had agreed that until a Hudson pilot's manual of the A-29 variety is obtained, there is little point in discussing range, bombload, fuelload, altitude or airspeeds further since all are inter-related and variable ?
That is because, robdab, your faulty memory trips you up.....
You whined that
My Feb.3/10 posting here included: "http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/hudson/tech.html
lists a top speed of 246 mph, a range of 1960 miles and a 1,600 lb bombload. Obviously those figures will change depending on the details of the bombing mission profile ... " which indicates that I acknowledged the interrelationship between the range, speed, altitude and possible payloads of bomber aircraft. We have already agreed on the need for an A-29 Hudson pilot's manual to finally settle the question, so why do you continue to waste bandwidth on this issue ?
the question was on range, not speed, speed has never been an issue before. And yet, 5 responses later, in the same post you replied
Yet, I am the one wasting bandwith, while you are just a fountain of knowledge, whose every whim must be attended to.
Not at all. As best I can determine, considering the economical cruising speed of the Hudson bomber and at that time of year, there are NOT enough hours of darkness for a Hudson bombing raid on the Japanese Home Islands to be conducted ENTIRELY IN THE DARK, as you seem to be. Some portion of that trip, either coming or going, will have to be flown IN DAYLIGHT, with the consequent possible attentions of Japanese fighter aircraft based on captured Chinese mainland territory. This is why Chennault wanted BOTH night attacks by his bombers AND fighter cover for his bombers.
So, there you are making and breaking your deal in the same post.
What part of this equation have you failed to grasp????????
robdab wrote:Over a 10 hour+ mission duration, head/tail winds can strengthen, reverse direction and/or weaken. Winds can be blowing in different directions at different altitudes ...
Spoken like a true meteorologist: 80% chance of rain, with a 90% chance of being wrong gives us a 72% chance of sunny skies. So, a strengthened/weakened headwind in one direction, is still a strengthen/weakened tailwind in the opposite direction....
NOW ROBDAB, EVEN I AM NOT THAT STUPID TO BELIEVE YOU MADE ANOTHER TYPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's look at that paragraph in its entirety, shall we
robdab wrote:Uhm, maybe I just made a typo ?
if your TYPO was 1941 when you meant 1940, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE SENTENCE THAT FOLLOWED IT!
found that the detailed air combat reports to be found at http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm
were a most interesting read that indicate by late 1941, there were few Chinese pilots left in combat. Russian "volunteer" pilots were carrying much of the load by then, at least until Germany attacked Russia. Chang Kai-shek needed AVG pilots because he didn't have enough of his own trained to fly the last Russian planes that were still being supplied. Let alone more AVG warplanes.
So, therefore, you think the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1940!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOUR SOURCE GOES ON TO ADD THAT
robdab wrote:Russian "volunteer" pilots were carrying much of the load by then, at least until Germany attacked Russia.
THE SOVIET VOLUNTEERS WERE NOT CARRYING ANY LOAD WHEN GERMANY ATTACKED THE SOVIET UNION
THERE IS NO OOOOOOPS! ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THE SOURCE BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ IT!
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD READ YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL!
In December 1940 the 2nd BG was sent to Hami to re-equip with Tupolev SB-IIIs.
In the words of the historians of the People’s Republic of China after the appearance of the Japanese Zero with its excellent flying characteristics, the situation of Chinese aviation became worse. The shrinking air forces continually suffered losses and by the end of 1940 only 65 aircraft remained. Adding to this problem, the Soviet volunteers were recalled, and the Chinese Air Force was left isolated, with no resources remaining for combat flights.
robdab wrote:At least I provided the source so that you could check it !
Big Deal, you provided a link to a website that did not support your statement!
On second thought, I don't want to see your sources anymore, I'll just take it for granted, that whatever you say is untrue and just leave it at that. That way, it saves you a few seconds on Google and me a few minutes of actually reading through your links.
What do you say, agreed?
robdab wrote:Historically all quite true but please remember that we are discussing my own "what IF" Alternative History scenario here, not the OTL history. Since I knew that I neeeded the longer range of the A-29 Hudson, why would I specify some of the much shorter ranged DB-7 for my scenario ?
How many things are you planning on changing and when are you changing them? Incendiary bombs that are not made yet, bombers not alloted to China, bombload that is questionable, Marshall says yes, logistics in place that aren't, 1941 not 1942, affecting Japanese whole Pacific invasion, etc. You do know that alternate history does have a basis in real history....This is the same way your ATL went, change upon change, upon change, never stopping......
If your not going to settle for the DB-7, then why settle for the piddly A-29, go all out with the B-29, B-36, or B-52!
Hey, B-52s in the WW2 Pacific, now we're talking ALTERNATE HISTORY!
robdab wrote:True enough but your plan negates any possibility of the Hudsons exerting any deterent effect on the Japanese while in Chinese hands.
That's the whole point, NOT putting the aircraft in Chinese hands. While, in China, the have no deterrent effect on the Japanese heading to the DEIs, as opposed to actually putting the aircraft IN the DEIs were the will be used to good effect. As you have said, the Japanese and Chinese were at a standstill in their war, alas not the air war in China though, so why not put the aircraft where they will do some good. In the DEIs.
robdab wrote:You are quite right, I don't have any idea what you are talking about with the above ramble. Never have I suggested that a Hudson of any type would be flying between Chuchow and Balikpapan.
I just want to make sure you don't. Given your track record lately, I've been waiting for you to make that claim....
Just don't forget it.
robdab wrote:So ?
So, it trains the civilians on how to react at the sound of a siren. Repetion breeds familiarization. Then again, living within 15 miles of Three Mile Island for several years probably has heightened my awareness of and my belief in the need for such emergency drills. I'll tell you this though, a chill went down my spine whenever I heard those warning sirens go off.
I was refering to:
Please see http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/////AAF/rep
... eport.html which details the events of the April 18/42 Doolittle bombing raid on the Japanese Home Islands. Various bombing altitudes between 75' and 1,500' were used for both 500lb demolition bombs and 500lb incendiary cluster bombs, beating LeMay to the punch by at least a couple of years.
What you said was
please take a good long look at the source that I have provided just above in this post.
Just above, in this post is http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm
Just above this post is http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view
The link your were referring to was BELOW
Probably just another one of your (cough, cough) typos....
robdab wrote:Oh, so you did find it.
I never lost it(no pun intended). The link was BELOW YOUR POST, AND NOT ABOVE IT AS YOU DIRECTED ME
Thank God I never have to ask you for directions
I was replying to both posts directed at me at the same time.
robdab wrote:So ? They were still ultra-low altitude incendiary bomb drops that were totally uninspired by LeMay.
The decision was made out of necessity, not by choice, and the did very little damage as opposed to your
mini-atom bomb like" firestorm demonstration
So ? Low altitude bomb drops had been done since mankind started using airplanes for war.
hardly worth noting, because, back then aircraft could not fly much higher than low altitude.
robdab wrote:So why could not the AVGII's pilots have used the same pathfinder tactic ?
Well, let's see, because you never mentioned it until now. And if I had not mentioned this fact, the idea would not have occurred to you. That's why! Because you don't read your own source material, otherwise you would have known it before I did.
So, no you may not use it...
No and Hell No!
robdab wrote:Because the accounts of air warfare from that Sino-Japanese source that I posted mention that both Chinese and Japanese pilots fighting over China were known to intentionally ram enemy aircraft. Since Chennault was there for several years before 1940/1 he at least would have familiar with those accounts.
Source, what source? Thanks, but No Thanks. I'm done with your sources, thanks all the same.