tlb wrote:Apropos of nothing, compared to the number of ships involved the percentage of attrition at the Battle of Midway was worse than at the Battle of Jutland.
Jutland:
British: 151 ships involved, losing 14 for 6093 men killed
German: 99 ships involved, losing 11 for 2551 men killed
(this includes the loss of 5 torpedo boats)
Midway:
Japan: 27 ships involved with 248 combat aircraft,
losing 6 and all aircraft for 3057 men killed
USA: 26 ships involved with 233 combat aircraft,
losing 2 ships and 150 aircraft for 307 men killed
Of the four combatants the USA did the best, but the Japanese did the worst, so Jutland in total was better off than Midway in total. I do not know if the US figures include the aircraft that were based at Midway.
Note that the Japanese lost all the aircraft carriers, which automatically caused the loss of all carrier aircraft. Which supports the quote:
Like great weapons of the past, navies simply cannot afford to lose battles fought in earnest.
sighIrrelevant! You still don't get it. I got it, and I am neither a historian nor an analyst.
The fact that Midway - or any
other later battle - highlights the producer's point further or better is besides the point.
And! If the producer claims that
he could see the writing on the wall bespeaking the end of the battleship as far back as Jutland, then that just might mean that he is a very good analyst. Maybe even better than you.
Obviously, he didn't need Midway or any other far more recent battle to see the writing on the wall. Of course, you are free to call
him on
his "precognizance" all you want.
The main thing that I took away from it is that having a predominance of battleships was no longer going to be the deciding factor.
At that point, the narrator did not make any recommendations as to
why the battleship had gone the way of the dinosaur; but only
that it had gone the way of the dinosaur. Later he went on to substantiate his claim as to why he thinks it did, but the
why was not the point that he was trying to highlight at Jutland.
****** *
Since you were kind enough to let me know why you get annoyed with me, let me return the favor. One good turn deserves another.
tlb wrote:cthia wrote:Why do you keep attributing the analysis to me? I am only stating what the documentary says. Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to challenge his analysis without digesting it? Especially since you say that I "misdigested" it. View the piece for yourself. Then tell me.
I neither agree nor disagree with the narrator. I am not a historian or military analyst. Although I respect those who are. Obviously the producers of the show are, or are affiliated with someone who is to make his remarks. Since they are making documentaries, my bet is on them.
Again, it is not my analysis. As I stated from the beginning. And since the age of the battleship did draw nigh with WWII... then obviously he is right.
Well you put this forward as being correct (as you say in the last sentence), so we can disagree with that. That is part of the reason I get annoyed with you; you say that you make no judgement in one sentence and then in the next say that you bet that they are right and finally that they are obviously correct. Then when I disagree (based on my knowledge of the Battle of Jutland), you certainly act as though these were your conclusions in your defense of them. So how are we to know what is yours, when you disavow that they are your conclusions and yet react to criticism as though they were you most precious thoughts?
What I put forth as being correct is that I did NOT misrepresent what was being said.
I did not react to the criticism, per se. Why should I? Neither the documentary nor the included analyses are my own.
I reacted to the insouciant, the rude and the displaced
manner of your criticism. Specifically, your rude and disrespectful "Do you somehow think that word count is as important as facts?"
That is what is called drawing first blood. I no longer suffer fools on this forum. Something I have had to do since joining. When those snide remarks bring the worst out of me, people complain, but they never accept responsibility. My time on this forum is as limited and important as anyone else's. I detest having to spend it raising other people's kids.
You further incite my wrath by stating that I must have misunderstood what the documentary was saying. And on and on. Condescension? Perhaps I cannot understand a documentary?
So, tell me, how did I fare in understanding what the narrator was saying?
"He couldn't possibly make those statements," 'eh?
But no apology from you. Instead, you launch into the Battle of Midway. Which is totally irrelevant. The producer had already stated what Midway helped stamp.
You annoy me, because first, "You do not read my posts. But you comment on them. That is disrespectful, rude, and stupid! I understand that my posts can get winded and as a result require more time to digest. If you don't have the time or inclination to digest them, then don't. But you shouldn't comment on them unless you do.
Not too long ago you blew me away when you indicated that you were of an advanced age even older than the author. Yet, you have always acted as if you are quite young. (I am still gobsmacked about your age.)
tlb wrote:It simply seems to me that if you insist on presenting and defending statements, then you should accept that people will treat them as if they were yours all along.
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Again, your age, wisdom, and or logic. Why treat them as if they are mine when I tell you they are not, even when I supply the source. A free source! Disagree with them all you want, yes! But why try to pin my ears back as if you have some long-standing vendetta against me? Even if I agree with what the piece is saying! After all, I digested the entire thing.
Although it is foolish of you to disagree with a piece you haven't actually seen, it is your right to do so.
With the piece. Statements like, 'I disagree with the piece' is acceptable. Being condescending to the messenger is not. There is a difference. I will not suffer a fool who acts as if he doesn't know where that line is.
At any rate, no apology. I suppose you are getting as tired of apologizing to me as I am of hearing it. I would much prefer you act your age and discontinue wasting both of our time.
tlb wrote: Otherwise either do not present them
That is a bit too rich, rude, and arrogant even for your blood don't you think?
tlb wrote:do not defend them by going further than a simple statement that you saw them and thought them interesting.
Read my posts! That is
exactly what I did! Nearly everything I wrote came out of the documentary. Especially the part about the era of the battleship ending in just two hours of fighting. Since I didn't include it in quotation marks, you thought it was mine. I accepted that lack of quotation marks and allowed you that transgression. "Take it up with the producer," I said.
tlb wrote:Then there are certain specifics of what you wrote...
[Snip]
You start by saying neither you nor the narrator were saying anything about planes when asserting that the battleship was superseded by the carrier. But that is not a mistake that the narrator of a documentary entitled "Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas" should ever make, because the combat power of a carrier consists almost exclusively of the planes that it can put into the air. It is only because of the planes that a "carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship".
I have digested the analysis as you presented it and found it wrong compared to what I know of the Battle of Jutland and the subsequent disputes between the carrier supporters versus the battleship supporters. Clearly it is you that said "And since the age of the battleship did draw nigh with WWII... then obviously he is right". So clearly you are agreeing with the statement "the writing on the wall was Jutland". So clearly when I disagree with that, I am disagreeing with you (and possibly the writer who put those words into this documentary).
Which brings me to another problem I have with YOU! You have a problem staying in the lane. You have a habit of forgetting the title of the thread. There is nothing wrong with deviations and detours, but the title of the thread should be respected. Duckk can close a thread if it forgets its original intent. I have always tried to maintain the integrity of the thread.
But it also happens with conversations. My entire post was in response to kzt's post which is essentially about not seeing or heeding the writing on the wall.
My entire point is that I absorbed in a documentary that the end of the battleship was coming and had not been heeded. Your incessant rant with me and the author of the documentary is irrelevant to the conversation I was responding to
at that point unless you think the producer is wrong about the end of an era.
kzt wrote:Even the best and brightest of your military, having seen in person what is coming, are unable to accept that 'this means YOU!' and institute the kind of changes that are obviously going to be needed when the next war starts.
Instead they miss the forest for trees or the organization groupthink overcomes the obvious lessons.
Things like, 'Wow, we'll shoot a lot of artillery and small arms ammo, what's our industrial base to keep everyone supplied?'
Things like, 'Those machineguns and barbed wire are going to be a huge issue. What kind of small unit tactics could we use instead of advancing with a battalion on line?'
Things like, 'With all this artillery being fired, isn't this going to tear up the ground? How are we going to supply advancing units? How can we keep control of them?'
Things like, 'Those machineguns sure are lethal. How do we get more of those to our infantry? How can we make them light enough that they can be used by our infantry when they are attacking?'
BTW, oftentimes my posts get winded because oftentimes when I give the benefit of the doubt that people can make simple connections, people like you prove me wrong. So I tend to try and prevent misunderstandings by including a lot of information. Sometimes apropos. Sometimes simply FYI.
But just once I would like to see you act your advanced age.