The UN Vote Proves

[JoeB131]

so it was not a degree in naval history??
you keep saying I lost---negative

are you still talking?

Yeah, you lost when I pointed out Taranto. Whoops. Everyone should have known after that Battleships are vulnerable to air attack.

For that matter, everyone should have known it when Billy Mitchell sank the Ostfriesland in 1921. 20 years before Pearl Harbor.

 

[harmonica]

so it was not a degree in naval history??
you keep saying I lost---negative

are you still talking?

Yeah, you lost when I pointed out Taranto. Whoops. Everyone should have known after that Battleships are vulnerable to air attack.

For that matter, everyone should have known it when Billy Mitchell sank the Ostfriesland in 1921. 20 years before Pearl Harbor.

naval historian says otherwise
should we go with the naval historian who co-authors best selling books on WW2 naval warfare, or go with you?

 

[harmonica]

so it was not a degree in naval history??
you keep saying I lost---negative

are you still talking?

Yeah, you lost when I pointed out Taranto. Whoops. Everyone should have known after that Battleships are vulnerable to air attack.

For that matter, everyone should have known it when Billy Mitchell sank the Ostfriesland in 1921. 20 years before Pearl Harbor.

Anthony Tully's interest in the Imperial Japanese Navy is long-standing and wide-ranging. Like coauthor Jon, his interest began in childhood, and his interest in Midway, in particular,was inspired by Walter Lord's Incredible Victory and its careful attempts to reconstruct events. This attention to detail mentored the pattern of all of Tony's subsequent art and writing. A frequent contributor to journals and periodicals on matters both nautical and topical, Tony has been published in the U.S. Naval War College Review, Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval History, Warship International, the Dallas Morning News, Today's Christian Man, and Kudzu magazine. Likewise a member of the 1999 Nauticos/NAVO expedition, he has been an adviser to other undersea expeditions researching naval battle sites in the Philippines and elsewhere. Since 1996 Tony has been a major contributor to www.combinedfleet.com and other online resources on the Imperial Navy. A graduate of Texas Tech University, with extensive postgraduate studies,....

About the Authors
have you anything published in the USN War College Review, Proceedings , etc?

 

[JoeB131]

naval historian says otherwise
should we go with the naval historian who co-authors best selling books on WW2 naval warfare, or go with you?

I go with me. Fact is, lots of attacks with aircraft from carriers before Pearl Harbor. Everyone knew the danger carriers posed. It's why our carriers where out to sea when the battleships (military dinosaurs) were wall lined up where the Japanese could find them.

So you made a s tupid point, got pointed out it was stupid, and are now trying to appeal to authority to make your stupid point sound smarter than it is.

 

[harmonica]

naval historian says otherwise
should we go with the naval historian who co-authors best selling books on WW2 naval warfare, or go with you?

I go with me. Fact is, lots of attacks with aircraft from carriers before Pearl Harbor. Everyone knew the danger carriers posed. It's why our carriers where out to sea when the battleships (military dinosaurs) were wall lined up where the Japanese could find them.

So you made a s tupid point, got pointed out it was stupid, and are now trying to appeal to authority to make your stupid point sound smarter than it is.

''revolutionary'' .......
any one that knows about carrier warfare knows this
this was a one of a kind attack:
1. many carriers
2. distance involved
carriers were not used often to attack naval ports in WW2 prior to PH--fact

so we will go with your un-expert opinion compared to the expert opinion??
hahahahhahahaha

 

[JoeB131]

revolutionary'' .......
any one that knows about carrier warfare knows this
this was a one of a kind attack:

Except the British already did it and people had been speculating about its feasiblity since 1921.

you know, why everyone was building aircraft carriers to start with... because you don't waste billions of dollars on a "theory".

 

[harmonica]

revolutionary'' .......
any one that knows about carrier warfare knows this
this was a one of a kind attack:

Except the British already did it and people had been speculating about its feasiblity since 1921.

you know, why everyone was building aircraft carriers to start with... because you don't waste billions of dollars on a "theory".

as stated before, key word is '''often'''...they did not use them often to attack bases..
you said gas is not used ''often'''

 

[JoeB131]

as stated before, key word is '''often'''...they did not use them often to attack bases..
you said gas is not used ''often'''

As stated before,t here's a reason it hasn't been used 'often' since WWI.

It isn't very effective as a battlefield weapon.

Heck, even Saddam didn't get much effect from it when he used it on the Kurds. He had the send the Army in to shoot the bastards.