Day of Infamy Options

[impala454]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation.

they also never built many of the things. so i suppose another obvious thing to add besides technology and numbers: intelligence among commanders, as well as ability to implement your technology for practical use

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

ok to quote your source:

The ancestor of all Cold War and modern day ballistic missiles, as well as the rockets used for space exploration, the V-2 could not win the war for Germany—it was too expensive, too complicated, too inaccurate, and its warhead was too small

so we conclude, great design, start of a new era, genius mind (which ended up in the good ol USA), but in the end a non-factor.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

the united states of today implements technology on a level un-matched by anyone else. we have equal to superior numbers on almost any possible threat that's out there, experienced leaders, and an isolated mainland. imho this is what makes us, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable to conventional attack.

[Trespass]

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

So the germans HAD better technology but couldn't implement/use it... i think you made our point, except you tried to cop out and try to say that "technology" is only when you use it efficiently... which who "uses" it... the well trained and funded military (which if you try to lump them into being part of "technology" then you are completely correct that technology wins the day)

And why do you keep talking about a conventional war on the mainland? Im not sure anyone talked about it, but you keep bringing it up. Japan attacked us the ONE time and the rest of the war was played out elsewhere (and that was a WORLD war).

If we got attacked (pearl harbor, etc) by another nation and our country faced another country like russia that could deal out massive deaths (which they could) our country would have a hard time stomaching it. Because Russia is not an iraq, they have weapons, and "technology" very comparable to ours... they didn't just go away after the cold war and stop making better and better stuff. They have subs that could go undetected and launch devestating attacks on our mainland and go back home unscathed. They could use modern missles to bring down jets in numbers, could basically fight us and make us bring the war to them if they wanted... THEN it would be about the soldiers and tactics again, not merely technology.

I think cupcake and hartman are trying to say that if a Russia attacked us, we wouldn't have a stomach to take them on and lose LOTS of american lives to do it.

Oh and if this didn't make much since towards the top im still waking up a bit.. heh, hopefully i got the points out coherently.

[John6.7]

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

What?
They had the technology but used it wrong and didn't want to give it to allies untill too late in the war.
plus everything trespass said.

[Trespass]

China sub stalked U.S. fleet

Russian Sub Games

couldn't find an article on a new russian sub popping up off our coast when we didn't think they existed yet but meh. Point being that even when the "technology" of the one side is weaker, they could still get massive blows in on our military, and "smart" bombs wouldn't end the war easily just because our bombs are "smarter". A ground war (or nuclear... scary) might be the ultimate solution required if the war was against another major power in the world.

[John6.7]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation. The P-51 was a great aircraft, but I would chalk a lot of the kills up to the skill of pilots and the lack of skill on the German's part.

The tactic of P-51s (and P-47s) was to attack small groups of targets as a swarm, which definitely helped their shootdown numbers. But no argument, the P-51 was an awesome plane and having the opportunity to fly in a two seat version I've seen the power of the plane up close and personal, it's so easy on the controls. Personally, I'd love to find and restore one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190 I consider it the F-15 of WWII in the Luftwaffe.

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

Oppenheimer wasn't Jewish and though born in the states was actually encouraged to finish his schooling in Germany.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

[Trespass]

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

ha ha i was actually wondering when you'd chime in when the german planes were brought up.

[John6.7]

ha ha i was actually wondering when you'd chime in when the german planes were brought up.

[impala454]

What?
They had the technology but used it wrong and didn't want to give it to allies untill too late in the war.
plus everything trespass said.

having a prototype design of something that flies and having a fleet of superior aircraft are two completely different things.

[Hartmann]

You know your stuff, my hat is off to you.

Thank you sir. If there is one thing that I can debate and debate well it is military and aviation history from WWII to modern day. I actually have that exact same model of the 262.

Why do you think my forum name is one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever live?

[Billy]

The question to be answered: What determines the outcome of a war more: technology or the toughness of the military?

I'm still going to say that ultimately technology is the biggest factor. As you'll never see some african tribe armed with spears take out one armed with AKs. However, in situations where technology are equal, then I agree, that is when the people matter. Having well trained, toughened troops will win the day. So having both is really a big plus. But I think right now, in this current age, our technological superiority is what makes us powerful. But when this gap lessens, and our brillant minds go elsewhere, then I agree, America should worry. Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

[impala454]

So the germans HAD better technology but couldn't implement/use it... i think you made our point, except you tried to cop out and try to say that "technology" is only when you use it efficiently... which who "uses" it... the well trained and funded military (which if you try to lump them into being part of "technology" then you are completely correct that technology wins the day)

well yeah who uses the technology is important, but i was referring to the practicality and use of a technology in war. the first jet fighter did the germans no good because they couldn't build the things in big enough numbers. the V2 did the germans no good because it didn't help them accomplish anything. the flying wing design did the germans no good because they never even used it. So basically as far as WWII comes down to it, the technology difference of the germans vs allied forces was negligible.

And why do you keep talking about a conventional war on the mainland? Im not sure anyone talked about it, but you keep bringing it up.

this is what pretty much spurred that talk:

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

If we got attacked (pearl harbor, etc) by another nation and our country faced another country like russia that could deal out massive deaths (which they could) our country would have a hard time stomaching it. Because Russia is not an iraq, they have weapons, and "technology" very comparable to ours... they didn't just go away after the cold war and stop making better and better stuff. They have subs that could go undetected and launch devestating attacks on our mainland and go back home unscathed. They could use modern missles to bring down jets in numbers, could basically fight us and make us bring the war to them if they wanted... THEN it would be about the soldiers and tactics again, not merely technology.

i think you over-estimate the abilities of the post-cold war era Russia. what's required to invade us is a very strong navy, which nobody comes close to matching us. check out this little tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces
and nobody will ever drop nukes on us in open war... it'd be suicide.

I think cupcake and hartman are trying to say that if a Russia attacked us, we wouldn't have a stomach to take them on and lose LOTS of american lives to do it.

yeah, and i think they highly underestimate our population's ability to kick some ass. not to mention our popluation has nearly doubled since WW2, people deal with increasing crime rates, murder, gangs, and private gun ownership is way up. i just read an estimate of privately owned guns at 215 million in 1999, and almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.

[cupcake]

But it's a bad comparison because Germany's technology was not that much more advanced. Yes, they had guns that wouldn't jam, ships that could reach speeds no one else could do. The japanese had a fighter plane that was unmatched in agility (the spitfire).

the Japanese Spitfire was the greatest fighter plane of WWII
-Renegadepeon

the BMW Corvette is the fastest production car on the market.
-Renegadepeon

[Billy]

the Japanese Spitfire was the greatest fighter plane of WWII
-Renegadepeon

the BMW Corvette is the fastest production car on the market.
-Renegadepeon

I was distracted when I typed that. I mean't the zero. Had I been able to proof read the argument I would have caught that error.

[cupcake]

Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

that's simply the point I was trying to make on page 1.

but God love techsans.net for running with this in every direction. makes for one hell of an interesting read.

[cupcake]

I was distracted when I typed that. I mean't the zero. Had I been able to proof read the argument I would have caught that error.

I know I'm just fuckin with you...