header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT - Significant Battles in History

 (Read 4074 times)

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6052
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2019, 07:03:11 PM »
. . . CWS what did Stalin tell the Japanese about Anglo-American intentions? - you mentioned this
Stalin wanted to prolong the Pacific War so that he could get his forces moved to the east.  He wanted to capture southern Sakhalin Island (the Japanese half) and Hokkaido, and occupy the Kuril Islands.  He did not want Japan to surrender before he accomplished this.  One of the things he did was tell the Japanese about the U.S. plans to invade the Philippines.  It was not automatic that the U.S. would do so--there were arguments within our own councils that bypassing the Philippines would be a smarter move.  This meant that the Japanese could keep and even reinforce their forces in the Philippines, confident that they would not be bypassed and allowed to die on the vine, rather than pulling them back to the home islands.
He also encouraged the Japanese to believe that he could help them negotiate a less-than-unconditional surrender to the Western Allies.  All the time, he was planning to violate the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact as soon as feasible.
So Stalin was playing a game with his allies, telling us that he would join us in the war on Japan within 90 days of the German surrender while at the same time giving the Japanese information of American plans and also providing them with reasons to believe that he could help broker a better deal for them, and playing a game with Japan in that his diplomats specifically told them that the USSR would honor the Neutrality Pact until its expiration date in 1946 even as he was making the military preparations to invade their northern islands.
Play Like a Champion Today

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17163
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2019, 07:54:36 AM »
I've gotten into some rather spirited exchanges with some British Slappies in youtube comment sections.They were blathering on Japan threw in the towel because the Russians were on their way.When I explained the Russians did less than the British in the Pacific and their fleet of trawlers would still be steaming to get there,well that was not well received
Suburbia:Where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6052
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2019, 12:04:36 PM »
Actually, the Soviets did invade southern Sakhalin and the Kurils at some point before the formal surrender ceremonies took place, and their last combat operations took place on, IIRC, 5 Sep 45, three days after the signing of the Instrument of Surrender.

Still, your main point is valid.  The Brits, for one thing, fought the Japanese in India and Burma.  For another, in 1945 they operated a carrier task force that was an element of the Fast Carrier Task Force (TF 38/58) of the U.S. Navy.

The Soviets did nothing that helped the overall effort in the Pacific.  All they did is hop in at the end and grab territory in Manchuria and at the northern reaches of the Japanese archipelago.  Beating the Japanese in Manchuria was a massive undertaking, but it was against an army that was all but beaten by that point.

There's an argument out there that the Soviet declaration of war on 8 August, and its subsequent attacks beginning early the next morning are what drove the Japanese to surrender.  To that, I would respond by asking why the Soviets suddenly got off their butts, 2 days after the Hiroshima bombing, when they had spent the previous two years encouraging the Japanese to keep holding out for a less-than-unconditional surrender.

What's a "slappie," MrNubbz?
Play Like a Champion Today

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17163
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2019, 12:16:36 PM »
India & Burma were British interests and strategically didn't matter a whole lot except for their morale.ANZAC territory was defended by the USA,with of course the locals contributing what they could.Slappie is a stooge more/less,some of the limeys I've crossed swords with are revisionist - distorians changing the narrative 75 yrs after the fact.With out lend/lease and loans the Crown buckles in 1942 - this according to Hastings/Beevor/Barr.
Suburbia:Where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6052
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2019, 12:31:32 PM »
India and Burma were important to us in that they were the staging bases for our aid to China.
Play Like a Champion Today

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17163
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2019, 12:40:57 PM »
China was lost anyway and besides after the Island hopping,fire bombing and 2 A-Bombs.Those troops would die on the vine
Suburbia:Where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2019, 03:35:43 PM »
There's an argument out there that the Soviet declaration of war on 8 August, and its subsequent attacks beginning early the next morning are what drove the Japanese to surrender.  To that, I would respond by asking why the Soviets suddenly got off their butts, 2 days after the Hiroshima bombing, when they had spent the previous two years encouraging the Japanese to keep holding out for a less-than-unconditional surrender.
To be fair to Stalin, he had promised to declare war on Japan within 90 days of the German surrender and the Germans surrendered on May 8.  Three months later Stalin's T34's rolled into Manchuko.  

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Stalin and his motivations in 1945 but I just wanted to point out that, for what it is worth, he did honor the letter of his 90 day agreement.  

As far as the British in the Pacific are concerned, the story of what was called the "British Pacific Fleet" is interesting:
By any standard other than comparison to the US Pacific Fleet, the BPF was humongous.  It was arguably the most powerful fleet ever assembled by the RN consisting of:
  • 4 BB's
  • 6 CV's
  • 15 CVE's and CVL's
  • 11 CA and CL's
  • innumerable DD's, DE's, subs support ships, and other smaller ships

I've read that most of the British Cabinet didn't want to send it because it would be so obviously a junior partner to the vastly larger US Fleet but Churchill overruled them because he felt it was important for Britain to contribute to the inevitable US victory in the Pacific.  

The British carriers carried much smaller air-wings than their US counterparts but they were better defended against kamikaze attacks with their armored decks (US Carriers had unarmored decks and if you want to know why I'll explain the thinking behind it).  


Back to the Russians:  
I honestly don't know that Stalin's maneuvers accomplished much.  The US was, of course, reading all of the Japanese communications back-and-forth with their ambassador in Moscow.  When you read what Tokyo was saying, it is astounding.  They were telling their ambassador to offer things that they had already lost to the US, as "carrots" to get the US to end the war.  The Ambassador in Moscow had a clearer picture of reality and this put him in a difficult spot because he was being asked to try to negotiate something that was laughable on its face.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2019, 03:38:50 PM »
Back to the OP, IMHO the most consequential battle in history is the Battle of Tours.  The Battle of Tours was fought on October 10, 732 between European Christian forces under Charles Martel and Middle Eastern and North African Islamic forces under Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi.  

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37596
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2019, 03:42:08 PM »
not a battle were any blood was shed, but cracking the German Enigma code was very significant
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2019, 03:48:50 PM »
Battle of Tours was on the cited link's list, so I didn't call it out specifically.

The Battle of Assaye was significant in one way, it gave the British a young general who would later do some remarkable things.

He said that was his best battle.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6052
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2019, 07:55:51 PM »
That's hindsight, though.  We devoted a lot of resources to keeping China in the war.  And to propping up Chiang Kai-shek.
Play Like a Champion Today

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6052
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2019, 08:16:46 PM »
To be fair to Stalin, he had promised to declare war on Japan within 90 days of the German surrender and the Germans surrendered on May 8.  Three months later Stalin's T34's rolled into Manchuko. 

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Stalin and his motivations in 1945 but I just wanted to point out that, for what it is worth, he did honor the letter of his 90 day agreement.
Stalin fully complied with about three agreements.  He complied with the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, even as his advisors were telling him that the Germans were preparing for a major offensive.  He complied with the requirement to give a year's warning that he would no renew the Neutrality Pact with Japan (although he then went and broke it before it expired).  And he complied with his promise to enter the war against Japan with 2-3 months after the German surrender.

Quote
As far as the British in the Pacific are concerned, the story of what was called the "British Pacific Fleet" is interesting:

By any standard other than comparison to the US Pacific Fleet, the BPF was humongous.  It was arguably the most powerful fleet ever assembled by the RN consisting of:
  • 4 BB's
  • 6 CV's
  • 15 CVE's and CVL's
  • 11 CA and CL's
  • innumerable DD's, DE's, subs support ships, and other smaller ships

I've read that most of the British Cabinet didn't want to send it because it would be so obviously a junior partner to the vastly larger US Fleet but Churchill overruled them because he felt it was important for Britain to contribute to the inevitable US victory in the Pacific. 

The British carriers carried much smaller air-wings than their US counterparts but they were better defended against kamikaze attacks with their armored decks (US Carriers had unarmored decks and if you want to know why I'll explain the thinking behind it). 


Sure--go ahead.  I know that their carriers were built to that different philosophy, but I don't know that I've read (or remember) the rationale behind it.  Maybe because the Germans had not much of a naval air threat?

Quote
Back to the Russians:

I honestly don't know that Stalin's maneuvers accomplished much.  The US was, of course, reading all of the Japanese communications back-and-forth with their ambassador in Moscow.  When you read what Tokyo was saying, it is astounding.  They were telling their ambassador to offer things that they had already lost to the US, as "carrots" to get the US to end the war.  The Ambassador in Moscow had a clearer picture of reality and this put him in a difficult spot because he was being asked to try to negotiate something that was laughable on its face.
I wonder if the Japanese officials instructing their Ambassador in Moscow even knew the extent of Japanese losses in the Pacific.  That information was pretty closely held.
Play Like a Champion Today

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2019, 12:13:25 PM »
Sure--go ahead.  I know that their carriers were built to that different philosophy, but I don't know that I've read (or remember) the rationale behind it.  Maybe because the Germans had not much of a naval air threat?
I wonder if the Japanese officials instructing their Ambassador in Moscow even knew the extent of Japanese losses in the Pacific.  That information was pretty closely held.
Armored decks were a trade-off.  Armor is heavy (obviously) and the deck is substantially above the waterline which means that in addition to the overall weight problem, armored decks also hamper stability.  

The American answer to this conundrum at least when the Essex class was designed was to build carriers with lightweight wooden decks and use the weight savings to better armor the "strength deck" which was below the hangars.  Thus, it was REALLY hard to put a bomb into a boiler room or magazine of an Essex (because the bomb needed to penetrate the unarmored flight deck, the unarmored deck between the two levels of hangars, and the armored strength deck.  This is part of the reason that no Essex class carriers were EVER sunk in combat.  It also meant that the American Essex Class carriers could carry a substantially larger air-wing.  

During WWII the American Essex Class Carriers displaced about 36,000 tons at full load and carried around 100 aircraft of various types.  The British Illustrious Class Carriers displaced about 23,000 tons and carried up to 57 aircraft.  That isn't an entirely fair comparison because the Essex Class Carriers were larger but if you do the math, the Essex's carried approximately one aircraft for each 360 tons of displacement while the Illustrious's carried approximately one aircraft for each 403 tons of displacement.  I also think that comparison shorts the unarmored US carriers a bit because wiki lists the Illustrious as carrying 36-57 planes while the Essex is listed as carrying 90-100.  Later in the war I know the US started adding extra planes (mostly fighters and night-fighters for defense) so I think the US Carriers actually had a bigger disparity.  

More planes made the carriers more potent because obviously the main defensive and offensive armament of a CV is the planes.  

Armored deck carriers were also harder to fix when they did get damaged.  US crews simply planked over the holes and kept fighting.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Significant Battles in History
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2019, 12:14:43 PM »
I wonder if the Japanese officials instructing their Ambassador in Moscow even knew the extent of Japanese losses in the Pacific.  That information was pretty closely held.
They had to.  The people giving those instructions were the Cabinet.  

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.