Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (
More info?)
"JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nPxVd.191$74.2999@eagle.america.net...
>
> "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4xwVd.182024$K7.131775@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LmvVd.181$74.2920@eagle.america.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can
> come
>> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
>>
>>
>> Or to put it another way, you don't have a clue, mouthed off and got
> caught.
>
>
> <laughter>
>
> My, aren't we a bit defensive.........interesting, wonder why.
>
> Sure......if you want to say so. See below dumbass.
Nothing defensive, you made an arse of yourself and got caught - you can
always pick the idiots, they run and hide when figures get used.
>
>>
>> What say you find me a google search that says the US subs sank more than
>> 7.5 million tons of Jap shipping in WW2?
>
>
> What say you do as I originally said, and you'll find different figures
> on
> every link, some the complete opposite of yours. It's spelled g o o g l
> e.
> That should help.
Good. demonstrate it you cretin, all it takes is a cut and paste.
>
>> > And if the Japs disregarded asw compared to the Allies, again, so ?
>> > That's the US sub fleets problem ?
>>
>> Anyone who isn't a fool recognises that the scale and capability of the
>> opposition you face impacts on what your achievements are, the USN was
>> facing a country that had few resources and less interest in ASW, the
>> Kriegsmarine was facing the C'wealth and the USA, both of whom put vast
>> resources into ASW/Convoy protection and they still sank almost 2 x the
>> amount of shipping and they did it while the allies were regularly
>> reading
>> their op orders.
>
>
> Um, no. Do try looking into the facts sometime. Hint: The majority of
> u-boat tonnage was before an efficient/safe convoy system was put into
> effect, the US was even officially in the war/shortly after. In other
> words, most of the asw bells/whistles you are fixated on and seem to think
> that the Germans fought for the entire war, were later, not while the
> Germans were sinking boats right and left
> Of course, you're also ignoring the facts that the Germans launched *many*
> more boats, that operated in a smaller area, (1170 vs 288) and that the
> US
> didn't have reliable torpedos until 1943. Hmmm, that means the US fleet
> sunk whatever number you pull out of your hat with far less boats, in far
> less time.
Safe/efficient defined how and by whom - the sinking rate went up when the
US joined the war, it only went down when they finally adopted the
safe/efficient Brit convoy methods.
Yet the escorts and the aircraft were there in increasing numbers from day
one, as was the operational research, Ultra decodes, HF/DF in Jan 41, ASW
Radars by 1940 (more and better ones later), shipborne radars, the Germans
had exactly the same torpedo reliability problems as the US and the Germans
faced a far larger force.
Try working with numbers rather than generalisations ("sunk whatever number
you pull out of your hat with far less boats") idiot.
In 1941 the IJN had only 30 convoy escort vessels, all unarmed, no new ones
were laid down until early 1943.
Eventually in March 1944 the Japanese introduced a proper coordinated convoy
system.
Hardly a credible opposition.
>
> Sounds like a better service to me, numbers boy.
Yes it does to an idiot that refuses to deal in numbers and refuses to
acknowledge the opposition as a factor.
The German U-boat service faced 2 heavyweights and stayed in the ring,
inflicting losses till the end.
The US sub service were a heavyweight against a lightweight and uninterested
Jap opposition, they won - but it is hardly an achievent that makes the
German effort pale into insignificance.
>> > US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A
> country
>> > perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
>> > English.
>> >
>> > U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
>> >
>>
>> And the U-boats didn't face utterly incompetent enemies, the USN sinking
> the
>> shipping of an enemy who is not making any credible effort to defend it
>> is
>> NOT an achievement that makes "the u-boats accomplishments pale in
>> comparison", quite the opposite in fact.
>>
>> USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472
>> Brute
>> Force by john ellis).
>>
>> U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john
>> ellis) -
>> 3,408,000 in one year alone.
>>
>> *those* are the facts.
>
>
> Sigh. Still stuck on a single source. Oh well. To be expected of a
> neophyte.
>
>
Find a source that refutes it, you've said its easy. do it.
Clearly you are just another idiot troll.
>>
>>
>>
>> > But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
>> > ("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many,
> including
>> > "historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
>>
>> Are you determined to display your ignorance? why don't you look up what
> the
>> U-boat crew wore as uniforms? hardly 'neeto' you idiot, and I take it
>> that
>> you didn't know that the USN also used wolfpack (........oooh, cool
>> <rolls
>> eyes>), tactics and even wolfpacks called 'hellcats' (neeto!) against the
>> Japanese?
>>
>> But keep digging, you are doing a fine job.
>>
>
>
> <laughter>
>
> Whew, where to begin. Maybe "whoosh, right over the top" will do for
> now.
Another childish attempt to avoid the fact that you have, yet again,
revealed the depth of your ignorance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram