Congratulations to Mr. Prewitt. It should be noted, however, that France’s highest order of merit is called the Legion of Honour (Légion d’honneur), not the Legion of Armour, and also that France doesn’t actually have knighthoods in the same sense as Britain does. “Chevalier” (knight) is indeed one of the Legion of Honour’s five levels, and the name is a holdover from the days when France still had an aristocracy, but the French nobility system went out the window with the French Revolution. I once saw a series of amusing cartoons depicting what life in France would be like today if the Bourbon monarchy hadn’t fallen, and one of them showed an irate air traveler standing at the ticket counter of “Royal Air France” and telling the ticket agent “But I’m a baron and I have a confirmed reservation!” The agent replies, “I’m sorry, sir, but the Duke of So-and-so has precedence over you, so we gave him your seat.” In fairness, the same sort of thing actually happens in real-life republican France. A few years ago, there was scandal involving one of the major D-Day anniversaries (I think it was the 50th one), when the French government contacted various hotels in Normany and appropriated some of their existing reservations so that various French officials could have rooms for the event. Some of those rooms, however, had been reserved by foreign veterans of the D-Day invasion. When the story broke on the front page of French newspapers (under such headlines as “Our Liberators Insulted!”), public opinion was outraged and the French government beat a hasty retreat. The prevailing editorial opinion over this affair was: Do this to our own citizens if you want, but don’t do this to the heroes who ended the occupation of France.
Most overrated WWII weapon
-
Here’s something interesting and telling:
In 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō apologized in print, acknowledging Japan’s bombing of Chinese cities beginning in 1938, killing civilians. He wrote that the Japanese government should have surrendered as soon as losing the war was inevitable, an action that would have prevented Tokyo from being firebombed in March 1945, as well as subsequent bombings of other cities. Thereafter, survivors banded together and unsuccessfully sued the Japanese government for compensation; however, efforts continue.
-
Uncrustable, our detractors would say that the bombing you cited did nothing to stop the Japanese army, navy, or air force, or something similar - that it just “strengthened their resolve”
Just look at 9/11!
NO COMPARISON
-
@rjpeters70:
Well, while I’m a fan of bombers, and think that they can be used to devastating effect either in strategic contexts or in modern uses of close air support, the firebombing of Tokyo was a bit of an outlier in its destructiveness. Weather conditions were perfect (dry, some wind) and the city was largely made out of paper houses… not brick and mortar, stone, or even wood. It was a tinderbox.
So what your saying is the people died because the houses were made out of wood, not because of the bombers,
What a stupid thing to say. So are you also going to say that ships sink because they are in water?
-
Even if an outlier, it still happened and the bombers still had that effect.
It’s not like there aren’t numerous other examples of tremendous bomber effectiveness in WWII -
I thought the discussion here wasn’t about the least effective weapon, but the most overrated? Obviously the weapons not used were the least effective, else they would have used them.
I went into this thinking which weapons yielded the least ‘effectiveness/cost.’ The Germans were still a very capable fighting force when the allies landed in Italy and later France. This after a couple years of strategic bombing. Hard to say how much more effective they would have been otherwise.
Strategic bombing in the last year of the war was more effective than the early years because there were less air defenses, particularly enemy aircraft.
-
Strategic bombing in the last year of the war was more effective than the early years because there were less air defenses, particularly enemy aircraft.
That’s one reason, but there were MANY more. One is - the B-29’s could fly at 30,000 feet and had major armor plating.
Talking about what is overrated is not much different than talking about what was ineffective. If it was considered nasty/effective but was actually ineffective, then it’s overrated.
-
@Uncrustable:
gamerman you are an fn moron to compare 9/11 to strategic bombing in late ww2
that is all i have to say to thatand the japanese surrendered BECAUSE of loss of civilian life from strategic bombing,
you are just trolling at this point
Dude, you are the moron.
You misread both rjpeters and me
We are both agreeing with you.
Dude, I have been the one taking issue with people comparing 9/11 to strategic bombing THE WHOLE FREAKING TIME
How could you misinterpret me so badly?My comment had been removed
My apologies to you gamerman
-
@Uncrustable:
On topic I’d say the most overrated weapons system in the war was the battleship.
WWII marked the end of an era on the high seas and the beginning of the new age of aircraft carriers.
Some of the largest and most expensive BBs (Bismarck, Yamamoto) were ineffective and sunk relatively easily by aircraft. -
Thanks - I can remove mine too then
I would have made it clear I was being sarcastic, but thought it was obvious with the line of reasoning I had been continuing
Also, I think rjpeters was only conceding that the wind conditions and combustible materials greatly magnified the effectiveness of the bombers.
-
In many of the crucial battles of the Pacific, for instance Coral Sea and Midway, battleships were either absent or overshadowed as carriers launched wave after wave of planes into the attack at a range of hundreds of miles. The primary tasks for battleships in the Pacific became shore bombardment and anti-aircraft defense for the carriers. Even the largest battleships ever constructed, Japan’s Yamato class, which carried a main battery of nine 18.1-inch (460 millimetre) guns and were designed to be a principal strategic weapon, were seldom given a chance to fulfill their potential. They were hampered by technical deficiencies (slow battleships were incapable of operating with fast carriers), faulty military doctrine (the Japanese waited for a “decisive battle”, which never came), and defective dispositions (as at Midway).
-
lotta name calling in this thread.
-
It seemed to me that you were denouncing the bomber due to conditions (saying it only killed that many people because of x)
-
Also, I think rjpeters was only conceding that the wind conditions and combustible materials greatly magnified the effectiveness of the bombers.
Did you not see this, rj? I think Uncrustable misunderstood your meaning and I tried to help clear it up so you wouldn’t have to light into him
-
@rjpeters70:
I saw it. I also saw that he apologized to you, but not to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j–tixvta_g
As president of DP oil i want to say, I’m sorry. :D
-
I have got to tape me some Southpark again….
-
I have got to tape me some Southpark again….
Or just stream them
-
@Uncrustable:
Or just stream them
Yeah, that’s better, thanks
-
The tiger tank. Great weapon, but insufficient numbers.
I also would say the Tiger tank.
-
Grr!
I am turning in my grave.If the crews were untrained, it might have been and that happened late war.
In most Western battles the cry of “Tiger” would have the Allies quaking and running for cover. Then a MK III with a 50mm L60 trundles past and everyone feels silly!
I always wonder how Wittmann would have got along with a MkII, if he had survived Normandy.
-
@wittmann:
I am turning in my grave.
Does this mean that what I’m quoting above is a post-mortem post?
Suggested Topics
