chandler said:chandler said:chandler said:I'm jonesing for a set of panasports C5R for my coupe. Every year or so I get the hankering...
I did it, bought a set.
And now to strip, polish and rebuild. Going to try to find a spare or two to refinish with them so I don't get caught with a broken one and no way to match it later on.
I like those a lot!
Buy my set of compomotive turbos on eBay now to help me finance the refurbish the way I want.... lol
Everyone getting some sun after a long day of working from home.
bobzilla said:In reply to Ian F :
Not a PCC. The ONLY PCC I have an interest in is a Auto Ordinance M1 SBR. I was looking at a 10.5" pistol in 5.56 with fixed sights. Mag interchangability with the 16" carbine. one caliber to buy ammo for (and one for the pistols). spare parts etc. I don't see the point of a 7.5" 5.56 though. Those just seem like flame throwers that happen to shoot projectiles.
What's overall length on the 10.5? Sounds like you need an iwi tavor x95 or 7. Theyre 24" overall with a 16" barrel and ar mags. Mine is awesome.
I have noticed the birds singing louder than usual this spring, any one else observed this?
TRoglodyte said:I have noticed the birds singing louder than usual this spring, any one else observed this?
I think the rest of the world is just quieter, but the birds are sounding great this year.
Just so y'all know, I listed every single one of you (not you Patrick) as my support system to my therapist this morning on our teleconference. This place is just about the only thing I look forward to daily right now. So good job everyone.
Now, back on topic.....Could Japan have taken the pacific had they not bombed pearl and skipped Guam? If they'd had one more year without US intervention in the pacific, would they still have lost?
In reply to bobzilla :
Probably. Once war were declared, it would have been inevitable. However, if Japan had another year or so to better get supply chains secured, it would have been much more difficult and bloodier for the US. But in the end, they just didn't have the industrial resources of the US. Granted, without Pearl Harbor and the anger that attack instilled into the US general population, it is a matter of debate if the American public would have had the same "absolute victory" resolve to endure a drawn out blood-bath.
bobzilla said:Now, back on topic.....Could Japan have taken the pacific had they not bombed pearl and skipped Guam? If they'd had one more year without US intervention in the pacific, would they still have lost?
So what's the hypothetical - that Japan moves south to the Dutch East Indies but doesn't attack the US Pacific Fleet, or that Japan follows the IJA's preferred move to focus on the Asian mainland and ignores the Pacific for the time being?
The fundamental problem Japan faced was lack of resources. The IJN's push into the Pacific was based on the the need for POL, exacerbated by the increasingly harsh sanctions placed on exports from the US in response to Japan's actions in China. But the US position in the Philippines meant that Japanese lines of supply would not be secure. Knocking out the US Pacific Fleet was all about holding the Philippines and thus ensuring that oil (and food, and tin, and rubber, and....) could be safely transported from Southeast Asia to the Japanes home isalnds. It was a catch-22, really - Japan couldn't achieve imperial security and autarky without expanding into resource-rich areas, but to do so antagonized the US, which made naval power more important, which increased the need for additional resources.
Edward Miller's Bankrupting the Enemy is an excellent account of the evolution of US sanctions and their effects of Japanese policy. If you can stomach reading an ebook, Jonathan Marshall's To Have and Have Not is available here.
In reply to 02Pilot :
I'll give them a shot... I am not a fan of ebooks but have read a few.
The USN wasn't that strong in the Phillipines. I wonder if the IJN had just bypassed the Phillipines and cut it off from the rest of the world they might have gotten that extra time needed to secure those supply lines.
Now, ignoring the pacific and focusing on the mainland had it's own issues. They needed war material. That necessitated their attacks down the island chains. I don't think they could have avoided it.
Based off nothing more than reading Tom Clancy novels, would Japan have been better off to ignore the Pacific, focus on China, and head towards what the bad guy Chinese dude in "The Bear and the Dragon" called the "Northern Resource Area"? Siberia is cold and E36 M3ty, but its got resources, and the Soviets were kinda involved elsewhere at the time.
Japan was doomed. It was one thing for the Brits to extend power around the world in the 1800s from their tiny island, but to try that in an ever- shrinking world, without a ready source of oil, iron, bauxite and so on is tough.
02Pilot said:
autarky
Huh! Autarky, "economic independence or self-sufficiency." Today I learned!
In order to understand the decision-making process in Japan in this era we have to take into account the very real rivalry between the army and the navy. Both had very different resource requirements, and these shaped their respective strategic priorities. Oil was far less a concern for the army than for the navy, and thus the push south made much less sense from the army's perspective, but was absolutely crucial for the navy. As far as attacking the Soviet Union, this was a consideration from the army's perspective, but made no sense from the naval high command's point of view. The final decision to move south was communicated to Stalin via the Sorge Network, allowing the release of eastern Siberian reserves to the Moscow Front, arguably saving the Soviet capital from the Germans in 1941.
Once the navy had won the bureaucratic battle and the strike south was set, the question became securing the supply lines. The US position in the Philippines wasn't strong, but it had to be eliminated because it provided air and naval bases that could be reinforced and form the nucleus of a counter-offensive that would come at the most vital point, the chokepoint through which all of Japan's shipping transporting materiel from the south had to pass. Remember, this is the era when precision bombing was still though plausible - the B-17's Norden bombsight reputed to be able to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 15,000ft - and these bombers could cover vast areas from bases in Philippines. The value of submarines as anti-commerce raiders had been proven in the First World War, and was being proven again in the Atlantic, and here too US bases would have been vital; the long-range fleet boats were still years off. It's not that US forces could cut off all traffic, but given Japan's dire need, even limited reductions could have delayed their building program, allowing the US to tip the balance of forces in their favor, with the inevitable outcome being the end of the Great East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
In reply to 02Pilot :
The Japanese could have continued their push for more resources while avoiding direct conflict with the USN. At least for another year or so. However, the downside there would have been the US would have known hostilities were going to happen eventually and would have started to build up the forces in the Philippines to the point where Japan couldn't have taken the main islands.
At the same time, the Pacific war also brought the US directly into the war in Europe. So you have to wonder if a delay in the war with Japan would have delayed the US direct entry (beyond the material supplies to GB) into WW2.
(we typed at the same time)
In reply to Ian F :
You compelled me to pull Miller off the shelf to double-check the dates. The US froze all Japanese assets, and locked them out of US imports, exports, and financial institutions in July 1941. This had the effect of rapidly and dramatically pushing the Japanese economy toward international bankruptcy, not because it was out of dollars or precious metal reserves, but because it couldn't access or use them in exchange for the goods Japan required. The Japanese government viewed the US freeze as an act of war, and argued at the war crimes trials after the war that the US had started the war with this action (not, as you might expect, an argument that gained much traction).
For Japan, the war with the US had already begun. It's resources were desperately short - stockpiles of many critical commodities would be severely strained or almost gone by 1942 unless they took action. An attack on the NEI and British holdings (notably Singapore) was necessary to secure the oil and other commodities of SE Asia; even bypassing the Philippines, it is unlikely that Roosevelt in Dec 1941 would have stood by while any ally, let alone the critical ally that was the UK, was attacked by a power the US had viewed as dangerously aggressive for several years. Bypassing the Philippines, then, created considerable risk that the US would declare war and begin interdicting Japanese shipping, another resource that was critically short, and which Japan could not easily replace.
Punkinhead says hi!
Bump!
The new Chris D'Elia special is pretty damn good!
bobzilla said:I have one. Tim refused to play....
What would have happened had Stalin NOT stopped at Berlin. Could the allies have stopped the soviets from taking western Europe in 1945?
SO.... someone else thought of this
Did not know this existed. Hummmmmmm
after three months at home we decided to blow town for a couple weeks. Been nice so far.
Got my new "garage kitchen" table in today. Ive been using the little blackstone 17" on a old workbench for a while. I saw the stainless tables are pretty reasonable(under 150$ new on amazon) so grabbed one of those for my new 22" blackstone. i cleaned up the 17" one, im giving that to my dad. 
You'll need to log in to post.
