Yamato, the super-battleship

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Analyzing events and decisions, especially mistakes, is what historians do. To criticize it is to criticize the very process of learning.

Accusing me of "Monday morning quarterbacking" when speaking of historical analysis is deeply insulting and I am highly offended. A "quarterback" with a mere ball and some padding is a wuss compared to a typical infantry soldier with a weapon. A "Monday morning quarterback" has no stake in the outcome of the entertainment (except the foolish who bet), and we ALL have a stake in the outcome of history.

Now that I have your attention...

I don't criticize the process you want to describe as much as the cavalier term you use for it, which equates the very serious business of fighting with the trivial entertainments that children and millionaires of all ages play at.

I object to all "sports" analogies when speaking of historical events because they demean the very real stakes involved in real life, and by implication suggest that there are "rules" by which human societies act. This is a delusion that you really need to get over if objectivity in historical thought is ever your goal.

Humans live by one rule and one rule only: survival, just like the rest of the universe. All human activities can be justified eventually. If you don't like that fact get out of the business of history, because it really shows no favorites for the moderate and no mercy for the weak. "Fair" is a human construct with no basis in nature and certainly none for those who adhere to any notions of "rules."

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by jdbeatty

Accusing me of "Monday morning quarterbacking" when speaking of historical analysis is deeply insulting and I am highly offended. A "quarterback" with a mere ball and some padding is a wuss compared to a typical infantry soldier with a weapon. A "Monday morning quarterback" has no stake in the outcome of the entertainment (except the foolish who bet), and we ALL have a stake in the outcome of history.

Now that I have your attention...

I don't criticize the process you want to describe as much as the cavalier term you use for it, which equates the very serious business of fighting with the trivial entertainments that children and millionaires of all ages play at.

I object to all "sports" analogies when speaking of historical events because they demean the very real stakes involved in real life, and by implication suggest that there are "rules" by which human societies act. This is a delusion that you really need to get over if objectivity in historical thought is ever your goal.

Humans live by one rule and one rule only: survival, just like the rest of the universe. All human activities can be justified eventually. If you don't like that fact get out of the business of history, because it really shows no favorites for the moderate and no mercy for the weak. "Fair" is a human construct with no basis in nature and certainly none for those who adhere to any notions of "rules."

You should really learn to read and to be less sensitive (and a little less pompous while you are at it). I was defending you. If you didn't understand that, then (to paraphrase your own words), once again slowly, any analysis of events can be called "monday morning quarterbacking". Perhaps you should look at the idiomatic definition of the term and understand its application.

Now that I have your attention, the fact that you don't like sports analogies is totally irrelevant. You are welcome to take that for what it is worth but do not come onto this site with an over sized ego and think that you can push others around. If you cannot function in a forum with people of different ages, writing abilities, knowledge levels, and use of idiom then that sir is your problem and you should be looking for another place which would welcome such an air of superiority. When you own the site then you can make the rules. Insulting other members (in any fashion) is not allowed on this site and simply will not be tolerated. If you cannot live within that simple rule then this really is not the place for you to post. On the other hand, if you want to participate in an active dialog where people at all knowledge levels and from all backgrounds teach and learn from each other, then you are welcome, sans attitude.

[Panzermacher]

At this point, I would strongly consider that a warning shot.....

[temujin77]

jdbeatty, had I used the idiom "20-20 hindsight" instead, does it help? I was by no means trivializing war. My own grandfather fought the Japanese in Burma and then the communists in Manchuria, and my grandmother had to live with the thought that she couldn't hold on to her children when fleeing Japanese bombing in a mob of a crowd. You don't have to preach me that war is no game. I know.

Take it easy. We're all here to have fun, discuss our views on WW2, and learn from each other. I don't know everything, and I look forward to learn from you. I hope you can be open to do the same. After all, that's why you joined this forum, isn't it?

[Panzermacher]

Originally Posted by temujin77

jdbeatty, had I used the idiom "20-20 hindsight" instead, does it help? I was by no means trivializing war. My own grandfather fought the Japanese in Burma and then the communists in Manchuria, and my grandmother had to live with the thought that she couldn't hold on to her children when fleeing Japanese bombing in a mob of a crowd. You don't have to preach me that war is no game. I know.

Take it easy. We're all here to have fun, discuss our views on WW2, and learn from each other. I don't know everything, and I look forward to learn from you. I hope you can be open to do the same. After all, that's why you joined this forum, isn't it?

I agree with this 100% . I too have had relatives in the PTO and realize the alot of analogies are going to be used to describe conflict. And conflict IS no game. But I have learned to overlook the words used to describe war/conflict and not let descriptive words get in the way.

[Gulf Coast]

[quote]

Originally Posted by temujin77

Oh yeah, it was a hell of a ship alright. Even her AA ammunition was rather interesting. She carried a rather unique shell for her primary guns. Fired toward the direction of incoming bogeys, the shell explodes after a set time and spreads fiery shrapnel across the sky. A 3,000-lb flak shell, if you will. Quite a scary thought.

I have seen this thread before.

Naval Guns Of The Yamato-class Battleships - History Forum

The anti-aircraft shells for the guns were ridiculous, as the effectiveness of them is far less than the equivalent weight of the turret to around 1700 Bofors 40mm guns, which, if all of them fired a one-second burst, would throw up around 6,800 pounds of projectiles. Also, think if the tonnage of the Yamato was instead used to build destroyers? That would be around 20 Akizuki destroyers per Yamato class ship. If you include both ships, that's 40 destroyers. Now, what's more effective- 2 battleships in a time when the battleship is obsolete, or 40 destroyers? I think it's pretty simple.

Vogon Ford