Mikasa!

[BlueNinja]

So, I'm stationed at the Yokosuka Naval Shipyards in Japan. About half a mile off of base (and visible from the building where I'm undergoing indoc classes) is this battleship, in the middle of what looks like a park. I head over to check it out this afternoon.

The battleship is the former flagship Mikasa, which was the flagship for Admiral Togo in 1904-1905. At the Battle of Tsushima (or the Sea of Japan Naval Battle), the Japanese sunk about two-thirds of the Russian ships from distance of six kilometers away, captured all but three of the rest, while around the same time the Japanese army was beating the crap out of Russian holdings in Manchuria. Japanese losses during the whole battle were 116 men, and three torpedo boats - to high waves. Russian losses were 4500 dead and 6200 captured, and 21 of 38 ships sunk.

This is the ship that kicked off the mutines aboard the Battleship Potemkin, among others, and led to the October Revolution.

And I got to be on board for less than $3. :go:

Remind me, folks - how did they lose to us in WW2?

[Blue Thunder]

Because we're Americans, and God loves us more.

[NFVD]

Have you ever seen the graphs for industrial production levels in WW2 ? Or the numbers of men and machinery fielded by each country? At the height of the pacific war, America was crancking out so much stuff could afford to loose scores of planes/boats/men for each japanese equivalent they took down. Not to mention Japan was desperate for fuel. It was a simple matter of attriction. The only reason it took so long was because the japanese were so fanatically stubborn back then and prefered death to surrender.

The American civil war had a similar scenario. Even though the South had better soldiers and generals *and* managed to win most of the battles in the first years of the war, eventualy the superior industrial production and vastly superior numbers of the north took their tool. I read a book once that claimed after Gettysburg the north had efectively won the war, because the union could now afford to loose 20 soldiers for every confederate they shot and still be unstopable on their way to victory.

,,

In war it doesn't matter how good or brave you are if you are fighting a horde that vastly outnumbers you and you have no "secret weapon" in your pocket. The mongols did not win because they were military geniuses, they won because they had more than everyone else. The Americans had more and usually *better* than anyone else in WW2 and they also had nukes. It's no surprise they won, BlueNinja ::smile

[metaphysician]

Actually, the Mongols *were* military geniuses. Their army was superior to anything seen on Earth before the Napoleonic Wars, and possibly even the American Civil War.

Its little wonder they took China, given they had quality *and* quantity.

[phoenix]

Actually, while it's true that the USA was a powerhouse of industrial production and economy during the war, as late as 1942, we were not yet armed. Belgium's army and stockpiles were bigger than ours. And this is after the Blitz, after Barbarossa had took out the major part of Soviet industry, and Germany controlled almost all of Europe except for Great Britain. We didn't have nuclear weapons until after Germany was defeated, and there was no guarantee that Hitler wouldn't get the bomb first (as far as we knew, anyway), and we came within a hair's breadth of having our entire Pacific fleet obliterated by the Japanese navy - which was far and away the most powerful navy on Earth at the time - at the Battle of Midway.

The Allied victory was not a foregone conclusion by any means.

[Alex Green]

Have you ever seen the graphs for industrial production levels in WW2 ?

Yes, and Edsan is quite right. It was really lopsided at the end of the war... I think we were making more ships per month than Japan could put out in years. Of course at the start of the war we had this huge economy but it wasn't built for the military.

[NFVD]

My third cent, ::smile

The Mongols were *not* military geniuses. Military genius is winning when say, you are outnumbered and have inferior technology by use of tactics and strategy. Not, winning when you have everything in your favour, better troops, better armament and overwhelming superior numbers. I was not making any comparison to the American Civil War, I was just mentioned what I read to make a point about how numbers/resources/production affect a war.

Yes, victory in war in never a foregone conclusion, I am just saying when you look at things from a macroscopic POV you can point out which side has the odds stacked out grossly in their favor in a war and determine the point at which victory becomes certain for that side unless they decide to fold and quit for some reason.

The Americans had the industrical might and manpower backed up by drive and commitment. Up to a certain point the pendulum could swing both ways in WWII because Germany and Japan were ready, militarized to their teeth and had some technological edges. But once the Germans were facing America and USSR and once, and the Japanese fleet got trashed the outcome on both fronts was clear. The difference in numbers, resources and production levels where just to great.

From then on, for the allies it was mostly a question of how many casualties they would take on their road to final victory. By then it didn't matter how brave or fanatical their foes where. You cant blow up tanks or planes by sheer hatred ::laugh

Btw, I saw "Letter from Iwo Jima" yesteday after my post. Damn, what a *good* movie. Now I must absolutely see "Flags of our Fathers". Clint Eastwood really knows his stuff.

Oh, and lastly. I'm European and my country was neutral during WWII, but I dind't mean to imply anything about the bravery of the American troops that fought for all our sakes all those decades ago, or the ones that fought since then or are serving on our day and age. War is a touchy subject. Most people on these forums are Americans, some are in the military and I'm sure a few must have had relatives in the war, that they might have never met because they didn't come back home.

Im damn glad the USA had the might and the will to do what was required back then, and that their citizen-soldiers where willing to sacrifice so much not only for the sake of their country but for the sake of so many others they had never been to or even heard about.

[metaphysician]

Overall, the Mongols had superior numbers. However, armies of there's routinely destroyed forces several times as big, so its hardly just numbers that gave them victory. Moreso, the reason their troops were superior was because their leadership figured out how to properly train them for large scale maneuver and communications.

Beyond a certain point, 'superior troops' is a mark of military genius, because you don't get superior troops from the ether.

[NFVD]

I disagree, but lets leave it at that ::tongue

[BlueNinja]

Yesterday, I went to Akihabara, the electronics district not too far outside of Tokyo. I took some pictures, and briefly detailed my experience, in case you guys want to take a look.