As always, you are too "smart" for your own good. The super detective skillz which you have displayed in the past once again "revealed" that I am "stuck in SG" eh?

Yes there are many positive things one should learn from Singapore, but there's a difference between trying to learn from something, and being an obsessed fanboy. In any case, if it makes you feel better about your life, go ahead, be my guest.

Just remind me, when was the last time the SAF fired a shot in anger?

...what can one do, I can only lead an ass to water, I can't make it drink... if you wish to continue making a public fool of yourself, be my guest as I said.

You suppose wrong. Try "never at all". But well you can always go back to WW2 to "salvage this"...

You suppose there's anything to be jealous about.

But then we both know you suppose a lot, eh?

Because I know the game these people play. Having a bona fide concern is one thing. Being an asshole is another.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Feb 18 2021, 11:13 PM

WW2 was the death of the battleship, we all know that

The IJN was actually quite strong, when the battleships and carriers and the whole fleet are taken into consideration. It's just that they could not match the massive untapped reserve of the US manpower, industry and civilian economy.

But that was a characteristic of the entire Japanese High Command planning in WW2. From strategic planning down to the banzai charge at platoon level, their mindset was to gamble everything on one bold attack, no reserves. Because frankly that was the only way they could match the numbers of their opponents.

I don't like. The huge tower is a great aiming point lol

(Sails off in my KGV)

I'm talking about World of Warship game lah bro

Subclass of the Flower-class, one of my favourite ship classes of WW2

They had the wrong strategy period

Well. If they did destroy the carriers it would have been a longer war.

But it would still have been a war. And a war that they could not win. So even if PH had been successful they would eventually have lost. That's why their strategy is bad.

Not exactly true

The US is quite clear on who its allies are today, and has more stringent controls on weapon sales than say the French. This is longstanding policy since the Cold War and arguably WW2 even.

If one is talking about consumer goods, then it's different from military goods. Neutrality in international trade, according to the free market, is the status quo position that all nations are basically expected to take. Govts really only take a position when declaring embargoes and other trade controls.

Currently if I'm not mistaken we trade with basically everyone other than North Korea, Iran, and Israel. Does that make us "supplying stuff to both sides of the war to profit" as well?

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Mar 4 2021, 11:40 PM

You said both current and pre-Pearl Harbour



Pre-Pearl Harbour, before 1940 the US did not supply arms to either Japan or Germany. In fact, even commercial trade with these nations steadily went down due to anti-war, pro-Allied sentiments in the US.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Mar 5 2021, 12:04 AM

...which is?

Possibly, if the Japanese had only attacked China. But once they attacked the British, with all the atrocities they committed, probably their fate was sealed.

And Lend Lease to China

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Mar 5 2021, 09:43 AM

Flying Tigers were assembled before Pearl, but only entered combat after

it is an indication though of what US support could have been like even if Japan had not attacked USA

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Mar 5 2021, 09:56 AM

Technically, just because one side violates the Conventions, doesn't excuse the others from doing the same... that's actually in the Conventions itself.

Not going too well but not going badly either, until Western intervention. Which is why Japs were royally pissed at UK and US.

Don't forget that for all its supposed size, China had a pathetic resource base and was terribly undermanned and under equipped, for its size. In 1941 it had supposedly 3 million troops, unfortunately only about 400,000 were considered effective and the rest were basically untrained. And of these 400,000 about half were front-line troops while the rest were de facto engineers and support staff. So it is more like 200,000 actual effective troops... a strength more like France than what we imagine as the mighty China. They had barely any armour, and few artillery or machine-guns... never mind aircraft.

What were the rest of the supposed troops doing? Internal security, State agriculture and transport. China was experiencing a famine and many troops were tasked to help produce food. For similar reasons they also had few work animals and vehicles, so most military transport was by manpower, which is terribly inefficient. Which is how those front-line divisions could be halved in effectiveness: a paper strength of 40 divisions x 10,000 men, was in reality only 40 x 5,000 rifles, because the remainder acted as transport.

100% special interests

They were recruited from US Armed Forces and the President allowed the issue of modern fighter aircraft to them. They are effectively black ops... but many people miss that, because national black ops of this kind did not exist before WW2.

"Built locally" or "ASSEMBLED locally"?

Drones and lasers