|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 3, 2019 11:53:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 12:01:57 GMT 12
Yep, most definitely not a good look, especially in an region where perceptions of an offensive capability are highly important. So much for a "credible" defence force.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 3, 2019 12:14:50 GMT 12
I would also like to state New Zealand has never really had any real offensive capability...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2019 15:29:14 GMT 12
So you think the three year campaign in the Solomon Islands fought by thousands of RNZAF members, as well as our Army and Navy on a lesser extent, was not an offensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 15:48:45 GMT 12
Or the the RNZN cruisers bombardment of Japan in 1945, Loch class frigates bombardment of North Korean targets during the Korean War, the RNZAF 75 Sqn Canberra's bombing of communists terrorists during the Malayan Emergency, 161 Batteries shoot in support or Australian troops during the Battle of Long Tan, the A-4K Skyhawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 3, 2019 16:52:53 GMT 12
So you think the three year campaign in the Solomon Islands fought by thousands of RNZAF members, as well as our Army and Navy on a lesser extent, was not an offensive? Am assuming you mean the WWII campaign ... To be frank... actually no I don't. And sorry if that offends... but that's they way I see it, (yes the kiwis were part of it but only because the yanks landed the kiwi troops as we had nothing etc) yes they did well and and I am honoured by their service but; - We didn't do it on our own with 144,00 US troops & 30,000 Aussie troops.
- The yanks did most of the force projection work.
- We were there in a limited capacity
If you mean the more modern one in 1997 then no real force projection and offensive power was really required, but should have been on stand by. but; - Since then we have lost our A4 Skyhawk's and air combat force and even with them, they were limited by range, and fire power. We lost air cover for both naval and ground troops, we lost the ability to practice air defense in a live scenario and the ability to call in air strikes, and now rely on the aussies to help with this....
- We have no long range anti ship missile capability, only a medium range that has to be launched from the Sea Sprite... other navies are firing anti air missiles at twice that range taking out the helo before it even gets in to range.
- We have no long range surface to surface for land attack, we can't even get with in radar range of land and they are firing anti ship missiles at us...
- We only have medium anti air with CAMM, with limited range, and smaller war head. and very limited anti surface on small vessels.
- We now very limited ASW with aging torpedo's and tech... When the P8's come great we might be able to find the sub probably have nothing to take it out.
- We have no heavy tank or heavy armour, only light armour and guns eg LAV's and the L119, 105mm Light Gun
{Begin RANT Mode on} As it is the New Zealand Defence Force they could barely defend our shores until help arrives... if it arrives, and really that is about it... we have no true capability especially in our present form to really go on the offensive the equipment and weapons are simply not there. Yes we can transport a small force somewhere but Canterbury was never really designed to do an opposed landing. "As a sealift ship, Canterbury is not intended to enter combat, or conduct opposed landings under fire." yet in many of the exercises she has done...(ie; exercise TS ) that is what she is doing which why in the DCP 2019 the second enhanced Sealift, that will have better defence capabilities and well dock basically an LPD or more likely Canterbury with the well dock because the won't want to spend to much on decent equipment to do the job, and they will take penny pinching short cuts. Because who wants to spend money on defence... Defence is like insurance don't want to spend money on it but you are glad you did when you need it. {/END RANT Mode off} Other than that nice weather we are having ;-) lol |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2019 17:37:26 GMT 12
Wow...
No-one said that we did it on our own, and it is utterly ludicrous to think a nation of 1.6 million people then or 5 million now would ever consider taking on another nation militarily without being part of a coalition of nations.
Your statement was, "I would also like to state New Zealand has never really had any real offensive capability..." which is utter bollocks.
The RNZAF deployed six reconnaissance bomber squadrons, two medium bomber squadrons, a dive bomber squadron, six pure fighter squadrons, 12 fighter-bomber squadrons, and two flying boat squadrons, all of which were armed and part of the offensive operations in the Pacific front lines. Not to mention two transport squadrons, several radar units, a major repair depot, hospitals, a sawmill unit and all the other support units that kept those squadrons going. There were over 25,000 men of the RNZAF deployed in the Pacific front lines from Fiji and New Caledonia right up to Los Negros near the equator.
They worked as part of the Allied effort and they were most definitely a "real offensive capability". In many cases the RNZAF squadrons performed better than their Allied counterparts, making maximum impact for very small losses.
If you cannot understand that I suggest you do some more reading and learning. The RNZAF was a highly regarded and vital part of the Allied air campaign in the Pacific. Our Army was also very good there when used. I'm not sure how the Navy was regarded by the Allies but they were certainly there, on the offensive.
Today's military may not have much of an offensive capability but they certainly did back in the 1940's.
This honestly is as dumb as when an ex-member of this forum crazily stated New Zealand never had an air defence system in WWII, again utter crap and he was made to look like a clown.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 3, 2019 18:04:04 GMT 12
Wow... No-one said that we did it on our own, and it is utterly ludicrous to think a nation of 1.6 million people then or 5 million now would ever consider taking on another nation militarily without being part of a coalition of nations. Your statement was, "I would also like to state New Zealand has never really had any real offensive capability..." which is utter bollocks. The RNZAF deployed six reconnaissance bomber squadrons, two medium bomber squadrons, a dive bomber squadron, six pure fighter squadrons, 12 fighter-bomber squadrons, and two flying boat squadrons, all of which were armed and part of the offensive operations in the Pacific front lines. Not to mention two transport squadrons, several radar units, a major repair depot, hospitals, a sawmill unit and all the other support units that kept those squadrons going. There were over 25,000 men of the RNZAF deployed in the Pacific front lines from Fiji and New Caledonia right up to Los Negros near the equator. They worked as part of the Allied effort and they were most definitely a "real offensive capability". In many cases the RNZAF squadrons performed better than their Allied counterparts, making maximum impact for very small losses. If you cannot understand that I suggest you do some more reading and learning. The RNZAF was a highly regarded and vital part of the Allied air campaign in the Pacific. Our Army was also very good there when used. I'm not sure how the Navy was regarded by the Allies but they were certainly there, on the offensive. Today's military may not have much of an offensive capability but they certainly did back in the 1940's. This honestly is as dumb as when an ex-member of this forum crazily stated New Zealand never had an air defence system in WWII, again utter crap and he was made to look like a clown. I will give you that ...  my bad on terminology I was going to edit my statement to, "the modern New Zealand Defence Force", but you already did the answer thing and I did think oh bugger... And I am more meaning in force projection got me terminology wrong on that one, sorry... hence said "The yanks did most of the force projection work". Offensive capability and force projection are two different things... and i mean doing a force projection on our own... keeping the supply line open and protected, ... I do ask though how much of that equipment was loaned to us and given back once it was over, and how much did we have before hand... |
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Nov 3, 2019 19:27:37 GMT 12
Wow... No-one said that we did it on our own, and it is utterly ludicrous to think a nation of 1.6 million people then or 5 million now would ever consider taking on another nation militarily without being part of a coalition of nations. Your statement was, "I would also like to state New Zealand has never really had any real offensive capability..." which is utter bollocks. The RNZAF deployed six reconnaissance bomber squadrons, two medium bomber squadrons, a dive bomber squadron, six pure fighter squadrons, 12 fighter-bomber squadrons, and two flying boat squadrons, all of which were armed and part of the offensive operations in the Pacific front lines. Not to mention two transport squadrons, several radar units, a major repair depot, hospitals, a sawmill unit and all the other support units that kept those squadrons going. There were over 25,000 men of the RNZAF deployed in the Pacific front lines from Fiji and New Caledonia right up to Los Negros near the equator. They worked as part of the Allied effort and they were most definitely a "real offensive capability". In many cases the RNZAF squadrons performed better than their Allied counterparts, making maximum impact for very small losses. If you cannot understand that I suggest you do some more reading and learning. The RNZAF was a highly regarded and vital part of the Allied air campaign in the Pacific. Our Army was also very good there when used. I'm not sure how the Navy was regarded by the Allies but they were certainly there, on the offensive. Today's military may not have much of an offensive capability but they certainly did back in the 1940's. This honestly is as dumb as when an ex-member of this forum crazily stated New Zealand never had an air defence system in WWII, again utter crap and he was made to look like a clown. NZ obviously did a grand job in WW2 but more or better than the Allies - are you sure?  Really?? While remembering the dead and sacrifices is important. Do you really care if NZ ' punched above its weight' back then, Does it impact you personally? Also, and I know this is controversial but, by the time NZ arrived in the Pacific the Solomons was not strategically important- I'd suggest it was a bit of a backwater that the US has happy to hand over so it could get on with more important areas. I'd suggest a somewhat similar parallel is the way Germany used Italy, Romania etc to hold less important parts of the Eastern front. There is a repeated argument that the campaign was a total waste. It had essentially no effect of the island hopping war the marines and US Navy was fighting to the North and it was that was what brought about Japan's surrender. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 20:11:55 GMT 12
Wow... No-one said that we did it on our own, and it is utterly ludicrous to think a nation of 1.6 million people then or 5 million now would ever consider taking on another nation militarily without being part of a coalition of nations. Your statement was, "I would also like to state New Zealand has never really had any real offensive capability..." which is utter bollocks. The RNZAF deployed six reconnaissance bomber squadrons, two medium bomber squadrons, a dive bomber squadron, six pure fighter squadrons, 12 fighter-bomber squadrons, and two flying boat squadrons, all of which were armed and part of the offensive operations in the Pacific front lines. Not to mention two transport squadrons, several radar units, a major repair depot, hospitals, a sawmill unit and all the other support units that kept those squadrons going. There were over 25,000 men of the RNZAF deployed in the Pacific front lines from Fiji and New Caledonia right up to Los Negros near the equator. They worked as part of the Allied effort and they were most definitely a "real offensive capability". In many cases the RNZAF squadrons performed better than their Allied counterparts, making maximum impact for very small losses. If you cannot understand that I suggest you do some more reading and learning. The RNZAF was a highly regarded and vital part of the Allied air campaign in the Pacific. Our Army was also very good there when used. I'm not sure how the Navy was regarded by the Allies but they were certainly there, on the offensive. Today's military may not have much of an offensive capability but they certainly did back in the 1940's. This honestly is as dumb as when an ex-member of this forum crazily stated New Zealand never had an air defence system in WWII, again utter crap and he was made to look like a clown. NZ obviously did a grand job in WW2 but more or better than the Allies - are you sure? Really?? While remembering the dead and sacrifices is important. Do you really care if NZ ' punched above its weight' back then, Does it impact you personally? Also, and I know this is controversial but, by the time NZ arrived in the Pacific the Solomons was not strategically important- I'd suggest it was a bit of a backwater that the US has happy to hand over so it could get on with more important areas. I'd suggest a somewhat similar parallel is the way Germany used Italy, Romania etc to hold less important parts of the Eastern front. There is a repeated argument that the campaign was a total waste. It had essentially no effect of the island hopping war the marines and US Navy was fighting to the North and it was that was what brought about Japan's surrender. So when do you think that NZ arrived in the Solomons? And why do you think it was a backwater when we did? I would suggest that you have another look at the history of the Pacific War and consult a map of the Pacific whilst you do so. Concentrate upon Rabaul, what the Japanese had there, the allied plan and reasons to neutralise it, the New Guinea campaign, and most importantly that the strategy agreed to by Joint Chiefs (US & UK) in Washington.
A quick précis. Because Roosevelt / the Pentagon or US Army Chief Of Staff or US CNO couldn't / wouldn't make a decision over who would be the overall US theatre commander in the Pacific - USPACOM, it had to formulate a two prong strategy with the US Navy under the command of Adm Nimitz, undertaking the island hopping approach; and the US Army under the command of Gen MacArthur swinging up through the Philippines and then across to Japan for OP DOWNFALL, the invasion of Japan slated for November 1945. However, before MacArthur could invade the Philippines, he had to clear the Japanese from PNG including Rabaul which is on New Britain. Rabaul was the major Japanese regional base in the South West Pacific, and had the ability to interdict MacArthur's Philippines invasion forces and the SLOC between the US and Australia. It was decided by the Joint Chiefs to bypass Fortress Rabaul cut it off from resupply, and bottle up its forces inside its perimeter, rather than expend the resources assaulting and investing it, MacArthur's forces didn't land in the Philippines until October 1944. RNZAF fighters started operating out of Guadalcanal in April 1943. |
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Nov 3, 2019 20:30:20 GMT 12
Thank you. Yes, I am familiar with this.
The two prong strategy was, I would argue, much more a political sop to the power of MacArthur than a coherent military strategy.
I suppose you could argue the US NAVY/Marines thrust could have been delayed, and then eventually the Philippines route would have become principal - but it didn't and wasn't.
And what did the Philippines thrust do to ending the war?
Rabaul I would argue was, while powerful in mid 43, essentially already withering on the vine. The Japanese had, to a large part, already lost their strategic mobility. Put another way, they had little chance of redeploying their forces in the Southwest Pacific to more useful sectors. The Japanese force in this sector had little ability to do much more than be by this time - do you really think they could have interdicted the route to Australia in any meaning way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2019 20:39:04 GMT 12
NZ obviously did a grand job in WW2 but more or better than the Allies - are you sure? Really?? Err, I NEVER said New Zealand did "more" than the Allies. And I said "in some cases" they did better. Read the frigging words! What a really stupid question.... Again total crap. The RNZAF arrived at Guadalcanal on the 23rd of November 1942, and it was still very much the front line at the time, under attack daily and nightly. There were over 100,000 Japanese on the island still then. Many of them remained there even after the Japanese officially withdrew on the 7th and 8th of February 1943, and battle of Guadalcanal was officially declared over on the 9th of Feb by the US command. They got more dangerous for our airmen then as the Japanese were no longer being supported and brought food from further up the Pacific so they would infiltrate the Allied camps and airfields to raid them. Regardless of the Jap withdrawal from Guadalcanal the war continued and that island continued to be a setting off point to bomb and attack other occupied strongholds further north in the Solomons. Bougainville was heavily occupied and very heavily defended. The RNZAF, AIF and US forces spent the rest of the war fighting the Japanese there, most of that time they hard large forces just outside the wire of the Allied airfields, and they often made sniper attacks and full Banzai raids. All the while the RNZAF and Allied Air Forces were taking the war to the Japanese from Guadalcanal, Bougainville, New Georgia, and Green Island, attacking Japanese airfields, camps, villages, gardens, guns, etc, all the way through to the end of the war. They attacked Rabaul every day that they could from the latter three island bases, and that was the strongest Japanese presence in the whole South Pacific. And the US did not "hand over" the region, they were still there alongside the Kiwis all the way through - B-17's, B-24's, PBJ's, TBF's, SBD's etc, etc.... There was no less importance to the region, at any given point had the Allies allowed the pressure they were applying to drop, the Japanese could have launched massive blows from Rabaul or their Bougainville and other bases and pushed the Allies back into the sea again. It was all about containment, keeping up the pressure, hitting them hard, starving them, etc. It was not a benign environment where the Kiwis just flew happy little patrols!! Well whoever makes that argument really has no clue then. And it was not the island hopping that forced the surrender, it was the atomic bombs couples with the declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union that forced their hand. Without those two factors the Japanese would have carried on regardless of which jungle clad islands they possessed or lost down in the South Pacific. They were fanatical about their cause. It's seriously an insult to all the men who fought in the Solomons campaign and to those who lost their lives to say their lot was a waste of time. The only waste of time is this pointless thread. |
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Nov 3, 2019 21:22:09 GMT 12
[/quote] And it was not the island hopping that forced the surrender, it was the atomic bombs couples with the declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union that forced their hand.
[/quote]
Way to go!
And how was the airfield that Enola Gay took off from taken per chance?
I think you'll find it was by the Northern island hopping thrust!
I'll let you ponder on how that was helped (or not) by the campaign in the South west Pacific?
One of Hasting's books on the Pacific (might be retribution or nemesis? I can;'t remember) puts MacArthur's thrust (and the pointlessness of it) into perspective - if you are interested.
Makes fascinating reading
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2019 21:41:39 GMT 12
How about China, from where B-29's had been attacking Japan since 1944....
|
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Nov 3, 2019 23:10:09 GMT 12
What about China? - it had no relevance. B-29 missions from there were a sideshow - and logistically impossible. Why mention it?
The point about the northern thrust was not so much to provide bomber bases - US strategy was not to get bases to drop atomic bombs but to get a stepping off point for invading the mainland.
The South West Pacific and NZ involvement in that campaign didn't help this.
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 23:15:12 GMT 12
Thank you. Yes, I am familiar with this. The two prong strategy was, I would argue, much more a political sop to the power of MacArthur than a coherent military strategy. I suppose you could argue the US NAVY/Marines thrust could have been delayed, and then eventually the Philippines route would have become principal - but it didn't and wasn't. And what did the Philippines thrust do to ending the war? Rabaul I would argue was, while powerful in mid 43, essentially already withering on the vine. The Japanese had, to a large part, already lost their strategic mobility. Put another way, they had little chance of redeploying their forces in the Southwest Pacific to more useful sectors. The Japanese force in this sector had little ability to do much more than be by this time - do you really think they could have interdicted the route to Australia in any meaning way. The Philippines thrust put Allied forces in the position to fully interdict and cut Japanese oil, mineral, rubber and food supplies from the Dutch East Indies, which strangled their forces in and around Japan. In case you didn't know logistics win and lose wars and in the case of the Pacific war, the Japanese failure to address their logistics from 1931 onwards lost them the war, more than anything else. Next is the political war between the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy. It was the navy that pushed for the Pacific expansion and the army only went along with it by providing meagre forces. The bulk of its forces were in China facing the Soviet Union and that remained so until late 1944. The army had its own air arm and ships, and the navy had its own air arm and marines. It was only after the Mariana's were taken and B-29s started bombing Japan from there, and Iwo Jima was taken and P-51D Mustangs escorted the B-29s to and from Japan that the Imperial army and navy started to talk to each other and started preparing a defence of the home islands against a US invasion. The USAAC had logistics problems operating B-29s from China because all the fuel, bombs ammo, spares etc., had to be airlifted over the hump from India. It wasn't until late January 1945 that the Burma road was fully operational again, allowing truck convoys through.
Returning to Rabaul, the neutralise Rabaul by allied forces was OP CARTWHEEL, however in August 1943 at the Quadrant Conference in Quebec, the Joint Chiefs met with Roosevelt and Churchill and it was decided to bypass it rather than pay the cost in time and lives taking it. There were 100,000 Japanese troops in and around Rabaul, there was a submarine base and other naval facilities there. In November 1943 there were 11 cruisers, 10 destroyers and over 200 aircraft based there. It was a base that could not be left alone until the bitter end. The Japanese didn't give up so it was a clear and present danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 3, 2019 23:32:10 GMT 12
What about China? - it had no relevance. B-29 missions from there were a sideshow - and logistically impossible. Why mention it? The point about the northern thrust was not so much to provide bomber bases - US strategy was not to get bases to drop atomic bombs but to get a stepping off point for invading the mainland. The South West Pacific and NZ involvement in that campaign didn't help this. Actually China has everything to do with it, because if the IJA hadn't kept the bulk of its army and its best forces in Kwangtung configured against a Soviet invasion, then the war in the Pacific probably would have been a completely different story. As it was when Stalin sent his forces across the border in August 1945 they rolled through the Japanese forces like a hot knife through butter.
I don't know how much you know about the planned invasion of Japan, but it would've been a bloodbath on both sides and millions of lives lost. Whilst I loathe the thought of nuclear war, those two nuclear weapons did the world a good service, and saved millions of lives, military and civilian. Actually the US strategy was to get a base close enough to use the "special weapons", however they were not seen as the be all to end all, like Hitler saw his wunderwaffe, but as a weapon that if it worked great, but if it didn't then OP DOWNLOAD will proceed. Very few knew of the nuclear weapons; Truman certainly didn't until he was sworn in as President upon Roosevelt's death. I doubt that Gen Le May did either until the last minute. Even King the US CNO and Marshall, the US Army COS may not have been fully in the know. Stalin knew about it though, although the US & UK were not aware that he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 4, 2019 14:23:20 GMT 12
And it was not the island hopping that forced the surrender, it was the atomic bombs couples with the declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union that forced their hand. [/quote] Way to go! And how was the airfield that Enola Gay took off from taken per chance? I think you'll find it was by the Northern island hopping thrust! I'll let you ponder on how that was helped (or not) by the campaign in the South west Pacific? One of Hasting's books on the Pacific (might be retribution or nemesis? I can;'t remember) puts MacArthur's thrust (and the pointlessness of it) into perspective - if you are interested. Makes fascinating reading[/quote] That Hastings book has both those titles, depending on where you buy it . It has a whole chapeter on how futile many Australians felt the war in the SWPA was from mid 1944 onwards. To many Aussies they felt their lives were being wasted in a sideshow. As you said, fascinating reading. BTW Dave, I don't think having a view that a particular campaign, battle was a waste of time is disrespectful to those who participated. For example I think much of Bomber Commands efforts in WW II were a waste of lives, effort and treasure. That doesn't mean I have any less respect for those those who served in that campaign. (that's a discussion for another time). Historians (amateur and professional) should be able discuss these sort of things dispassionately, using the best information they have to hand at the time to develop conclusions . I find it interesting to see people challenge orthodoxy, see them back up their point of view and/or see others challenge it. That's what makes history interesting to me. |
|
my bad on terminology
Really?? 