random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Main / AwakeningTheSleepingGiant

edit article | go to discussion page

18th Jun '13 1:41:23 PM ringhloth

Send ringhloth a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 130 (click to see context) :

16th Jun '13 4:39:03 PM IRSAgent

Send IRSAgent a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 111 (click to see context) :

25th May '13 1:43:18 PM SSJMagus

Send SSJMagus a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 133 (click to see context) from:

*** Why was Pearl Harbor 'inept'? Well, it did just enough damage to shock, enrage, unify, and motivate America like nothing else could, while doing as little truly significant damage as possible. Most of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were relatively easily raised, repaired, refitted, and sent back into the war. In the biggest naval battle in history (Battle of Leyte Gulf), these BackFromTheDead battleships utterly annihilated a third of the remaining Japanese fleet. Hundreds of aircraft were destroyed, but they were all very outdated or obsolete anyway. The massive oil reserves, submarine pens, intelligence/cryptology buildings, and most of the cruisers and destroyers were untouched, and none of the three fleet carriers were even there. And, because the attack took place in the middle of a very shallow harbor in warm waters, surrounded by military bases and a city, relatively few people died. So the end results? America began relying on what it had left, which turned out to be the most effective possible means to fight Japan--submarines, intelligence, and carriers with destroyer/cruiser support. Further, it made Japan extremely overconfident, as they thought that battleships were the true capital ships of the day, and that by destroying America's battleships, they had essentially struck a fatal blow. This actually also applied to America, who thought that it had taken far more crippling damage than it actually had, galvanizing its population and military like never before. As a result, you'd see marines, crews, and pilots alike going against Japan. The only truly major damage done was to morale--which was remedied by the Doolittle Raid, whereby large (but stripped down) bombers would be launched from aircraft carriers deep in Japanese waters to fly over Tokyo, bomb some targets of opportunity, and try to reach Free China (some didn't even have enough fuel to make as far as Korea). This turned out to be the opposite of Pearl Harbor--extremely cost effective, a huge morale boost for America, a major blow to Japanese confidence (which caused them to call back their entire carrier force that was wrecking Allied assets near India for a while), and caused a lot of confusion for Japan (as they wondered where these heavy bombers had come from, since even the idea of launching them from a carrier would never even occur to them).

to:

*** Why was Pearl Harbor 'inept'? Well, it did just enough damage to shock, enrage, unify, and motivate America like nothing else could, while doing as little truly significant damage as possible. Most of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were relatively easily raised, repaired, refitted, and sent back into the war. In the biggest naval battle in history (Battle of Leyte Gulf), these BackFromTheDead battleships utterly annihilated a third of the remaining Japanese fleet. Hundreds of aircraft were destroyed, but they were all very outdated or obsolete anyway. The massive oil reserves, submarine pens, intelligence/cryptology buildings, and most of the cruisers and destroyers were untouched, and none of the three fleet carriers were even there. And, because the attack took place in the middle of a very shallow harbor in warm waters, surrounded by military bases and a city, relatively few people died. So the end results? America began relying on what it had left, which turned out to be the most effective possible means to fight Japan--submarines, intelligence, and carriers with destroyer/cruiser support. Further, it made Japan extremely overconfident, as they thought that battleships were the true capital ships of the day, and that by destroying America's battleships, they had essentially struck a fatal blow. Bizarrely, the fact that it was their own ''carrier-based aircraft'' that sank the American battleships did nothing to clue them in that aircraft carriers had surpassed battleships as the primary source of naval power. This actually also applied to America, who thought that it had taken far more crippling damage than it actually had, galvanizing its population and military like never before. As a result, you'd see marines, crews, and pilots alike going against Japan. The only truly major damage done was to morale--which was remedied by the Doolittle Raid, whereby large (but stripped down) bombers would be launched from aircraft carriers deep in Japanese waters to fly over Tokyo, bomb some targets of opportunity, and try to reach Free China (some didn't even have enough fuel to make as far as Korea). This turned out to be the opposite of Pearl Harbor--extremely cost effective, a huge morale boost for America, a major blow to Japanese confidence (which caused them to call back their entire carrier force that was wrecking Allied assets near India for a while), and caused a lot of confusion for Japan (as they wondered where these heavy bombers had come from, since even the idea of launching them from a carrier would never even occur to them...{{FDR}} played into this confusion by publicly announcing that the strike had been launched from [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangri-La]]).

Added line(s) 135 (click to see context) :

25th May '13 2:18:47 AM Tuckerscreator

Send Tuckerscreator a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:

to:

23rd May '13 5:14:35 PM XRay

Send XRay a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:

to:

23rd May '13 5:10:17 PM memememememe

Send memememememe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Deleted line(s) 124,127 (click to see context) :

* TheAmericanRevolution
** British General Burgoyne invaded New York from Canada in 1777. Facing him was a much smaller, poorly motivated American Army ... until British allied Mohawk Indians murdered a young woman named Jane [=McCrea=]. Burgoyne was not able to discipline the killers for fear of losing his Mohawk allies. The atrocity, and Burgoyne's seeming acceptance of it, was a propaganda/recruitment dream come true for the Patriots, who would soon amass an army of about 17,000 to force Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga.
** By 1779, a considerable number of [[{{Badass}} rough'n' tough]] settlers lived west of the Appalachians. Since they were cut off from much of the goings on in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, they honestly didn't care who won the Revolutionary War (either way, government would not be a big factor in their day-to-day lives). In 1780, British major Patrick Ferguson firmly pushed them into the American camp by [[MuggingTheMonster threatening to cross the mountains and destroy their homesteads and towns]] unless they swore loyalty to the Crown. The backwoodsmen, who had played no part in the American Revolution up to this time, responded by killing Ferguson and most of his men at the [[CurbStompBattle Battle of King's Mountain]].

Changed line(s) 129,130 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 134 (click to see context) from:

to:

Added line(s) 139 (click to see context) :

19th May '13 9:21:05 AM MyTai

Send MyTai a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 137 (click to see context) :

18th May '13 3:52:01 PM RoseAndHeather

Send RoseAndHeather a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 138 (click to see context) from:

to: