Quote:
Originally Posted by maximusslade
I am just curious as to what makes we here on this forum absolute experts? Granted that there are folks here who's credentials are impecable (Rusty) and there are others here whom I am not sure what their claim to expertise is. All I am saying is, Fritz, what makes you the end all be all of facts and knowledge? I might suggest when accusing someone or something of being inaccurate you should state WHY so you don't look like as much a blind hater of BBs as some fools come on here thinking that BB's should be reactivated but not knowing why. BTW, I didn't see anything wrong with the LCDR's history, although the history sounded "glorious" I didn't see anything wrong with it.
|
You want examples? I guess I thought they were so obvious everyone would get them but maybe not.
1. The Iowa's were designed as a counter to the Japanese Yamato class.
This is false and I certainly hope that everyone here knows that. The USN knew next to nothing about the Yamato's even after the war started. They could not possibly have influenced the Iowa design. All of this is very well documented.
2. The Iowa's took part in every major amphibious campaign of WWII.
Given their commission dates this one should jump off the page as being flat-out wrong. The implication here too is that the Iowa's provided naval gunfire support when in fact none of the Iowa's did much bombardment work until very late in the war and it showed in the results of their gunnery. The Iowa's were tasked with carrier screening, not bombardment work. Again, this is well documented.
Now maybe nobody else here finds such glaring and obvious factual distortions/outright fabrications to be a problem.
I do.
To each their own. To my mind someone who is playing so loose with the facts right from the start with things that are so easily verified has suspect credibility.
What expertise do I have by the way? Absolutely none. But if I am wrong you are more than welcome to call me on it.
