|
Posts:
5
From:
NewHampshire USA
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(1 of 32)
Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 27, 2008 5:24 AM
|
|
In one of the 2 or 3 ads for Battle 360, some young person is heard saying "they had a 360 degree view of the war". The war ? As in WWII ? Seems to me it would have been smarter to say "The battle", only God had a 360 view of the war, unless the CIC on the Enterprise could see Africa,the Phillipines,Germany,Guam,France Et Freakin'all!
|
|
|
Posts:
138
From:
Conroe, Texas
Registered:
1/24/07
|
|
(2 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 27, 2008 9:35 AM
|
|
Yes, you are the only one annoyed by that. Sorry.
|
|
|
Posts:
53
Registered:
1/17/05
|
|
(3 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 27, 2008 3:35 PM
|
|
I will say that I am annoyed by your post. I think what they were trying to point out is that the crew of the Enterprise was there from the beginning to the end, and in almost every major battle. For several months in 1942 she was the only aircraft carrier the US had in the Pacific, a very lonely position to be in considering the massive naval power the Japanese had at that time.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
Denver, CO
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(4 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 27, 2008 7:00 PM
|
|
Yes, I would imagine you are. I would guess anyone, anywhere, who was in the midst of battle, was seeing the war. So the men who served and said "I was in the war" were not in the war but only in battle(s)? Bizarre comment.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
NewHampshire USA
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(5 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 28, 2008 2:36 PM
|
|
You don't understand the difference between a war and a battle, or battles, WWII was fought in so many places, that I have yet to see any ( even the Ken Burns film ) accounts that have stitched together ALL of the BATTLES we fought in, at the same time. Was the Enterprise in Alaska ? Was it there for the D-day landing, of course not. My old man served in the Navy during the latter part of WWII, was he in the war ? YES, did he have a 360 degree view of the war, hmm, perhaps now in heaven. Get off your high horses and listen to what was said, WAR is usually a collection of battles, on land,sea, and in the air, otherwise we wouldn't need separate branches now would we?
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
NewHampshire USA
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(6 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 28, 2008 2:49 PM
|
And before you all get you panties in a bunch, consider the name of the show WAR 360 / or is it Battle 360 ?
At ease.
|
|
|
Posts:
25
Registered:
9/27/07
|
|
(7 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 28, 2008 9:37 PM
|
> In one of the 2 or 3 ads for Battle 360, some young
> person is heard saying "they had a 360 degree view of
> the war". The war ? As in WWII ? Seems to me it would
> have been smarter to say "The battle", only God had a
> 360 view of the war, unless the CIC on the Enterprise
> could see Africa,the Phillipines,Germany,Guam,France
> Et Freakin'all!
If you actually listened to that "young person," you should have understood that he was referring to the fact that the Enterprise was under threat from the surface, from under the surface and from the air... and as the crew were in a ship, surrounded on all sides by those threats, the sailors were in effect seeing 360 degrees of the war. He was in no way implying anything even close to the nature of your incorrect analysis of the statement.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
NewHampshire USA
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(8 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 29, 2008 4:40 AM
|
And if you actually read and understood my post, all I was saying, for the last time now, is that a WAR ( especially WWII) is a collection of battles, look it up.
I enjoy a good debate, this has not been a good debate - I am clearly debating semantics, and you are defending someone who misspoke. My intent was to call attention to THAT, not that the brave men on that ship didn't see a lot of the sea battles. Wow, submarines and air planes, gee, I never knew ! LMAO. Did they see the Battle of the Bulge too ? Or was it the War of the Bulge ?
|
|
|
Posts:
218
Registered:
5/29/07
|
|
(9 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 29, 2008 3:57 PM
|
Gunner,
I think the point here is that this series (all ten episodes)appears to follow the ship throughout the Pacific War, and in the context of the sea, air, and subsurface threats in the Pacific War, that ship and her crew had a 360 degree view.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
florida
Registered:
2/29/08
|
|
(10 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 29, 2008 3:59 PM
|
|
Probably. But then what fun would it be if no one nit picked projects like this one - and your comment is one I certainly think will be minor once the series airs and everyone takes a shot - like whether or not the yellow lines opn the deck are portrayed or not-)
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
2/29/08
|
|
(11 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Feb 29, 2008 7:56 PM
|
|
Yes you are. I'm sure we all know the differences between the terms battle (a part) and war (the sum of the battles). Just enjoy the show...sheesh!
|
|
|
Posts:
53
Registered:
1/17/05
|
|
(12 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Mar 1, 2008 10:44 AM
|
Ok, Gunner..
No, the Enterprise was not at the Battle of the Bulge. As a rule, massive ships don't sail across land to partake in land battles. Perhaps the creators of this show thought you might have enough intelligence to figure that little detail out on your own.
As for your comments about the crew of the Enterprise not seeing all of the battles; they damn near did in regards to the Pacific War.
Twenty Battle starts. More than any other ship in the history of the Navy. She was there from the beginning to the end, for a time the ONLY carrier in the Pacific. Whats more is that she and her crew kicked ass everywhere they went. So yes, they did see almost every battle.
We all understand the semantics of your argument, Gunner. We just think your position is silly. Sorry.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
NewHampshire USA
Registered:
2/27/08
|
|
(13 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Mar 2, 2008 5:36 AM
|
|
I know what I don't know. I look to the History C. to teach me things, perhaps I'm not alone. I do know that there was a thing called the Pacific theatre, I know the difference between a war and a battle/battles. If I have to be smarter than the people talking AND edit what is said, then the learning just hits a wall, and I stop listening.If a young person hears that gibberish, what do you say ? "Sorry Johnny, they are correct, but the words they used are wrong". Words are all we have to pass on history, so to mess them up is just wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
53
Registered:
1/17/05
|
|
(14 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Mar 2, 2008 3:25 PM
|
I see that you deleted your last post, thus deleting my reply to it. That is probably just as well, both were more deleterious than was necessary.
I understand your point about being accurate, and I often get frustrated by the same thing--especially on the History Channel, where they are supposed to be teaching.
In this particular instance however, I don't believe it was as severe a violation as you are making it out to be.
In your initial post, you stated that they should have used the term "battle" rather than "war". I think that is where I disagree with you. Perhaps "battles" or the "Pacific Theater" or "Pacific War" would have been more appropriate, but to say the battle wouldn't be accurate either. The Enterprise was everywhere in the Pacific, and that is what they were covering in the show. (Please don't get upset about my use of everywhere, I know they weren't in every battle).
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Seattle, WA
Registered:
3/2/08
|
|
(15 of 32)
Re: Am I the only one annoyed ?
Mar 2, 2008 7:12 PM
|
Not to be pedantic, but saying that any crewmember had a 360-degree view of a battle is inaccurate as well. During battle -- and for even longer periods later in the war when the ship was at battle stations when in forward areas -- crewmen were assigned specific areas and tasks. Many of them were below decks, in sealed compartments (battle stations meant, amongst other things, that most of the watertight hatches in the ship were closed), with no first-hand view of that action going on above-decks. A "play-by-play" might come over the intercom, but many of those who served on any warship were not in a position to observe first-hand the attacks made on the ship.
The ones that were, were often focused on very specific aspects of combat. If you were an AA gunner, you were primarily focused on the target you were directed to. Complete chaos could be happening at the other end of the ship, and in the heat of battle, you'd have no idea.
So, if you're going to be annoyed by someone casually saying "They had a 360-degree view of the war", you may as well go the whole way and be annoyed that anyone would suggest that any one man had a 360-degree view of anything beyond his immediate vicinity.
On the other hand, a warship isn't one man. In Enterprise's case, at peak, it was over 3000 men fighting the ship, and between them and their screen, as a unit, yes: they had a 360-degree view of the combat area (which I'm pretty sure is what that speaker was referring to: not the whole global war). There were lookouts and radar scanning for air threats, lookouts scanning for surface threats, sonar operators scanning for submarine threats (in the screen: I don't know that Enterprise had a sonar unit), navigational crew trying to keep the ship from colliding with her screen (which under air attack was not trivial), etc. So, the ship as a whole, with her screen, did have a 360-degree view of it's area. And beyond that, Enterprise, as a unit, saw more of the Pacific war than any other ship.
If you take the statement literally, no one, of course, had a 360-degree view of the war except perhaps Heads-of-State, and surely they missed out on a lot of the details. But at that point, I'm pretty sure you want to be annoyed. The literal statement is so completely false about anyone alive at the time, that it takes effort to believe it was meant literally.
|
|
|
|
|
