Quote:
|
Originally Posted by c/LCDR That's the whole point. Didn't we say Nimitz (or his staff) had to handle all of the logistics of naval construction and manufacturing as well? |
Right, to a degree. The USA was already pretty much guaranteed to run Japan into the ground in terms of production. The Japanese had a lot less to work with accross the board. Nimitz did not cause the USA to be economically superior by such a gigantic margin. They already were. Yamamoto had many other things to work against that Nimitz did not.
But we're not discussing economics and production. We're discussing who was the most brilliant naval commander. The analysis is concerning how they performed as chessplayers (in effect). Who was the most skilled player? What they lacked or did not lack certainly merits consideration in the comparison. If I can consistently outduel skilled swordsmen with a rapiers, and me with nothing more than a dagger, that would be quite impressive, would it not? If a T72 crews were to manage to score 10 kills on M1A2's and not lose their own tank, would this not be quite impressive? Having less to work with does not make you the worse commander or warrior. Having more to work with does not make you the better commander or warrior.