(1) My education was stated to be an invalid appeal to authority. I raised the issue because of his ad hominem attack that I offered mere rhetoric for my points. He clearly doesn't understand the points I am making so I am at a loss to explain further. I didn't enjoy his arrogant and condescending tone ---so I thought I would point out my familiarity with logic.
To begin, there was no "ad hominem" attack. I merely asked you to offer something of less verbosity and more substance to support your statement; "They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions." This statement says that battleships were reduced to little more than sea going diamond cuff links. It's an assertion that is unsupportable by fact. I was hoping that your "familiarity with logic" would serve you better.
(3) Widewing's condescending tone, and remarks like "don't argue with him he knows things" prompted my remarks. The misunderstanding of my posts don't merit further response. What I believe and argue for is stated. If you believe it has been refuted so be it. I did not "present before entering fray" I presented after having already entered and then said they were irrelevant---try reading.
There was no condescension in my tone, at least not until you elected to puff out your feathers and show us the many colors of your tail.
The esoteric science of philosophy could not be more different than historical study than black is from white. There are specific rules of evidence and opinion must be supported by sufficient fact as to stand the test of peer review. You offered no such support. You are entitled to your opinion, but I considered it within the rules of historical practice. Merely believing something doesn't make it true.
(4) Where were your primary and secondary sources? My main point (remember the "holistic point) was that FOR PURPOSES OF INCLUSION IN THE GAME I DO NOT FAVOR IOWA CLASS SHIPS AS A STARTING POINT. Our historical argument boils down to what "important" must mean. Use does not make importance. Nor the fact that Japanese battleships may have been perceived as a threat. McClellan thought he was outnumbered at Antietam---that did not make the threat a real one. You still haven'y answered the question of whether it would be good in the game to have 15-18" guns (depending on which BB) in the game with regard to range and firepower?? Maybe that kind of firepower wil be good, who knows. My point is that, for my playing experience, I would rather have BBs that could be used in a Tirpitz, Taranto, Pearl etc scenario than have Iowa class ones in the Late war MA---shelling the crap out of everything. The use of CVs in game, the capture of bases, the maps, the LA-7 vs Spit 16 is already so grotesquely unrealistic and arcade like that it seems really amusing to bring the Iowa class fast carrier escort role into the picture.
So since you like questions (1) what are the likely effects of 16" guns in the MA arcade with CV groups charging bases? (2) Why would an Iowa class ship be better than say a Tirpitz which could be used on the Baltic map in a Norway Scenario? Or my proposal for non-firing BBs as elements of historical maps?
Thanks I know about taffy 3---why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?? Is the criterion for in game inclusion "peerlessness?" Or, some use somewhere?? It seems to me that older BBs would be more useful in game just as (in a limited world) a P-40E or Spitfire V would be more important in game than a Ta 152 or Me 262 ---peerless as these latter may be.
You are rambling again. Nonetheless, I do glean that you would not mind battleships in the game if they were neutral to the outcome. A non-firing BB is, essentially, nothing more than landscape (or seascape if you will). It would serve absolutely no function other than being a target. Inasmuch as you perceive BBs to be nothing more than targets, that makes sense to you. Unfortunately, you will find that it makes no sense to anyone else. Why spend resources on something like this? A simple change in the arena set up could harden a CA to be as durable as the Tirpitz.
You seem focused upon the game being unrealistic and even non-historical. Aces High was never intended to truly historical, nor would it be wise to aim for total realism. It is simply an air combat simulator/game that has its basis in historical events, using historical equipment. I'm not sure what the mention of the La-7 and Spitfire XVI implies, but if you are stating that they are unrealistic, you'll have to show how that is.
Your comment; "why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?", assumes that anyone thinks that you are ignorant. On the contrary, I believe you to be anything but ignorant. I do, however, believe that you have drawn incorrect conclusions based upon not grasping the historical relevancy of the Taffy 3/Samar example.
To argue that WWII was the emergence of the age of the CV and the end of the era of the BB doesn't need sources to be cited. Arguing about the relative importance of weapons systems will boil down to what the word "important" means. I argue they were relatively unimportant to the outcome of the war. Widewing seems to believe that they were indispensible to the result (with no less rhetoric and no greater amount of sources cited). He fails to answer my main point with regard to the game of AH.
What does need sources cited is your claim that battleships were unimportant. Moreover, you argue in hindsight, a major blunder for a historical researcher. Both Nimitz and Halsey placed great significance upon BBs being attached to fast carrier groups. Why? As I've already hinted; the fear of encountering major enemy surface units (especially at night where the air groups were useless) was genuine and not without justification. That is the reason Spruance ran his task force east at flank speed for six hours after sinking Hiryu. His covering CAs were no match for the might of the Japanese surface fleet that was still intact and undamaged and it was not yet known if Yamamoto had ordered a withdrawal. Indeed, Yamamoto's staff proposed pursuit of the Americans in the hope of a night engagement. Once again, this was more than a perceived danger and Spruance was no fool.
Very early in the Leyte Gulf battle, Kurita's Center Force had taken a beating. First from submarines and then from the full air might of Halsey's Third Fleet. Yet, despite serious losses (including the sinking of Musashi and torpedo damage to Nagato), Kurita was far from beaten. Satisfied that Kurita was retiring, Halsey committed the first of his several blunders and failed to detach his battleships to cover the landing beaches and provide support for Taffy 2 and Taffy 3 (CVE groups tasked with supporting the invasion). Halsey knew where the Japanese battleships were relative to Ozawa's task force. Nonetheless, he felt that it might be possible to close to gunnery range on the Japanese fleet and wanted his big-gun battleships available for that. We should all know what the result of that decision was. At the time, battleships were still considered major fleet assets, and this is clearly reflected in their use and deployment.
My regards,
Widewing
