HE 162 Volksjager

[Butcher]

So that leaves the question: does service lenght trump combat usage?

Nope considering Meteor was in the voting in January it certainly will get added eventually, HE-162 probably won't be for a long time (HTC does a good job juggling EW, MW, LW fighters) However nobody knows exactly what HTC comes up with as far as listing the aircraft to add.

I would ASSUME, the Me-410 is simply top of the list, Yak-3/Meteor/Ki-43 are somewhere on this list, it could be a month or years before they get added but they are on the radar.

[Tank-Ace]

Thats not at all what I was talking about. You kinda just went off on a tangent there.

[Butcher]

Thats not at all what I was talking about. You kinda just went off on a tangent there.

There has been speculation on everything, but nothing is exact - you'd have to ask HTC directly - although its been asked hundreds of times what "specific" details before a plane gets added, only two things have been known:
It served in squadron strength and in combat.

[Tank-Ace]

Didn't someone post a quote from a PM where pyro or Hitech stated that the only actuall requirment for being added to the WWII arena is that it saw service during WWII?

IIRC,  he said that it was only "preferable" that it saw combat.

[Butcher]

Didn't someone post a quote from a PM where pyro or Hitech stated that the only actuall requirment for being added to the WWII arena is that it saw service during WWII?

IIRC,  he said that it was only "preferable" that it saw combat.

Yeah, can't remember how old that comment was, but it seems to be, 47M - Ta152, Me-163 and now Meteor - all served in a very limited capacity but were added.

I think if we got a clear and updated answer from Pyro/HTC it would fill us in what we could look for to add.

[RRAM]

But what I'm questioning is wether simple service length trumps combat usage. Sorry to anyone who gets offeneded, but going out into the fight, and engaging an enemy who is actively trying to kill you will always count for more than blowing up buzz bombs.

With all due respect, Tank-Ace. Don't want to seem picky with your opinions, but unless you have the guts to repeat that kind of statement when talking face to face with someone who actually flew and blasted those things off the sky, risking his skin and life in the process, and seeing friends of his dying while doing that same job, then I'd say you should just tone down the ""this kind of combat" counts more than "that kind of combat"" afirmation, or just drop the argument alltogether.

I don't take any offense by your opinions. But if I was one of the guys who actually did the job, I'm damned sure I'd take it as nothing short of an insult. So please, show some respect towards the men who did a really dangerous job to save countless civilians lifes, and just try a different, more respectful, approach in your affirmations.

[Tank-Ace]

With all due respect, Tank-Ace. Don't want to seem picky with your opinions, but unless you have the guts to repeat that kind of statement when talking face to face with someone who actually flew and blasted those things off the sky, risking his skin and life in the process, and seeing friends of his dying while doing that same job, then I'd say you should just tone down the ""this kind of combat" counts more than "that kind of combat"" afirmation, or just drop the argument alltogether.

I don't take any offense by your opinions. But if I was one of the guys who actually did the job, I'm damned sure I'd take it as nothing short of an insult. So please, show some respect towards the men who did a really dangerous job to save countless civilians lifes, and just try a different, more respectful, approach in your affirmations.

We're talking about priority of addition to a game where the aircraft's main focus would be air to air engagment of manned enemy aircraft.

Its not at all disrespectfull to say that (in this situation and context), combat against enemy fighters counts for more than blowing up buzz bombs. We don't have anything even simmilar to the buzz bombs to shoot at, it would probably be a minor attraction in AH if we had them, and the focus of the game is on something the Meteor didn't do a lot of.


I'm not, nor have I ever said it wouldn't be dangerous to go up and fly around in the dark, firing at buzz bombs (although I didn't know how much explosives a V1 carried, I've never really cared enough to check). I just said that it wasn't quite combat (I don't think a EOD unit called in to clear out 20yo mines can say its in combat either).

I think a good definition of combat is "active, armed struggle with enemy forces", as really that gets down to what combat is.

[RRAM]

I know what we're talking about. Yes, a game. But you're establishing your standards and opinions about said game by looking at history. And while doing so you've repeatedly (and done so again in your last post) stated that the Meteor, in your eyes, saw no combat.

The problem is that you're discussing a machine, but that machine had a pilot, and that pilot did run some serious risks in order to complete a dangerous task that demanded loads of skill and cojones. A number of those who did that job lost their lifes when the V1 they were trying to shoot down blew on their faces.

Now tell me, how you qualify those pilots' deaths?. Fallen in combat? or just unfortunate accidents?.

if it's the latter I got nothing else to discuss with you, for I don't want to have anything to do with someone who has such an unrespectful view of gentlemen who got their skin in danger because it was their duty to do so. Maybe there was no german fighter shooting at them but for damned sure their duty was VERY risky indeed and they deserve a lot of respect that you wouldn't be showing if you qualify the deaths of those who got killed as anything other than "killed in action". Which means, they died in combat.

However, if If it's the former the one you choose, I can't see how you can keep on repeating that the Meteor saw no combat. It indeed did, and so did the gentlemen who flew them.

[Tank-Ace]

This is the NATO definition of a battle casualty: Any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action, sustained in combat or relating thereto or sustained going to or returning from a combat mission.


"any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action..."


The deaths of any Meteor pilots were not direct results of a German soldier pushing the launch button. Had the bomb reached their targets, exploded, and caught the meteors in the blast, yes, that would be combat, as the Meteor pilots would have died as a direct result of enemy action (firing a V1 at a target, meteors got caught in the blast).

However, I would not consider intercepting the V1's, shooting them, and then being taken out by the ensuing blast or shrapnel (that was a direct result of shooting at the bomb) as "directly caused" by enemy action. The enemy set the situation up, but it was the pilot's actions that directly caused the deaths.


NATO would probably list them as non-battle casualties, if they're following their own definition. However, I feel there needs to be something in between battle casualties and non-battle casualties. More specificly, I think there needs to be some distinction between soldiers who died in accidents and hazardous situations directly relating to their duties, and those who died in accidents or hazardous situations not directly relating to their duties (say, cutting down a tree for firewood, and the tree falls on them and kills them) or died of disease.

Perhaps change the definition slightly, call them battle casualties, but then go further and seperate them from KIA's. Maybe call it KLD (Killed in line of duty).

[Karnak]

Can't agree with your assessment there, Tank-Ace.  Any deaths due to V1s are directly due to it having been launched.

[RRAM]

"any casualty incurred as the direct result of hostile action..."

and of course hundreds of V1s aimed at london, antwerp or elsewhere is not an hostile action in your eyes. Right?.

[Tank-Ace]

Not so Karnak. If the a Meteor collided with a V1 that was aimed at London, screwed up the trajectory and distance measurments, and caused the bomb to hit in Dover, then any casualties in Dover are a direct result of the Meteor pilot's actions.

The Germans didn't take any actions that directly caused the Meteors to go down. If the Meteors hadn't fired their guns at the V1's, they wouldn't have gone down.


If I put a big crate of non-shock-proof TNT in your town, you shoot at it as a means of disposal, and die in the ensuing blast, I didn't directly cause your death, you did by firing at it.


The differences between that and the V1's: The V1s were going to blow up anyway, although still not in a location that posed a threat to the Meteors, and the Meteor pilots had a duty to shoot at the V1's.



The Meteor pilots could have done everything the same, and as long as they didn't fire their guns, they wouldn't have died. Since they pulled the trigger (an action), and they wouldn't have died otherwise, their deaths were in direct respons to them pulling the trigger.

Now again, they had a duty to knock the V1's down, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their own actions that resulted in their deaths.


Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.

and of course hundreds of V1s aimed at london, antwerp or elsewhere is not an hostile action in your eyes. Right?.

Oh its hostile action, but when you preform the action that, if not preformed would have left you safe and sound, you take away the "direct" portion of NATO's discription.


In fact, thats one of the primary reasons I would say we list non-KIA's who died as a result of enemy action (even if not as a DIRECT result of enemy action) as battle-casualties. If they died because of something the enemy did, even if they were the ones that actually caused the death, they deserve recognition for it if it was in the line of duty.

[Karnak]

Some aircraft were lost when they used their guns as well.

The blunt fact is that the Meteor, Spitfire, Mustang, Tempest or Mosquito would not have been playing with the V1 if it had not been launched.  The direct reason the aircraft was in danger was due to the need to protect their country.

[RRAM]

Tank-ace I just get the feeling you're really starting to push thing beyond belief just for the sake of not giving way, or admitting your analysis isn't correct.

Not to say the German's weren't responsible, but only that their actions didn't directly lead to those death's.

and this is what I can't get at all. FFS, dude, the germans launched the blasted thing to start with. Can any action get more DIRECT than shooting a projectile at the enemy?. You said the allied pilots who died shooting at V-1s caused it because they pulled the trigger...guess what, if there was no V-1 to begin with, they wouldn't have died -at all-

Those V-1s were weapons of war. They were launched by germans, and as such, any pilot killed when trying to bring one down was directly killed because a german hostile action. It's just mental that you try to go around  that simple, bassic fact.
There was german hostile involvement directly related to their death. That V1 was there because the germans launched it. No V-1 - no pilot death. You can't get more simpler than that.

hence, they were COMBAT losses. And as a corolary, it's essentially basic to understand that their planes had been in combat.


trying to argue that the pilots died because they shot at the german weapon is, well, excuse me if I sound unpolite because it's not my intention to sound like it and I'm not an english native speaker, but at a loss for a better word to apply, it's a sorry excuse. Those pilots were TASKED and ORDERED to intercept and bring those weapons down, by any means neccesary. Initially by gunfire. When the hazards of firing at a explosive laden V1 became apparent, Wingtipping was developed. But those pilots sortied had a combat task. That the weapon wasn't aimed at them doesn't mean they weren't in combat.

Please take the following example, that actually happened in WWII. USS Hamman, Sims class DD tasked with tending and helping the USS Yorktown damage control efforts to bring the wounded carrier back to Pearl after the battle of Midway. A japanese submarine shot four torpedoes at the USS Yorktown. Two missed, one hit the Yorktown and another one hit the Hammann which essentially was blown out of the water. The torpedo was intended for the carrier, yet the DD ate it. The 80 sailors who died in that event didn't die as a result of a combat action?. Because according to you those guys are nothing else but "battle casualties" given that the torpedo wasn't aimed nor intended to hit their ship to start with. Guess their status as KIA has been wrong for 70 years now.

More examples. Take my first post proposal here. A ticonderoga shooting SAMs at a bunch of missiles aimed at the carrier she's protecting. Is the Ticonderoga in combat? The missiles aren't aimed at her, are they?. under your standards, the Tico wouldn't be in combat in that scenario.

Yet another instance. A naval escort (say, a OHP Frigate) using chaff to confuse enemy radar guided ASM missiles so they don't hit the ship she's escorting. Chaff is sucessfull in deviating one ASM from the main target but instead the missile locks into the frigate, which gets hit instead (quite a plausible outcome of a chaffing effort by an escort ship) causing dozens of dead and injured and wrecking the ship that sinks afterwards. Was that escort hit in combat? the missile wasn't aimed at her initially ,was it?. Had the escort not launched chaff, the missile wouldn't have deviated from it's initial course and would've hit other ship, right?. Then you're trying to argument that in that scenario the escort wasn't in combat, so the ship is not a combat loss, and the deaths aboard caused by the missile would not be combat losses either. "Battle casualties"...do you think -that- is a correct assessment of the situation and outcome of such a scenario?

well, neither it is in the case of the pilots that intercepted V1s.


Finally, you don't fire a gun in anger if there is no combat involved. Those pilots indeed fired their guns in anger, and hence, another corolary , it's essencially basic to understand that they, and their planes, had to be in combat to do so.

[titanic3]

Tank-ace I just get the feeling you're really starting to push thing beyond belief just for the sake of not giving way, or admitting your analysis isn't correct.

You now know Tank-Ace.