Author Topic: Mindnao (Read 867 times)

Tac · « **Reply #30 on:** December 19, 2001, 12:39:00 PM »

Because fields are resupplied much faster than they are buffed down. A Jabo can deal the same damage and make sure the resupply doesnt come in.

Last night we did an attack with 7 lancasters escorted by 5 P-38's and 2 P-51's with our goon being half a sector away from town when our buffs hit the target.

We came in at 18k or so, fought off a jug and a p38 that had upped to intercept. The lancs blasted the town and much of the field down.

By the time the escorts had gone low to strafe, the town was half rebuilt.. because they had seen the big bad bar dar coming and had a resupply goon waiting for us to hit it. Once it was hit, the goon just dropped the cargo and voila! All the hard work and time by the buffs and escorts was wasted. Half the town was rebuilt and an FH came up. The n1k , spit and la7s came up and gave us hell as the escorts tried to strafe the town AND keep the fiters off the our goon. By sheer luck and the goon pilot's rabbit foot skill (Aknimitz! <S> ) was the field taken.

So why buff?

Im starting to think that field supplies should only rebuild barracks , ammo, fuel and a few acks. Anything else just defeats the use of the bomber.

I really wish I could understand that darned Terrain editor utility

lazs1 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 19, 2001, 02:27:00 PM »

I looked it up and.... mine is still fact and his is still opinion. damn fine word tho that "semantics" thing. thanks.

No.. fluffs should not have a huge effect on gameplay, or more accurately, one person should not have so much effect on gameplay. So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em. The A bomb of course was a different thing with very large effect on the war. Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war.

And as far as "nobody flies em" goes... I wish!
lazs

Raubvogel · « **Reply #32 on:** December 19, 2001, 02:43:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs1:
I looked it up and.... mine is still fact and his is still opinion. damn fine word tho that "semantics" thing. thanks.

No.. fluffs should not have a huge effect on gameplay, or more accurately, one person should not have so much effect on gameplay. So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em. The A bomb of course was a different thing with very large effect on the war. Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war.

And as far as "nobody flies em" goes... I wish!
lazs

You should have looked up opinion while you were at it.

o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

You believe that "Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war."

The fact is that carrier groups had almost no effect on the war in Europe. They were a major factor in the Pacific theater, but in the European theater there were only a few carriers and they did not significantly affect the outcome of the war.

You also believe that "So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em."

The fact is that the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan was the greatest single impetus to the end of the war. Destroying the infrastructure of Germany's war machine accelerated its downfall. In the Pacific theater the firebombing of Japanese cities killed many more people and did much more damage than the A-bombs dropped.

Bombers played a significant role in both theaters. Carriers played a significant role in one theater. Those are the facts.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Raubvogel ]

SirLoin · « **Reply #33 on:** December 19, 2001, 05:03:00 PM »

The strategic bombing of Germany had little effect on war industry.It also had little effect on German morale,much like the bombing of Britain had little effect on English resolve.It DID have an effect on the Luftwaffe in that it forced the experienced pilots into a war of attrition it could not win or recover from...The factories hit were never badly damaged and were back in action in a matter of weeks.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2001, 05:20:00 PM »

I guess that's why they were forced to move aircraft production to the forests?

lazs1 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 20, 2001, 09:34:00 AM »

the germs were producing more planes at the end of the war than at the beginning. bombing japan had no effect on their ability to make war or their resolve to do so untill the atom bomb. Carriers had a huge effect on the war as a whole if you consider japan to be on the axis side. If japan had not had carriers they would not have even been a factor in the war and I bert Germany would not have liked it if the U.S. had concentrated on them instead of a two front war.

Yes.. opinion meant what I thot it did.. thanks tho.
lazs

Raubvogel · « **Reply #36 on:** December 20, 2001, 10:21:00 AM »

*yawn* I have other walls to go to talk to now.

Seeker · « **Reply #37 on:** December 20, 2001, 10:44:00 AM »

Raubvogel,

Does this back your view?
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

Kieran · « **Reply #38 on:** December 20, 2001, 10:50:00 AM »

Truth in both arguments. The Axis was forced to disperse its manufacturing, yet it was producing more at war's end than ever before. The quality of that manufacturing was suspect, and this in itself influenced the war's outcome.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #39 on:** December 20, 2001, 11:36:00 AM »

Yes Seeker, that's what I'm getting at. Axis manufacturing at the end of the war was hampered. A few specific examples: German glue factory gets bombed...the mostly wooden Ta154 project gets cancelled. In Japan, Ki84s are known to suffer landing gear failure from shoddy metal working processes and inferior materials. The list goes on and on, but its a waste of time to try to make your point to a brick wall. A quote from that report sums it up: "As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their economy. " I'll rest my case there.

Seeker · « **Reply #40 on:** December 20, 2001, 01:27:00 PM »

Did strategic bombing of industry work?

I'd have to say, no it didn't.

Did strategic bombing of resources work?

I think it did.

This is all subjective interpretation, but the conclusion I draw from the report is that the Brits had no real material effect on production with the night bombing campaign, and the Yanks didn't really achive much more with day light bombing of production centres. You can flatten the factory, but the production machinery usualy survives, and can be relocated.

The real key was to go after strategic resources, such as oil, ore, rubber and similar, and then hammer communications with tactical, not strategic bombing.

That's not to say the Lancs and Forts had no effect - they tied up enormous amounts of German resources in terms of manpower and material, which did have an effect in every other theatre; but it wasn't the direct result the pre war proponants of "the bomber will allways get through" envisaged. This is further supported by the battle of Britain: The RAF was almost bought to it's knees by the tactical bombing of airfields. Once the LW switched to the strategic approach of bombing production and manufacturing centres, this gave the RAF the time to recover.

I'd say that in fact, strategic bombing did not, could not work in WWII due to the fact there were no strategic weapons, not until '45, and they were used in Japan with effect.

Tactical bombing, the disruption of resupply and the denial of resources is the way to go.

lazs1 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 20, 2001, 02:03:00 PM »

The very fact that the effect of bombing is debatable proves my point. It is not in the least debatable in AH.. It has an immediate and intense affect on gameplay in a very scewed and unrealistic manner whereas the CV's are operating in a realistic and "historical" manner with poor, or, undermodleing... They are not near tough enough or big enough.

And raub... if i couldn't argue any better than you I would have to talk to "walls" too.
lazs

Raubvogel · « **Reply #42 on:** December 20, 2001, 02:15:00 PM »

Good one lasz

You've wounded my inner child.

lazs1 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 21, 2001, 11:12:00 AM »

your inner child is a wuss too. and so is the horse it rode in on.
lazs

Oldman731 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 21, 2001, 12:28:00 PM »

Seeker wrote:

"Did strategic bombing of industry work?
I'd have to say, no it didn't.
Did strategic bombing of resources work?
I think it did."

You're obviously correct on the second part. On the first, it depends on whether "work" means "bring the enemy to his knees" or whether it means "seriously affect Nazi production." It certainly didn't stop the production, but it DID seriously affect it. In January, 1945 Speer and his people decided that the bombing had cut 1944's planned tank production 35%, aircraft production 31% and lorries (must be Euro for "trucks"?) 42%. Production of some/all of those things went up, in an absolute sense, from previous numbers, but not to what it might/should have been.

Seeker continues:

"The real key was to go after strategic resources, such as oil, ore, rubber and similar, and then hammer communications with tactical, not strategic bombing."

True. Note, though, that the transportation targets were hit by the entire 8th AF (as well as those large odd-looking English planes) beginning in May, 1944. It wasn't just the strafing 47s and Typhoons that stopped the Nazis from shipping their coal to their steel mills by war's end.

"That's not to say the Lancs and Forts had no effect - they tied up enormous amounts of German resources in terms of manpower and material, which did have an effect in every other theatre; but it wasn't the direct result the pre war proponants of "the bomber will allways get through" envisaged."

True. Note Speer's point, however, that having 1/3 more 88s and 128s on the Eastern Front might have significantly helped the Nazis out against the Bolsheviks; that 2 million Germans were engaged in air defense and bombing-mess cleanup; and that 20% of all ammo produced went to fight off the bombers.

Seeker stumbles:

"This is further supported by the battle of Britain: The RAF was almost bought to it's knees by the tactical bombing of airfields."

The RAF was almost brought to its knees because it chose that course. There was no military need for Eleven Group to be based where it was. Like the continuance of the channel convoys, it was a noodle-size competition.

"I'd say that in fact, strategic bombing did not, could not work in WWII due to the fact there were no strategic weapons, not until '45, and they were used in Japan with effect."

Did I imagine it? I thought the Survey concluded that, had the Allied ground forces not ended the war quicker, the bombing campaign would have brought Germany down within six more months. And....ummm....why was it that Nagasaki and Hiroshima, of all places, were picked for A-bomb practice?

After one more drink, Seeker concludes:

"Tactical bombing, the disruption of resupply and the denial of resources is the way to go."

Ummm....did you get this from Herman Goering's book?

Heh heh.

- oldman (looks sideways at door, places hands under table in anticipation of quickly turning it over.)