husky65

Originally posted by daamion: Not the least bit interested in person attacks. Come now, the sarcasm was a personal attack. "2. fighters were frequently used to attack ground combat elements" snipped This has been discussed from a historical perspective ad naseum - with points and counter-points offered. I personally don't agree with this assertion but I have no intention to revisit that lengthy topic here. ie you couldn't and still can't refute any of the points raised. "You also ignore the concurrent training that the military does, just because a unit is on operations does not mean that all training ceases, if they felt it was sensible to train pilots in anti ship work, they would do so" Interesting. Apparently this same experience to every single pilot in WW2... Sarcasm again, and yet again your lack of subject knowledge lets you down, the vast majority of WW2 combat pilots would have undergone concurrent training. If you were referring to the Rudel reference, just how many pilots in a luftflotte do you think need to hit a ship with a bomb to destroy a fleet? "Name the realistic production limitations that prevent using an Me262 as a fighter bomber." I was actually getting at the conflict between the need to develop a jet-based intercepter to combat Allied bombers vs. Hitler's desire to develop a jet based ground-attack aircraft. I certainly wasn't suggesting it is not possible to do both. To quote you- ------------------------ Say the German player has developed jet engines and production limitations require that either an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft be developed with a jet engine (hmm...sounds familiar). ------------------------ I'd have to say, in light of the above, that you are lying, but either way your point is spurious - it was quite possible to develop a high performance fighter that could drop bombs (the Me 262 being just one example, the Tempest another, the late model Thunderbolt yet another) - the Me 262 bomber/fighter limitation was in no way a technical limitation - it was just Hitlers idea, this is well covered in Gallands 'the first and the last'. " also you assume torpedo bombers, why?" Why not? Ouch, serious admission that your argument is going badly there, don't address any of the points raised and make a bad effort to turn the onus of proof onto me - you raised Torp bombers in spite of the fact that they are not mentioned in the game, it is up to you to justify it. "Why do you think it is that the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany all built more combat a/c than they did Tanks/SP guns?" My question is, given the system currently presented by SC, why build AFV's at all? Or bombers? etc. Just load up on airfleets and use cheap corps to occupy the areas 'vacated' by enemy units that got to experience the power of air attacks first hand. Finally something sensible. The problem is, if the allies had invested in airpower to the extent possible in SC, then it is quite possible that they would have done just that. To avoid it (hard coded) you need a fairly detailed economics system, and that is beyond the scale of this game.

I've had quite a bit of fun as the German player by simply not researching fighters and by sticking with the 3 original Luftflottes - if I lose one I don't replace it.

Originally posted by daamion: >>The allies did it with Spitfires, Mustangs, P-47s etc, the Germans with Bf-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s and so on - most a/c could convert roles overnight, if not faster buy simply fitting bomb racks. 1) Well, as far as realism goes, I'm not so sure that the IGO/UGO system is particularly realistic in the first place. ("Sir they're attacking!" "That's fine" "But sir, they're manuvering around for more attacks" "Yes, that's ok" "But sir, shouldn't we do something?!?" "Son, IT'S THEIR TURN!!!") Whilst I appreciate an attempt at sarcasm as much as the next person, it only works when the practitioner has the intelligence to understand the subject at hand, this you lack. You will note that, even under the IGO/UGO system the attacker still incurs casualties - ie the defender IS fighting back. Perhaps if you started out with a simpler subject for your sarcasm, you might just carry it off? 2) As far as fighters being quickly refitted with ground attack ordenance - true, but were they used primarily for attacking supply convoys, targets of opportunity, etc, or used to obliterate entire armies? (Sigh) here we go again, 1. you can obliterate an army by destroying its logistic elements, without which it will easily collapse in the games simulated timeframe. 2. fighters were frequently used to attack ground combat elements. 3. have a look at the sheer scale of destruction at Falaise (historically), and then project that onto the numbers of air groups frequently used to attack one army in SC, all concentrated in a 50 mile area, for a week to a month! - you are using forces that make the historical allied airpower in Normandy pale in comparison. 3) I've noticed that some other games at this scale made the air-air/air-ground aircraft unit split - I wonder if those game designers were just including units for 'fun' with little care of realism, or if they noticed during initial playtesting that air units were too powerful and a combined air unit removed the need for players having to choose between different force compositions for their air fleets... It would also depend on the objective of the designer. 4) What about if the German player (for some unknown reason) decides to place his air units on the Russian front and launch no attacks. The Russian player (not knowing any better) repeatedly attacks and the German air fleets gain lots of exp. Then, the German player moves the same air fleets to France to oppose a D-Day invasion. The high exp units then kick the snot out of the Allied fleet - that air-air exp suddenly enable the pilots to be highly experience (highly effective) in torpedo bombers and dive bombers in naval attacks! Perhaps you should read stuka pilot, HU Rudel did not see a major distintion between dive bombing ships and ground targets, also the FW 190 was able to carry torpedoes, I doubt it was a major task to train an experienced pilot to aim them. You also ignore the concurrent training that the military does, just because a unit is on operations does not mean that all training ceases, if they felt it was sensible to train pilots in anti ship work, they would do so. 5) What about players being forced to make high level production decisions? Say the German player has developed jet engines and production limitations require that either an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft be developed with a jet engine (hmm...sounds familiar). In SC as it stands, the fighters, tac bombers, torp bombers, supply aircraft etc all get insta-jet upgrades! (Hmmm...jet engine dive bombers - bet the Japanese would have found a use for those!) Name the realistic production limitations that prevent using an Me262 as a fighter bomber. Supply a/c are not present in the game, you assume that late game ground attack is by dive bomber, it could be rocket/cannon carrying fighters or by cluster bomb, also you assume torpedo bombers, why? 6) It still seems to me that air fleets are too powerful because they are too all-purpose snipped Welcome to the reality of WW2 Why do you think it is that the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany all built more combat a/c than they did Tanks/SP guns?

The problem is that its unrealistic, both sides routinely put ground attack stores on fighters. The allies did it with Spitfires, Mustangs, P-47s etc, the Germans with Bf-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s and so on - most a/c could convert roles overnight, if not faster buy simply fitting bomb racks. If you want to impede aircraft in game, make them consume supply much faster and recover it more slowly, look at making op moves for a/c use up all of their supply and tac rebasing use up about 1/3 of their supply, so it is hard for them to keep up with an advance.

I doubt there is much of a market for it, I'd be very surprised if it could be done as a commercial venture.

Real Staistics a/c produced in WW2 USSR 146,445 USA 283,230 Total crude steel produced in WW2 USSR 57.7 million metric tons USA 334.5 million metric tons Total Aluminium produced in WW2 USSR 283000 metric tons USA 41232000 metric tons Trucks produced in WW2 USSR 197100 USA 2382311 Tanks and SP guns produced in WW2 USSR 105251 USA 88410 (Hooray the USSR wins one!) until we factor in- UK 27896 Canada 5678 Basically the USSR took massive losses, to a large extent this was due to poor doctrine and bad leadership coupled with poorly trained troops. They had to trade bodies with the Germans at a ruinous rate (this is NOT a noble thing, it is a disgrace that the USSRs leaders neglected their military to such an extent). The western allies tended to achieve much better exchange rates - had the western allies not helped prop up the USSR through lend lease, then opened a second front in the skies (IIRC a rough guide for that is 40,000 88mm guns that could have been used as AT guns), then opened a third front in Italy, then a fourth in France - the USSR would not have survived.

Originally posted by dgaad: In 1944 there was a Fuehrer Conference in which US production was discussed. we now know that these figures were almost completely accurate. No it wasn't. For example, the report stated that in 1943, the United States, alone, produced 40,000 aircraft. 1943, the USA produced 81,028 a/c This number exceeded the total of all German aircraft production since Hitler came to power ten years earlier in 1933. Between 1939 and 1943 alone the Germans produced 60098 a/c [ October 15, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

I'd be interested to hear your definition of a 'front line Infantry Regt' - Hitler volunteered at age 25 by enlisting in a Bavarian Regiment. After its first engagement against the British and Belgians near Ypres, 2500 of the 3000 men in the Hitler's regiment were killed, wounded or missing. Hitler escaped without a scratch. Throughout most of the war, Hitler had great luck avoiding life threatening injury. More than once he moved away from a spot where moments later a shell exploded killing or wounding everyone. Hitler, by all accounts, was an unusual soldier with a sloppy manner and unmilitary bearing. But he was also eager for action and always ready to volunteer for dangerous assignments even after many narrow escapes from death. Corporal Hitler was a dispatch runner, taking messages back and forth from the command staff in the rear to the fighting units near the battlefield. During lulls in the fighting he would take out his watercolors and paint the landscapes of war. Hitler, unlike his fellow soldiers, never complained about bad food and the horrible conditions or talked about women, preferring to discuss art or history. He received a few letters but no packages from home and never asked for leave. His fellow soldiers regarded Hitler as too eager to please his superiors, but generally a likable loner notable for his luck in avoiding injury as well as his bravery. On October 7, 1916, Hitler's luck ran out when he was wounded in the leg by a shell fragment during the Battle of the Somme. He was hospitalized in Germany. It was his first time away from the front after two years of war. In August 1918, he received the Iron Cross first class, a rarity for foot soldiers. Despite his good record and a total of five medals, he remained a corporal. Due to his unmilitary appearance and odd personality, his superiors felt he lacked leadership qualities and thought he would not command enough respect as a sergeant. In October 1918, he was temporarily blinded by a British chlorine gas attack near Ypres. Adolf Hitler was a brave man, a nucking futter, but a brave man. Much as we would like it to be different, brave men are not always nice ones, nor are they necessarily sane. Revising history to attempt to change Hitlers WW1 past is as unwise as pretending the holocaust never happened.

Your reply: "Actually it does follow that you can." By that logic if a badly placed bomb can miss a platoon then three badly placed bombs can miss a company and so on... That's a lot of pressure on poor young Dwayne from Idaho at the Norden Sight of his B24. In reality each unit and sub unit under attack would face a probability rather than a certainty of taking that well placed bomb. Many would succumb to it, but not everyone. Covered by Bruce70 It's ironic that someone whose initial post contained the comment "Yet again someone forgets the scale of the game" is now arguing about the relative densities of the TAOR of a platoon and a battalion. Not really, the lower unit sizes were raised by someone else, I replied in the same currency. Being easier to find makes them more liable to attack, but not necessarily more vulnerable. WWII iron bombs were not smart weapons capable of riding a laser beam down onto Panzer Lehr's "goulash cannons" and thereby rendering the division instantly useless. Having said that, maybe they would be at tech 5! Lars made a very good post to this effect. Having worked in an Inf Bn (both at the pointy end and in the echelon) as well as a Field Supply company, the above is utterly wrong - a FSC (as one example) is far more vulnerable to air attack (BTW, I note you don't mention rockets, napalm or cannon attack - not all air attack is high altitude level bombing) as it is very difficult to dig in trucks and harder to conceal trucks and piles of supplies than foxholes - it is always situated near the MSR and has a heap of vehicular activity (or is as ineffective as if it had been destroyed), so it is relatively simple to locate. Everyone caught under an allied bomb carpet faced much the same chance of getting hit as bombs rained down indiscriminately. Right yet wrong and only applicable to indiscriminate bombing. Wrong, in that the guy in the Tiger is much more likely to survive a near miss than the guy in a petrol tanker, or the guy in a foxhole - so the 'troop type' varies the effective lethal radius of the blast. If anything, first and second echelon troops are generally much more spread out than platoons, as the latter's TAOR is constrained by the need to provide mutual support between sections. A good QM fearing air attack would disperse his echelons as much as possible to avoid that most feared of allied weapons; the well placed bomb! Almost logical, but wrong - you can only spread a supporting unit so much because it must be able to protect itself against partisans, raiders etc - it must also be able to function, the more dispersed the less efficient the unit is. The air threat is not the only threat. Brian Rock: "Circumstances: All of the examples put forward have involved air in conjunction with ground forces: [1]Cobra: air and ground forces [2]Montelier: air and ground forces [3]Falaise: air and ground forces" He's not confused between unit destruction and occupation of land, in fact he's demonstrated he understands the distinction. He just ignores the fact that its been done. Your argument again contradicts Brian Rock's demonstrating in a previous post that he does understand the difference. Stating it and believing it are different - he has been given examples where units were destroyed by airpower and then pretended it never happened because some sub units survived. I am arguing against the points he raises not the points he pretended to accept. Yourself again: This is the "well placed bomb" argument again. Airpower had destroyed those units surrendering, not necessarily the whole division. No one has ever disputed that Panzer Lehr was so badly shaken that many units surrendered. So correct me if I'm wrong you are saying that entire units can be forced to surrender by airpower alone, but entire units cannot be? And I hate to correct you yet again, but falaise was done almost entirely by 'well placed' bombs, rockets, cannon and mg fire as well as on one documented occaision, a well placed drop tank. "Despite this debacle, Panzer Lehr faced US First Army with unexpected opposition, but with no reserves to call upon, Seventh Army was about to collapse..." Any opposition was unexpected to the allies, they were notably timid in attack. Panzer Lehr itself lacked reserves to counter Seventh Corps not because of the bombing but because they had been depleted by several weeks of ground combat and FGA. I covered this in another post, so I won't labour the point. WTF do you think FGA is? Whos side of this argument are you on? yours or mine? Panzer Lehr had been effectively destroyed as a division long before July 25th, a point which I will return to later. The point is not that it had been destroyed as a division, but that elements were still fighting. Nope, it is the point that it could no longer hold a divisional frontage - in a game with 50 mile hexes, if your units are reduced to the point that they can't hold a 50 mile frontage, then they are no longer effective. A division is considered to have lost combat effectiveness when it has lost the ability to control it's units and divisional support assets. This certainly happened to Panzer Lehr when most of it's comms were destroyed. Considered by whom? By your definition as long as every sub unit has an unterofficer with a radio and a luger the Division is still combat effective? Regardless of the fact that it has no combat power at all. Do you see why your opinion is worth little to me? In light of such monumental stupidity, I'll call it a day now, but I'll leave you with a few quotes re Falaise. One strike by P47s on August 13 gives a graphic indication of the sizes of German forces open to attack at Falaise, Within an hour the Thunderbolts had blown up or burned out between 400 and 500 enemy vehicles. The fighter-bombers kept at it until they ran out of bombs and ammunition. One pilot, with empty gun chambers and bomb shackles, dropped his belly tank on 12 trucks and left them all in flames. All told, on 13 August, XIX TAC fighter-bombers destroyed or damaged more than 1,000 road and rail vehicles, 45 tanks and armored vehicles, and 12 locomotives. 2 TAF launched a series of strikes that claimed almost 3,000 vehicles damaged or destroyed. On August 19, one Spitfire wing put in a claim for 500 vehicles destroyed or damaged in a single day; that same day, another Spitfire wing claimed 700. 2 TAF averaged 1,200 sorties per day. The air war was particularly violent from August 15 through the 21st. Typhoons and Spitfires attacked the roads leading from the gap to the Seine, strafing columns of densely packed vehicles and men. Under repeated attack, some of the columns actually displayed white flags of surrender, but the RAF took "no notice" of this since Allied ground forces were not in the vicinity, and "to cease fire would merely have allowed the enemy to move unmolested to the Seine." Typhoons typically would destroy the vehicles at the head of a road column, then leisurely shoot up the rest of the vehicles with their rockets and cannon. When they finished, Spitfires would dive down to strafe the remains. Nope, airpower can't destroy units. [ September 22, 2002, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

If you want to simulate WW1 its a great idea.