Michael Emrys Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: Either of the books by Adolf Galland listed in the same bibliography are excellent sources.I would be cautious in citing Galland as an authority. I read The First and the Last not long after it came out in the mid-'50s and greatly enjoyed it. I re-read it some years back. It was written at a time when Galland was hoping to be named as commander of the newly resucitated Luftwaffe, so he definitely had a few axes to grind. He was a talented and flamboyant fighter pilot, but tempermentally not well suited as a scholar or historian. I think his account is valuable and interesting, but must be read alongside others, especially those of his critics and most particularly on the subject of Luftwaffe politics. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Goodersons work has been mentioned before (by Bastables IIRC), though only in its short form. The full book is a fairly detailed look at CAS from both the RAF and USAAFs perspective. Short version: True CAS* wasn't worth the resources expended on it. "True CAS" working definition being "planes directed at targets currently in contact with friendly ground forces". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron66 Posted September 19, 2003 Author Share Posted September 19, 2003 All comments withdrawn. [ September 21, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron66 Posted September 19, 2003 Author Share Posted September 19, 2003 All comments withdrawn. [ September 21, 2003, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: Third, even if the effect of true CAS is debatable the effects of air interdiction (number one on the Allied hit list) are not. Massive interdiction determined what forces were available to fight and at what strength they fought. Two factors which I'm sure are very much important to the CM scale battlefield. Disagree as when airpower attempted to interdict Panzer Div marching towards Normandy their material losses and loss of time effect was negligible. I have mentioned this before, convenient to ignore I suppose. The biggest break on Panzer deployment lack of orders. A much more minor point was that there were no fuel stocks in Normandy, even with the damaged transportation net, fuel was still received by Pz units within 24hrs of reaching Normandy. [ September 18, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: ...the heavy losses taken in the defense of the Reich. The actual losses are hard to determine and vary according to the expert, but in all accounts represent a very significant jump starting in February 1943. There are a few possible reasons for this: 1. The new P-51 fighter 2. Fighters destroyed by the Allied bombers themselves 3. The damage done to factories Of these the most credible is the second since fighter pilots only claimed a smaller portion of the total kills while bomber gunnery claimed as many as 700 during the "big week" alone.Good lord. You really believe that??? Bomber crews were famous for wildly overclaiming kills. Over the course of the war, I think they were credited with on average about ten for every Luftwaffe fighter actually shot down. Since you like Galland, I recall one example he gives of one occasion when the American bombers claimed over a hundred kills when the Luftwaffe actually lost one plane the whole day. Cabron, you are citing good sources alright, but even good sources can be mistaken, incomplete, or misleading. I think you also need to do some reading of historians who hold different and opposite views. You may begin to find as some of us have that the truth can be much more elusive than you apparently believe at the present time. Michael [ September 18, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: Massive interdiction determined what forces were available to fight and at what strength they fought. Two factors which I'm sure are very much important to the CM scale battlefield. How???? The CM battlefield depicts what is left AFTER the interdiction strikes have gone through. Interdiction has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the CM battlefield! It only determines what forces the scenario designer can use in a given scenario. Do you even play CM? You keep talking in circles, which is why I haven't followed this thread very closely. What is the point you are trying to make, and what are you using to defend that point? Pick a thesis, dammit! [ September 18, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cabron66: Massive interdiction determined what forces were available to fight and at what strength they fought. Two factors which I'm sure are very much important to the CM scale battlefield. How???? The CM battlefield depicts what is left AFTER the interdiction strikes have gone through. Interdiction has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the CM battlefield! It only determines what forces the scenario designer can use in a given scenario. Do you even play CM? You keep talking in circles, which is why I haven't followed this thread very closely. What is the point you are trying to make, and what are you using to defend that point? Pick a thesis, dammit! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: His thesis is apparently CAS was a wonder weapon, this is not shown in CM. He's been backsliding ever since when confronted with actual evidence. Oh, is that all. I think I'm going to cry, bro! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables: His thesis is apparently CAS was a wonder weapon, this is not shown in CM. He's been backsliding ever since when confronted with actual evidence. Oh, is that all. I think I'm going to cry, bro! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I think I'm going to cry, bro! Me too. I've been feeling sad and oppressed the last couple of days. Now I think I know why. I believe I'll go open a bottle of beer, let my hair down, and have a good shoulder-shaking weep. There's nothing like a good, solid bout of self-pity to brighten up a gloomy day, is there? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: That's good, as someone who has recently been promoted that means I'm doing my job of eating the weak in insuring a pent up aggression and otherwise emotionally dead Army marches onwards. Huzzah! I don't know what that means. But is sounded good. Must be some of that modern poetry stuff. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 *psst!* He's drunk. Just nod politely, smile, and edge away... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables: That's good, as someone who has recently been promoted that means I'm doing my job of eating the weak in insuring a pent up aggression and otherwise emotionally dead Army marches onwards. Huzzah! I don't know what that means. But is sounded good. Must be some of that modern poetry stuff. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: Hah in a fit of pretentious vapidity I magic marked the inside of my helmet 4 years ago with the non-sense line "and now the clouds have meaning." Yep, yep, I think I smoked some of that same stuff about 30 years ago. Ah, the memories... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron66 Posted September 19, 2003 Author Share Posted September 19, 2003 All comments withdrawn. [ September 21, 2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Who? The Bald One? We all live in quivering obsequious fear of him. He fires lightning bolts from the heavens and all are seized in terror for leagues around. He drags the unsuspecting off to his cave in darkest Cincinnati and they are never heard from again, save their faint and anguished cries. :eek: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: Wow. You guys must have a pretty low opinion of whoever controls this forum if you think I should be removed. Perhaps you should wring your hands a bit more, have a bit of a cry and play intellectual victim again. I like it when you do that. You're much more at ease with that pose as opposed to engaging in critical debate, or continuous backsliding after actual information is presented to you. [ September 18, 2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Bastables, in all seriousness, your grammar improves when you drink. Please do so more often! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Bastables, in all seriousness, your grammar improves when you drink. Please do so more often! Drunken rum mania, it'll pass. I knew I should have been a Pirate. Nothing more sober than a drunk wannabe pirate pretending to be sober. [ September 18, 2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: Yes, I am currently reading a different book which I think is heading towards the same conclusion. It is a strong argument which I will have to take into account in any future assessment of the "effectiveness" of true CAS. However, these arguments, all based on the work of the ORS, do not deny three facts. All of them irrelevant, see below. Originally posted by Cabron66: First, CAS was the second priority of the air force throughout Normandy. In reality it was number three, but since number one was air superiority, a moot point at best, it quickly was upgraded to the number two spot. As the effective second priority it received a massive amount of resources, for better or for worse, and those resources were utilized. In many cases despite the excessive associated costs or waste of resources.Rubbish, as far as arguments go. The German army planned to produce thousands of Panzer II by 1946 in their 1940 tank production planning, although that tank was outdated by the time. They just continued their current production numbers into the future without reassessing their utility. Utilisation of resources is not the question, effective utilisation is. Sisyphos utilises resources all day - to what effect? Input measurement is not a valid instrument when you are concerned about the outputs. Witness the UK government's problems in improving healthcare. Originally posted by Cabron66: Second, although the effects of CAS are debatable, the sorties were still flown and the impact of those missions felt. Fighter-bombers did not cease to exist because they were not always effective.Where was the impact of the missions felt? Examples please. But oh, Bastables has already given those to us, and you just chose to ignore them. Maybe the impact was felt mostly in the vastly overclaimed kill statistics, and the pilots' mess, where they told each other how they rocketed 15 Tigers into oblivion that morning? So, what does that tell us about the FB use on the CM battlefield anyway? Should we have a few FBs humming about that don't do anything to simulate the use of resources by Allied high command? Again, rubbish as an argument that is CM related, or indeed related to the effectiveness of CAS. Originally posted by Cabron66: Third, even if the effect of true CAS is debatable the effects of air interdiction (number one on the Allied hit list) are not. Massive interdiction determined what forces were available to fight and at what strength they fought. Two factors which I'm sure are very much important to the CM scale battlefield. Rubbish, as Bastables has shown, and as indeed the experience of the Normandy and Italian battlefields has also shown. Massive interdiction did not prevent the presence of significant German forces on the battlefield. In Italy 'massive interdiction' did not prevent the German army in Italy from being supplied and reinforced well enough to not only hold the frontline, but also contain the Anzio-Nettuno bridgehead for months. If you want to get past that argument, you need to show some data, not just ignore Bastables' post. Anyway, even so if you want to simulate it in CM, you use the pre-battle reduction tool. Both in QBs or scenarios. In short, all utter tosh, as far as the content of your post is concerned. You are grasping at straws, when you are not busy insulting people much smarter and better read than you are in other threads. Your post is an example for the shallow reasoning that unfortunately is still clouding the understanding of what went on in the war. But keep reading, it must keep you from posting, and that is a good thing. I would have ignored you in the future, but following your series of posts in the other thread over night, and the growing realisation that the last thing this forum needs is someone like you, I just decided to take your argument apart. It is about as difficult and as enjoyable as kicking a puppy, so please endeavour to make a bit more of an effort next time. Where are my pipe and slippers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Avoiding air inderdiction was relatively easy in WW2.....you just moved everything at night 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 I am sure that air interdiction increased the frictions of war for the Germans, but Andreas is right, there are already tools in the game that can quite adequately account for those. Which forces are available, their pre-battle casualties, fitness, ammo levels, all can be determined by the scenario designer. I think part of what we are seeing is once more a confusion between what occurs at the operational level and the tactical level. I think the kind of air activity Cabron is looking for can best be modeled at the operational level, although even there it would be of a different kind and extent than he has so far indicated that he expects. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 **ahem** you uber grogs, but I do believe I mentioned interdiction myself on this very page (pout, pout) and how it is already simulated in CM... Besides, everyone knows that the Germans lost WW II becuase they didn't have enough MP44s issued. CAS had nothing to do with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Sorry Mike, I was just re-emphasising your point. Obviously, it needs a lot of repetition to get through. How much, we shall yet see. Since Mr. 'I am so polite and cultured that I can just call Mike Emrys a Nazi' has preferred to open his own thread, I hope he won't come back here again. He'll be more happy talking to himself anyway. Jon - regarding Kassel. I did not know the RAF thought it was one of the more successful raids in 1943. I was surprised to see that the RAF claims the German fighter direction chaps had figured it out. One reason given for the high level of destruction in the exhibition on the 50th anniversary in the town hall of Kassel was that deception had actually worked, and the fighters were waiting on the approach to Frankfurt. BTW - I know I deserve the JasonC Gold Star for High Level and Statistical Analysis for that one Seriously though - I was just telling the stats, not venturing an opinion on it. I don't know enough about the strategic bombing campaign. I just used this one as an example because I know a bit about it/could find the needed info quickly (everyone knows there are gazillion websites on the Tiger, so no trouble finding the production numbers). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.