dgk196
Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006 Status: offline
|
The range that this game covers is potentially enormous..... I thought, well, there is a lot of 'flak' about what is or is not 'tactical'. I use this 'term' because it seems to be the 'collective' for this game! But is it appropriate? Well, each individual has to follow their path to where it leads them! The dictionary defines tactical as a method or procedure used to achieve a goal. The only reference to a 'unit' is that of an independent organization capable of sustaining operations, on their own. No reference is made to the 'level' of organizations. In other words, 'tactical' could apply on a 'Front level' or down to the individual soldier! The developing differences, and the starting points of both 'direct support' and 'interdiction' capabilities of the various nations are what makes the difference that allowed the 'in contact, front line troops' to achieve the success they did. Germany, apparently, had taken this to a very high level early on in the war. EVERYONE else played catch-up for the rest of the war. This manifests itself in 'them' being able to apply support either on a 'local' basis or reduces the 'delay' from the 'next day' category to the 'conceivably within the time frame of certain scenario's'. The 'Borodino' scenario being 135 turns (13.5 hours). Surprisingly, this is evident more so in the 'Rising Sun' portion of the game. Almost without exception, almost ALL of the 'supporting' air power in this 'section' would be of the 'interdiction and preplanned category'. Especially, Guadalcanal and 'early war' era. Do you think you would incur much more losses without the air power attacks supplied by the Navy and Marine aviation during the pacific campaign? Should all air power be dispensed with in the 'Pacific' because of this? Naval and Marine 'air support' would develop quickly into the standard by which everyone else would measure their success. So that 'shore to ship' requests for 'air support' and Naval gunfire where available 'quickly', by anyone's standards! Iwo Jima without Naval gunfire and air support? Believe it or not, this also applies to the 'European' fronts also. Early in the war, Polish, French and British air power where based on operations to be conducted the next day, based on collected intelligence, which was then disseminated, through the organization and 'appropriate' attacks planned. Whereas, the Germans could and did implement this much more quickly! Later in the war, American and British forces utilized similar methods. The Russians? They make the early war French and British look competent (sorry, all you early war allies fans) ! For example, during the Kursk battle, the Air forces on the 'Southern Front' had two radio's at the Front level. All commands and requests had to go all the way up the 'army' chain of command then, once they 'decided' what to do, requested 'air support' which then had to be deciphered and and planned and passed back down the 'air force' chain of command. Again, guess who wasn't there when the attack occurred? Air superiority? The Russians would 'fly' over an area with their 'air superiority' units. They would circle a fixed point on the ground. The Germans would just fly by them and not incur any losses because they did not intrude on the 'air supported area'. Conversely, Russian air units did not 'leave their post' to aid adjacent air units being attacked by the Germans. Local air superiority? You bet! The examples are almost endless. Compare this to the 'SG's' operations which had their headquarters with the ground forces they where to support. Meetings of the staffs where held, even fly-by's of the air units where made so ground units could see what the support aircraft looked like and ground unit deployed their various vehicles so the air units could identify friend from foe! Members of the SG's had never seen a 'Tiger' on the ground or from the air prior to the start of the Kursk battle! Seems odd to us today, but this was a situation encountered by units at the time! Such weapons being 'secret', you couldn't just pick up a newspaper, magazine or book with the latest weapons pictured and described! Not to mention their much more sophisticated tactics and technical advantages, which allowed them to implement on the spot changes to missions even while the units where in the 'air' on the way to their previously planned targets. So, in conclusion, I am afraid that I must disagree with some on this site, sorry. Not only is it within the 'realm' of this game, but to leave it out would be the equivalent of not having 'armor' related effects, both offensive and defensive, to give an analogy. Yes, some countries 'doctrines and abilities' might make their individual representation inappropriate for this game. But other forces who developed quick response chain-of-commands, should be able to have it represented in the game. Again, I am for suggesting this as an 'options' selection at the start of the scenario. I realize this 'level' of additions is not for everyone. Food for thought! Dennis
< Message edited by dgk196 -- 4/27/2008 11:29:30 AM >
|