Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004 Status: offline
|
I'll paraphrase Stalin to you, quote:
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths but a statistic. As a Soviet I'd say that right now is the time to spend your men and materiel in order to achieve strategically decisive goals. If it costs you 10,000 pilots then so be it. You are, now, at that point in time where you can trade a short period of higher operational tempo and losses for a much, much longer period of lower operational tempo and losses per unit time but, overall, higher losses. Basically you are in the situation of Montgomery in 1944 in North-Western Europe where he simply couldn't sustain high losses per unit time but COULD sustain much higher losses spread over a long period such that losses per unit time were less. This is the logistical necessity which drove the disagreement between focused thrust vs broad front advances --- and not that egomania crap bad researchers always reach for as an easy answer. Bottom line: Those pilots aren't your friends. They are assets to be expended in the achievement of worthwhile goals. Hell, even if they were all your friends it'd still be your job to send them to their deaths in order to achieve national policy objectives. Ki-83... I've had it in games and had it used against me. With proper utilisation it is effective BUT every one has an opportunity cost of 2 x N1K5s or J7W1s and it is vulnerable to sweeps, escorts and CAP, particularly when you take into account the fact that it is 100% more effective than similarly fast and well-armed fighters. Logistics, it is all about logistics. Having a brilliant fighter which costs as much to make as 2 excellent fighters is likely to be a losing proposition.
< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 12/11/2011 2:35:47 PM >
_____________________________
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine." Well, that's that settled then.
|