Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/29/2003 9:55:53 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted by Chiteng
[QUOTE]If no one agreed with me, you might have a point. [/QUOTE]

So by that acknowledgement, there might be a chance that we won't be seeing any more posts citing 9 B17s getting a single bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF as a valid reason to call UV unrealistic?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 31
- 5/29/2003 10:32:43 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
Beer!

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 32
- 5/29/2003 10:41:23 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Yes! Beer!

Preferably a Kegger

:D

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 33
- 5/29/2003 10:50:51 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by Chiteng


So by that acknowledgement, there might be a chance that we won't be seeing any more posts citing 9 B17s getting a single bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF as a valid reason to call UV unrealistic? [/B][/QUOTE]

If you are asking if I will drop the point, the answer is NO.

Several people DO agree with me Drongo.

Sadly for your case. I do not stand alone.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 34
- 5/29/2003 11:07:45 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
Ok, we all get it. You don't like how B-17s vs. ships is modeled in UV. You'd like that changed in WiTP and possibly patched into UV. Some other people agree with you. Some do not. No one here is changing anyone's minds, but we are hijacking an awful lot of threads in the process...

I say let it go for now, since we're getting nowhere.

On that note, I'm off to have a cheesesteak and a beer.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 35
- 5/29/2003 11:14:52 PM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
What you want is a level playing field Chiteng with two evenly matched opponents.

Matrix have bent over backwards to nerf the allies effectiveness as much as possible to create a fairly even fight.
An example of this is the totally early dominance of the zero...it didn't happen historically.
The Japs lost 2 aircraft for every allied plane early in the war and lost 12 aircraft for every allied plane later.

If the true capabilities of allied weapons was used there wouldn't be a game. It would be a one-sided slaughter.
Just be glad those B17's aren't shooting down scores of zero's as happened historically.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 36
- 5/29/2003 11:36:17 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Ok, we all get it. You don't like how B-17s vs. ships is modeled in UV. You'd like that changed in WiTP and possibly patched into UV. Some other people agree with you. Some do not. No one here is changing anyone's minds, but we are hijacking an awful lot of threads in the process...

I say let it go for now, since we're getting nowhere.

On that note, I'm off to have a cheesesteak and a beer. [/B][/QUOTE]

I might do that if people stopped attacking me =)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 37
- 5/29/2003 11:37:35 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted by Chiteng
[QUOTE]Sadly for your case. I do not stand alone.[/QUOTE]

Now I'm curious. I haven't worked my way through every single post but......

who exactly is the silly bastard(s) that has gone and agreed with you that 9 B-17s getting one bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF was completely unrealistic, thereby giving you justification to continue to bring it up?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 38
- 5/29/2003 11:38:59 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]What you want is a level playing field Chiteng with two evenly matched opponents.

Matrix have bent over backwards to nerf the allies effectiveness as much as possible to create a fairly even fight.
An example of this is the totally early dominance of the zero...it didn't happen historically.
The Japs lost 2 aircraft for every allied plane early in the war and lost 12 aircraft for every allied plane later.

If the true capabilities of allied weapons was used there wouldn't be a game. It would be a one-sided slaughter.
Just be glad those B17's aren't shooting down scores of zero's as happened historically. [/B][/QUOTE]

Really? Show me any air battle where that happened.
I would really like to hear about a battle where nine B-17
shot down 57 enemy planes AND still bombed the target.

Please by all means enlighten me =)

Saying things like 'The Japs lost 2-1' is meaningless.
ANY source can be questioned. Who claims that?
What were the causes?

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 39
- 5/29/2003 11:40:02 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by Chiteng


Now I'm curious. I haven't worked my way through every single post but......

who exactly is the silly bastard(s) that has gone and agreed with you that 9 B-17s getting one bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF was completely unrealistic, thereby giving you justification to continue to bring it up? [/B][/QUOTE]

That is only the example. It ISNT my argument.
I suggest you read every post, or you take me at my word.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 40
- 5/30/2003 12:04:08 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Really? Show me any air battle where that happened.
I would really like to hear about a battle where nine B-17
shot down 57 enemy planes AND still bombed the target.

Please by all means enlighten me =)

Saying things like 'The Japs lost 2-1' is meaningless.
ANY source can be questioned. Who claims that?
What were the causes? [/B][/QUOTE]

Now its 57 zeros shot down?:confused: How many times are you going to change the paremeters of this mythical battle?

I can show you dozens of sorties by small formations of B-17s against naval ships between Dec 41- right thru 1942. Not many ships were sunk but there where hits recorded. So please stop saying B-17s were not used in the naval attack role, becuase this is patently untrue. Please stop saying B-17s did not sink any ships, because that is patently untrue. Please stop saying, that B-17s never scored hits on ships underway because this too is patently untrue. And finally please do not say that 57 zeros were shot down by 9 B-17s becuase this does not happen.

Yes in earlier versions of the game B-17s were truely uber bombers, IMO this is not the case anymore. It may not be perfect but it certainly no longer a game breaker anymore.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 41
- 5/30/2003 12:53:52 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Yes in earlier versions of the game B-17s were truely uber bombers, IMO this is not the case anymore. It may not be perfect but it certainly no longer a game breaker anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]
And all the people said, "AMEN!"

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 42
- 5/30/2003 12:56:18 AM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Really? Show me any air battle where that happened.
I would really like to hear about a battle where nine B-17
shot down 57 enemy planes AND still bombed the target.

Please by all means enlighten me =)

Saying things like 'The Japs lost 2-1' is meaningless.
ANY source can be questioned. Who claims that?
What were the causes? [/B][/QUOTE]

I never said anything about 57 zeros being shot down.
B17's did shoot them down (not that you'd guess in Matrix's very lenient combat model).

Here's a few quotes about the general effectiveness of zeros and B17's.

"Up to this time the Zero was considered the best fighter in the Pacific. This belief stemmed from the fact that the Zero had spectacular characteristics of performance in both maneuverability, rate of climb, and radius of action, all first noted at the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. And it was because of its performances in these actions that it achieved the seeming invincibility that it did. At the same time, the Zero was highly flammable because it lacked armor plate in any form in its design and also because it had no self-sealing fuel tanks, such as existed in U.S. aircraft. Initially in the war, in the hands of a good pilot, the Zero could usually take care of itself against its heavier and tougher American opponents, but early in the air battles over Guadalcanal, its days of supremacy became numbered. By the end of the war in the Pacific, the kill ratio of U.S. planes over Japanese aircraft went from approximately 2.5:1 to better than 10:1. "

Time of the Aces:
Marine Pilots in the Solomons, 1942-1944
Peter B. Mersky


Tanaka wasn't terribly enamoured with B17's, although the Japanese were generally disdainfull of level bomber effectiveness in anti-shipping role.
He obviously considered them a threat in the following exerpt from,

History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II
Volume I
by
Lieutenant Colonel Frank O. Hough, USMCR
Major Verle E. Ludwig, USMC
Henry I. Shaw, Jr.


This happened just prior to Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
(November 14-15, 1942)



"Next turn went to 15 B-17s that had left Espiritu Santo at 1018. They struck at 1430 from an altitude of 16,000 feet and scored one hit and several near misses with their 15 tons of explosives.

These attacks continued all day as the Henderson fliers scurried back and forth from their field. Nine transports were hit, and seven of them sunk. But from these sinking ships, some 5.000 men were rescued by destroyers. As Admiral Tanaka described the day:


'The toll of my force was extremely heavy. Steaming at high speed the destroyers had laid smoke screens almost continuously and delivered a tremendous volume of antiaircraft fire. Crews were near exhaustion. The remaining transports had spent most of the day in evasive action, zigzagging at high speed, and were now scattered in all directions.
In detail the picture is now vague, but the general effect is indelible in my mind of bombs wobbling down from high-flying B-17s, of carrier bombers roaring toward targets as though to plunge full into the water, releasing bombs and pulling out barely in time; each miss sending up towering columns of mist and spray; every hit raising clouds of smoke and fire as transports burst into flame and take the sickening list that spells their doom. Attacks depart, smoke screens lift and reveal the tragic scene of men jumping overboard from burning, sinking ships. Ships regrouped each time the enemy withdrew, but precious time was wasted and the advance delayed.'
"

To be fair most of the hits on this tasforce were registered by the pilots of Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal in Dauntlesses although a near miss of the heavy B17 ordnance could be very destructive.

From the same source there is a reference to one of the first B17's taking off from Guadalcanal bagging 3 zero's but I'm too tired to find it right now.

In fact the zero pilots referred to B17's as "four engined fighters".

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 43
- 5/30/2003 3:52:50 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]I never said anything about 57 zeros being shot down.
B17's did shoot them down (not that you'd guess in Matrix's very lenient combat model).

Here's a few quotes about the general effectiveness of zeros and B17's.

"Up to this time the Zero was considered the best fighter in the Pacific. This belief stemmed from the fact that the Zero had spectacular characteristics of performance in both maneuverability, rate of climb, and radius of action, all first noted at the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. And it was because of its performances in these actions that it achieved the seeming invincibility that it did. At the same time, the Zero was highly flammable because it lacked armor plate in any form in its design and also because it had no self-sealing fuel tanks, such as existed in U.S. aircraft. Initially in the war, in the hands of a good pilot, the Zero could usually take care of itself against its heavier and tougher American opponents, but early in the air battles over Guadalcanal, its days of supremacy became numbered. By the end of the war in the Pacific, the kill ratio of U.S. planes over Japanese aircraft went from approximately 2.5:1 to better than 10:1. "

Time of the Aces:
Marine Pilots in the Solomons, 1942-1944
Peter B. Mersky


Tanaka wasn't terribly enamoured with B17's, although the Japanese were generally disdainfull of level bomber effectiveness in anti-shipping role.
He obviously considered them a threat in the following exerpt from,

History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II
Volume I
by
Lieutenant Colonel Frank O. Hough, USMCR
Major Verle E. Ludwig, USMC
Henry I. Shaw, Jr.


This happened just prior to Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
(November 14-15, 1942)



"Next turn went to 15 B-17s that had left Espiritu Santo at 1018. They struck at 1430 from an altitude of 16,000 feet and scored one hit and several near misses with their 15 tons of explosives.

These attacks continued all day as the Henderson fliers scurried back and forth from their field. Nine transports were hit, and seven of them sunk. But from these sinking ships, some 5.000 men were rescued by destroyers. As Admiral Tanaka described the day:


'The toll of my force was extremely heavy. Steaming at high speed the destroyers had laid smoke screens almost continuously and delivered a tremendous volume of antiaircraft fire. Crews were near exhaustion. The remaining transports had spent most of the day in evasive action, zigzagging at high speed, and were now scattered in all directions.
In detail the picture is now vague, but the general effect is indelible in my mind of bombs wobbling down from high-flying B-17s, of carrier bombers roaring toward targets as though to plunge full into the water, releasing bombs and pulling out barely in time; each miss sending up towering columns of mist and spray; every hit raising clouds of smoke and fire as transports burst into flame and take the sickening list that spells their doom. Attacks depart, smoke screens lift and reveal the tragic scene of men jumping overboard from burning, sinking ships. Ships regrouped each time the enemy withdrew, but precious time was wasted and the advance delayed.'
"

To be fair most of the hits on this tasforce were registered by the pilots of Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal in Dauntlesses although a near miss of the heavy B17 ordnance could be very destructive.

From the same source there is a reference to one of the first B17's taking off from Guadalcanal bagging 3 zero's but I'm too tired to find it right now.

In fact the zero pilots referred to B17's as "four engined fighters". [/B][/QUOTE]

Not interested in late war stats. UV doesnt cover that time frame.
Note: 15 planes and 15 tons. Thus proving my statement
that each plane carried 1 one tone bomb.

In the example of Tanaka ....he wasnt commanding CA and DD
he was commanding transports.
Transports that had already been hit by CACTUS.

Also not interested in apocryphal stories. Show me a documented case with multiple witnesses.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 44
- 5/30/2003 4:40:36 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B] Ok, we all get it. You don't like how B-17s vs. ships is modeled in UV. You'd like that changed in WiTP and possibly patched into UV. Some other people agree with you. Some do not. No one here is changing anyone's minds, but we are hijacking an awful lot of threads in the process...

I say let it go for now, since we're getting nowhere.[/B][/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]Originally posted by mbatch729
[B]

[I] quote:Originally posted by TIMJOT
Yes in earlier versions of the game B-17s were truely uber bombers, IMO this is not the case anymore. It may not be perfect but it certainly no longer a game breaker anymore. [/I]

And all the people said, "AMEN!" [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, AMEN once and for all!! The argument on this and other threads about the alleged, real or mystical (in)abilities of the B-17s in real life and in UV coupled with the displeasant tone in some posts has long started to become just F***ING ANNOYING!! This entire thing is degenerating into an exchange of twisted arguments, cantankerousness and hurt pride, or whatever. We all got the message, so let's agree to disagree and drop this issue, PLEASE!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 45
- 5/30/2003 5:02:24 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Now its 57 zeros shot down?:confused: How many times are you going to change the paremeters of this mythical battle?

I can show you dozens of sorties by small formations of B-17s against naval ships between Dec 41- right thru 1942. Not many ships were sunk but there where hits recorded. So please stop saying B-17s were not used in the naval attack role, becuase this is patently untrue. Please stop saying B-17s did not sink any ships, because that is patently untrue. Please stop saying, that B-17s never scored hits on ships underway because this too is patently untrue. And finally please do not say that 57 zeros were shot down by 9 B-17s becuase this does not happen.

Yes in earlier versions of the game B-17s were truely uber bombers, IMO this is not the case anymore. It may not be perfect but it certainly no longer a game breaker anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]

I will state flatly that NO ship over the size of Destroyer
was ever hit by a B-17 in the time frame that UV covers.
AND only ONE Destroyer was hit in the time frame UV covers.

THAT is the reality, yes I have seen claims that they made hash
out of transports, but it isnt convincing.

Bombing ships that are already sinking isnt impressive.
Bombing damaged ships that are barely underway, isnt impressive.

Medium bombers are a different story. But I am not discussing medium bombers.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 46
- 5/30/2003 7:38:54 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I will state flatly that NO ship over the size of Destroyer
was ever hit by a B-17 in the time frame that UV covers.
AND only ONE Destroyer was hit in the time frame UV covers.

THAT is the reality, yes I have seen claims that they made hash
out of transports, but it isnt convincing.

Bombing ships that are already sinking isnt impressive.
Bombing damaged ships that are barely underway, isnt impressive.

Medium bombers are a different story. But I am not discussing medium bombers. [/B][/QUOTE]

So it doesnt count if the hits were recorded before May 1942? Or that they occured around the PI and NEI?

May I suggest you read two books. "They fought with what they Had" (Edmunds) and "Flying Fortress Against the Sun" (Salecker) for an indepth account of B-17 operations in the Pacific for the first year of the war. The fact is the B-17 was primarily used in the naval attack role for most of 1942. Nobody saying they were ship killers. They certainly were not, but they did have 9 plane 1 hit type results. I can go back and dig up the dates, places, ships, but it would be a lot easier if you go to the library and check those books if you are interested in the subject.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 47
- 5/30/2003 7:54:37 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]So it doesnt count if the hits were recorded before May 1942? Or that they occured around the PI and NEI?

May I suggest you read two books. "They fought with what they Had" (Edmunds) and "Flying Fortress Against the Sun" (Salecker) for an indepth account of B-17 operations in the Pacific for the first year of the war. The fact is the B-17 was primarily used in the naval attack role for most of 1942. Nobody saying they were ship killers. They certainly were not, but they did have 9 plane 1 hit type results. I can go back and dig up the dates, places, ships, but it would be a lot easier if you go to the library and check those books if you are interested in the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]

I was VERY carefull in limiting the class of ships I was talking about. You are talking about other targets.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 48
- 5/30/2003 8:12:57 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
Seriously, we know where everyone is on this issue. No one is going to change any minds with more discussion. Let's call a halt to it, ok?

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 49
- 5/30/2003 8:33:29 AM   
GBirk


Posts: 7
Joined: 2/20/2003
From: New York -ish
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Seriously, we know where everyone is on this issue. No one is going to change any minds with more discussion. Let's call a halt to it, ok? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'll second that. This has been beaten to death and then some.

_____________________________

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." Gen. Wiliam T. Sherman

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 50
- 5/30/2003 4:32:28 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted by Chiteng
[QUOTE]I will state flatly that NO ship over the size of Destroyer
was ever hit by a B-17 in the time frame that UV covers.
AND only ONE Destroyer was hit in the time frame UV covers.
[/QUOTE]

That is not correct. Go check your thread in the WitP forum where I've given you several examples.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 51
- 5/30/2003 4:48:48 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by Chiteng


That is not correct. Go check your thread in the WitP forum where I've given you several examples. [/B][/QUOTE]

I read it, and again you are contradicting Morrison.
I will reply when I have more time.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 52
- 5/30/2003 6:54:05 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted
[QUOTE]I read it, and again you are contradicting Morrison.[/QUOTE]

The information primarily came from the author Adrian Stewart et al who referenced both Morison and other works/accounts, some of which Morison may or may not have had access to when he wrote his own accounts.

Morison's work has often been used as a primary source for many later works but it doesn't mean that those authors treated all his facts as gospel.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 53
- 5/30/2003 9:33:14 PM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
****************************************************
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the old argument "just because they didn't do it then". If a system be it ship or aircraft is able to do it, then why not???????????????? The USN didnot run fast TFs using surface combat units...but why should that not allow you to do it in the game? The ships have the ability to do it...so why not?
***************************************************
None the less, it favors the USN because the USN can replace its losses.



****************************************************
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have
alot of big ships.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0[/B][/QUOTE]

That's like saying World War 2 in the Pacific was unfair becuase the Japanesse didn't have the same industrial base as the allies. The fact of the matter is the Japanesse had flaws in a lot of there systems and tactis, and they didn't seem to learn and apply lessons learned to their operations. The fact of the matter is the Japanesse have a huge a historic advantage in that they have unlimited fuel at Truk. This wasn't the case, they used the Yamato and Mutsu as floating fuel bunkers at Truk. By september 42 there entire fuel reserves were something like 600K barrels. Mogami did some masterful research on this subject.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 54
- 5/31/2003 4:09:59 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
That while being a fair statement about Japan's fuel situation does not bring into light that the very same situation was faced by the USAF when defending Henderson field to the point that they were forced to drain fuel tanks on B-17's to fuel fighters for an hour or so worth of CAP.

Each side had their own supply problems during the war. Hopefully WitP will bring some reality to this situation on both sides.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 55
- 5/31/2003 4:32:08 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeKraemer
[B]That's like saying World War 2 in the Pacific was unfair becuase the Japanesse didn't have the same industrial base as the allies. The fact of the matter is the Japanesse had flaws in a lot of there systems and tactis, and they didn't seem to learn and apply lessons learned to their operations. The fact of the matter is the Japanesse have a huge a historic advantage in that they have unlimited fuel at Truk. This wasn't the case, they used the Yamato and Mutsu as floating fuel bunkers at Truk. By september 42 there entire fuel reserves were something like 600K barrels. Mogami did some masterful research on this subject. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes but I have never seen such a determined attempt to minimize and ignore the actual 'edges' that the Japs had, and a complete
aversion to doing the same to the USN, That is hardly fair treatment.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 56
- 5/31/2003 4:44:06 AM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
OMG, Chiteng is like some kinda never-giving-up squeaky wheel.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 57
- 5/31/2003 4:46:40 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]OMG, Chiteng is like some kinda never-giving-up squeaky wheel.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

No more than say Mdeihl.

We both have vested interests. I want a game with certain
features, he wants a game that excludes certain features.
There can be no compromise.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 58
- 5/31/2003 7:23:19 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Yes but I have never seen such a determined attempt to minimize and ignore the actual 'edges' that the Japs had, and a complete
aversion to doing the same to the USN, That is hardly fair treatment. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I follow your point The Japanesse have an operational capability that the didn't have historically. The Zero has been given an A historical capability. In Games I've played sunce 2.3 were The odds are roughly 1 to 1 the Zero has an exchange rate of 9 to 1 in it's favor against P-39's and 3 to 1 against P-40's and F4F's. When the odds exceed 1.5 to 1 in the zeros' favor the exchange rate goes to 13 to 1 against P-39's and 5 to 1 against P-40's and F4F's. Not only that but there is not a single incident in WWII where Bettie and Nells lanching torpedo in a port, yet they routinely do this and run a 41% hit rate. The Betty was officially dubbed "type one land attack plane" by the Japanesse Navy, but the crews that flew then called them "type one Lighters" because of their habit of bursting into flames with only a single hit. On the strike against the landing at Gaudalcanal on August 8th 1942 15 out of 23 betties were shot down by flak and only one torpedo hit scored, try that in 2.30 you'll likely see 3 to 5 ships hit by torpedos and only 2 to 3 betties shot down.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 59
- 5/31/2003 7:32:55 AM   
Nasrullah

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 2/14/2003
From: Annapolis, Md, USA
Status: offline
On the matter of USN bias: You have all swallowed the camel
of Japanese infinite supply and fuel, yet are straining at every gnat you can find.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.031