Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

TF Cohesion

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> TF Cohesion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 12:59:40 PM   
LeeChard

 

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
Is there any disadvantage to disbanding a TF after each mission?
for example:
I have surface TF15. it returns to port after completing the mission sent it on and disband.
Later a need for the same mission comes up so I form a TF with the same ships and commander.
Would there be any difference if I had simply kept TF15 in being?
Post #: 1
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 1:09:57 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

Is there any disadvantage to disbanding a TF after each mission?
for example:
I have surface TF15. it returns to port after completing the mission sent it on and disband.
Later a need for the same mission comes up so I form a TF with the same ships and commander.
Would there be any difference if I had simply kept TF15 in being?

The biggest thing is keeping the commander if he is not the captain of one of the ships - i.e. a commander you have to pay PP to get. If you disband the TF totally you lose him and need to buy him back again next time. All you need to do to keep him is retain the TF and transfer all the ships but one to the port.

The advantage of disbanding is saving fuel - a static TF still burns fuel to keep the lights on and the coffee/tea hot. So retain the smallest ship to keep the leader you bought and the others can transfer to the port. Beware of upgrades if you do - only allow upgrades to ships when you are sure they are in a safe place and you can do without them for the period of the upgrade.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to LeeChard)
Post #: 2
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 1:26:50 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
You can also add a ship to the TF to have all of the rest in port and repairing.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 3
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 1:33:13 PM   
Randy Stead


Posts: 454
Joined: 12/23/2000
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You can also add a ship to the TF to have all of the rest in port and repairing.


Speaking of TFs in ports. I can click to rearm/refuel a TF in base. Do I have to tell them to dock, or will they do that themselves, the ships rotating and out of the docks to load up? I'm still not 100% clear on this, one of the most basic functions of the game.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 2:04:05 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You can also add a ship to the TF to have all of the rest in port and repairing.


Speaking of TFs in ports. I can click to rearm/refuel a TF in base. Do I have to tell them to dock, or will they do that themselves, the ships rotating and out of the docks to load up? I'm still not 100% clear on this, one of the most basic functions of the game.

If the TF is set to Full Refuel, the port size determines whether it will automatically refuel while remaining as a TF (remember, all TFs are considered at sea unless docked). IIRC, size 4 port is the first that will automatically fuel your ships. If the port does not automatically replenish you need to dock the TF or put the ships into the port (transfer or disband the TF). The port will also replenish ammo if it can. The size and type of ammo it can load is determined by port size. See the table in the manual.

Next, be aware that both the ships and the port have limits on how much they can do in a turn. The limits are expressed as operations points - 1000 points for each (day or night) 12 hour phase. If not all the ammo is replenished or the ships did not fully refuel, chances are you are out of ops points somewhere.

You can bypass port limits if you have a tender or tanker/AO at the port. These are normally disbanded but will also work if they are in a TF. AEs and AKEs provide ammo to all - subject to ops points limits and supply on board. TKs and AOs refuel TF ships if you click "Refuel at Sea" or ships docked/in port if you click "Refuel from port". AS/AD/AG types can replenish ammo on specific types of vessels. AV types provide ammo for patrol aircraft. All of these tenders need supply/fuel on board to do their replenishment work.

And you can boost port capability by having Naval Support squads available or a Naval HQ. Naval BFs and Port Service Units have NS squads. The tables in the manual show how many NS squads are needed to boost port capacity enough to load certain munitions.

EDIT: In an emergency, you can also refuel a TF by drawing fuel from the tanks of xAKs and such. This is usually only done to save a valuable ship because it leaves the donating ship short on fuel. Subs cannot refuel at sea no matter what. You have to get them to a port with fuel.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 1/8/2021 2:10:20 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Randy Stead)
Post #: 5
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 2:23:42 PM   
Randy Stead


Posts: 454
Joined: 12/23/2000
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
Thanks, BB, for clarifying that for me. I'm sure I'm going to get to practice that in the Guadalcanal scenario.

quote:

EDIT: In an emergency, you can also refuel a TF by drawing fuel from the tanks of xAKs and such. This is usually only done to save a valuable ship because it leaves the donating ship short on fuel. Subs cannot refuel at sea no matter what. You have to get them to a port with fuel.


That reminds of something I recall reading in an account of the Afrika Korps. During one nasty battle when a quick retreat was in order, it was said that a German unit stole the trucks of an Italian unit for their own men. I guess they figured it was better for Germans to retreat and fight another day, rather than let the Italian infantry surrender their trucks to the British and ride into the POW cage.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 2:47:42 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

Thanks, BB, for clarifying that for me. I'm sure I'm going to get to practice that in the Guadalcanal scenario.

quote:

EDIT: In an emergency, you can also refuel a TF by drawing fuel from the tanks of xAKs and such. This is usually only done to save a valuable ship because it leaves the donating ship short on fuel. Subs cannot refuel at sea no matter what. You have to get them to a port with fuel.


That reminds of something I recall reading in an account of the Afrika Korps. During one nasty battle when a quick retreat was in order, it was said that a German unit stole the trucks of an Italian unit for their own men. I guess they figured it was better for Germans to retreat and fight another day, rather than let the Italian infantry surrender their trucks to the British and ride into the POW cage.


I don't know about that one but I heard that a German unit somehow managed to capture a British unit, kept the trucks and freed the men!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Randy Stead)
Post #: 7
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 2:59:54 PM   
Randy Stead


Posts: 454
Joined: 12/23/2000
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

Thanks, BB, for clarifying that for me. I'm sure I'm going to get to practice that in the Guadalcanal scenario.

quote:

EDIT: In an emergency, you can also refuel a TF by drawing fuel from the tanks of xAKs and such. This is usually only done to save a valuable ship because it leaves the donating ship short on fuel. Subs cannot refuel at sea no matter what. You have to get them to a port with fuel.


That reminds of something I recall reading in an account of the Afrika Korps. During one nasty battle when a quick retreat was in order, it was said that a German unit stole the trucks of an Italian unit for their own men. I guess they figured it was better for Germans to retreat and fight another day, rather than let the Italian infantry surrender their trucks to the British and ride into the POW cage.


I don't know about that one but I heard that a German unit somehow managed to capture a British unit, kept the trucks and freed the men!


I read that in one of my books. I think it may have been at Al Alamein. Just because it is in a book it may not always be true. Rommel tried to be as diplomatic and accommodating to his Italian allies as possible. They were after all, his lifeline, however much their poor equipment and morale let him down.

That story of yours was so typical of that particular theater, in which the general antipathy between sides was muted compared to other fronts. It was rather chivalrous at times, because you had two opponents who tended toward gentlemen's code. I've not read of atrocities in Africa that were common elsewhere. Both sides took prisoners, cared for the other side's wounded and so forth. Particular to that front was that the operating environment was a mutual enemy: thirst, climate and disease.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 8
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 4:07:22 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Also an honourable commander on the German side.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Randy Stead)
Post #: 9
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 5:31:14 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Also an honourable commander on the German side.

There were a few, but they had a tendency to fall in disfavor with Adolf, and end up dead. Being a decent general (or officer) might have been more dangerous than flying an Okha...

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 10
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 10:24:16 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Also an honourable commander on the German side.

There were a few, but they had a tendency to fall in disfavor with Adolf, and end up dead. Being a decent general (or officer) might have been more dangerous than flying an Okha...


I am referring to Rommel who would not order that captured commandos be murdered.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 11
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/8/2021 11:16:21 PM   
Randy Stead


Posts: 454
Joined: 12/23/2000
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Also an honourable commander on the German side.

There were a few, but they had a tendency to fall in disfavor with Adolf, and end up dead. Being a decent general (or officer) might have been more dangerous than flying an Okha...


I am referring to Rommel who would not order that captured commandos be murdered.


He also ordered that POWs from the Jewish Brigade would be treated as Allied POWs, not undesirable persons to be executed.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 12
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 12:56:37 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
Worth watching to separate the man from the myth regarding Rommel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw1UJCwcgNc

(in reply to Randy Stead)
Post #: 13
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 1:43:49 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Rommel was a dedicated Nazi. One didn't become a pin up boy without embracing the political and ideological fundamentals of the regime. Being so helped him considerably in climbing up the military hierarchy. Let's not confuse his concern for military reciprocity concerns with wider humanity concerns.

Alfred

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 14
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 8:56:23 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
There were over eight millions NSDAP adherents, not all were psychopaths. Many simply wished to have a career, like in many other single-party states. Does it remove all their fault ? No, they still enabled, by their silent (or less than silent) support, a dangerous tyrant’s warmongering. But it’s a question of degree.

In the case of Rommel, a number of documents showcase his more distant relation with the Nazi ideology. Anti-Semitic, yes, but didn’t really bought the Aryan superiority claims (I want to use another them than claim, but I guess it’d be censored), and he refused to implement some of the orders coming from higher up (for example regarding commandos).
The treatment of prisoners and civilians in the areas he was responsible of, was usually far better than in other areas. He could change his views too (see the respect he professed for the 4th Indian albeit he was initially outraged by the fact that Britain was fielding colonial troops against white troops).

So, it’s not 100% black, but a shade of grey*.


EDIT : * light or dark, depending on whose historian’s book you were the most convinced by.

< Message edited by Ambassador -- 1/9/2021 8:58:01 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 8:56:58 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
Double post, sorry.

< Message edited by Ambassador -- 1/9/2021 8:57:24 AM >

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 16
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 5:00:59 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
Early in the war although German High Command often issued orders in violation of war protocols, German commanders in the field often disregarded them and followed war protocols.

It was the English who often disregarded these and then complained that the Germans were not following them in response to their violations. These orders in violation of protocols also came from the highest levels. Although individuals generally pilots sometimes disregarded those orders from above.

The Germans in the field were forced to respond by breaking the rules or put themselves at grave risk. These under treaty were considered reprisals and were allowed. The British by and large just violated the agreements at will and when challenged would throw out the term “reprisal” when even a loose interpretation would not meet the standard. It was something they were notorious for doing in both WW1 and WW2.

Over time war protocols/agreements tend to break down but who knows how long they would have lasted if the English had not so quickly flaunted their agreements.

It was refreshing to see this often unmentioned behavior/orders from the British side touched on in the movie “Hurricane” (Believe it was called “Mission of Honor” or something like that in U.S.)

With history it is good to be on the winning side.

This of course was very different from the German war in the east from the very beginning which was seen as a very different kind of war than the one against France and England.


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 17
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 5:20:28 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

Early in the war although German High Command often issued orders in violation of war protocols, German commanders in the field often disregarded them and followed war protocols.

It was the English who often disregarded these and then complained that the Germans were not following them in response to their violations. These orders in violation of protocols also came from the highest levels. Although individuals generally pilots sometimes disregarded those orders from above.

The Germans in the field were forced to respond by breaking the rules or put themselves at grave risk. These under treaty were considered reprisals and were allowed. The British by and large just violated the agreements at will and when challenged would throw out the term “reprisal” when even a loose interpretation would not meet the standard. It was something they were notorious for doing in both WW1 and WW2.

Over time war protocols/agreements tend to break down but who knows how long they would have lasted if the English had not so quickly flaunted their agreements.

It was refreshing to see this often unmentioned behavior/orders from the British side touched on in the movie “Hurricane” (Believe it was called “Mission of Honor” or something like that in U.S.)

With history it is good to be on the winning side.

This of course was very different from the German war in the east from the very beginning which was seen as a very different kind of war than the one against France and England.



You make some strong assertions about the British breaking protocols but I am not aware of such events. Can you provide examples, with the full context of what was happening at the time?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 18
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 5:26:29 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

Early in the war although German High Command often issued orders in violation of war protocols, German commanders in the field often disregarded them and followed war protocols.

It was the English who often disregarded these and then complained that the Germans were not following them in response to their violations. These orders in violation of protocols also came from the highest levels. Although individuals generally pilots sometimes disregarded those orders from above.

The Germans in the field were forced to respond by breaking the rules or put themselves at grave risk. These under treaty were considered reprisals and were allowed. The British by and large just violated the agreements at will and when challenged would throw out the term “reprisal” when even a loose interpretation would not meet the standard. It was something they were notorious for doing in both WW1 and WW2.

Over time war protocols/agreements tend to break down but who knows how long they would have lasted if the English had not so quickly flaunted their agreements.

It was refreshing to see this often unmentioned behavior/orders from the British side touched on in the movie “Hurricane” (Believe it was called “Mission of Honor” or something like that in U.S.)

With history it is good to be on the winning side.

This of course was very different from the German war in the east from the very beginning which was seen as a very different kind of war than the one against France and England.



You make some strong assertions about the British breaking protocols but I am not aware of such events. Can you provide examples, with the full context of what was happening at the time?


The Soviets did not sign the Geneva convention and, if I remember correctly, under orders from a political officer were the first to murder prisoners.

I do believe that the British allowed pilots to shoot down the air/sea rescue aircraft which were painted white with red crosses - these even picked up Allied airmen.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 19
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 8:10:51 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
As RangerJoe mentioned the shooting down of German sea rescue planes, during Battle of Britian. They did not want German pilots living to fight another day.

Flybys of bailed out pilots, not over Britain, in order to cause Parachute malfunction; Battle of Britain. Same as above.

They also were not so friendly to downed pilots bobbing in the English Channel. Made the German pilots careful in their use of dye to mark their positions for pickup.

Bombing of Civilian targets. (This was not only against agreements but the combatants had all just renewed their pledges not to bomb civilian targets) Although this followed the Amsterdam bombing by one day, there was a battle going on in Amsterdam and the Germans were attempting to break a military stalemate in Amsterdam with air support. They also gave the Dutch warning of a bombing in order to give the Dutch an opportunity to surrender the city before being bombed. They also attempted to call back the level bombers after the raid had been launched. The Germans had bombed Guernica but that was a different war.

Using passenger ships to carry munitions. Famous one in WW1 was the Lusitania. Hospital ships and Passenger ships were supposedly exempt from attack but not supposed to be acting as military ships or carrying munitions. Carrying only wounded or civilians.

Arming of merchant ships and Q-Ships sailing as merchant vessels. Merchant ships were required to be unarmed and if armed to display that they were armed warships. Being armed meant no requirement to be warned. This was listed as an act of treachery in the agreements. WW1, WW2

Merchant ships radioing in submarine locations. This made them warships not the merchant ships they were pretending to be. Merchant ships were not supposed to be used to gather and pass on military information. They were supposed to peacefully comply, not give warning.

Having passenger ships operating as warships at night which could lead to its attack. Light out zig-zagging, etc. It was up to hospital, and passenger ships to be identifiable at night as such by looks and behavior.

When a U-boat sunk a British passenger ship operating as such early war the U-Boat captain was up for court martial but Hitler stopped it. Orders from U-boat command at time was no attacking passenger ships.

Declaring by and large all goods on all shipping encountered in naval ocean sweeps, neutral included, as contraband and liable for seizing. The protocols listed specific goods. Contraband, near contraband (items that could perhaps be implemented into military goods), and other. WW1 and WW2

Forced routing merchant shipping to go to English port regardless of destination or cargo. Then claiming that said ship had to conform to local export laws. Then they claimed that the seizing of goods was not a military matter but a civil matter. Constantly changing the export laws so that you either shipped to England (or someone of their choice) or you did not ship at all. They did not return or pay for the goods they just took them. WW1, WW2

Declaring supplies bound for neutral country was contraband if the goods could be shipped overland to Germany. Did not matter if goods were military in nature or if goods were be shipped to Germany or Allies. England made the arbitrary decision. This was not for items listed as contraband but by and large everything, as the British saw fit. WW1, WW2

Decided despite the agreements to redefine blockade to mean anywhere an English naval vessel encountered a merchant ship verses the agreement definition of blockade which was a group of warships on station outside of a hostile nation blocking flows in and out. Even their French allies were in objection to this but they did not last long enough to matter. You were not allowed to just sweep international waters and round up shipping. That was not the definition of blockade.

There were a number of legal suits in England during both wars to stop the seizing of neutral shipping but the courts sided with the military.

These are some of them. They are not isolated events that have a particular time and place but were policies implemented pretty much across the board. The militarizing of civilian shipping was being implemented before the war broke out in ’39. Tried not to include ones once the war really heated up and both sides were playing lose with the rules.


< Message edited by RhinoDad -- 1/9/2021 8:14:06 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 20
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 9:13:51 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Guernica made clear that the Germans were prepared to use the doctrine of bombing cities to destroy civilian morale -that was their excuse for Guernica and a tenet of one Italian general Douhet who wrote on the use of air power after WWI. The British had no doubt that it would happen again. And besides Amsterdam, didn't the Germans bomb Rotterdam after it had surrendered, to punish the Dutch for resisting?

The explosion on Lusitania after it was torpedoed was shown in computer modeling to be coal dust in empty coal bunkers. If you don't think that is likely to cause a big explosion when disturbed, consider the incidence of grain dust explosions blowing concrete silos apart.

Also bear in mind the German sinking of liner Athenia on the first day of WWII. The sub did not surface to allow passengers and crew to get into life boats which was still on the Geneva Conventions books AFAIK.

Then there are the German AMCs masquerading as merchant ships which were already at sea on the first day of WWII. There were several of them in WWI as well. So who broke the prohibition on armed merchant ships first?

I'm sure there are enough incidents to go back and forth on this for a long time, so lets just say rules get bent and broken in war because winning is more important than being nice about it.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 21
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/9/2021 10:39:37 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Rotterdam had surrendered and the aircraft sent to bomb it were unable to be recalled.

The Germans had AMCs deployed at the start of the war if I remember correctly.

German U-boats also sank neutral shipping.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 22
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 10:30:12 AM   
LeeChard

 

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

Is there any disadvantage to disbanding a TF after each mission?
for example:
I have surface TF15. it returns to port after completing the mission sent it on and disband.
Later a need for the same mission comes up so I form a TF with the same ships and commander.
Would there be any difference if I had simply kept TF15 in being?

The biggest thing is keeping the commander if he is not the captain of one of the ships - i.e. a commander you have to pay PP to get. If you disband the TF totally you lose him and need to buy him back again next time. All you need to do to keep him is retain the TF and transfer all the ships but one to the port.

The advantage of disbanding is saving fuel - a static TF still burns fuel to keep the lights on and the coffee/tea hot. So retain the smallest ship to keep the leader you bought and the others can transfer to the port. Beware of upgrades if you do - only allow upgrades to ships when you are sure they are in a safe place and you can do without them for the period of the upgrade.

Thanks BBfan and the rest of you folks for the input.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 23
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 2:46:57 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Guernica made clear that the Germans were prepared to use the doctrine of bombing cities to destroy civilian morale -that was their excuse for Guernica and a tenet of one Italian general Douhet who wrote on the use of air power after WWI. The British had no doubt that it would happen again. And besides Amsterdam, didn't the Germans bomb Rotterdam after it had surrendered, to punish the Dutch for resisting?


Guernica was ordered by Franco and carried out by the Germans. With little if any bomb placement equipment avail on bombers at the time the strategy was to saturate an area with strategic/military value in the hopes of getting a hit. English employed that same tactic in night bombings aimed at German manufacturing. They could not identify the factories at night so you pound the area of the city and hope to get lucky. Even with bomb computers such as norton a bomb falling within 1,000 feet was lucky; well under 25%. The Germans were attempting to hit several key roads and bridges to aid Franco's conquest of the North. But as with bombs of the time they tended to mostly hit anywhere but the target and left large swaths of damage.

After Guernica the major European powers agree to try to mitigate civilian bomb damage losses. This was reaffirmed by the combatants at the out break of WW2 through an American mediary. The Germans were following in the English example of civilian targeting in Germany. The English started bombing civilians the Germans followed suit. It is very inconvenient to minimize civilian collateral damage when bombing covers an area not a target. A German switch to Civilian targets would be most beneficial to the English war effort and was seen as the beginning of the end as Germans began concentrating on civilian targets rather than military.

quote:


The explosion on Lusitania after it was torpedoed was shown in computer modeling to be coal dust in empty coal bunkers. If you don't think that is likely to cause a big explosion when disturbed, consider the incidence of grain dust explosions blowing concrete silos apart.



Instead of looking at computer modeling, which does have a limited place, in absence of actual data, if available why not actually look at original documents or speak with people on the ground that were there at the time. Yes, coal bunkers almost always had a small fire in them somewhere. It was a constant battle, many ships were lost because the fires got out of hand or caused an explosion. The Lusitania manifest contained both rifle and artillery ammunition. If it was coal dust that brought the ship down is irrelevant; the fact is the British were using passenger liners as munitions carriers. The Germans placed adds in the paper at Lusitania embarkation port warning passengers that it was a war ship and subject to un-notified sinking. Not only that there is a bit more than anecdotal evidence regarding the Lusitania, and other ships with U.S. passengers, being used in such a way, by the Lord of the Admiralty to inflame American anger against Germany and bring them into the war on the Allied side.

quote:


Also bear in mind the German sinking of liner Athenia on the first day of WWII. The sub did not surface to allow passengers and crew to get into life boats which was still on the Geneva Conventions books AFAIK.


That is correct but unfortunately leaving out the important part. That the ship was operating under lights out condition on a dark night, That it was zig sagging. If it wanted Geneva convention protection then why was it in violation of Geneva Convention rules. Passenger liners were required to be lit and easily identifiable as such; responsibility for being obvious was upon the ship. They were also required to maneuver as a civilian ship; that does not include zig-zag.

The U-Boat commander was summoned to Berlin for court martial by Donitz. In order to determine if it was a sinking of a passenger ship or a warship. It was Hitler who stopped that and ordered the incident hidden.

Was the court martial because they did not approve of the behavior and was against orders or because they did not want America to get angry over American passengers on board. Who knows.

quote:


Then there are the German AMCs masquerading as merchant ships which were already at sea on the first day of WWII. There were several of them in WWI as well. So who broke the prohibition on armed merchant ships first?


Yes, the English and Germans both had armed warships masquerading as merchant ships. The Germans to sink, the English to protect. Not sure which was first. Both were done prewar. WW2 But could easily have been the Germans.

quote:


I'm sure there are enough incidents to go back and forth on this for a long time, so lets just say rules get bent and broken in war because winning is more important than being nice about it.


Absolutely, was not labeling one side as bad the other as good. War is not a gentleman’s game and rather quickly the sides begin to bend the rules.

One cannot blame the English for being scrappy when in a pinch; and they were definitely in a pinch early on.

It was more of a response to, there were a few good German generals. To there were many good and many bad on both sides. The English nor Americans were that clean. There was lots of dirt to spread around on all sides. History books and such often favor the winner and make the English and American sides smell like roses.


< Message edited by RhinoDad -- 1/10/2021 3:14:54 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 24
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 2:55:39 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
Germans did sink neutral shipping but in response in WW1 to English naval round up a neutral shipping in violation of agreements. An if they are doing it so will we. In WW2 Germans tended to use broken English code to give them ideas of where and when of British supply convoys and then to send groups of submarines across the path. Like the English anything found was fair game. Unlike the English they could not take the goods so they sank it.

That was a heated discussion among English and Germans. How would a submarine capture neutral shipping bound for enemy ports? How would/could submarines give proper warning and see to safety of merchantman crew? etc. It ended up resolving itself in the course of WW2. Basically they did not.

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 25
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 3:07:48 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

Yes, Rotterdam was intentionally bombed as a civilian target. They were following in the English example of civilian targeting in Germany. The English started bombing civilians the Germans followed suit.


I had planned to stay clear of this discussion, but I can’t let this pass.

The Germans bombed cities after the British did so ?

Bombing of Wielun

September 1, 1939, in the early morning. Britain wasn’t even at war yet.

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 26
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 3:08:05 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
My understanding is that the English did not start bombing German civilian area on an intentional basis until London had been bombed by the Germans. Plus, there as a lot of light industry in those civilian areas that supported the war effort. Only in recent history has it been considered unacceptable to harm the civilians.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 27
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 3:26:18 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

It was more of a response to, there were a few good German generals. To there were many good and many bad on both sides. The English nor Americans were that clean. There was lots of dirt to spread around on all sides. History books and such often favor the winner and make the English and American sides smell like roses.


I was waiting for the statement of moral equivalence.

You're correct that the Western Allies were far from clean, compared to the Wehrmacht they looked like a sterile operating theatre. In the armies of the Western Allies, war crimes were not policy. Less so with the Wehrmacht.

You can argue historiography all you like, but you may find Lipstadt's writings of interest.

(in reply to LeeChard)
Post #: 28
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 4:44:40 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
For a thread that started by asking about disbanding TFs, we seem to have had some "mission creep" here!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 29
RE: TF Cohesion - 1/10/2021 5:12:40 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

Yes, Rotterdam was intentionally bombed as a civilian target. They were following in the English example of civilian targeting in Germany. The English started bombing civilians the Germans followed suit.


I had planned to stay clear of this discussion, but I can’t let this pass.

The Germans bombed cities after the British did so ?

Bombing of Wielun

September 1, 1939, in the early morning. Britain wasn’t even at war yet.


Yes, RAF policy was officially changed immediately after the Luftwaffe bombing of Rotterdam in support of infantry in a deadlock in the city, to include civilian targeting. They followed up with raids on German cities the following day. German cities at that time were just beginning to institute blackout because of a French Bombing of the Berlin airport.

The initial bombing of London, if you can even call it that, was an accident and was caused under blackout conditions at night by one bomber dropping his unused load on return to France. With blackout and at night it is next to impossible to see what you are over. Dead reckoning often used to find targets then makes that worse. The suburb hit also contained a nearby airfield and was the bombers secondary target. It also was not in London but in the London Air Civil defense zone. It was not a large populated area. The pilot was summoned to Berlin for court martial as Hitler had personally ordered London bombing off limits and to take care not to kill civilians. It was thought that he would be executed. However, on the trip to Berlin the English bombed London and infuriated Hitler who then ordered London bombed in retaliation as well as an attempt to draw the RAF into a fight. The pilot then ended up with all charges dropped and no court martial. London was not bombed until rather late in the Battle of Britain and Germany advantages were faltering.

British always the master at propaganda called it a dastardly raid on civilians in London. But today, it is a part of London, though then it was not. They also inflated the Rotterdam casualties to around 100,000 civilians in a bombing with total disregard to civilian casualties, when the Dutch estimated the civilian casualties at around 30,000 and in direct support of German troops on the ground, and that the Germans had demonstrated care in trying to minimize collateral damage.

********

French bombing of Berlin in June, though they took great care to only hit Berlin Airport. Was very small and in WW1 stile many of munitions were hand dropped out the plane’s window on very low airport flyover. They were helped by the fact that German cities were not implementing blackout at the time. But it did get the Germans to begin blackout implementations.

British strategic bombing of German cities May

German bombing of airfield outside of London late August, somewhere under 10 civilians died from stray bombs; British propaganda claimed it a civilian bombing of London and used it as pretext for Berlin strategic bombing

British strategic bombing of Berlin late August

German London and other cities strategic bombing September.

*********

Until the Berlin bombing, by the British, the Luftwaffe was under strict orders from Hitler personally to restrict bombing to military targets that would pose minimum risk to civilians. Violations were punishable by up to death. After Berlin things changed.

Please do not get me wrong, Hitler was in no way a good person. But at least in the west the Germans started out with a more gentlemanly approach. The English are a scrappy people and they were losing at the time. At this time many even in England believed that they would lose the war and championed for a negotiated settlement. The British did not wish to lose.

However, strategic bombing was something done/tried in WW1 by both sides. However, at least both sides tried to undertake policies between the wars to minimize civilian casualties at least in the beginning of WW2. (And only on the western front)

Note the English raids on Berlin were quite small as there were few bombers with the range to strike. Strikes on other German cities were larger but small compared to later raids that were to come.

Churchill was known to be elated by the German switch to strategic targeting as it meant the RAF would be able to recover and surely win the Battle of Britain it was the beginning of the end.

German policy also shifted after bombing of German cities to one of threatening the Benelux countries with strategic bombing if they did not surrender. Prior they would infiltrate the civilian populations trying to spread panic and thereby clog the roads with fleeing civilians; limiting the ability for troop maneuver.

With continued strategic bombing employed by the RAF. It also opened up strategic targets in populated cities as civilian collateral damage was now seen as acceptable. Prior large populated cities were seen as off limits because they would cause large numbers of civilian deaths; it was not in direct support of military. Targets were confined to targets of a more direct military nature. Airfields, ships in harbor (not at docks), etc. (close and tactical air support) It is distinct from the strategic bombing employed early on by the RAF; that of bombing cities that might have some use to the enemies war effort.

Your example is of a bombing in Poland. That is the eastern front. Slavs were considered by western European as near savages and by the Germans as sub-human. The Germans had a whole different set of rules of engagement for Army, Navy, Air forces on the eastern front. Was under the impression this discussion was on the western or African front. If it includes all fronts than yes, the Germans were the first to employ strategic bombing, but was confined to eastern front. These did not involve western allied troops. It also has gone on a bit longer than originally thought.

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> TF Cohesion Page: [1] 2   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

1.563