RE: AIRCRAFT !! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

JeffroK -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 5:38:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).

BTW, I already know the answer about the Wellington, I'm just waiting for an interesting answer.

Every man should know his limitations.

[image]local://upfiles/7909/58026C42395D4620859C4F8F1AAB8869.jpg[/image]


The French & I think the Argentinians used the Lanc after the war[8D] (Someone beat me to the French)



JeffroK -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 5:45:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage

Now I know you are full of.......


Why the hell is this in reply to me; I never said it!!!!
If you can't correctly use the reply option after more than 1,000 posts, try quoting!!!



Humbly sorry your highness[&o][&o][&o]



Jim D Burns -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 10:20:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command
When attacking 177 Unescorted Bombers with 100 Fighters, i would based on historicle results and Aircraft Preformance, Pilot Avverage Skill, and other factors, demand that at least 50-125 Bombers were shot down, and thats a abseloute minimum!



Well this is completely absurd, one of the worst unescorted raids of the war was the Schweinfurt raid. About 350 B-17s flew across hundreds of kilometers of enemy territory and were attacked over and over by hundreds if not thousands of enemy fighters, and only 60 planes were lost.

Granted almost all of the bombers were damaged (many beyond repair), but only 60 were shot down, that’s about 20% of the raid and that’s one of the worst raids of the war in terms of losses, if not the worst. The other 99% of unescorted raids were over enemy territory for a mere fraction of the time that the Schweinfurt raid was, so your demanded loss ratio above is completely absurd and unsupportable.

You’re *educated* demands smack of an emotional reaction to getting pounded in game. While I empathize with your need to vent, your arrogant tone and insulting nature make me think you’re simply a poor sport with a need to lash out at someone, so you come here and start your thread by basically attacking the entire forum community.

Suck it up and take it like a man, and quit making grand pronouncements that are totally unsupportable. Besides if you’re the kind of player who likes to play in the gamey style of creating an unstoppable death star of 72 land units in one hex, you deserve the consequences of that action.

Jim



Mike Scholl -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 10:28:40 AM)

WELL SAID! And I concur 100% with your assessment of the entire situation.



m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 1:59:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command
When attacking 177 Unescorted Bombers with 100 Fighters, i would based on historicle results and Aircraft Preformance, Pilot Avverage Skill, and other factors, demand that at least 50-125 Bombers were shot down, and thats a abseloute minimum!



Well this is completely absurd, one of the worst unescorted raids of the war was the Schweinfurt raid. About 350 B-17s flew across hundreds of kilometers of enemy territory and were attacked over and over by hundreds if not thousands of enemy fighters, and only 60 planes were lost.

Granted almost all of the bombers were damaged (many beyond repair), but only 60 were shot down, that’s about 20% of the raid and that’s one of the worst raids of the war in terms of losses, if not the worst. The other 99% of unescorted raids were over enemy territory for a mere fraction of the time that the Schweinfurt raid was, so your demanded loss ratio above is completely absurd and unsupportable.

You’re *educated* demands smack of an emotional reaction to getting pounded in game. While I empathize with your need to vent, your arrogant tone and insulting nature make me think you’re simply a poor sport with a need to lash out at someone, so you come here and start your thread by basically attacking the entire forum community.

Suck it up and take it like a man, and quit making grand pronouncements that are totally unsupportable. Besides if you’re the kind of player who likes to play in the gamey style of creating an unstoppable death star of 72 land units in one hex, you deserve the consequences of that action.

Jim




Ditto.(Of course).
Gotta wonder about the "university".[8|]

High Command, in your initial comments in this thread you did kinda denegrate the forum as a whole. Of course you should expect the forum to respond.
While you seem to have addressed us as elementary school kids, the facts are we include Aeronautical engineers, pilots, professional warriors, college students,(and grads), doctors, lawyers, (possible American Indian chiefs), and most certainly veterans of wars, (not just elementary school kids.)
Besides, as a school kid, I was pretty savvy to WWII aircraft, and had met several of the famous pilots of that war at aviation historical meetings, book sales, etc.
As long as WITP has been released, do you suppose none of us have ever found things about the game we did not like?
Matrix has listened to us over the years and has occasionally altered the game to suit many of our postings.
Your post, however, went beyond finding fault, and set a tone of hostility against *us*...
If you were trying this tactic to get anybodies attention, you succeeded, but not the way you may have intended.
This forum is not a select group.
Anybody can join, and are welcome to share their knowledge, and we appreciate input of merit, but your comments seem to lack either knowledge, or merit.
You may still redeem your credibility.
Just re-think your future posts, because once offered, they cannot be taken back, (even with the "edit" button.[sm=00000924.gif]



Reg -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 2:11:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).


(And France. Yes they did! [:)])

[img]http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/lancaster/images/lancaster-003.jpg[/img]

She definitely was a beautiful bird by the way


We can add New Zealand to the list, and thank you for the French info,but your info is post war. (My error was in saying "ever"..)
At any rate, I did not know the French used them even then.[;)]



m10bob,

The Lancaster held at the Bull Creek museum in Perth, Western Australia is one of these ex-French Navy birds.

Someone may be able to correct me but I think the story was that a couple were bought by aviation enthusiasts in Noumea and were intended to be flown back to England in the fifties sometime. I believe that one broke down in Perth and there she remains to this day. (I believe they got their Super Constellation engine off NASA the same way). There are obviously some advantages of being miles from anywhere!! [:D]

If you ever get to Western Australia, Bull Creek is definately worth a visit. The musuem is on the same property as a retirement home run by the Air Force Association and the residents spend some of their time in the museum.

I was in there one afternoon closely examining a Bomber Command log book when this elderly gentleman came up and started talking to us. It turned out that it was his log book and he was most pleased to see our interest. He was a bomb aimer on Halifaxes and lamented that so few had survived to this day (a couple of non-flyers IIRC). He also told us how he was shot down by a nightfighter which turned out to be a good yarn. I found out all about the Martin Baker pin and his (displayed beside the log book) had red eyes.

Sorry about the digression, now back to the thread.....

EDIT: Grammar [:(]

Found this link: History of our Lancaster



m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 2:18:18 PM)

I have seen the Lanc at the RCAF museum in Windsor.(Hope it is still there?)



High Command -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 2:50:54 PM)

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.





Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:05:03 PM)

Well I suppose that's what you may have taken from Wikipedia while editing the article to add People's Republic of China this very morning in the operators list...?

[;)]

quote:

For 81.229.109.180


Still if this story is true Im looking forward learning more about it. That's quite an undocumented part of the Lancaster's operational history [:)]



High Command -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:06:41 PM)

I do recommend you to read a book instead, but if you dont have any, i guess Wikepedia is ok to use..



Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:19:37 PM)

quote:

Never use Wikepedia, it is filled with error.

Personaly i recommend you to read a good book instead


Man you're not gonna leave like that. I just could leave you like that after your PM and let it go but I don't like crooks. You wanna play? you assume it.

Now would 81.229.109.180 magically be a Swedish or Norvegian IP?

quote:

role: TeliaNet Registry
address: TeliaSonera AB Networks
address: Marbackagatan 11
address: SE-123 86 Farsta
address: Sweden
address: ********************************
address: Abuse and intrusion reports should
address: be sent to: abuse@telia.com
address: ********************************
fax-no: +46 8 6047006
e-mail: registry@telia.net
e-mail: dns@telia.net
e-mail: backbone@telia.net
admin-c: AA90-RIPE
admin-c: EVAO
tech-c: AA90-RIPE
tech-c: YL39-RIPE
tech-c: IC106-RIPE
tech-c: ACA-RIPE
tech-c: JS7984-RIPE
tech-c: OE207-RIPE
tech-c: EVAO
tech-c: PJ2540-RIPE
tech-c: IF264-RIPE
tech-c: LS483-RIPE
tech-c: KO551-RIPE
tech-c: OA667-RIPE
tech-c: PB8229-RIPE
tech-c: SV2344-RIPE
nic-hdl: TR889-RIPE
mnt-by: TELIANET-LIR
source: RIPE # Filtered% This is the RIPE Whois query server #2.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
%
% Rights restricted by copyright.
% See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html

% Note: This output has been filtered.
% To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag

% Information related to '81.224.0.0 - 81.236.255.255'

inetnum: 81.224.0.0 - 81.236.255.255
netname: TELIANET
descr: Telia Network Services
descr: ISP
country: SE
admin-c: TR889-RIPE
tech-c: TR889-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-domains: TELIANET-LIR
mnt-by: TELIANET-LIR
mnt-lower: TELIANET-LIR
mnt-routes: TELIANET-RR
source: RIPE # Filtere


How funny, there must be a thousand other Swedish users who had interest in editing the operators part of the Avro Lancaster article this very morning

If you are willing to play, then assume the consequences boss.



High Command -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:21:33 PM)

???

Im not sure i manage to follow you here, if you have informartion and see that many peapole dont have it, why dont you help them to get the information?

Whats wrang with doing that, thats how we learn, we share information?

I have nothing more to add, i think this Forum is strange, and have removed my self from it.

Good Luck and Good Bye




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:25:09 PM)

High Command, as I just told you as an answer to your weird PMs, we would be more than pleased to have you share your informations about Chinese Lancasters with us. We're many here to be looking for somes sources about that. We don't ask a lot - just a reference and a couple lines. We'd be happy to be proven wrong (Im particularly interested in everything that has to do with Chinese army btw). You'd be the most welcome

So please stop acting like a child, saying you didn't do things you obviously did, and please show us your references, because they seem quite interesting to me.

PS:
By the way no need to erase your profile out of the forum, I suppose enough people already saw your location... Man that's really Childish from you [&:]



Joe D. -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:53:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

... Humbly sorry your highness[&o][&o][&o]


We haven't had an aristocracey here for centuries, but there is a current TV show titled "Who wants to be an (Austalian) Princess."



Historiker -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 3:59:22 PM)

Hey High Command.
What's the university you've been at and what have you studied there? :)



Milman -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 4:27:36 PM)

This isn't simulation od pacific ww2 . this is just a strategy game . If you search trough forum you will see at least 1000 topics about bad interpretation of ww2 in this game . We know this isn't 100% accurate game and i am happy about that becouse noone would play Japan side if it is .

Read manual , play few PBEM's and you will understand why some things aren't like in RL . Probably you will even ask for few more unrealistic changes to make game more realistic/playable . PC , which we have today , still can't run game engine which can give us 100% accurate and 100% realistic game .

I hope you understand my "version" of english :).

edit : replying to High Command



Joe D. -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 4:51:00 PM)

Its both a strategy (general category) game and a simulation of the PTO; WitP/UV are too detailed to be just recreations, i.e., CaW.

But these games have hypothetical scenarios and experimental mods that won't conform to reality for the reasons already stated by other posters in this thread.

However, other threads as to why Imperial Japan couldn't take PM, or hold Guadalcanal, or win at Midway, etc., came to the conclusion that the single player's unity of command gives him unheralded cooperation between his own service branches that historically didn't happen, esp. w/the IJN; this service had terrible relations w/their own Army, sometimes resulting in half-hearted cooperation between them.

PBEM players playing as teams are probably the most realistic application of this genre.



Milman -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 5:11:32 PM)

In my opinion witp isn't simulation becouse player don't control every aspect which contributed to war effort in pacific during ww2 .

But even without that there is no better simulation (if we call it like that) today .



Howard Mitchell -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 5:51:56 PM)


Avro Lancasters in foreign service – the RAF and associated commonwealth airforces operated the Lancaster, but so did a number of other airforces, post war.
The French Aeronavale operated Lancasters from February 1952 in the maritime surveillance role. An initial order for 54 ex-RAF machines was placed and work started on converting aircraft in 1950. The dorsal turrets were removed and provision made to fit an auxiliary 400-gallon fuel tank in the bomb compartment, and late-standard centimetric ASV radar was fitted under the rear fuselage (see Fishbed’s marvellously clear picture above). These aircraft were phased out of front-line service in the mid-1950s in favour of Lockheed P2V-6 Neptunes provided under the Mutual Defence Aid Programme from the United States.

The French Lancasters were then assigned to a number of second line units, performing search and rescue aircraft off the African coast, training, and more maritime surveillance. The last of these seems to have been phased out of Escadrille 56S in the early 1960s – they had been used as flying classrooms for training non-pilot aircrew and were replaced by C-47s.

Argentina ordered 15 Lancasters which it used to replace pre-war bombers. Deliveries began in May 1948 and they served with Grupo 2 of II Brigada Aerea but were hardly ever flown in anger due mostly to the lack of training and maintenance facilities. No fewer than 10 aircraft were written off in accidents. Three were converted to transports, of which two also crashed.

Egypt ordered nine ex-RAF Lancaster Is, but the aircraft were deliberately not delivered until 1950 as the region was tense enough already. Shortage of spares and a dearth of suitable training facilities ensured that little use was made of them and by 1954 only three remained airworthy, the remainder having been broken up to provide spares.

The Swedes operated a single Lancaster they purchased, one which was being held as a spare for the Argentine airforce, as a test-bed for the Swedish Dovern turbojet. It was flown with the new engine under the fuselage in1951 and was lost in a crash in 1956.

Information from ‘The Avro Lancaster’ by Francis K. Mason.

I have never come across a reference to the Chinese operating Lancasters. While this book and others I have list countries which operated the Lancaster they naturally do not list all the countries which did not, but I would want to see some hard evidence to support such an unlikely claim.



Mike Scholl -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 6:24:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milman

In my opinion witp isn't simulation becouse player don't control every aspect which contributed to war effort in pacific during ww2 .



At exactly what level of command would one control "every aspect which contributed to the war effort"? If you are high enough up to control production and resource allocation, then you are far too high up to be "dinking around" with anything on the tactical level. Lyndon Johnson and McNamara tried that, and the results were disasterous.



Milman -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 7:42:47 PM)

I don't say i would like that , just explainig whay i can't call it simulation of ww2 in pacific .



Mike Scholl -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 7:53:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milman

I don't say i would like that , just explainig whay i can't call it simulation of ww2 in pacific .



To be a "simulation", it has to be simulated from a specific point of view. If you are Roosevelt, you are very powerful in a "buck stops here" frame of reference...but you can only chose from strategic and production options presented to you by your staff. If you are MacArthur, you get to make the tactical decisions in your theatre..., but your strategic decisions come down from above.

If anything, WITP fails as a "simulation" for exactly the opposite of the reason you cited. The player has too much control from top-to-bottom..., everything from altering national production to deciding what altitude an air attack in the SW Pacific will fly at. It's a bit schitzophrenic...



Milman -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 8:21:02 PM)

Example : Panzer Elite game .

Simulation of tank/tank platoon . I can do every thing which was posible in RL .

Simulation of WITP - I need to have influence on all things which were imortant for that theater of war . president Roosevelt decision , Industry and research , and every thing in organization of army .

If i am MacArthur that is , as you said , only simulation of one theater .

I am aware that this concept is imposible for game and even if someone make it we will need 7 brains and 9 hands to play it :) .



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 9:09:44 PM)

I haven't seen a good old fashioned verbal scrap here for some time [:D].

changing wikipedia to confirm a dubious statement .. bad naughty person. Isn't Wiki supposed to be 'policed' to some minor extent to prevent fraudulent claims , else it's a completely unreliable source text [&:]

72 units ! [X(], 10,000 losses [8|],wonder what a 'real' nuke would do to that stack [;)]. IE 5-6 Battleships with full recon [8D].BOOM !

So in a nutshell , High Command enters the forum, posts in an arrogant and demeaning manner , insults everyone here by 'pigeon holing us all' as 'kids' Cough I'm cough 40 cough and by no means the eldest. Edits wikipedia to validate his bizarre claims, refuses to share his 'knowledge' or sources then runs away sulking , announcing to all here 'i withdraw ' , come on nemo give us an assessment of his mental state (or lack thereof).

Personally i think we are all better off without him [;)]

As for his opponent , well i wish you well in your game but i have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as his game starts going badly he'll bail faster than an Indian in a leaking canoe.

Fish - nice digging there [;)]

I feel better now .. thanks for the comedy postings high command, made my evening [:D]

humm now i think on this .. Marky ! yes I'm looking in your direction .. alt maybe ?[:-][;)]





Joe D. -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 10:04:37 PM)

I've actually played Panzer Elite; you're the leader of a platoon of WW II tanks w/realistic armour protection, ammo levels, etc., in a series of short semi-historical scenarios via a frag order and a strip map of the area.

But PG is a real-time scenario simulation w/the player in the first person perspective, way down the chain of command; it doesn't really compare w/the massive turn-based WitP theater. I think the issue here is more semantics and a grasp of English (no offense intended -- Serbo-Croatian -- even in the Latin alphabet -- wasn't my strong suit when I was in the Balkans).

There have been long discussions on the UV forum as to whether Grigsby games were tactical or strategic as WitP/UV seems to be both at the same time.

And I don't think anyone will miss High Command; even his handle was arrogant.






Mike Scholl -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 10:07:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milman
I am aware that this concept is imposible for game and even if someone make it we will need 7 brains and 9 hands to play it :) .




Agreed. What would really make this game a "simulation" would be if it were set up as a "multi-player" only event. One Strategic Commander, and several tactical/area commanders. Well, we can dream anyway.....



matchwood -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 10:16:19 PM)

[/quote]
who the hell are you to call me a troll, get back into your little internet bubble and calm down, you my friend are taking yourself way too seriously and I believe the guy that started the thread is looking for trouble as I believe are you and I expect an apology on being called a troll
[/quote]

Did I miss anything? I'm not being cheeky, please don't "DELEATED" me.



eloso -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/23/2007 1:23:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

As for his opponent , well i wish you well in your game but i have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as his game starts going badly he'll bail faster than an Indian in a leaking canoe.



Thanks for the wishes. I don't think he'll bail as this will most likely be his only game since he's deleted his account and embarrassed himself to the point that finding another opponent will be difficult. I've played him in HOI2 MP before and he is the type of guy that won't quit until his last unit is removed from the map. I could be wrong though.

Well... It looks like I opened a big can of worms with this. I'm pretty embarrassed about my opponent's behavior here.

We had an hour and a half debate over MSN regarding this matter in which I suggested he post here if he felt there was a true problem with the A2A model in this scenario of CHS in order to give feedback for improvements in a later version.

His response was that everyone here was ignorant. I told him that was an arrogant statement. While there are some people here that may fit that description, I didn't think it was a very good judgment on his part to come in here slinging mud right off the bat.

I'm not sure I want to continue playing him now. I'll have to think about it.




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/23/2007 1:36:12 AM)

Well Im sorry about that OSO. But as I told your opponent several times, well he's the most welcomed to show us his references and we'll be listening to him very carefully.
Moreover, if he wishes to stop all this, give up the past and behave like we all do, well I have the word *peace* written all over my forefront [;)]
Got nothing against him (and that's also because Im truly an ignorant [:)] )

(PS: btw OSO Im a Paradox forums vet too, and well I can understand how certain people among the HoI mob can look and act weirdly from time to time, so you have my true sympathy and understanding [;)])



JeffroK -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/23/2007 2:00:15 AM)

.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.78125