RE: THE THREAD!!! (Full Version)

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



Message


rtrapasso -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:25:16 PM)

XOING!!!




bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:26:25 PM)

drats. another drf lost.




Dixie -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:27:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava
I don't know. I have the base package plus the compilation of the ART files that was made for CHS. It should be ok, I think the game may have some issues with Vista, but on the other hand stock would not run either.


Have you tried printing out the install batch file that doesn't work and doing the commands manually?



I say. I did the manual installation but I have no idea how to do the things that the batch file does when it comes to swapping the map in an old fashioned commands line way.[:)]


It's not that hard. If you will cut and paste the batch file into a PM, I will translate it into English (sorry, I don't know Polish).....or pig latin if you prefer. [:'(]


I am operating an English verion of the sytem. [;)] Do you want the whole .bat or just what shows up? [:D] With the second option might be a problem since it actually does not want to start[8|]


The whole thing. Better yet, email me. I'll PM my email to you.


Hey, Brother Yava!

2 things.

First, if stock wouldn't run on your Vista install, you need to get that resolved first. Forget CHS until you get stock WitP to run OK.

Second, unless you play stock games as well as your CHS game, you don't need to use the batch files to install and switch between maps. You can manually install the AB Extended map and leave it. I haven't looked at a stock map or scenario since I installed CHS last fall. [8D]


Hello Mike!
Stock works, but CHS does not and it's a pity since with Dixie we were planning to continue our game...[:)]


Can you load any of the CHS scenarios that are based on the 'normal' version of AB's map?




bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:34:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

What's wrong with it?


Well, it does not want to load.


How bizarre [&:] Maybe it's a dodgy scenario file or similar?

why don't you get someone that has loaded it correctly to use webex or go to my pc to help yava(i have never loaded it manualy).




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:36:21 PM)




U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3




Serial No. 008




8 May 1944.








S E C R E T








From:

The Commanding Officer.



To:
The Commander in Chief, United States Fleet.








Via:
(1)  Commander Task Group 21.11.




(2)  Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.








Subject:
Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








Reference:
(a)  Atlantic Fleet Confidential Letter 13 CL-43(Revised)




(b)  Article 712, U.S. Navy Regulations, 1920.








Enclosure:
(A)  Track chart of engagement.







        1.        A German submarine believed to be U-66 from papers found on survivors was attacked and sunk by this vessel between 0320 and 0336N, 6 May 1944, in Lat. 17-17N, Long. 32-29W.








        2.        The entire engagement was fought on the surface.  This vessel, operating in Task Group 21.11 as screen for the USS BLOCK ISLAND, was detached to investigate a disappearing radar contact at 2120N, 5 May 1944.  An observant search was conducted for one hour, followed by a retiring search commencing at 2224.  At 0216, plane T21 of the USS BLOCK ISLAND reported a radar contact bearing 3500T distance 20 miles from BUCKLEY.  This plane was on all night radar patrol and carried no armament.  Speed was increased to flank (23.5 knots) and ship headed for contact on information given by plane.  During the ensuing forty-five minutes, plane continued to give a steady stream of useful information by voice radio on the actions of the submarine, which it was tracking from a distance, apparently without being detected.








        3.        The night was brilliantly moonlit, with the moon about 25 high to the west.  Sea was calm, with a gentle breeze from the northeast.  The plane observed that the sub appeared to be lying to, at times moving in circles, and at times steaming on a steady course.  This information was later corroborated by BUCKLEY's radar plot.  It fitted admirably with information to the effect that enemy refueling operations were being carried on in this area.  The assumption was immediately obvious that this was either a refueler or an operating sub awaiting rendezvous with a refueler.  This was corroborated by prisoners.











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













DE51/A16-3




Serial No. 008








S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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








        4.        Radar contact on SL radar was made at 14,000 yards, bearing 3350T, at 0245.  General Quarters was sounded at 0246, it being then apparent that the sub was closer than originally supposed.  BUCKLEY altered course to 3400T.  Courses determined for the sub by C.I.C. were irregular, and the idea of using torpedoes to attack was therefore abandoned.  Flank speed was maintained, and it was decided to approach the target as nearly as possible up the path of the moon.  Sound gear was secured.  It was also decided to withhold fire until the last possible moment, on the chance that the enemy might think BUCKLEY was the other sub due at the rendezvous.  Depth charges were set on shallow.








        5.        The order to stream FXR gear was given at 0300 and gear was reported streamed at 0303.  Target was then at a range of 9,000 yards.  The first indication that the enemy had sighted BUCKLEY came when the sub fired three red flares, which were apparently a recognition signal, at about 0308.  BUCKLEY did not reply.








        6.        At 0317, at range 4,000 yards, the submarine came in full view silhouetted against the moon.  BUCKLEY, still at flank speed on a northerly course, came left with standard rudder to course 2600T, bringing the sub dead ahead.  Just after the turn, personnel aft reported a torpedo wake passing down the starboard side.  This wake was also picked up by the SL radar operator, indicating that the torpedo was running shallow, but it was not seen on the bridge.  At 0319, course was altered right to 2900T, to keep the sub in the moon, avoid torpedoes, and expose the FXR to possible torpedo tracks.  All guns were loaded at this time.  Submarine bore 2550T.  The enemy opened fire first with machine guns.








        7.        The next few minutes witnessed fast action, as follows:









0320
Order given on BUCKLEY to commence firing.  Range 2100 yards.  The very first salvo from 3" guns scored a direct hit on the sub's forecastle just forward of the deck gun out of action temporarily.  Rapid fire followed from all guns that would bear, including 20mm, 40mm and 3".  Throughout engagement 3" battery was controlled from bridge, using SL radar ranges, and deflection settings given by gunnery officer.  Pointer fire was used throughout.








- 2 -











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3



Serial No. 008







S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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













0322
Cease Fire.  Sub was getting out of moon wake to the north.  Sub now began firing with deck gun.  Rudder was put over left full.  Fire from sub's machine-guns was considerable at this time, but high, the tracers consistently passing over the heads of personnel on the bridge.  Fire from the sub's deck gun was also high, the only hit being scored on BUCKLEY's stack.  Several short splashes, as close as 25 yards, were also seen.  BUCKLEY steadies on course 1800T.






0323
Resume fire.  Range 1,500 yards.  Sub was again directly up-moon.  At this time fire from all guns was very rapid and accurate.  20mm and 40mm shells could be seen bursting and splattering on the sub's conning tower, and all


0324
fire from the sub ceased, except for intermittent short bursts.  Sub was maneuvering rapidly at about 19 knots, apparently in an effort to open range and fire another torpedo from stern tubes, but making no attempt to dive.  Torpedo wake reported on starboard bow.  Rudder put over right full.  Torpedo crossed bow.  Plane T-21 of the USS BLOCK ISLAND, directly overhead, contributing valuable and accurate spotting information by voice radio.  This also afforded personnel in C.I.C., where voice radio speaker was located, a running account of the engagement, which the pilot was giving C.T.G. 21.11 in BLOCK ISLAND.  Throughout this period range was closing rapidly.  A fire was started on sub's bridge by the intense gun fire, and this burned with increasing intensity until snuffed out by a 3" direct hit.






0325
Sub buried under withering point blank machine gun and 3" fire.  Range closing rapidly, (1,000-500 yards) with BUCKLEY following evasive maneuvers of sub.






0328
Sub close aboard (20 yards) to starboard on parallel course.  Raked from bow to stern by machine gun fire (20mm and 40mm) and point blank 3" fire.








- 3 -











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3



Serial No. 008







S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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













0329
BUCKLEY, alongside sub, gives hard right rudder, rides up on forecastle of sub and stays there.  Men begin swarming out of submarine and up on BUCKLEY's forecastle.  Machine gun, tommy gun, and rifle fire knocks off several.  Ammunition expended at this time included several general mess coffee cups which were on hand at ready gun station.  Two of the enemy were hit in the head with these.  Empty shell cases were also used by crew of 3" gun #2 to repel boarders.  3" guns could not bear.  BUCKLEY suffers only casualty of engagement when man bruises fist knocking one of enemy over the side.  Several men, apparently dead, could be seen hanging over the side of the sub's bridge at this time.  The boatswain's mate in charge of forward ammunition party kills a man, attempting to board, with .45 pistol.  Man falls back over side.  Midships repair party equipped with rifles mans life lines and picks off several men on deck of submarine.  Chief Fire Controlman uses Tommy gun from bridge with excellent results.






0330
BUCKLEY stops all engines and backs off, to avoid boarding too many of enemy, some of whom came aboard armed.  Sub draws ahead rapidly, maintaining speed of about 18 knots.  Five prisoners are disarmed and taken aft.






0331
All engines ahead full.  Machine gun, small arms and 3" hits rain on sub's topside.  BUCKLEY again closes range.  All engines ahead flank.






0333
Starboard K guns prepared to fire.  BUCKLEY plans to draw up alongside and overtake sub, then fire throwers so that shallow charges will explode under sub's forefoot.








- 4 -











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3



Serial No. 008







S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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













0355
Sub, still making about 18 knots, intentionally or out of control, veers sharply to port toward BUCKLEY, now alongside at distance of 25 yards with bow abreast of BUCKLEY's bridge.  BUCKLEY stops starboard engine and gives right full rudder in an attempt to swing stern clear and protect shafting.  Order is given to set depth charges on safe.  Sub strikes BUCKLEY glancing blow and bow of sub rides under BUCKLEY's after engine room.  Sub slowly rolls over to 600 angle.  Personnel on deck have a clear view into conning tower, which is a flaming shambles.  Man on deck of sub attempting to man gun disintegrates when hit by 40-millimeter shells.  Torpedomen throw hand grenades, one of which drops through sub's open conning tower hatch before exploding.  20mm continue raking fire.  Sub slowly draws aft on starboard side with bow under BUCKLEY, scraping along ship's side.






0336
Sub clears and passes astern, still making about 15 knots.  No. 3 3" gun scores 3 direct hits on conning tower.  Sub dissappears under surface of water at this speed under Diesel power with conning tower hatch open and fire blazing from it, apparently completely abandoned and out of control.  Forward hatch also open.  Entire action has lasted 16 minutes.






0339
Heavy deep underwater explosion heard, followed by smaller explosions.  Plane drops sono-buoy on position.  BUCKLEY stops engines.  Indications negative.  BUCKLEY starts sound gear, which had remained retracted throughout and was in good condition.  No contact.








- 5 -











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3



Serial No. 008







S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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








        8.        For the next three hours BUCKLEY steamed at slow speed through the area, picking up a total of thirty-six surviviors, including four officers.  Most of them carried schrapnel or heavire wounds.  Prisoners stated that they had thought they were being attacked by a light cruiser.  Several large oil slicks were present.








       9.        During the 16 minutes between BUCKLEY's first commence firing and the time the sub sank, BUCKLEY expended the following ammunition:







3"  50 caliber
105 rounds.


(Guns #3, which could not always bear, fired only 20 rounds

20mm
2700 rounds.




40mm
418 rounds.









Small Arms


.45 caliber ball
300 rounds.




.30 caliber ball
60 rounds.




Shotgun shells




00 buckshot
30 rounds.




Grenades, fragmentation
2










       10.        Damage suffered by BUCKLEY included the following:








(a)
Starboard shaft sheared outside of skin of ship.


(b)
After engine room holed on starboard side with a 5" hole 2 feet above waterline and side of ship buckled from frame 110 to 115.  Hole extended into laundry in compartment C-201.


(c)
Peak tank and ram bow buckled and pierced but after bulkhead of peak tank at frame 6 intact.


(d)
Several holes of various sizes in superstructure, stack, etc., caused by enemy hits, mostly small caliber.







- 6 -











[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableBody.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-505TableMargin.jpg[/image]













U.S.S. BUCKLEY (DE51)




c/o Fleet Post Office




New York, N Y.








DE51/A16-3



Serial No. 008







S E C R E T

8 May 1944








Subject:        Action report of Engagement with German Submarine, 6 May 1944.








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








        11.        Damage control measures were instituted immediately.  Mattresses backed with heavy shoring were used to block off hole in after engine room and laundry.  Leakage here was completely stopped.  A 5/8" wire strap was taken around one of the blades of the starboard screw and secured to a bit on deck.  This prevented the screw from turning and banging against the ship's side while ship was under way.  Locking shaft was ineffectual to accomplish this, since shaft was completely sheared.  Ship was then able to maintain a cruising speed of 12 knots on the port screw.  Further repairs were made two days later by ship's company, which welded a temporary patch over hole in after engine room.








       12.        In spite of the fct that the sub was close alongside for a full minute after ramming by BUCKLEY, opinions differed widely as to sub's appearance and armament.  A gun resembling a quadruple mount 20mm was seen on the bandstand just aft of the conning tower.  Some crew members stated that other 20mm guns were mounted on deck aft.  The commanding officer personally observed no deck gun forward, although view of the sub's forecastle was obscured by BUCKLEY's bow.  Nor did he personally observe any gunfire from a gun of this type during the engagement.







       13.        The commanding officer is proud of the fighting spirit, coolness in action, and through going teamwork shown by all hands.  It was these characteristics, more than the individual brilliance or heroism of any one officer or man, which concluded the action successfully.  By other correspondence, the ship's company who particularly distinguished themselves.  Enclosure (A) emphasizes the high degree of maneuverability of this type vessel for ramming tactics.







        14.        This action report is classified secret, with the request that it be reclassified downward if deemed proper by superior authority.  Since action did not involve an attack on a submerged submarine, no report on Form ASW-1 will be submitted.












                                                                          B. M. ABEL.







Copy to:



      Cominch (direct)



      Cinclant (direct)



       ComASDevlant



Note on the coffee cups. They were an older, handless style mug that is very, very heavy. The Navy memorial sells them as "liberty mugs" with specialized logos. I own quite a few , and did indeed "test" one when I first heard this story in Samuel Elliot Morrisons" 14 volume set. It's handle less shape gives excellent ballistic proformance. I'd really hate to get hit with one. I think a hit to the head could be fatal.




rtrapasso -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:39:34 PM)

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]




bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:40:18 PM)

i vote that that might be the longest single post in thread history.




Yava -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:40:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava
I don't know. I have the base package plus the compilation of the ART files that was made for CHS. It should be ok, I think the game may have some issues with Vista, but on the other hand stock would not run either.


Have you tried printing out the install batch file that doesn't work and doing the commands manually?



I say. I did the manual installation but I have no idea how to do the things that the batch file does when it comes to swapping the map in an old fashioned commands line way.[:)]


It's not that hard. If you will cut and paste the batch file into a PM, I will translate it into English (sorry, I don't know Polish).....or pig latin if you prefer. [:'(]


I am operating an English verion of the sytem. [;)] Do you want the whole .bat or just what shows up? [:D] With the second option might be a problem since it actually does not want to start[8|]


The whole thing. Better yet, email me. I'll PM my email to you.


Hey, Brother Yava!

2 things.

First, if stock wouldn't run on your Vista install, you need to get that resolved first. Forget CHS until you get stock WitP to run OK.

Second, unless you play stock games as well as your CHS game, you don't need to use the batch files to install and switch between maps. You can manually install the AB Extended map and leave it. I haven't looked at a stock map or scenario since I installed CHS last fall. [8D]


Hello Mike!
Stock works, but CHS does not and it's a pity since with Dixie we were planning to continue our game...[:)]


Can you load any of the CHS scenarios that are based on the 'normal' version of AB's map?


AB's maps don't load at all the batch file that is supposed to do it does not work.




BrucePowers -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:46:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

This is also why, to this day, the Army still maintains a substantial amount of ground support and recon capability.

Also, I think the A-10s role is somewhat obsolete, as it was originally designed to kill Soviet tanks. That role is now filled by the Apache. With the Army picking up that role there is less of a need for the Air Force to maintain an aircraft whose primary purpose is to loiter over the battlefield.

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.


These roles were taken by the army because the air force did not want to do them. The Army uses helicopters in part because air force interests got a got a law approved that prevents the Army from operating fixed wing combat aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want the job but they don't want the Army doing it either.




USSAmerica -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:54:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

i vote that that might be the longest single post in thread history.


I'll give it the title of Longest THREAD IV post. [:'(]




USSAmerica -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 4:56:48 PM)

Lunch - Tithe. [&o][img]http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/10.gif[/img][&o]




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:09:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]




bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:10:45 PM)

we were just giving you a hard time.[:'(]




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:14:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

This is also why, to this day, the Army still maintains a substantial amount of ground support and recon capability.

Also, I think the A-10s role is somewhat obsolete, as it was originally designed to kill Soviet tanks. That role is now filled by the Apache. With the Army picking up that role there is less of a need for the Air Force to maintain an aircraft whose primary purpose is to loiter over the battlefield.

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.


These roles were taken by the army because the air force did not want to do them. The Army uses helicopters in part because air force interests got a got a law approved that prevents the Army from operating fixed wing combat aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want the job but they don't want the Army doing it either.


In support of this argument , consider that when the USAF decided to get rid of the A-10 , the Army cited the USAF/USA "treaty" that said if a particular mission aircraft was given up by the USAF , then the Army could step in. The Army asked for the A-10's , and the USAF suddenly found a "critical need" for the aircraft. They pulled the same stund in Vietnam in regard to the Cairbou and Buffallo small transports.




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:14:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

we were just giving you a hard time.[:'(]

As usual , you succeeded! [:D]




niceguy2005 -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:22:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

Well, I will join in the genuflecting and supplicating and prostrating and defecating ... oops, lost my train of thought there for a sec, sorry ... but, you know, and express my heartfelt admiration for the hearts, minds, and analysis of the distinguished gentlemen who favor us with the favors of their favorable favors and comments on matters of moment such as these ... in a matter of moments ...

Air superiority is only one aspect of an air force's responsibilities. You can't take and hold ground just by shooting down enemy airplanes. Now, if your air force is going to perform the tasks of air support, ground attack, and the rest of those missions groundpounders appreciate so much, fine. But give them the tools, training, and doctrine to make it possible.

One of the glaring faults in U.S. military doctrine that has been revealed the hard way is that interservice rivalry still rules the day. Let's face it. They hate each other. They want nothing more than to upstage each other, particularly in the area where the rival service is supposed to be pre-eminent (witness the ad hoc development in Iraq of Army air units equipped with jury-rigged aircraft to perform the missions they have been "disappointed" that the Air Force has not carried out with the desired degree of effectiveness.

The A-10 is an old weapon. It remains highly effective. Attack helicopters have shown limitations and vulnerability requiring thorough rethinking of their correct role (and design). Witness the decimation of the attack helicopter units during the Iraq invasion, and the losses that mounted so severely they have since been applied only sparingly and only in situations where they are not at great risk of loss. What is the substitute for the A-10? I don't think that either the Air Force or the Army have come up with suggestions for the design that ought to supersede it. The ground attack versions of the F-16 have only been of limited utility. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just ask the Marines who wholeheartedly lament the final retirement of the Iowa battleships and those comforting 16-inch rifles with that tremendous range for throwing a ton and a half of HE apiece at anything wants to kill Marines.

quote:

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.

Makes good sense - I would only add that somebody has to step up, grab everybody by the throat, and say, "Gentlemen, here is our doctrine. These are the weapons we need. If you disagree, stop by my office, and tell me why. And you better make it good, because if you don't persuade me, there's gonna be a big imprint of my boot right in the middle of your butt."

Somebody's got to take charge and make some decisions. Politicians and politically-influenced military high brass need to find somebody trustworthy and trust him.

Now, back to the Jackson 5 story, starring The Osmond Brothers...

The fact that the Air Forces primary mission is controlling the air over the battle space should not take away from the fact that it also needs to have an offensive strike capability. It needs the ability to take out enemy instillation and reduce an enemies ability to make war through strategic warfare. Space is also a growing concern and IMO the AF should lead the way. Last, but not least the Air Force should have the capability of supporting itself and the other branches of the armed forces with missions such as ground support, air lift, recon, etc.

Personally I think the Army should be allowed to develop more of its own capabilities which directly tie to its mission, to control the battle space on the ground, which could easily include offensive missions from the air. I see no reason why the Army couldn't or shouldn't develop it's own A-10 like AC or use Harriers like the Marines. The only thing is I think technology is going to overtake this paradigm. I think the future of ground support missions are UAVs, which before long will be able to fly right up to an individual and neutralize them. The operator of said UAV may well be sitting in a command center in Utah.




USSAmerica -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:24:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]




niceguy2005 -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:31:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

This is also why, to this day, the Army still maintains a substantial amount of ground support and recon capability.

Also, I think the A-10s role is somewhat obsolete, as it was originally designed to kill Soviet tanks. That role is now filled by the Apache. With the Army picking up that role there is less of a need for the Air Force to maintain an aircraft whose primary purpose is to loiter over the battlefield.

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.


These roles were taken by the army because the air force did not want to do them. The Army uses helicopters in part because air force interests got a got a law approved that prevents the Army from operating fixed wing combat aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want the job but they don't want the Army doing it either.


In support of this argument , consider that when the USAF decided to get rid of the A-10 , the Army cited the USAF/USA "treaty" that said if a particular mission aircraft was given up by the USAF , then the Army could step in. The Army asked for the A-10's , and the USAF suddenly found a "critical need" for the aircraft. They pulled the same stund in Vietnam in regard to the Cairbou and Buffallo small transports.

Yes, as Pasternaki pointed out the inter-service rivalry is ridiculous and IMO a threat to national security. It does not, however, reverse the fact that the reason the Air Force was split off was the Army's unwillingness to take air superiority seriously. Remember, at the time, the greatest threat to the US was strategic bombers from mother Russia.

I think a mistake would be to assume that because air superiority doesn't appear to be an immediate threat, that it won't be and maybe in the near future.

The fix to the problem is to let the Army re-establish an air capable presence.




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:32:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]

Maybe , but consider this....I maybe inadvertadly dropping a "Thread bomb". The forum has difficulty handling that kind of post. I didn't even think about it till after I did it. So , although I know that you guys are kidding , and I appreciate that , I'm serious as to not wanting to do that again. [8|]




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:36:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

This is also why, to this day, the Army still maintains a substantial amount of ground support and recon capability.

Also, I think the A-10s role is somewhat obsolete, as it was originally designed to kill Soviet tanks. That role is now filled by the Apache. With the Army picking up that role there is less of a need for the Air Force to maintain an aircraft whose primary purpose is to loiter over the battlefield.

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.


These roles were taken by the army because the air force did not want to do them. The Army uses helicopters in part because air force interests got a got a law approved that prevents the Army from operating fixed wing combat aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want the job but they don't want the Army doing it either.


In support of this argument , consider that when the USAF decided to get rid of the A-10 , the Army cited the USAF/USA "treaty" that said if a particular mission aircraft was given up by the USAF , then the Army could step in. The Army asked for the A-10's , and the USAF suddenly found a "critical need" for the aircraft. They pulled the same stund in Vietnam in regard to the Cairbou and Buffallo small transports.

Yes, as Pasternaki pointed out the inter-service rivalry is ridiculous and IMO a threat to national security. It does not, however, reverse the fact that the reason the Air Force was split off was the Army's unwillingness to take air superiority seriously. Remember, at the time, the greatest threat to the US was strategic bombers from mother Russia.

I think a mistake would be to assume that because air superiority doesn't appear to be an immediate threat, that it won't be and maybe in the near future.

The fix to the problem is to let the Army re-establish an air capable presence.


Why not pattern it after the USMC? And allow it to be "on call" to back up the USAF as needed? Much as the USMC will do if the USN is short of squadrons or aircraft. Many a CV has sailed the USMC painted on some , or in at least one case all of it's air craft.




Dixie -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:36:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava

AB's maps don't load at all the batch file that is supposed to do it does not work.


Hmmm [:(] Have you installed the standard map first?

How about if I upload my WitP folder, minus the 'useless' bits (sound, video etc), to my webspace for Yava to download?
Does anyone know if there is a legal reason why I would not be able to do this.




rtrapasso -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 5:49:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]

Maybe , but consider this....I maybe inadvertadly dropping a "Thread bomb". The forum has difficulty handling that kind of post. I didn't even think about it till after I did it. So , although I know that you guys are kidding , and I appreciate that , I'm serious as to not wanting to do that again. [8|]


Nah - the spaces aren't going to add a big load to the server... it is the sheer number of posts here that will do us in again.

EDIT - i am probably the biggest "load inducer" - one 40K JPEG upload is probably equivalent to several hundred regular posts.




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 6:08:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]

Maybe , but consider this....I maybe inadvertadly dropping a "Thread bomb". The forum has difficulty handling that kind of post. I didn't even think about it till after I did it. So , although I know that you guys are kidding , and I appreciate that , I'm serious as to not wanting to do that again. [8|]


Nah - the spaces aren't going to add a big load to the server... it is the sheer number of posts here that will do us in again.

EDIT - i am probably the biggest "load inducer" - one 40K JPEG upload is probably equivalent to several hundred regular posts.

It's not the load I'm talking about. An incident occurred on the Anti-thread a while ago (I'm deliberatly not going to be specific) where we not only slowed down the posting , we eventually stopped it ,and "broke" a page. You still can't pull up that page to this day. If the post is large enough , I'm convince you can do considerable disruption to a thread.




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 6:12:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

This is also why, to this day, the Army still maintains a substantial amount of ground support and recon capability.

Also, I think the A-10s role is somewhat obsolete, as it was originally designed to kill Soviet tanks. That role is now filled by the Apache. With the Army picking up that role there is less of a need for the Air Force to maintain an aircraft whose primary purpose is to loiter over the battlefield.

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.


These roles were taken by the army because the air force did not want to do them. The Army uses helicopters in part because air force interests got a got a law approved that prevents the Army from operating fixed wing combat aircraft. The Air Force doesn't want the job but they don't want the Army doing it either.


In support of this argument , consider that when the USAF decided to get rid of the A-10 , the Army cited the USAF/USA "treaty" that said if a particular mission aircraft was given up by the USAF , then the Army could step in. The Army asked for the A-10's , and the USAF suddenly found a "critical need" for the aircraft. They pulled the same stund in Vietnam in regard to the Cairbou and Buffallo small transports.

Yes, as Pasternaki pointed out the inter-service rivalry is ridiculous and IMO a threat to national security. It does not, however, reverse the fact that the reason the Air Force was split off was the Army's unwillingness to take air superiority seriously. Remember, at the time, the greatest threat to the US was strategic bombers from mother Russia.

I think a mistake would be to assume that because air superiority doesn't appear to be an immediate threat, that it won't be and maybe in the near future.

The fix to the problem is to let the Army re-establish an air capable presence.


Why not pattern it after the USMC? And allow it to be "on call" to back up the USAF as needed? Much as the USMC will do if the USN is short of squadrons or aircraft. Many a CV has sailed the USMC painted on some , or in at least one case all of it's air craft.


There used to be a saying , prior to 1991 (1st Gulf War) by the other non-USAF service. We never lost a war before we had an Air Force , and we hadn't won since. (I always found it to be unfair , but funny none-the-less. )




rtrapasso -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 6:27:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]

Maybe , but consider this....I maybe inadvertadly dropping a "Thread bomb". The forum has difficulty handling that kind of post. I didn't even think about it till after I did it. So , although I know that you guys are kidding , and I appreciate that , I'm serious as to not wanting to do that again. [8|]


Nah - the spaces aren't going to add a big load to the server... it is the sheer number of posts here that will do us in again.

EDIT - i am probably the biggest "load inducer" - one 40K JPEG upload is probably equivalent to several hundred regular posts.

It's not the load I'm talking about. An incident occurred on the Anti-thread a while ago (I'm deliberatly not going to be specific) where we not only slowed down the posting , we eventually stopped it ,and "broke" a page. You still can't pull up that page to this day. If the post is large enough , I'm convince you can do considerable disruption to a thread.


Ah, i think i know whereof you speak! [:D]

EDIT: i don't think that was so much the size as the structure (if you know what i mean)...[;)]




AW1Steve -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 6:35:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Hmmm... perhaps you could go back and add a few more spaces to this report... [:'(]


Sorry Robert. I guess my background as a historical/legal researcher kicked in. In both those fields , if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of a document (or in this case doubt as to the event by Threadsters) print the entire source. I don't think anyone will doubt that the document in question , in every facet resemmbled a USN ww2 era report. So I just cut&pasted the whole thing for your edification. I thought the ammo expenditure might be of interest.

I'll try not to do that again. [8|]


Teasing, Steve, teasing! [:'(]

Maybe , but consider this....I maybe inadvertadly dropping a "Thread bomb". The forum has difficulty handling that kind of post. I didn't even think about it till after I did it. So , although I know that you guys are kidding , and I appreciate that , I'm serious as to not wanting to do that again. [8|]


Nah - the spaces aren't going to add a big load to the server... it is the sheer number of posts here that will do us in again.

EDIT - i am probably the biggest "load inducer" - one 40K JPEG upload is probably equivalent to several hundred regular posts.

It's not the load I'm talking about. An incident occurred on the Anti-thread a while ago (I'm deliberatly not going to be specific) where we not only slowed down the posting , we eventually stopped it ,and "broke" a page. You still can't pull up that page to this day. If the post is large enough , I'm convince you can do considerable disruption to a thread.


Ah, i think i know whereof you speak! [:D]

EDIT: i don't think that was so much the size as the structure (if you know what i mean)...[;)]

I do and that makes perfect sense. But you can also understand my reluctance to "push the envelope" into yet more ways to make the forum function more poorly. [:D]




pasternakski -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 7:07:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Why not pattern it after the USMC?

Oh, god, don't do THAT.




Mynok -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 7:20:32 PM)

quote:


The fact that the Air Forces primary mission is controlling the air over the battle space should not take away from the fact that it also needs to have an offensive strike capability. It needs the ability to take out enemy instillation and reduce an enemies ability to make war through strategic warfare. Space is also a growing concern and IMO the AF should lead the way. Last, but not least the Air Force should have the capability of supporting itself and the other branches of the armed forces with missions such as ground support, air lift, recon, etc.


Actually, air superiority is simply a means of expediting tactical missions, rather than the primary mission itself.




Yava -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 7:33:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava

AB's maps don't load at all the batch file that is supposed to do it does not work.


Hmmm [:(] Have you installed the standard map first?

How about if I upload my WitP folder, minus the 'useless' bits (sound, video etc), to my webspace for Yava to download?
Does anyone know if there is a legal reason why I would not be able to do this.


Brother Mynok took the batch and is supposed to take a look at it [:)] We shall see what the Martian knowledge is going to reveal! [:)]




Dixie -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/15/2008 7:34:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yava

AB's maps don't load at all the batch file that is supposed to do it does not work.


Hmmm [:(] Have you installed the standard map first?

How about if I upload my WitP folder, minus the 'useless' bits (sound, video etc), to my webspace for Yava to download?
Does anyone know if there is a legal reason why I would not be able to do this.


Brother Mynok took the batch and is supposed to take a look at it [:)] We shall see what the Martian knowledge is going to reveal! [:)]


I hope Martian technology is able to sort the problem. I'm beginning to suffer WitP withdrawl [:(]




Page: <<   < prev  83 84 [85] 86 87   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875