Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What Was The Idea ...

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: What Was The Idea ... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 4:08:37 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Yeah I know it's a software thing, but it is a bit puzzling to the layman that if a good idea was there before, then why is it gone now (maybe it was not so good overall)? As far as the respondent's posts being deleted on deleting the original post, I can see that as a problm, but then I was never one of those guys who would act the fool and then decide my image was tarnished too much by allowing my foolishness to remain for all to see. No, I would delete my deletes within minutes and there would not likely be any respondents in that time, but that's just me.

What puzzles me even more is why the bullets for posts you had interacted in have disappeared. Not having bullets puts a major damper in my being interested in a forum as there's no way I'll read every one of them and consequentally I'll forget some of them that I've commented in.

< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 12/18/2004 8:15:48 AM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 61
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 6:16:31 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Uh-oh, I yust thought of zis.

Vat ist a vargaming forum vithout zee bullets?

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 62
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 7:03:30 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Uh, sure, but that's what I did (deleted the initial message and replaced it with what you see). I thought it kind of lame to delete everything and leave it blank, but then if I could delete the entire post there wouldn't be queries such as "cat got your tongue?"

Fragen Sie mehr NICHT!!!!!!!!!!!(Kat's got your tongue!!)..
Don't worry Charles,we are all friends here.......It's a game,and everything here is just an opinion anyway!!.I like the things I learn in here..Everybody has something to offer..
Now just ask me about the MONON railroad!!

_____________________________




(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 63
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 8:23:18 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Then 1 tanker it is per week. See, now all Pry and the Devs need to do is get together a complete item list of everything every unit in the game could use and get busy.




_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 64
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 9:52:57 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		In general I agree that airpower is overrated, but this one stood on a toe...
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
"You have to remember this is WWII we’re talking about. Ground support was pioneered by the USMC during this war and was for the most part very ineffective until late in the war when napalm and other area affect troop killing weapons were invented."

I seem to recall the Luftwaffe doing a pretty good job of Ground Support. You do remember the Stuka, don't you? I don't recall the Luftwaffe's ground support being ineffective, even in 1939.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 65
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 10:07:06 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline 		I would agree. Ground support actually had its origins during the first world war but it was the Germans that really saw its potential and put it to good use. The Stuka was a very potent ground attack weapon. Plus it was a new tactic being used against untrained, frightened conscripts who not only had guns shooting at them from the front but also "friendly" guns shooting at them from the rear. The scream of a Stuka diving on a target was a mighty form of psychological warfare that caused more men to flee than the bomb it dropped.

But also remember, it achieved most of its successes where the Germans enjoyed complete air superiority. It suffered horrendous losses in the Battle of Britain and had to be withdrawn. The Germans turned it into a tank buster on the eastern front where it was also effective when it had air cover.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 66
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 10:08:25 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I would agree. Ground support actually had its origins during the first world war but it was the Germans that really saw its potential and put it to good use. The Stuka was a very potent ground attack weapon. Plus it was a new tactic being used against untrained, frightened conscripts who not only had guns shooting at them from the front but also "friendly" guns shooting at them from the rear. The scream of a Stuka diving on a target was a mighty form of psychological warfare that caused more men to flee than the bomb it dropped.

But also remember, it achieved most of its successes where the Germans enjoyed complete air superiority. It suffered horrendous losses in the Battle of Britain and had to be withdrawn. The Germans turned it into a tank buster on the eastern front where it was also effective when it had air cover.

Chez

The moral being "Air Supemacy is the first and last requirement".

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 67
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 10:18:00 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		That wasn't me... I was quoting the post from Jim D Burns on page 2... I fumbled the reply button, so I copied and pasted, and inserted quote signs...

I was taking the same side you are, in my discussion with Mr. Burns...

Sorry for the confusion.

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 68
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/18/2004 11:53:02 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

In general I agree that airpower is overrated, but this one stood on a toe...

I seem to recall the Luftwaffe doing a pretty good job of Ground Support. You do remember the Stuka, don't you? I don't recall the Luftwaffe's ground support being ineffective, even in 1939.

Steve.


Another popular myth. The Stuka was a good terror weapon and did wonderfully when attacking exposed supply columns and tanks in the open (when they could be identified as hostile), but against deployed troops it too had little or no effect. In fact by 1940 it was relegated to a secondary role due to it being an easy kill for most any allied fighter. It earned its reputation in Spain and Poland, but there it faced very little opposition from enemy fighters. Even in those two theatres, they still weren’t used to bomb deployed troops.

Forward air controllers were necessary to hit deployed troops, and no nation had them except the US later in the war (we also developed forward fire controllers for artillery and ships in conjunction with the air controllers). It was a new and evolving concept and even by the end of the war ground strikes against troops were still not very effective. Napalm helped a lot, but pilots dropped far more napalm on trees and open ground than they actually dropped on the enemy troops during WWII.

People are used to the extreme accuracy of today’s weapons and they forget that a pilot couldn’t see men on the ground unless they were flying a few hundred feet in the air, which exposed them to extreme anti-aircraft fire, so it simply wasn’t done. Trying to identify them as friend or foe was simply impossible.

Colored smoke was experimented with late in the war as well, but there was no standardized training, so most pilots had no idea what the different colors of smoke meant unless a forward air controller on the ground was talking to him in real time via radio.

In WitP I consider hits against the airbase or port supply as hits against the exposed columns. Hits against troops are simply far too deadly for this period. Artillery was the big killer in WWII; airpower was still growing and evolving from its inception and was only really good at hitting obvious targets far behind the forward lines.

Jim

Edit:

I'm not saying ground strikes against deployed troops weren't done by all nations, simply that it was all but ineffective. Artillery had far better results, so most nations turned to artillery and had their air power go after easier targets.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 12/18/2004 9:59:35 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 69
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/19/2004 6:08:31 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

Forward air controllers were necessary to hit deployed troops, and no nation had them except the US later in the war (we also developed forward fire controllers for artillery and ships in conjunction with the air controllers).


I seem to remember hearing on TV (History Channel) that the Germans has Luftwaffe Forward Observers embedded with Army units, right from the get go. It is mentioned every time "Blitzkreig" is explained, and what made it a new (for '39) form of warfare. I don't feel like hunting through my books, but I don't think that was a Myth.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 70
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/19/2004 6:12:28 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		btw the History channel is not known for being a very accurate source!

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 71
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/19/2004 6:29:37 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Maybe not in the every way, but in a broad general fasion, including the "Blitzkreig" description/explanation must be reasonably close... I've heard this for as long as WW2 documentaries have been around.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 72
RE: What Was The Idea ... - 12/19/2004 8:42:29 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I seem to remember hearing on TV (History Channel) that the Germans has Luftwaffe Forward Observers embedded with Army units, right from the get go. It is mentioned every time "Blitzkreig" is explained, and what made it a new (for '39) form of warfare. I don't feel like hunting through my books, but I don't think that was a Myth.


In all my readings and research I've never come across any writings discussing German forward air controllers. If you read up on the opening moves of the specific campaigns, you'll notice the opening strikes of the Blitzkriegs were conducted by Stuka bombers, but these were known targets and not in proximity of friendly forces because the battle hadn't started yet. In many cases the pilots had visited the ground they would be attacking beforehand on foot in order to familiarize themselves with the terrain and landmarks.

The USMC pioneered forward air controllers some time in mid to late 1943 I think. Until then communications between ground forces and air units was sporadic to say the least. Radios were still pretty primitive then, you didn't have the option of multiple channels on a portable field radio, the sets had to be dedicated radios used specifically for a certain group of local air support. Regimental or higher HQ’s generally had multi-channel radios, but these only talked to the air coordination HQ’s which would prioritize strike requests and delegate new strikes as assets became available. Needless to say close in air support was not possible under these circumstances, as it was impossible to identify the friendly units unless the pilots flew very very low. So Munitions dumps, convoys, airfields, etc. were generally the targets assigned.

While it sounds simple in today’s modern technological world to coordinate a strike within a few hundred feet of friendly troops, it was a huge advancement in war fighting ability when the Marines pioneered its use back then. Don’t forget more men died from friendly fire accidents in 1991 than from Iraq fire, so if it’s that difficult to sort out a ground target today imagine what it must have been like back then.

The History channel perpetuates far more popular myth than fact in my opinion.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 73
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: What Was The Idea ... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

3.594