Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR - 11/30/2011 5:36:17 PM   
wildweasel0585

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline
Show me where strategic bombers don't bomb strategic targets. Quoting me only shows you didnt read properly. You're the one implying that strategic bombers have to have 4 engines and be long ranged. The F-15E can be considered a "strategic bomber".

With all the reading you've done, you should know why mediums and heavies, werent used to bomb on a regular basis the same targets the heavies did. Show me consecutive raids where medium and light bombers used these gliding bombs. you can't so shut up about them. But you can show me where medium bombers have bombed strategic targets and gotten decimated. The primary weapon used for bombers during the time were dumb bombs.. I thought you knew this??

LEARN HOW TO READ
When i say "ventral attacks were ineffective" that does not mean they aren't preferred. But they weren't preferred, it was normally preferred to attack a bomber at night where it won't fall on you after you shoot it down.
LEARN HOW TO COMPREHEND, CONCENTRATE!
I also said "this isn't daylight bombing, night fighters didn't do frontal attacks" I don't understand how you could think i am talking about bombers when I clearly mentioned night fighters didn't do frontal attacks.

I guess in all your reading you missed the part about Germany using tons of searchlights. I assume you think they were using them to signal UFO's and ET's.You also miss the part about Bomber Command using jamming techniques. Last time I checked, jamming screws with radars.

Show me how stating Bomber command attacking in streams, which is something you obviously missed in your reading, and a tactic Bomber Command used implies I know little about Bomber Command tactics.All it shows it that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Since you're not a pilot, I can see how you think that flying at night in bad weather and in concentrated defensive boxes would be easy. Also, I never mentioned that bombers flying in streams would arrive over a target at the same time. Stop putting your words in my mouth. Besides, the tactic of flying in streams was to overwhelm AAA defenses of Kammhuber line.

How can you miss a big radar? Do some flying at night and you'll see how. Flying at night isnt as easy as you claim it is. It may seem that way to the guys in bomber command who were young kids who think their invincible and who's never been on a vehicle that can travel faster than 50mph.
"All you need is absence of low clouds, moon or a bit area illumination and then a handful of low-flying light or medium bombers." yeah, i forget that Bomber Command was a bunch of primitive apes who couldnt scratch their asses without your help. You must feel guilty that all those guys in BC died since you werent around at the time to tell them how to do it better. I know I would.

"Actually, after reading so much and having the advantage of hindsight, I'm pretty confident that I understand that primitive "strategy" and its failure."
Actually, no you don't.
First off, you didnt know that flying in bad weather, at night, and in concentrated formations is dangerous hard work.
Secondly, you think medium and light bombers could have done the heavy bombers job better with lighter payloads and think that the USAAF had an abundance of guided bombs.
Thirdly, you still don't understand why Bomber Command would use the tools they did when TACTICS FOLLOW DOCTRINE. IF YOU'RE BOMBING AT NIGHT, THEN YOU DON'T NEED A HEAVILY ARMED HIGH FLYING BOMBER.YOU DO KNOW BOMBER AND FIGHTER CREWS WEREN'T EQUIPPED WITH NVG'S AND THAT RADAR WAS PRIMITIVE AT THE TIME?
Fourthly, WW2 was total war, that means no civilians, only people helping the war effort. Bomber Command bombed to tie up German resources on the home front, which they did pretty damn well. Go take that war crimes bs, and cry about it somewhere else.

Using all that hindsight, I thought you would have known that Bomber Commands mission wasn't to "accelerate VE or reduce overall Allied casualties." That wasn't even the goal of the USSAF. If you knew the difference in the role that heavy bombers play compared with light and medium bombers, you would know that YOUR goal that YOU wanted Bomber Command to perform is purely tactical and wouldn't be suited for bomb trucks.



< Message edited by wildweasel0585 -- 11/30/2011 5:38:58 PM >


_____________________________

THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!!

(in reply to lastdingo)
Post #: 31
RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR - 11/30/2011 6:18:36 PM   
lastdingo

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
You get way too much wrong and are not concentrated enough, a discussion appears to be pointless.

1) Quote me how I state that strategic bombers have to have four engines. Quotes from your fantasy don't count.

2) "Show me where strategic bombers don't bomb strategic targets."
Normandy carpet bombing, Kuwait carpet bombing.

3) Your next part about light/medium/heavy is simply confused writing, makes no sense to me.

4) Explain how in your mind "ineffective" attacks can be "preferred". Normal logic at work in the minds of people involved prohibits this.

5) Your statement about night fighters and frontal attacks makes no sense. I concluded that you meant bomber frontal armour because that was the only logical way out of your mess. After all, daylight fighters did attack Fortresses head-on at times.
Now if you don't mean "head on" with "frontal", then you're simply grossly wrong.
Nightfighters did thousands of frontal attacks. All their attacks but a handful of Defiant engagements and the Schräge Musik attacks were frontal.

6) Your obsession/confusion about invisibility / jamming / radars / searchlights at night still makes no sense to me. Bombers were not invisible, neither to radar nor to the naked eye.

7) What makes you think I'm no pilot? You know nothing about me.
Keep in mind I'm not writing in my antive tongue and not necessarily using the words that I'd normally use.
So basically you're clueless about what licenses I own.

8) Who's talking about defensive formations (combat boxes) at night? They fell apart asap and were not the rule during dark nights.
If in doubt, ask yourself why the RAF didn't get the Schräge Musik tactic till the Ju88R crew defection. Planes in formation would surely have observed this tactic at work many times.

9) This "- earlier compression of time over target to less than 20 minutes in order to minimize the qty of AAA shells fired ( they attacked in streams,which is safer to fly in than in concentrated boxes.)"
clearly implied that you were assuming that the bomber streams were not arriving at about the same time over the target and that you were thus trying to tell me I was wrong with the statement that they did it (late in the war). I did not reply in any way believing that you assumed a common ToT, in fact I assumed the exact opposite.

This in turn means that this
"Also, I never mentioned that bombers flying in streams would arrive over a target at the same time. Stop putting your words in my mouth."
is not about what I wrote, but about your fantasy about what I wrote.

10)
"Besides, the tactic of flying in streams was to overwhelm AAA defenses of Kammhuber line."

Finally we agree on something. AFTER I already stated the fact indirectly:
"This simple compression of time over target reduced losses to AAA greatly (quite the same logic as applied against the Himmelbett network)."

More careful reading would have revealed to you that I was totally informed about the purpose of the streams.

11)
"How can you miss a big radar? Do some flying at night and you'll see how. Flying at night isnt as easy as you claim it is."

We're talking about years, including dozens of full moon nights. We're talking about nights during which bomber pilots have attacked much, much more difficult mobile targets at night.
I don't care about what you think how difficult it was - it was proved to be possible on a routine basis by much more difficult similar actions.

12)
"Secondly, you [...] think that the USAAF had an abundance of guided bombs."

OK, I'm sick of it. That was an outright lie and I call it out. You're a liar. I never said nor wrote anything like that, and you have no clue about what I'm thinking. Your statement was a lie.

13)
"YOU DO KNOW BOMBER AND FIGHTER CREWS WEREN'T EQUIPPED WITH NVG'S AND THAT RADAR WAS PRIMITIVE AT THE TIME?"

Thanks for reinforcing the impression of your primitive discussion style by using a strawman attack and caps lock.

14)
"Fourthly, WW2 was total war, that means no civilians, only people helping the war effort."

Bullshit. Ethics don't stop because politicians say so.
Besides, that was also the general argument of the Nurembourg trials and thus the official allied stance after VE-day.
The total war = gloves off against everyone bullshit puts you in the same camp as the worse of the Nazis.

15)
"Using all that hindsight, I thought you would have known that Bomber Commands mission wasn't to "accelerate VE or reduce overall Allied casualties.""

Factually, that was the whole strategic purpose of the bombing campaign. You have no clue.
No other reason can even come close to justifying the effort and results.



Now after discovering that you're a liar, unable to read properly, willing to use strawman arguments and totally stuck on total opposition no matter what I write (and even total opposition to what you imagine I think or write), I leave this discussion.

I've seen too many of your kind to waste more of my time on this.


(in reply to wildweasel0585)
Post #: 32
RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR - 11/30/2011 10:01:46 PM   
wildweasel0585

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline
Just because you don't like total war, doesn't mean that total war can't exist and is no reason to say I belong in same group as the Nazi's . But saying Bomber Command strategy is stupid and contributed nothing to the war but primitive tactics and dead young men while not understanding the role they played in the war does make you look like a dumbass. A coward too if you think you can do better with the same tools.
Maybe you should stick with your native language and learn not to get emotions involved.

Now, can we get back to the OP?


_____________________________

THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!!

(in reply to lastdingo)
Post #: 33
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: Lufwaffe tactics wanted for BTR Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.066