Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Patrick Hunt]

Can I just point out that I did say a turn ago that our plane was not good enough..... and that the enemy would up production and out match us and that our plane was to big....

Seriously when will you all start actually listening to me when I predict what these things we could have already been half way done with this.


Epsilon is useless now, it was aimed as a way to sink whole convoys of the commerce raiders since they're numbers have been rising, but since they pulled back it's become to big a risk for the reward.


I already figured it was planned it's why predicting the enemy moves has been pretty easy, most of it is common sense if you just read the enemies actions and turns at ;east until now.
The pull back and concentrating forces I saw coming the problem is I can think of 3 different things it could mean each requiring different tactics to counter.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

To win Air war we need to make a bomber and bomb their airfields\production facilities. Best way to destroy enemy aircraft = on the ground

After all what else we got radio navigation for? At the very least we can quite easily do night bombing raids, even id we can't reach invulnurable attitude

In the same time we should ramp up our aircraft production and scrap 10,000t yard project, naval war situation doesn't require large ships, and WE NEED more aircrafts

Also, what about mass attack with Ospreys aimed at enemy airfields?


Patrick - had we made a bomber as I offered, we would star bombing their production facilities right away

[Patrick Hunt]

UR : That is a stupid plan.

You have no way of knowing if the enemy can match our altitude, they might have superior altitude.
You want to send a bomber thats only defense is being very high up? If the enemy can match it then not 1 of those bombers will survive it's first run or hit it's target and we don't have enough planes to defend them over enemy territory.

We can not bomb the enemy without at least 2-1 numbers and a far better plane then we have now.

You told me my plan was bad because it relied on the enemy being idiots then make a plan based on nothing but assumptions?

UR you can't produce a plane that has higher altitude then the enemy when you don't know the enemies altitude.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

UR : That is a stupid plan.

Well, comparing to "surprise attack on a captured merchant ship to make enemy move all forces in one spot" no plan is stupid

You have no way of knowing if the enemy can match our altitude, they might have superior altitude.

One needs an aircraft purposelessly designed for high attitudes to reach high attitudes. Lighting don't look like such aircrafts

You want to send a bomber thats only defense is being very high up?

Or darkness, yes.  We have radio navigation and can do night bombings. Good luck for enemy intercepting those bombers (especially if they have no good radar)

If the enemy can match it then not 1 of those bombers will survive it's first run

Then we learn and switch to night bombing. 

We can not bomb the enemy without at least 2-1 numbers and a far better plane then we have now.

"Expert" As always.  Enemy is not expecting strategic bombing campaign and it's unlikely that he developed countermeasures for it , that's what we need to do. Worst case scenario: enemy shoot down a lot of our bombers, but large part opf their fighters will get busy in defensive patrols



Of cause it was a blunder to not increase Sparrows production.... That created problems for us now. But that's because I offered bomber factory... Should have written bomber, or if not designed, more fighters

[Patrick Hunt]

My plan was fine, the fact that I favor a different kind of fighting then you doesn't make it stupid. I'm a fan of high risk, high reward offensive tactics.

So your evidence is the plane doesn't " look " like it's designed for it? I'm sure the pilots will be very reassured the plane doesn't " look " like it can when it's gunning them down.

It's likely they've got Radar already, I doubt they've forgotten to design a method of seeing our fighters coming and also likely they're aware we've built it ourself.

Night bombing will also not work if they have said Radar because we'll lose far to many bombers and probably be unable to hit anything we aim for because our planes will be forced to break off of scatter. and it makes it impossible for us to provide any kind of air cover at all.

A bombing campaign is not the answer to this problem you don't attack until you have the advantage and right now we're losing the air fight and the naval fight so going from 0 offensive to deep inland bombing is not the way to go. Unless your Russia and think the answer to every problem is to keep throwing men at it.


The way you speak is extremely condescending and offensive you know that?

Oh and btw, if your gonna mention my plan try to understand it first because I never once said it'd gather all the enemy in one place. I didn't even say anything close to that.

[3_14159]

UR you can't produce a plane that has higher altitude then the enemy when you don't know the enemies altitude.

Well, what we can do is to design a plane reaching as much altitude as possible, then trying it out. Of course, that has the inherent risk of, well, underestimating the enemy, but using the guidance system we should be able to reach a high accuracy even during darkness which will reduce losses while increasing the enemy efforts for night patrols.

We can not bomb the enemy without at least 2-1 numbers and a far better plane then we have now.

Why?

I agree that we need a better fighter, sure, but the time-frame and details are still blurry.

My plan was fine, the fact that I favor a different kind of fighting then you doesn't make it stupid.

So your evidence is the plane doesn't " look " like it's designed for it? I'm sure the pilots will be very reassured the plane doesn't " look like it can. "

It's likely they've got Radar already, I doubt they've forgotten to design a method of seeing our fighters coming.

Night bombing will also not work if they have said Radar because we'll lose far to many bombers and probably be unable to hit anything we aim for because our planes will be forced to break off of scatter. and it makes it impossible for us to provide any kind of air cover at all.

A bombing campaign is not the answer to this problem you don't attack until you have the advantage and right now we're losing the air fight and the naval fight so going from 0 offensive to deep inland bombing is not the way to go.


The way you speak is extremely condescending and offensive you know that?

Not really. You're assuming several things:
a) The enemy has RADAR
b) The Lightning has high-altitude capabilities
c) The Lightning is able to down our bombers effectively.
a is, in my opinion, doubtful. We haven't actually done major operations over enemy territory (in fact, I don't even know about minor operations), so their incentive is missing. Additionally, look at our system: 40km range at best, fragile and cannot detect all. That's not really good enough to base a complete defence on it and if they do, it costs them.
b is unknown.
c is actually unlikely: The Lightning is pretty lightly armed, with - I am assuming - something like two 10mm guns in the front and one for a back gunner. That isn't really good for shooting down bombers.

And lastly, exactly against scattering is the radio guidance system, because it allows planes to find their targets even after evasion manoeuvres.

I would still build an alternative Albatross with four engines and the ability to, later, include 15mm gunners against planes, but the basic concept should probably work, I believe.

I'd simply ask both of you to be a bit more factual. For example, describing anything someone else said as 'stupid' really seems condescending. If you think something will not work, say 'that will not work' and say why.
[Of course, as a side note, if you don't want to be called stupid, don't begin with calling others or their plans as stupid.]

[Patrick Hunt]

Exactly the same as he's doing. Assuming either way is a horrible way to plan an attack when you have no information to go on of any kind, we don't even have much knowledge of the enemies locations for production.

How can we plan and carry out on operation with fuzzy target knowledge and no knowledge at all of what defenses the enemy might have against us? We can't expect the enemy to only be reacting to our advancements they will also be making advances of there own and we have no idea what they might have done. We don't even know if the factories we found are real. in BOB they sued fake airfields to draw attentions away from real ones so it's possible the enemy has done the same with fake factories.

At least do a trial run first sending just 3-5 bombers out without bombs and let them test the skies over the enemy to make sure the assumptions are actually correct before devoting a years worth of bombers to an attack that might be cut to shreds the moment it hits enemy air space.


Somebody has to play devils advocate and you all seem to just agree with each other every time something is proposed so that leaves me, pointless since nobody actually listens to me until it's to late but meh.


Hey I didn't start calling things stupid until after he did and he decided that he can say I'm bad at tactics because he has a different style and considers everyone else to be wrong.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I would still build an alternative Albatross with four engines and the ability to, later, include 15mm gunners against planes, but the basic concept should probably work, I believe.

I don't really care for what kind of strategic bomber to build, but I am sure that we need one. Problem is that guns are very expensive, so I an not a fun of arming bombers, yet

Remember how we protected our convoys: Started to attack enemy merchants, forcing them to divert resources on defensive war. That's what I want to do here in the air, too

As for fighter, I think we need a medium project to upgrade sparrow once more, one of the solutions - doubling number of 15mms, another: fixing 30mm and adding those. And if it really has 2 crew... reduce it to one, navigation may hurt... but single engined fighter with two men crew?That's bad idea

Somebody has to play devils advocate and you all seem to just agree with each other every time something is proposed so that leaves me, pointless since nobody actually listens to me until it's to late but meh.

Patrick, I suggest you to abandon "I am smart, you are stupid" mentality in discussions. It doesn't help at all....

[Patrick Hunt]

I never said I'm smart and your stupid..... not even once will you please stop deciding that when I say something I'm saying something else that I never actually said?.

Seriously why do people online always take people disagreeing with them as an insult? You all ignore me when I predict the enemy will do something and over and over you then come up with the same idea I already had 1-2 turns later.
Or you tell me my plan is wrong because it relies on the enemy doing what I expect but your own plans are no better relying entirely on assumptions with no evidence of any kind to actually support it.

How does that make your plans any better then mine? You've made total guesses, I've made total guesses. The only difference is I favor plans that have a larger impact but also have a larger risk if I'm wrong that in no way makes the plans bad. It's exactly what has been done through every war in history and some of the most famous battles in history are high risk high reward plans exactly like mine.
My style is simply to go in for a massive sucker punch rather then smaller bites, both are effective tactics if they work but mine is more effective where as yours has a lower risk factor if it fails.

Hell look at the air drops on D-Day? That plan had almost 0 chance of success and an overwhelming chance that every last one of those troopers would die, but ti had an overwhelming impact on the landings because that huge risk paid off.
Market Garden? Another plan with horrible odds of success and even though it didn't completely succeed it still had a huge impact on the war.

High risk, high reward plans have a prominent place in warfare.

[10ebbor10]

As for fighter, I think we need a medium project to upgrade sparrow once more, one of the solutions - doubling number of 15mms, another: fixing 30mm and adding those. And if it really has 2 crew... reduce it to one, navigation may hurt... but single engined fighter with two men crew?That's bad idea

It has a 2 man crew? Probably a typo because I copied the template from the Osprey.

[3_14159]

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm trying to find mistakes, too. I just believe that, for now, the plan of using bombers as additional way to suppress their planes is the best I've seen.

At least do a trial run first sending just 3-5 bombers out without bombs and let them test the skies over the enemy to make sure the assumptions are actually correct before devoting a years worth of bombers to an attack that might be cut to shreds the moment it hits enemy air space.

That's actually what I had assumed plan Zeta to be. Send bombers in groups once they become available.

I would still build an alternative Albatross with four engines and the ability to, later, include 15mm gunners against planes, but the basic concept should probably work, I believe.

I don't really care for what kind of strategic bomber to build, but I am sure that we need one. Problem is that guns are very expensive, so I an not a fun of arming bombers, yet

How about building a four-engined, providing ample growth for gunners, but not arming it until needed?

I never said I'm smart and your stupid..... not even once will you please stop deciding that when I say something I'm saying something else that I never actually said?.

Seriously why do people online always take people disagreeing with them as an insult?

In his defence, you did, several times, say something like 'This works, believe me because I'm good at tactics' [1]. This tends to annoy people and, I must admit, me too. Simply explaining why your plan works, and responding to criticism would leave a much better taste.

Also, for the love of some deity, could you all stop editing your posts after posting? It's hugely annoying.

[1] No actual quote, I can search one if you want to.

[Patrick Hunt]

Well nobody actually listens to me either way so it makes no difference.

I don't mean sending them in waves once ready I mean send one group out without bombs before you begin attacks to test the waters so to speak, at least that way if the enemy can counter attack it the plane will not have bombs to weigh it down so it has some hope of being able to make a run for it.
Beginning bombing runs without any idea if it's safe or not is begging for a disaster and if it does fail then sending them light at least gives us a decent chance of getting some of the bombers back to make a new plan.

Rather then just throwing them out and hoping the enemy can't stop it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

How about building a four-engined, providing ample growth for gunners, but not arming it until needed?

Good for me, but I like three engined setup slightly more because :
a) Two engines on wings strain it less than four, making overall aircraft lighter, thus easier to bring high
b) It gives us more narrow bomber, thus reducing visibility on radar
c) Less engines - less thing to damage for enemy, nose based engine is much more armored
d) Nose based engine doesn't hurt aerodynamics and it can be replaced with more powerful without needed to redesign all aerodynamics

Of cause four engined setup has it's own advantages

a) It can have a nose turret, while three engined can't
b) It has more power and can carry more bombs
c) It is more likely that it will land without one engine

But I think that for night \high attitude bomber, three engines are better

[Patrick Hunt]

Oh I'll just point out the main reason I believe the enemy has Radar.

We've been using Osprey attacks on the enemy fleet, so do you not think it's likely they've been designing a radar to provide an early warning system for ships against our attacks? We're trying to build a stable ship based version so why would the enemy not be doing the same? They love that fleet I can't see them ignoring the need to defend it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Edited my last post in the main thread