Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:32 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:14 am

fallsfromtrees wrote:And the Ardennes Forest which was supposed to be impassable (the addition is always forgotten - if properly defended). Then is in fact some evidence that it is impassable if properly defended - there was a British Brigade that held up 2 German division for several days, until they were ordered to retreat as a part of the general collapse. The French had not bothered to defend the forest, as everyone knew it was impassable.


Well, it was also used in WW1 iirc, twice in WW2....

If the R.A.F. etc.weren't demented bomb happy loons, we'd have had ground attack aircraft and fast light bombers and turned the German advance there into a barbeque
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:13 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:
Well, it was also used in WW1 iirc, twice in WW2....

If the R.A.F. etc.weren't demented bomb happy loons, we'd have had ground attack aircraft and fast light bombers and turned the German advance there into a barbeque


Basically, French simply could not believe that Germans would attempt such a risk. If there were ANY problems with the passage - it would be impossible for involved German troops to deploy for battle or retreat. They would be able to do nothing besides stand in blocked Ardennes & die under the methodical barrage of French superior artillery.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Bluesqueak   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:27 pm

Bluesqueak
Captain of the List

Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:04 pm

SilverbladeTE wrote:
If the R.A.F. etc.weren't demented bomb happy loons, we'd have had ground attack aircraft and fast light bombers and turned the German advance there into a barbeque


The RAF had ground attack aircraft in WW2 (see Hawker Typhoon). It was just that they also had the attitude that the blasted things were often more dangerous to the aircrew flying them than to the enemy... see also Hawker Typhoon.

Essentially, successful ground attack aircraft relied on the enemy not having any anti-aircraft guns or fighters. The Germans had both in quantity, which meant the 'ground-attack' aircraft were mostly useful in coastal warfare and were often operated by the RN.

Ground attack operations over Occupied Europe often ended up causing more damage to the RAF than the enemy.

With the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, it's easy to call the RAF 'bomb-happy loons' and to forget that the Luftwaffe, the USAAF, Japanese airforce and Soviet Airforce all used strategic bombing. They all thought it would work.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:33 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:14 am

Bluesqueak wrote:
The RAF had ground attack aircraft in WW2 (see Hawker Typhoon). It was just that they also had the attitude that the blasted things were often more dangerous to the aircrew flying them than to the enemy... see also Hawker Typhoon.

Essentially, successful ground attack aircraft relied on the enemy not having any anti-aircraft guns or fighters. The Germans had both in quantity, which meant the 'ground-attack' aircraft were mostly useful in coastal warfare and were often operated by the RN.

Ground attack operations over Occupied Europe often ended up causing more damage to the RAF than the enemy.

With the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, it's easy to call the RAF 'bomb-happy loons' and to forget that the Luftwaffe, the USAAF, Japanese airforce and Soviet Airforce all used strategic bombing. They all thought it would work.



The R.A.F. and Air Ministry scumbags torpedoed any attempts to get ground attack or dive bomber aircraft before the war, despite hard repeated proof, tons of it, that ONLY dive bombers could reliably hit a damn thing and were in desperate need
Same for a ground attack aircraft hence we had none until the "Hurri-bomber" and the push to arm Hurricanes with 40mm cannon which proved the concept.

Their (the higher ups) antics also prevented the Fleet Air Arm from having good aircraft as well, Swordfish was very good for antisubmarine duties but that was it.

If there'd been more development, they'd have had the Tempest no Typhoons or other aircraft like the proposed Reaper or whatever.

As usual it took years for pressure from below or removal of arseholes up top, to let change go through...and many deaths occurred unnecessarily in the mean time :(
Exactly like WW1 sigh

Heavy bombing SUCKED and lost us vastly more in aircrew, money, resources and morals than damn near everything else put together :(
Least ground attack did achieve aims of seriously hampering logistics of the enemy
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Bluesqueak   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:46 pm

Bluesqueak
Captain of the List

Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:04 pm

SilverbladeTE wrote:...ONLY dive bombers could reliably hit a damn thing ...


What I actually said was that the problem with ground attack aircraft was that they were very vulnerable to the enemy.

I agree that most could reliably hit things. Unfortunately they could equally reliably BE hit; they simply weren't very good in a high threat environment. Such as, for example, the one over Europe in WW2.

Much of the great success of the German air force dive bombers, for example, was in areas where the enemy didn't have much in the way of air power, or effective anti-aircraft. The Aviación Nacional period in Spain was indeed very successful. Mainly because the FARE couldn't find their arse with both hands, a flashlight and printed instructions - let alone find any battles which might result in nasty people shooting at them.

Against that kind of lack of opposition, the early WW2 dive bombers were very successful. Those 'scumbags' you appear to dislike so much took the view that 'lack of opposition' was a bit unlikely.

There were similar problems with high casualty rates in later war theatres. The US Air Force is currently debating whether they need lighter ground-attack aircraft; the problem remains the same, though. Very effective when used against enemies without air support or anti-aircraft; likely to get shot down if they discover the enemy has got one or the other.

Given that the idea in most wars is to do more damage unto the enemy than they can do to you, the RAF's (and, I repeat, other countries) theory that heavy bombing was the way to go had a lot going for it. YOU know it sucked, because you are looking back at WW2 with all the casualty figures, damage assessments etc at your fingertips. Economically, the British lost more by doing the bombings than they cost Germany.

But THEY did not have a crystal ball available to them.

[Actually, what this discussion is reminding me of isn't Safehold. It's the recon drones/communication uplinks used by the Shongairi in Out of the Dark. Let's just say they don't fare well against any opponents with decent anti-aircraft weaponry - or even a really, really heavy rifle]
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:17 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:14 am

Bluesqueak
If we'd avoided wasting crew and resources on bombers....
Thus had more ground attack, dive bomber and fighter aircraft....
And put armour in for crew and engines....
Resources spent on better engines and aircraft design....
Developed napalm, cluster bombs (earlier) and high velocity rockets....
Accept the need to ditch .303 machine guns and use cannons or at least .50 calibre guns years earlier....

Then defender's AA would have had much more problems, being overwhelmed, too many targets...and so been less effective ;)
Also help Fleet Air Arm

No you didn't need a crystal ball, this stuff was known, but totally ignored and sabotaged by the "bomber loons", alas, see history :/

US tests of dive bombers
Evidence from Spanish Civil War
Espionage
Test that proved the R.A.F. bombers couldn't even find a British city!!
Experience in WW1
Etc
All before the war had long proven my points as to what was practical and effective.

Morons also fought tooth and nail to prevent the adoption of the Spitfire! Ugh!

Sorry for vehemence, not directed at you :)
Too much damn outright "retconning" lol, going on of the grotesque, treasonous incompetence that left our nations in a shambolick state to begin WW2, was NOT "heroic", no, it tossed heroic people on the bonfire of the vanities of wahoos
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:38 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:
The R.A.F. and Air Ministry scumbags torpedoed any attempts to get ground attack or dive bomber aircraft before the war, despite hard repeated proof, tons of it, that ONLY dive bombers could reliably hit a damn thing and were in desperate need


Well, French were of low opinion about the dive bombers. They thought (correctly), that dive bombers are nothing more than a temporary aberration of technology, and further progress in AA defenses would make them quickly outdated (and they were perfectly right).

French military was more interested in guided bombs, than dive bombers. By 1940, they already have one - BHT-38 - in final stage of development (Germans were able to capture French control system, and used it on their own guided weapons till the end of the war).
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:42 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Bluesqueak wrote:Economically, the British lost more by doing the bombings than they cost Germany.


But Britain COULD allow to do that.

Bluesqueak wrote:[Actually, what this discussion is reminding me of isn't Safehold. It's the recon drones/communication uplinks used by the Shongairi in Out of the Dark. Let's just say they don't fare well against any opponents with decent anti-aircraft weaponry - or even a really, really heavy rifle]


...With all respect, but "Out of the Dark" was written BEFORE the experience of Syria and Ukraine demonstrated, that even civilian drones are of enormous use on battlefield.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:27 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:14 am

Dilandu wrote:
Bluesqueak wrote:Economically, the British lost more by doing the bombings than they cost Germany.


But Britain COULD allow to do that.



Well, no.
It helped almost bankrupt the country, and along with stupid decisions like giving away tech secrets to the Americans, basically free (Tizard mission), left the U.K. as empty as Hobbit's picnic basket in Mordor! :mrgreen:

Iirc the cost of the heavy bomber fleet and its massive in infrastructure was something like £617 billion in 1997 equivalent
It was by far the largest proportion of all the UK military budget and thus crippled or prevented far far better use in so many ways :/
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:29 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:14 am

Dilandu wrote:
Basically, French simply could not believe that Germans would attempt such a risk. If there were ANY problems with the passage - it would be impossible for involved German troops to deploy for battle or retreat. They would be able to do nothing besides stand in blocked Ardennes & die under the methodical barrage of French superior artillery.


Well, the French ability to predict German efforts over the years was...lacking shall we say? :mrgreen:
Top

Return to Safehold