New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[Hortlund]

Mdiehl, your way to compare the results at Lae and Darwin is flawed.
 
Since the Japanese sunk everything there was at the port in Darwin, you cannot draw any conclusions from the number of ships sunk. You cant say "they came with 180 bombers but they only managed to sink 8, while the US managed to sink 3 with 82 bombers", you cannot compare the numbers like that since the Japanese bombers cant sink more ships than there are in port.  
 
It would be a completely different matter if there had been 21 (or 50 or whatever) ships at Darwin and they only sunk 8. But the way you try to interpret the results of those two strikes does not hold water.

[mdiehl]

Mdiehl, your way to compare the results at Lae and Darwin is flawed.

I don't think so, but I am not sure what you are suggesting. You seem to think that "since 8 of 8 ships in the port were sunk, had more been there, then more ships would have been sunk." If that is what you are suggesting, it does not logically make sense. It's basically "begging the question" to claim that would be the case, since you presume in advance to know exactly the outcome had the situation been substantially different. 
 
In point of fact, the situation was substantially different. During the Darwin Raid there were 46 ships in harbour, of which 8 were sunk. One of the sunk, 19 ton HMAS Mavie -- scarcely larger than a yacht -- was sunk by a near miss.
 
A partial list of the ships NOT sunk include:
 
SS Admiral Halstead
SS Benjamin Franklin
HMAS Gunbar
HMAS Kangaroo
HMAS Kara Kara
HMAS Katoomba
HMAS Kira
HMS Platypus (a submarine tender)
MV Tulagi
Manunda
 
and many others as well.
 
I think that addresses your concerns.
 
 
 

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I don't think so, but I am not sure what you are suggesting. You seem to think that "since 8 of 8 ships in the port were sunk, had more been there, then more ships would have been sunk." If that is what you are suggesting...

No, thats not what Im saying. Im just going to say this one more time now, and then Im going to slowly back out of this thread.

I am saying that if the Japanese sunk all ships at Darwin, then you cannot compare the results like you did.

[mdiehl]

I am saying that if the Japanese sunk all ships at Darwin, then you cannot compare the results like you did.

OK. They did not sink all the ships at Darwin. I edited my post (above) and replaced it with a partial list of the ships not sunk. There were 46 ships in Darwin harbor during the attack. Of these 46, 8 were sunk.

Your said:

It would be a completely different matter if there had been 21 (or 50 or whatever) ships at Darwin and they only sunk 8.

OK. 46 ships in Darwin harbor is close to 50 and much greater than 21.

So I would say that my comparison between the outcome of the Darwin and Lae/Salamaua raids is fair, just, and appropriate. I stand by my conclusions.

[Big B]

Very interesting, I had been under the impression all these years that there were more than just 8 ships at Darwin,...but I wasn't sure (no books available to check).[X(]

B

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I am saying that if the Japanese sunk all ships at Darwin, then you cannot compare the results like you did.

OK. They did not sink all the ships at Darwin. I edited my post (above) and replaced it with a partial list of the ships not sunk. There were 46 ships in Darwin harbor during the attack. Of these 46, 8 were sunk.

Your said:

It would be a completely different matter if there had been 21 (or 50 or whatever) ships at Darwin and they only sunk 8.

OK. 46 ships in Darwin harbor is close to 50 and much greater than 21.

So I would say that my comparison between the outcome of the Darwin and Lae/Salamaua raids is fair, just, and appropriate. I stand by my conclusions.

[Ursa MAior]

If I understand you well Big B, you are trying to penetrate USS Unsinkable Mdiehl's thick armour (ie his unchangeable beliefs) with the eggs of your irony. A futile effort if I may say so, wihtout inulting you. Of course there are some whose feeling dont really concern me. Whomever it may concern.[:D]

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski



What accident are you talking about? 128 pilots killed? I'm sorry, I was there, and I don't remember that one.

Hmmm,

I would think Cid is referring to the USS Forrestal and her fire during the Vietnam War. First one that pops to my mind!

I have been to several DC schools in military AND civilian life, and the lessons learned in that fire were taught at all of them.

[tsimmonds]

If I understand you well Big B

Umm, my read is that you do not understand him. No irony whatsoever, ovoid or otherwise, can I detect in his post. Must be a language thing.

I don't understand why you guys have it in for mdiehl, his arguements usually seem pretty sound to me.

Once more, for those (like me) who feel that CAP is too effective as modeled in WitP, a work-around house rule is: maximum 30% CAP for all CV-based fighter units.

If you wanted to get fancy, you could bump it by an additional 10% after every CV vs CV battle.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
Umm, my read is that you do not understand him. No irony whatsoever, ovoid or otherwise, can I detect in his post. Must be a language thing.

Yes probably. But then what is that sign at the end of the msg?

I don't understand why you guys have it in for mdiehl, his arguements usually seem pretty sound to me.

Except his clearly biased view, not too much really.This kind of rigid 'back'reasoning (if it is so, then it was always so) revokes very,very bad memories and we (I) react nervously.

As simple as that.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
Umm, my read is that you do not understand him. No irony whatsoever, ovoid or otherwise, can I detect in his post. Must be a language thing.

Yes probably. But then what is that sign at the end of the msg?

Sorry for the confusion, it was just meant to be funny - like a guy scratching his head (I couldn't find one of those to put in there).

B

[Ursa MAior]

Well then it is not my bad.