HELP, Jap aircraft

[Mr.Frag]

As for your wife, it's cool that she was willing to give the game a try.

After that I had no choice, she just had to go ... married life was no longer possible. [:D]

[Lemurs!]

Yes, Zeta you did say that i came in here causing trouble, and that people causing trouble go away after awhile because they are not welcome.
Actually your civil people do start trouble with other people.

I feel oh so welcome here.
Thanks.

I wanted to get intelligent discourse but what i got was arguments and insults.

I feel that i am somewhat to blame, i get frustrated when i put information in front of people and i get no response on that just insults and personal attacks. I am sorry i got snappy yesterday.
I am not sorry about today.

I will go to my various other gaming forums where i am welcome and have friends. I guess i had not believed it when i was told this was an unfriendly board.
I was wrong.

Thanks guys, this was fun.

Mike

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nik, When you said " All you've stated, is that you have read an alleged Japanese "manual" which allegedly states that the Val always attacks naval targets with the 3 bomb loadout. We have only your "word" for this. This is not "factual" evidence "

I took that as a personal attack; I couldn't figure out why as you and i had seemed to be having a good discussion. It sounded like you were calling me a liar.

Thats not calling you a liar. Thats pointing out that you have 'alleged' to have read in a Japanese manual that they always loaded their planes in the manner being discussed. I have not personally seen this and i dont know you personally so forgive me if i dont either take your statement as a "documented fact" nor if i consider it the proof being sought since it gives no more credance to the issue than the plane being "able" to have that loadout. Kobe Bryant is "alleged" to have commited rape. If he says he didn't do it and i respond "but you are alleged to have done it", is that calling him a liar too?

A poster once stated that a B-17 could lug a 2000LB bomb therefore it MUST be the default weapon for antiship missions. Not the case in reality nor was the ability of the Fortress to carry such a weapon proof in of itself. The "proof" was in finding that not one documented case ever showed that it attacked warships with such a weapon in the Pacific.

I still feel that you have not proved there were not 60kg bombs on Vals. But, i can not prove they were there either. Why you are in such a dither because i will not bow before your will is beyond me.

I wasn't asking you to bow to anyone much less me. I asked you to provide wartime proof that the 3 bomb loadout occured for naval attacks....several times. What i got among other commentaries....was you telling me i either had no proof.....that my proof was "ancedotal" (which on this board is considered another term for "worthless"), or that i'd not checked any sources , not to mention my personal favorite....answering my question by turning it around and asking me the same question back.

Nik,
The go away was not a command, it was a request because you keep beating the same dog and insult me and call me a liar. Why would i not want to talk with you?
I have not in any way shape or form been evasive! I have my opinion backed by a couple of things, you have yours...fine. where was i evasive?

Sure sounded like a command to me. I dont recall beating any dog. I love dogs and would never beat one. I didn't insult you either though i'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. If you weren't being evasive then this thread would be much shorter. You could have simply said "No Nik, i dont have any conclusive wartime evidience of the 1 x 250 + 2 x 60kg being standard loadout for naval attack however i still feel this manual i've read constitutes sufficient evidence"

No, i dont think so. You say you have a "manual", thats fine. You also can 'google' search which shows what everyone already knew....that the plane could carry 60kg's.

There, you just called me a liar again! You like insinuating because then you cannot get in trouble for insulting people.
Grow up child.

How is this calling you a liar? Did you not claim to have read a Japanese manual that states they always loaded 3 bombs for naval attack? BTW, statements like "Grow up Child" would be considered by most members of this forum to be condensending as well as insulting.

[Lemurs!]

Nik,

You also don't have any conclusive proof....
you just think you do and that is what i find so frustrating.
I also do not know you; why should i believe you when you say you have ever read a book?

And you just don't get it.

I asked you for proof that it was not the standard load... and you gave me 3 battles. That is no better than what i gave you.
But you have to be correct because you cannot handle not being correct.
That is what i find childish.

I have already said that mine is not conclusive, but it is not non-existent either.

I am terribly sorry you wasted my time.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl



You guys ever play ASL? I've been kicking ass in CCPh with some Japanese 4-4-8s in dense jungle, but every time I dice an MMG shot I break the d@mned MGs. It's those B11 breakdown numbers and my talentless dice rolling. AArgh!

ASL.....is that a (gasp) board wargame....with dice thingys? [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

ASL.....is that a (gasp) board wargame....with dice thingys?

Tell me you have played Advanced Squad Leader?

It's a requirement of being a grog! [:'(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nik,

You also don't have any conclusive proof....

I think i do. Lundstrom specifically states they didn't use it for naval attack. Brady disputes the "canister issue" and i wont re-hash that. Additionally, he provides one of the most DETAILED accounts of all four carrier battles. The only recorded instance of 60kg use against naval warships was an ad-hoc attack by a land based squadron of Val's that were hastily sent to their doom armed with 2 x 60kg each. Note that this is not 1 x 250 + 2 x 60. 2 x 60 ONLY. Not one hit by a 60kg by a carrier based Val was documented nor were any trio's of bombs eyewitnessed. The other sources I listed....same thing. Again you can read them yourself and judge on the "weight of evidence". The alleged use of 60kg by Val's at Pearl Harbor? nope. Kates dropped a few, not Vals. Indian ocean attacks? nada.

By that weight of wartime evidence, I do conclude that a 1 x 250 + 2 x 60kg armament was not a STANDARD armament for naval attack. Same logic as with the B-17 and it's "2000LB bomb". The B-17 can carry one but that doesn't mean it did in wartime. WitP, as has been stated only accepts a single default loadout, one for normal range and one for extended range.

you just think you do and that is what i find so frustrating.

Yes....i do, but i'm open minded...which was why i asked you...repeatedly if you could provide that which is now established that you cant.....conclusive proof of actual use on a regular or STANDARD basis during wartime. It took what...2 pages before you admitted that you didn't.

I also do not know you; why should i believe you when you say you have ever read a book?

You dont. You can read them yourself. You want the list? I recommend starting with Lundstrom's First Team Vol's 1 and 2. They cover much of the era in which Aichi's could be expected to be met in naval combat.

And you just don't get it.

I "get it" very well. Thx

I have already said that mine is not conclusive, but it is not non-existent either.

I am terribly sorry you wasted my time.

I think you wasted your own time in reality.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Tell me you have played Advanced Squad Leader?

It's a requirement of being a grog! [:'(]

does Star Fleet Battles count?

[Mr.Frag]

does Star Fleet Battles count?

Oh, a spaced out grog ... that explains everything [:-]

[DoomedMantis]

Boys settle down and play nicely.

You have differing opinions based on different assumptions from different sources.

If someone wants to make a scenario based on his own research and assumptions then I think this is a good thing, the more that people put into this game the better.

Lemur I dont hink that Nik or Frag were calling you a liar, they just believe their source more than yours.

Nik and Frag, Im ashamed of you, your agreeing with mdiel[:D]

[Brady]

Well Some comments I think are in order hear:

Lundstrum, admited to me his reasearch was for a very short window of time and by no means all inclusive on this bomb issue with the val, I posted his E mail in the Last debate we had on this val bombload issue.

Lemurs: Your not going to win this one mate, trust me I provided a lot more referance material than you have and they dident budge either, their entrenched in their thinking on this one, and you aint going to change it. Same goes for the Juddy.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Yes, Zeta you did say that i came in here causing trouble, and that people causing trouble go away after awhile because they are not welcome.
Actually your civil people do start trouble with other people.

I feel oh so welcome here.
Thanks.

I wanted to get intelligent discourse but what i got was arguments and insults.

I feel that i am somewhat to blame, i get frustrated when i put information in front of people and i get no response on that just insults and personal attacks. I am sorry i got snappy yesterday.
I am not sorry about today.

I will go to my various other gaming forums where i am welcome and have friends. I guess i had not believed it when i was told this was an unfriendly board.
I was wrong.

Thanks guys, this was fun.

Mike

I may be drunk tonight, but these two other's have proof from the battles not some manual. I think most people will trust the reports from the battle. You seem to have the mind set that what it is in the manual is canon for the hole Pacific war. I don't think so. Frag and Nik have been messing with this stuff for years, and I will take there word for it.