We shall overcome

[Bradley7735]

Another justification could be that in almost any mission, one or two planes would return with mechanical problems. Some justified, and maybe some were just pilot timidness. anyway, all the stuff I read about had quite a few examples of pilots aborting the mission just after takeoff.

bc

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Another justification could be that in almost any mission, one or two planes would return with mechanical problems. Some justified, and maybe some were just pilot timidness. anyway, all the stuff I read about had quite a few examples of pilots aborting the mission just after takeoff.

bc

And an important factor was no doubt unit morale as well a leader's ability to inspire. If you think your wing commander is a complete moron who's more interested in getting promotions than in pursuing sound warfighting strategies and who will risk your neck on insane suicide missions that are more for his glory than the war effort, you might find ways to not go. That's why having good leaders and keeping the morale up is important in this game.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Just want to reiterate something I pointed out in UV and with WITP. I've never understood the design concept where portions of a group "decide" not to fly. Unheard of. The group either goes or it does not. Other groups assigned said target should either go with the entire Base's air complement or stay with the lead group on the ground. What's the basis for this design?

You are thinking too tactically. You are not the raid commander. The raid commander and the base commander are fighting out what flies. As long as the commanders (local ai) deem that a strike is worth flying with a minimum of 2 aircraft (ie: worth the gas), something should fly. Holding back the entire contents of multiple bases jsut because 1 little thing happened to be wrong makes no sense at all.

This is a good example ... the local boss is simply saying that I don't have the skills to fly unescorted against a group of carriers that have a boatload of cap flying! Give me some escorts and I'll go.

If the CV's cap was lower, they would fly on their own. I don't know what the threshold value of cap to escort is, but when you start scenario #15, the allied B-17's fly against the CVL so we know there *is* a threshold value of some measure. Since they are flying from a size 4! (not proper size) base, we can assume that the airbase size does not prevent the flights.

This (strike numbers) should be a readiness issue only. How many times have we seen a portion of an air group (other planes are ready according to airgroup menu) not fly vs a target? Further, we see some units in range which don't fly at all but are ready while their compadres do. Local air bosses do not contradict standing orders from higher levels of the chain of command. Either the main HQ says go or no go. There is no in between.

Let's take the 8th AF for example. Their target is a Kiel and all the BGs in the 8th are assigned. It is not up to the individual group commanders to then decide if the level of fighter cover is to their liking or not. Their morale, experience, hangovers etc have no bearing on whether they go or not. The HQ said go...you go. You may bitch but you go. Military service structure is not democratic. Some breakdowns may occur, but these are usually rendezvous or communication failures.

[Ron Saueracker]

"And an important factor was no doubt unit morale as well a leader's ability to inspire. If you think your wing commander is a complete moron who's more interested in getting promotions than in pursuing sound warfighting strategies and who will risk your neck on insane suicide missions that are more for his glory than the war effort, you might find ways to not go. That's why having good leaders and keeping the morale up is important in this game."

Once again, this is not a democratic issue. You are advocating the complete breakdown of the military's structure of discipline. Who would have died in the trenches if individual company commanders could"just say no"?

[Tankerace]

What I don't get, personally, is Mr. Frag says that B-17s will not fly unescorted against a CV TF with 50+ CAP. Yet, that is exactly what a handful of B-17s did at Midway. Am I misunderstanging something here? Its possible, conisdering I have a bad cold...

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Another justification could be that in almost any mission, one or two planes would return with mechanical problems. Some justified, and maybe some were just pilot timidness. anyway, all the stuff I read about had quite a few examples of pilots aborting the mission just after takeoff.

bc

This I'll agree with but only to a point. In many cases you are looking at over 75% aborts. In as many, complete squadrons stay at the base while others go in dribs and drabs.

[Bradley7735]

I agree with you too, Ron. I am happy with Mogami's and Frag's justification of why some planes may abort. But I think the Morale, Leadership and Exp checks shouldn't decrease the number of planes that make it to target (25% is too much). If groups fail those checks, then something else should happen. What that is, I don't know.

But, I think this issue is pretty minor. It's great to discuss it, but I hope the Dev's work on other issues first.

bc

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You moved in any escort yet? They will not go against a CV that has 50+ aircraft flying cap without at least a token escort.

Even a useless group of Kittyhawks at Cooktown set to escort should get them going.

I will have wildcats from one of my broken carrier groups there in another day...they are hopping up from sydney.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Let's take the 8th AF for example. Their target is a Kiel and all the BGs in the 8th are assigned. It is not up to the individual group commanders to then decide if the level of fighter cover is to their liking or not. Their morale, experience, hangovers etc have no bearing on whether they go or not. The HQ said go...you go. You may bitch but you go. Military service structure is not democratic.

This is the exact point I have been attempting to make. This shouldnt be a question of morale or supply at this point..(they admittedly the morale is lower then I like) leadership be damned, these guys "should" be flying. I have been told its the level of my base or lack of CAP or 100 other things. The bottom line is, the General tells the colonel and the colonel goes. I shouldnt have to manuveur the numbers to make them go. They won't hit crap, but maybe the fact that bombers are suddenly appearing over my enemy's carriers will put enough pause into him to get him away from my coastline. We have all seen leser morale bombers fly out of bases and hit targets (hell I have b-17s flying out of a level 3 base now hitting lunga without escort despite the fact my enemy has that place majorly CAPed). Any way Im sure reiyc will have another turn for me soon and I will add a bit of CAP to see if they get off the deck finally.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

"And an important factor was no doubt unit morale as well a leader's ability to inspire. If you think your wing commander is a complete moron who's more interested in getting promotions than in pursuing sound warfighting strategies and who will risk your neck on insane suicide missions that are more for his glory than the war effort, you might find ways to not go. That's why having good leaders and keeping the morale up is important in this game."

Once again, this is not a democratic issue. You are advocating the complete breakdown of the military's structure of discipline. Who would have died in the trenches if individual company commanders could"just say no"?

Ron,

I know it's not a democratic issue. Yet, studies have routinely shown the real life soldiers were often far more cautious with their own livelihoods than even their unit commanders expected them to be. Going where you're ordered to go (say in a B-17 unit looking for an enemy fleet) is one thing, not pressing the issue very agressively when or if you find the enemy is another (did the bombs miss because the flak was too thick to get close or because the enemy fleet manuevered well? Was the flak too thick because it was or because the pilot leading the strike felt it was?).

Also note that unit commanders who suffered from poor morale and discipline were often replaced by commanders who were better able to motivate the men. Sometimes the men as well were punished (if it could be proven that they violated military law) but other times they were not. There have been instances of units refusing assignments, often not with a blunt "no" (which is treason) but again with finding creative means to not deliver. These things have happened from time to time. We've all heard the time worn expression that goes something like "his men would've happily entered hell itself for so and so." Well, I'll be willing to bet there've been a few commanders that the men wouldn't have entered hell for, or that if they did it was surely not "happy" about it.

I think it's reasonable to have such issues played out, and affect, the game. They were (and still are) an issue that challenges a military commander and requires attention.

As for executions, stats I read indicate the US executed 21 soliders and sailors in the Pacific Theater during World War II. All were for crimes such as rape and murder, none for failures to do their duty, treason, or cowardice.

[Mr.Frag]

What I don't get, personally, is Mr. Frag says that B-17s will not fly unescorted against a CV TF with 50+ CAP. Yet, that is exactly what a handful of B-17s did at Midway. Am I misunderstanging something here? Its possible, conisdering I have a bad cold...

Midway is *not* a undersided base and they were a *lot* closer.