Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:12 am
266k sorties
On average their planes died after ten sorties. The Corsair, panther etc were retired after Korea as they were all damaged.
Matrix Games Forums
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
Air attack effectiveness
Page 6 of 8
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:20 am
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 am
"Of the 11 attack carriers which ultimately saw action in Korea, only four were in active status at the start of the War. The carrier force level rose during the three years of war from seven at the beginning to 18 at the end by reactivating ships from the Reserve Fleet inventory which had been created as a result of World War II."
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950
You really don't seem to know what you are talking about and just continue to make stuff up.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950
You really don't seem to know what you are talking about and just continue to make stuff up.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 am
That's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:08 amThe wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.
The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:24 am
You're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 amThat's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:08 amThe wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.
The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:25 am
I stand corrected, they reactivated the ships they didn't want, and that was most of their ships.thewood1 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 am "Of the 11 attack carriers which ultimately saw action in Korea, only four were in active status at the start of the War. The carrier force level rose during the three years of war from seven at the beginning to 18 at the end by reactivating ships from the Reserve Fleet inventory which had been created as a result of World War II."
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950
You really don't seem to know what you are talking about and just continue to make stuff up.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:28 am
What?mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:24 amYou're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 amThat's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:08 am
The wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.
The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:30 am
How about you claim there were zero losses in the indochina war.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:28 amWhat?mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:24 amYou're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:23 am
That's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:31 am
Jesse, wtf are you talking about?mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:30 amHow about you claim there were zero losses in the indochina war.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 am
Vietnam won an entire war using only rifles, where extensive air support was used.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:31 amJesse, wtf are you talking about?mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:30 amHow about you claim there were zero losses in the indochina war.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:36 am
*facepalms*mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 amVietnam won an entire war using only rifles, where extensive air support was used.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:31 amJesse, wtf are you talking about?mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:30 am
How about you claim there were zero losses in the indochina war.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:37 am
Facepalm indeed.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:36 am*facepalms*mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 amVietnam won an entire war using only rifles, where extensive air support was used.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:46 am
The Vietnamese army was equipped with a lot more than rifles.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:47 am
Not in indochina, they got the zsu in 1965, before then they had only machine guns.BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:46 am The Vietnamese army was equipped with a lot more than rifles.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:51 am
I think we're are completely down the rabbit hole.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:53 am
Agreed
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:53 am
"I stand corrected, they reactivated the ships they didn't want, and that was most of their ships."
I thought you said they were all sunk? The US had 15 active carriers around the world in 1950 and 20-25 deactivated. They were deactivated to save money. The built six new carriers between 1946 and 1950. The US still had a very large fleet in the Atlantic.
This is a perfect example of you making stuff up out of whole cloth. You have no idea and just threw out 5 ships with zero knowledge.
I thought you said they were all sunk? The US had 15 active carriers around the world in 1950 and 20-25 deactivated. They were deactivated to save money. The built six new carriers between 1946 and 1950. The US still had a very large fleet in the Atlantic.
This is a perfect example of you making stuff up out of whole cloth. You have no idea and just threw out 5 ships with zero knowledge.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:55 am
Your source said 4. The rest were reserves.thewood1 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 2:53 am "I stand corrected, they reactivated the ships they didn't want, and that was most of their ships."
I thought you said they were all sunk? The US had 15 active carriers around the world in 1950 and 20-25 deactivated. They were deactivated to save money. The built six new carriers between 1946 and 1950. The US still had a very large fleet in the Atlantic.
This is a perfect example of you making stuff up out of whole cloth. You have no idea and just threw out 5 ships with zero knowledge.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:56 am
So where did you get the five ship number? I'm genuinely curious. I think it informs your state of mind.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 2:57 am
No, four were active in the Western Pacific. 11 served in Korea. You explicitly stated five served in Korea.