I am UNWORTHY

[Lokioftheaesir]

Ed

I just came back on line to delete the post i wrote because i set a rule that i should never answer posts while severely afflicted with bourbon poisoning. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
And then i go and break my own rule.
It seems that you found it before i returned.

"Loki, be serious for just a second before you get silly on us."

Just about says it all. But i had already 'got' silly.

Would you be so kind as to ignor the ramblings of a friendly drunk?

Thanks

Loki

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Ed

I just came back on line to delete the post i wrote because i set a rule that i should never answer posts while severely afflicted with bourbon poisoning. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
And then i go and break my own rule.
It seems that you found it before i returned.

"Loki, be serious for just a second before you get silly on us."

Just about says it all. But i had already 'got' silly.

Would you be so kind as to ignor the ramblings of a friendly drunk?

Thanks

Loki

---

I'm not much of a drinker, but have you ever had blackberry wine? Wonderful stuff, my poison of choice. I pick up a bottle every once in a while. You've reminded me, I think its about time again. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


I'm not much of a drinker, but have you ever had blackberry wine? Wonderful stuff, my poison of choice. I pick up a bottle every once in a while. You've reminded me, I think its about time again. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

---

Ed

Actually neither am i but every now and then i get a craving for a bottle of one the the finest products to come out of the 'confederate states'.
Wild Turkey
3 or 4 shots latter i'm ready to argue all night on any topic under the sun. Which is OK i suppose but the propositions usually get 'thin', as you pointed out with the 'North American, Curtis exct' examples

I can think of no examples of i single fighter air force as a precendent (not counting 'purchased' airforces like thailand exct) so i'll modify my game style to include continued Me production from now on. But will still 'favour' the FW190 as say, the English 'favoured' the Spitfire.


Blackberry wine, no i've not heard of it. Wine gives me a bad headache so i rarely drink it except as a compliment to a meal.

Loki

[czerpak]

Ed and Loki,
I give an example of a country producing one type of fighter and bomber for its air force - it was my country before IIWW. We had PZL-37 Los bomber (considered to be best one of its time) and old P-11 fighter. New fighter called Wilk (Wolfe) was under development and planned to enter service in 1940.
There was a good reason for that policy - our air force was pretty small, but still fact remains true.
Maciej

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by czerpak:
Ed and Loki,
I give an example of a country producing one type of fighter and bomber for its air force - it was my country before IIWW. We had PZL-37 Los bomber (considered to be best one of its time) and old P-11 fighter. New fighter called Wilk (Wolfe) was under development and planned to enter service in 1940.
There was a good reason for that policy - our air force was pretty small, but still fact remains true.
Maciej

---

Maciej

Well, a precedent.

It will have no effect however on what i do with production.
As i said 'I will favour Fw190 production over Me109' which means it will be left how i have it in the games running at the moment.
That is, 1 factory on 109's and 7 on Fw190's.
Changing my game style basically comes down to 'will i change that one Me109 factory over at the end of '41"? Nah, leave it as it is, cant hurt.
If i do a lousy job as germans and the war goes into '43/'44 then that 109 factory can swap to Me262 (there will be no production of G/K variants)

There was no arguement concerning armour production. 1 Main 'medium' MBT only, as it should be. Stg/Pzjg production continues as normal. Tiger production also remains untouched as always.

Loki

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak:
Ed and Loki,
I give an example of a country producing one type of fighter and bomber for its air force - it was my country before IIWW. We had PZL-37 Los bomber (considered to be best one of its time) and old P-11 fighter. New fighter called Wilk (Wolfe) was under development and planned to enter service in 1940.
There was a good reason for that policy - our air force was pretty small, but still fact remains true.
Maciej

---

Well, I imagine that many small countries couldn't afford more than one aircraft production process. Many in fact can't afford one, and just buy their planes from someone else. When I said that in the debate with Loki, I was really thinking of the main combatants of that war. Countries that could afford more than one production process did have more than one, the Brits, Germans, Soviets, Americans, and Japanese.

Does anyone know how many fighter models the French were using in 1940?

[mogami]

Hi, the US produced 18 different aircraft types during WW2 (with differnt models of each as time went by) Japan produced 90 different aircraft type (with differnet models of each as time went by (check out the dive bomber Zero <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ))

[Jap Lance]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Does anyone know how many fighter models the French were using in 1940?

---

A few different ones. Right now I can think of the MoraneSaulnier-406, the Bloch-152, the Cauldron-714, the Potez-63 heavy fighter series and the brand new Dewoitine-520. And they were using also a number of Curtiss Hawk as well...

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Jap Lance:


A few different ones. Right now I can think of the MoraneSaulnier-406, the Bloch-152, the Cauldron-714, the Potez-63 heavy fighter series and the brand new Dewoitine-520. And they were using also a number of Curtiss Hawk as well...

---

Thanks, for that info. 5 different major fighter models, or are some of those minor variants? What were the French thinking?

And I forgot the Italians. They had the Macchi and Centauro as we can see in WiR. I'm pretty sure, those are different major models, not different versions of the same model.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, the US produced 18 different aircraft types during WW2 (with differnt models of each as time went by) Japan produced 90 different aircraft type (with differnet models of each as time went by (check out the dive bomber Zero <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ))

---

What about just fighters? I know I'm missing the night fighters the US had, but they came late and were not made in large numbers. More P47s were produced than any other fighter, followed by the P51.
Japan had a large number of fighters in their Army, but their Navy relied on just the Zero until much later when they added the "Jack" model fighter, simultaneously produced with the later Zeros. Am I missing any other Navy fighters for them? Its hard to classify planes with Japan I bet, they couldn't mass produce anything in large numbers, so having many models didn't hurt them as much. If France really had 5 major fighter models, I'll be surprised. For a country that size and industrial base, having so many models would have hurt them I think.

[czerpak]

Britts had 1 main fighter - Spitfire. Hurricane was older model replaced later in war by Spitfires. French really used so many models. I never understood why ?

[Jap Lance]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Japan had a large number of fighters in their Army, but their Navy relied on just the Zero until much later when they added the "Jack" model fighter, simultaneously produced with the later Zeros. Am I missing any other Navy fighters for them?.

---

After the Jack came the N1K Shiden (George in Allied code), which is considered the best IJN fighter of the war. It was armed with 4x20mm guns
and was as agile as a P-51, though a bit slower I think, but well protected as well. It arrived too late to be produced in high numbers.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/n1k-j.htm

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jap Lance ]</p>

[Jap Lance]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


If France really had 5 major fighter models, I'll be surprised. For a country that size and industrial base, having so many models would have hurt them I think.

---

The main French fighter in 1940 was the Morane-Saulnier. The Bloch was only used by a few units, the Cauldron was handed to the Polish forces, and the Dewoitine was to be the main fighter, but the Armistice came too early for it.

Anyway, it was probably hell for the logistics

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jap Lance ]</p>

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak:
Britts had 1 main fighter - Spitfire. Hurricane was older model replaced later in war by Spitfires. French really used so many models. I never understood why ?

---

Some Hurricanes were in the Far East at the end of the war.

Also, RAF Bomber Command used Mustangs for fighter escort squadrons and some other British squadrons started converting to Mustangs in 1944, all because it had an operational range that dwarfed the Spitfire. I don't know how many conversions there were and how far the Brits planned to go with the Mustang, the jets showed up very quickly after the war putting a quick end the Mustang's possible lifetime.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Die Kriegerin]

This is a late post but...Loki I agree with you. During war the commander in chief is the commander in chief. Roosevelt said were building Avengers who wants the contract, 3 or 4 different companies built it. Did they continue to build the Dauntless?...P-38 production continued because of sucess in the Pacific, P-47 ground support. Fw-190 was all three. Money is money, if they want the check, build the product we want. No company is going out of business. If they get a better product we'll build it...Jets, jets, jets.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin:

This is a late post but...Loki I agree with you. During war the commander in chief is the commander in chief. Roosevelt said were building Avengers who wants the contract, 3 or 4 different companies built it.

---

Hasn't it occurred to you that NONE of the major combatants did as you suggest? Even Hitler didn't micromanage aircraft production this way even though he meddled on occasion. Why, do you think? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I'm glad FDR didn't try his hand at designing planes and instead left that to the major aircraft design studios, and I'm glad our military didn't throw caution to the wind and roll the dice with just one plane design for each category.

Think about this. Suppose the Soviets shut down all design centers except for the studio that created the Yak fighter series, because the Yak was the best plane for most of the war, so they decided to commit to it for 10 or 15 years. During all that time during the use of the Yak, what do you have the other design centers do? If you shut them down because you don't need them, who is there to design the Mig-15 when you need it? No one design center can consistantly produce the best plane for each category all the time. In WWII the Soviet Mig series of planes sucked, but 15 years later the company that made the crappy Mig-3 turned out to be the one that produced one of better jet fighters of all time, then 20 years after that it was another design studio that created the Su-27. The moral of this (historical) story is don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Hasn't it occurred to you that NONE of the major combatants did as you suggest? Even Hitler didn't micromanage aircraft production this way even though he meddled on occasion. Why, do you think? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I'm glad FDR didn't try his hand at designing planes and instead left that to the major aircraft design studios, and I'm glad our military didn't throw caution to the wind and roll the dice with just one plane design for each category.

Think about this. Suppose the Soviets shut down all design centers except for the studio that created the Yak fighter series, because the Yak was the best plane for most of the war, so they decided to commit to it for 10 or 15 years. During all that time during the use of the Yak, what do you have the other design centers do? If you shut them down because you don't need them, who is there to design the Mig-15 when you need it? No one design center can consistantly produce the best plane for each category all the time. In WWII the Soviet Mig series of planes sucked, but 15 years later the company that made the crappy Mig-3 turned out to be the one that produced one of better jet fighters of all time, then 20 years after that it was another design studio that created the Su-27. The moral of this (historical) story is don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

---

Hey

I did not say that any design sections should be shut down. I said that Me factories could build Fw190's untill their own designs (Me262) could be put into production. (And then Focke could build Me262's).
This would be called an amalgamation of assets by those doing the planning. There is no objective law that says it could not be done.
The objection to this strategy is from subjective reality types who think that there is no way money minded and proud companies would do such a thing.

But there is no such thing as corporate autonomy in a totalitarian state.

But i tell you, A leader with smarts would do just that, and damn the objections. (damn them into Gestapo basements)
He would say... Messerschmitt is going to do this and who is going to argue? (you?, yeh right)
Can yo imagine the head of the Yakolev bureau standing up in front of Stalin and saying 'We are not going to do that!! It's not the way it's supposed to be done!!
(yeh right)

Ed has made the comment...

Quote
"Even Hitler didn't micromanage aircraft production this way even though he meddled on occasion. Why, do you think? <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> "

The anwer is. "Because he did not Think to do it."
( And 'I' am Hitler or Stalin in this game and i 'Did' think to do it.}
Are you saying he 'could' not.
And dont give me historical precedent that he would not. Historical precedent has nothing to do with objective laws. There is 'no' objective law that says a dictator cannot say 'Do this'

Loki

PS. The Logic comes down to this. You or i are magically transported to the command of a great nation and you or i have foreknowledge of how it worked out in history. You or i then, by default can change what we like as long as the change is objectively possible. (and because both sides have this foreknowledge, there is ballance)
Nothing i have said in the above post distorts possible objective reality in any way.
This is all that matters, there is no situation i can remember where i have promoted acts that 'could not' have occured.