Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin
The military operates on doctrine. If the guys on both sides of you have deadly weapons, you want to be able to rely on what they will do. Friendly fire is no fun. So if the programme implements doctrine and something gets screwed up, it will get screwed up according to doctrine.

Not quite right. The military STARTS wars with Doctrine. Which last just as long as it takes the people at the "sharp end" to find out what works and what doesn't, and make changes. After the war, the changes that worked become the new "doctrine".

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Iridium

I would gladly see the removal of the possibility of surface ships to fire HA weapons (MGs on up till DP weapons). Most surface combat situations demand that light AA crews be away from their stations anyhow. Unless you prefer to have the argument about how everyone manning that 25mm gun on Yamato would be dead after the 18" guns fired...etc

What about MTB crews?

There are always exceptions to the rules...[;)]

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


On the shooting or target vessel.... both? [:'(]

Guinea pigs on the deck of the Yamato actually. Didn't take a shell hit, just firing them.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
The military operates on doctrine. If the guys on both sides of you have deadly weapons, you want to be able to rely on what they will do. Friendly fire is no fun. So if the programme implements doctrine and something gets screwed up, it will get screwed up according to doctrine.

Not quite right. The military STARTS wars with Doctrine. Which last just as long as it takes the people at the "sharp end" to find out what works and what doesn't, and make changes. After the war, the changes that worked become the new "doctrine".

"No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy" — Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

And the Mike Scholl Corollary:

"No doctrine ever survives the next war"

[;)]