|
Post by tbr on Mar 20, 2019 17:13:55 GMT -6
Yes, people need to understand that victors write history. The most unfair victory in WWII was that of Leigh-Mallory, Douglas and the "Big Wing" clique over Park and Dowding on the RAF internal battlefield of institutional politics. The RAF establishment rewrote history, in some cases quite blatantly, and this infected lots of post-war publications on the Battle of Britain as well as the public perception. "One" could not afford to have it known that the golden boy Leigh-Mallory was actually one of the Luftwaffe's greatest assets, not just in the Battle of Britain but also during the pre-ops to the Normandy invasion. The "Crisis of Fighter Command" was mostly due to Leigh-Mallory practically sabotaging both 11 Gropup and Fighter Command when the battle was at its height. Leigh-Mallory most likely killed himself with his own hubris, sadly his wife and ten aircrew died as well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 20, 2019 18:33:22 GMT -6
In my opinion the most glaring "path not taken" was when the Luftwaffe shifted focus from the airbases to industrial and urban targets in the battle of Britain. The RAF was stretched close to breaking point and a few more weeks might have bought the air superiority needed to launch Sealion. That is more myth than reality. Fighter Command was never near a breaking point. It was hard-pressed, perhaps, but it was holding its own. Aircraft supply was never a significant problem, as British factories were in fact outproducing the Germans. There was an issue with a shortage of pilots in the latter part of August, but some of that was due to administrative inefficiencies. Most Fighter Command sector airfields in southern England were never put out of action for more than a short amount of time. The Luftwaffe was bedeviled by poor intelligence throughout the battle, frequently hitting the less important satellite airfields rather than the more critical sector stations, as well as sometimes hitting Coastal Command and training airfields instead of Fighter Command bases. Even in the worse case scenario, the RAF could have pulled its aircraft back from 10 and 11 Group areas, repositioning them in 12 Group, putting them outside of the range at which German bombers could be escorted, and thus beyond effective attack. (This would have the price of increasing the time it took to intercept incoming German raids.) The switch to bombing London in early September was prompted by intelligence reports suggesting the RAF was down to its last few hundred fighters, and by hitting London it would force those remaining fighters into the air where they could be destroyed. (That intelligence was, of course, very mistaken.) The Germans never made any significant effort to curtail British fighter production during the battle, due to poor intelligence, the difficulties of hitting such targets, and lack a good heavy bomber for such strategic work. The Luftwaffe was taking significant losses as well during the Battle. Even if by some miracle it had managed to win air superiority over southern England, it would have wrecked itself in the process — a Pyrrhic victory. (And that's not even getting into the details of how vulnerable a German invasion fleet would have been to naval intercept.) The truth is, the Germans actually stood little chance of winning the Battle of Britain given the tactics, equipment, leadership, and intelligence it had at the time. Winning air superiority over the heart of the enemy's homeland is difficult, costly, and time consuming. For a true picture of just what is required, I suggest examining the USAAF's daylight campaign over Germany during the first half of 1944. And that effort was assisted by outside factors. They should have focused on the coastal radar network and fighter bases along with command and control centers. A substantial effort to first knock out the radar network was one of the few ways the Germans could have achieved victory. But the radar stations were very difficult targets to put out of action for any length of time, and the Luftwaffe did not understand the true importance of the radar network and how it was integrated into the British air defence system. They were able to knock out Ventnor but never understood the advantage of the radar network and the command and control system that integrated the Radars, observer Corps, and fighter bases together.
|
|
|
Post by GrandEmperorKurts on Mar 28, 2019 13:26:08 GMT -6
A suggestion for something I'd like to see.
In RTW1, you can only set a portion of your fleet to be AI controlled. If you set your primary squadron(s) on AI control, the game will bump it off with the message about making said squadron the flag. However, considering the game has you set up in effect as both the political and military head of your navy, I think it is unreasonable (not to mention unrealistic) to force the player to manually command every battle. I'm not saying I want a bland auto-resolve button, as I do enjoy watching the battle -- I am asking for the option to let the AI have total control of the battle if the player wants that. Of course, anyone who wants to manually command battles, they should still be more than welcome to do so... I'm just asking for the option to not be forced to do so.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 13:48:57 GMT -6
A suggestion for something I'd like to see. In RTW1, you can only set a portion of your fleet to be AI controlled. If you set your primary squadron(s) on AI control, the game will bump it off with the message about making said squadron the flag. However, considering the game has you set up in effect as both the political and military head of your navy, I think it is unreasonable (not to mention unrealistic) to force the player to manually command every battle. I'm not saying I want a bland auto-resolve button, as I do enjoy watching the battle -- I am asking for the option to let the AI have total control of the battle if the player wants that. Of course, anyone who wants to manually command battles, they should still be more than welcome to do so... I'm just asking for the option to not be forced to do so. Bravo, good idea. There has been a lot of ideas to get player control about forces deployement, but this opposite suggestion is very good idea.
|
|
|
Post by GrandEmperorKurts on Mar 28, 2019 14:38:04 GMT -6
Thank you. I was sorta expecting a response along the lines of dismissing my idea. I enjoy the strategic part of the game the most, as well as designing the ships. I would have to invest a lot of effort to learn how to effectively command battles, and that's a lot of effort that I simply don't find that fun.
|
|