Radio Message

[andqui]

So the Americans wouldn't have had an interest in knowing the effectiveness of their own bomber campaign?

Aside from the first post, your entire argument has consisted of repeating that you're right. You don't even need to find evidence- I know I'm certainly not going to dig around for links and quotes for a subsim argument about airplanes- but at least say why you believe that RAF bombing was more accurate and decisive than it's US counterpart. "It just was" doesn't count.

[Red Devil]

History is the opinion of the writer.

I will reply when I have time. I do other things than play sh4 you know.

[Daniel Prates]

People people... it is possible to be right AND polite at the same time.

You know that game we play in the beach, with two rackets and a rubber ball? The aim of that game is putting the ball in your couterpart's reach, thus, we could say it is a cooperative game where everybody wins. Now compare that to pingpong, for instance. Basically the same game: two rackets and a ball, but the aim is to defeat the opponent, putting the ball where he cannot reach it. Other than that, both games are pratically the same.

A conversation can be either kind of game. Depends on what you're aiming for. Is it to acheive enlightment for both participants, or to destroy the adversary?

[Red Devil]

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

[andqui]

I'm sure you do, as do I, but taking two minutes to outline your views doesn't = playing SH4.

For example:
RAF policy used whole cities as targets. RAF bombers flew at night. The goal of an RAF night bomber mission was to put your bombs on the right city and return to base. Most bombs dropped in these missions landed on the city, but there were still a significant % of misses. Until RAF bombers got a combination of Oboe blind bombing aids and look-down ground targeting radar, hitting a specific 1000 foot radius required a good deal of fortune. Every RAF bomber fly's and drops its bombs independently. RAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

USAAF policy used a 1000 foot radius as a target. USAAF bombers flew in daylight. The goal of the mission was to put as many bombs as possible within that 1000 foot radius and return to base. In good weather, maybe something like 20-30% of the bombs dropped landed within that circle. USAAF bombers flew in tight formation, and the lead plane was responsible for aiming, with the rest dropping on cue. USAAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

That took me three minutes. Some of the stats might be incorrect, I'm going from my memory/understanding. The above leads me to believe that USAAF bombing was more precise and accurate on average. This is independent of destructiveness or mission effectiveness. Is there anything that you can see as wrong?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

Yup. I've never seen anyone get the least bit excited about a sports competition. Very unrealistic.

[Daniel Prates]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

10000% agreed. And I doubt the comms channels were used for frivolous things, like, "250k troops trapped in stalingrad" or so.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

And you're point about the radio messages is spot on. But you are the one who started the whole "Mine is better than yours" thing, so trying to weasel out of in now won't work. Put up some real evidence that backs up your claim, or retract it.

of course it is, its written by the Yanks.

And it never once, in all its thousands of pages, claims that American bombing was better or worse than anyone else's. What it does is give a fair and honest assessment of the US air campaigns. Dismissing it with a wisecrack indicates that you are not as well-read or knowlegeable as you claim.

[timmyg00]

the word "troll" comes to mind.

TG

[Red Devil]

probably, you should know.

[razark]

Heh...

Sailor Steve, I thought you were the one that pointed out when stuff has been posted before.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...11#post1443111

[Red Devil]

thanks for that, I admit a spasm of deja vu when I was typing it. Apologies

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by razark

Heh...

Sailor Steve, I thought you were the one that pointed out when stuff has been posted before.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...11#post1443111

A year ago doesn't count. I may remember seeing a certain picture in a certain thread, but a lot of the time I spend too much time looking for it and not finding it. I didn't remember that thread at all.

[Jimbuna]

Bad post reports usually mean someone or people are concerned at the content or the direction a thread is heading...resorting to personal name calling and attacks is not something we normally class as acceptable etiquette here on SubSim.

Far better to debate in a manner that is within the rules/guidelines of our community of our community.

[Red Devil]

Probably my fault, thought I was talking about spurious radio messages. end it ................