|
Pinback posted:no matter what else happens if grey manages to send Bush I down into davy jones locker this becomes the better timeline He might also sink JFK which means President Nixon in 1961.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
I think the US sustaining such devastating losses in the war would change a lot of things even without historically significant persons dying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:I think the US sustaining such devastating losses in the war would change a lot of things even without historically significant persons dying. President Nixon in 1945 it is, then
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:President Nixon in 1945 it is, then MacArthur wins the Republican nomination in '44, is elected, vows to kill every Japanese male
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:I think the US sustaining such devastating losses in the war would change a lot of things even without historically significant persons dying. True, Nixon was VP for Eisenhower, and I doubt he would win in 52 after having lost Europe to Hitler. Someone already said President Dewey. gently caress it, President Prescott Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:MacArthur wins the Republican nomination in '44, is elected, vows to kill every Japanese male I can't even imagine how MacArthur and his sycophants are spinning this. Probably some variation of "if only the President had listened to me!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
   Dakka dakka dakka!  Clunk!  2-1 odds are better than I'm used to.  At least we are getting some killed.  What Australian Victory?  Still a lot of planes.  I have to find some way to lose a lot of planes.  They start landing more troops at Truk.   Erm, I lost half the planes I lost yesterday. That's an improvement right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
This is horrifying and I fuckin love it
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
24 June 1944 Normandy is a dangerous place to be a ship: destroyer HMS Swift gets mined. Germany began deploying new pressure-activated mines, which were very difficult to sweep, in response to the Overlord landings. Two small minesweepers—the trawler Lord Austin and motor minesweeper No. 8—are also sunk by mines today along with several cargo vessels. In the Adriatic, British motor gunboats (MGBs) force the Croatian (ex-Yugoslav) torpedo boat T-7 aground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:What Australian Victory? A depressingly good question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
There was the successful defence of Darwin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Pershing posted:I can't even imagine how MacArthur and his sycophants are spinning this. Probably some variation of "if only the President had listened to me!" 100% this
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Serpentis posted:A depressingly good question. Now when I was a young man, I carried me pack And I lived the free life of the rover From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback Well, I waltzed my Matilda all over Then in Nine fourty four , my country said "son It's time you stopped rambling, there's work to be done" So they gave me a tin hat, and they gave me a gun And they marched me away to the war And the band played Waltzing Matilda As the ship pulled away from the quay And amidst all the cheers, the flag-waving and tears We sailed off for near Rabaulee And how well I remember that terrible day How our blood stained the sand and the water And of how in that hell that they called fuckall sea We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter Japanese, he was waiting, he'd primed himself well He showered us with bullets and he rained us with shell And in five minutes flat, he'd blown us all to hell And now I'm dead, part of the coral
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:He might also sink JFK which means President Nixon in 1961. Nixon was in the Pacific too, running air operations in the rear. He and his buddies hustled guys coming through their base in a standing poker game and he used the winnings to partially finance his first run for Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Nixon was in the Pacific too, running air operations in the rear. He and his buddies hustled guys coming through their base in a standing poker game and he used the winnings to partially finance his first run for Congress. Nixon was an REMF. That doesn't surprise me. And I say that as a Never Served In The Military guy so I can't exactly throw shade, but I'm also not sabotaging peace negotiations to get elected President only to escalate the war, but that's politics so I'll stop now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
and don't forget LBJ, who also had a strange, quasi-official wartime deployment and went on a single bombing run as an observer, and earned a Silver Star for gallantly watching Japanese planes from an perspex bubble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Lakedaimon posted:and don't forget LBJ, who also had a strange, quasi-official wartime deployment and went on a single bombing run as an observer, and earned a Silver Star for gallantly watching Japanese planes from an perspex bubble. LBJ was old school Texas corrupt. Back in those days Texas state politics were so hilariously corrupt that the method for getting elected depended more on your mastery of the insane kabuki theater of managing corruption rather than getting votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Ford was on a light carrier in the Pacific, the USS Monterrey, which was, among other places, at Eniwetok.Cannonfodder posted:Nixon was an REMF. That doesn't surprise me. And my grandfather spent WWII on a supply base in the Midwest. The vast majority of soldiers and sailors, even in wartime, never see combat. It doesn't make what they do unimportant or anything to be ashamed of. It takes a lot of people behind the front line to put troops on the front line. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Nixon is, well, Nixon, but he actively requested a move into the Pacific theater after being initially based in Iowa. LBJ's silver star was entirely political, and entirely undeserved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:LBJ was old school Texas corrupt. Back in those days Texas state politics were so hilariously corrupt that the method for getting elected depended more on your mastery of the insane kabuki theater of managing corruption rather than getting votes. LBJ won his Senate race in 1948 (or, well, the Democratic Primary, which was tantamount to election) by 87 votes. This included a few hundred who apparently voted in alphabetical order 20 minutes before the polls closed in the notoriously corrupt Rio Grande valley precints. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
After months of moving every div I had free to Jahore Baru, it's time for Singapore Assault Part 2, or Honey, I Forgot the Engineers: Ground combat at Singapore (50,84) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 98146 troops, 1768 guns, 2082 vehicles, Assault Value = 3434 Defending force 43260 troops, 616 guns, 565 vehicles, Assault Value = 1415 Allied adjusted assault: 979 Japanese adjusted defense: 2881 Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 7) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-) Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-) Japanese ground losses: 2958 casualties reported Squads: 36 destroyed, 175 disabled Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 69 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 54 disabled Guns lost 116 (19 destroyed, 97 disabled) Vehicles lost 113 (31 destroyed, 82 disabled) Allied ground losses: 10063 casualties reported Squads: 472 destroyed, 814 disabled Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 288 disabled Engineers: 71 destroyed, 248 disabled Guns lost 358 (74 destroyed, 284 disabled) Vehicles lost 55 (8 destroyed, 47 disabled) Assaulting units: 7th Indian Division 29th British Brigade 14th Indian Division 18th British Division 6th Australian Division 26th Indian Division 7th Australian Division 17th Indian Division 5th Indian Division 100th Indian Brigade 111th Chindit Brigade 46th Indian Brigade 9th Australian Division IV Indian Corps 2/11th Field Regiment 85th British AT Gun Regiment 20th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment 14th Indian Light AA Regiment Defending units: 1st Mobile Infantry Regiment 5th Tank Regiment 9th Tank Regiment 18th Division 1st Tank Regiment 12th Garrison Unit 16th Garrison Unit 54th Division 1st INA Subhas Regiment 3rd INA Azad Regiment Shanghai SNLF 4th RTA Division 2nd INA Gandhi Regiment 1st Recon Battalion 4th INA Nehru Regiment 80th Garrison Battalion 33rd Road Const Co 6th Shipping Engineer Regiment 34th Road Const Co 34th Field AA Battalion 29th JNAF AF Unit 14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 35th Field AA Battalion 59th JNAF AF Unit 51st Field AA Battalion 1st Mobile Field Artillery Regiment 3rd Air Army 1st Mobile AA Battalion 22nd Air Flotilla 92nd JAAF AF Bn 3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment 2nd Shipping Engineer Regiment 15th Const Co 4th Ind. Engineer Regiment 18th JAAF Base Force 93rd JAAF AF Bn
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Doesn't Fort Level 7 basically mean you're headbutting the Maginot Line? I'm astonished you only lost what you did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
I think I brought enough Commonwealth troops to scale the walls over the bodies They're not going to counterattack me off easily , so it's just a matter of time. Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 27761 troops, 410 guns, 424 vehicles, Assault Value = 1213 Defending force 92094 troops, 1774 guns, 2169 vehicles, Assault Value = 2264 Japanese adjusted assault: 205 Allied adjusted defense: 1587 Japanese assault odds: 1 to 7 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), experience(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 5923 casualties reported Squads: 177 destroyed, 302 disabled Non Combat: 40 destroyed, 90 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled Guns lost 77 (8 destroyed, 69 disabled) Vehicles lost 255 (144 destroyed, 111 disabled) Units destroyed 1 Allied ground losses: 578 casualties reported Squads: 7 destroyed, 93 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled Guns lost 24 (5 destroyed, 19 disabled) Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
  We blow more ships up off Truk.  So many burning ships.  We are even blasting their destroyers.  We continue to bomb the Australian Victory.  I should be shifting out some of these B's for C's soon.  Still going!  We did some nice damage today.  Only one confirmed kill though. Grey Hunter fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
DE Manlove
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
That's a lot of Tojos!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Did the American carriers withdraw? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 05:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
In this timeline American command was infiltrated by DC's Ares that wants the war to go forever. Can't have USN Carrier wing destroy IJN raiders..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
Naval bombardment seems surprisingly bad at actually killing planes. Still preferrable to fighting them in the air though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Naval bombardment seems surprisingly bad at actually killing planes. Still preferrable to fighting them in the air though! naval bombardment is great for severely damaging an airfield and damaging most of the planes in it, but it's not sustainable, so what you're supposed to use it for is to gain a temporary upper-hand in a "bombing duel" between competing land-based air forces - once you hit the field, it won't be flying anything for a while, so then you should be free to bomb it from the air to keep the runways closed and the planes damaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
I had assumed that the idea is that, given a certain amount of damage, a plane in flight would crash for sure, whereas a grounded plane can be repaired? For example if a wing has a huge hole put through it in mid-air, the pilot is going to have to bail out and the airframe is toast, but if it's a huge hole on the ground it can be repaired, so you get to keep the airframe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
Splode posted:I had assumed that the idea is that, given a certain amount of damage, a plane in flight would crash for sure, whereas a grounded plane can be repaired? if a plane is damaged in flight, then it's possible for it to be destroyed before or as it lands, which is considered an Ops loss. if it survives the landing, then it's a damaged plane if a plane is damaged during a bombardment or bombing or lands as a damaged plane, then it won't take off until it gets repaired you need "Aviation Support" units inside an airbase to repair planes (and also to facilitate all air operations in general), and the Serviceability rating of a plane determines how easy it is to repair there can also be outcomes where a damaged plane becomes an Ops loss in the process of being repaired, possibly to simulate an airframe being written-off after some kind of inspection or initial repair attempt bombings and bombardments will also cause runway damage, which need to be repaired by Engineer units before planes can take off again if you have two opposing airbases in range of each other, what's probably going to happen is that you'll have bombers trying to bomb the enemy base, and then fighters to escort the bombers, as well as fighters to "sweep" the enemy base to clear out any CAP ahead of time. in this sense, naval bombardment can help you pull ahead - hit the base hard enough with ships, and the runway will be completely shut down and most of the planes will be damaged. Nothing will take off, so your own bombers should be able to bomb freely in the following days, and those bombs will re-up the runway damage and will keep planes damaged if not destroyed. Played right, a bombardment can begin the process of keeping a base continuously shut down. ____________ EDIT: yeah SerthVarnee's post below is also absolutely correct - you can also do things like operating out of multiple airbases and/or having much more airpower than the opposing force to win, but I wanted to illustrate something like if the Allies are occupying Guadalcanal and the Japanese are operating out of Rabaul, then the Japanese are going to have a hard time neutralizing Henderson Field just from flying Betties out at max range, but if the IJN can flatten the base temporarily with a bombardment force, then the Betties can maintain the level of damage, at least until the USN gets some carriers in for top cover or another airbase is secured. But in a lot of other contexts, there's enough other factors that would render my example rather simplistic gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 11:04
|
|
|
Note that this scenario, while completely true, has only taken into account the existance of one airbase on each side. It also gets heavily influenced by the availability of supplies to the base. So basically this is a scenario where the allies win in the long run simply because: They can afford to replace the supplies in spite of shipping losses. They can affor to replace the plane losses and pilot losses. They have an absolutely ungodly amount of aviation support and engineer units with construction vehicles available. They can afford to lock a good amount of heavy warships into use in that rather small local theater. They can replace said warships when things suddenly go horribly wrong. They can afford to do all this in multible adjacent bases without breaking a sweat. All their stuff gets better regardless of the outcome of the fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:DE Manlove
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-) Attacking across rivers into forts sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
25th missing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
alex314 posted:In this timeline American command was infiltrated by DC's Ares that wants the war to go forever. Can't have USN Carrier wing destroy IJN raiders.. Grey has sunk enough tankers and oilers that the USN has trouble keeping the fleets fueled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Grey has sunk enough tankers and oilers that the USN has trouble keeping the fleets fueled. I can’t believe that the USN is going to suffer the same fate the IJN did at the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
I.... honestly don't remember what happens when the Allies lose oilers. I'd guess that they get replaced, but I don't know how quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 01:13
|
|