SteveMartin wrote:
It is entirely possible that in some cases the German side would have had a fuel advantage and I don't think anyone is disputing that.
People have disputed this point. You, for one, stated the opposite.
On the whole however, this was not the case. German pilots had to pay careful attention to their fuel supplies and this influenced their tactics when entering combat.
Everyone had to pay careful attention to their fuel supplies. To claim that this is a problem for only one side is ridiculous.
I don't think that many aircraft fought to the point of running out of fuel and would have attempted to disengage before being reduced to glider status. I look at fuel capacities, not so much as an absolute measure of endurance, but rather the amount of discretionary power or whatever you want to call it at the hands of the individual pilot, in a given combat situation. Allied pilots, with their fuel advantage, could afford to use full power more often than their German counterparts, without fear of running out at the wrong moment.
And once again you rush completely past the important point. You claim that one side almost always entered the fight with less effective combat time that the other, and therefore must be the ones to break off the fight. You assume an unproven condition and then rely upon that to prove your point.
First, as Calsir has repeatedly noted (without being contested), fuel doesn't normally control an engagement.
Second, you ignore the short nature of the majority of World War I aerial combats. If an engagement lasts three minutes, it doesn't matter if one side enters the fight with thirty minutes of fuel and the other with two hours of fuel. The fight is over before fuel is an issue for either.
Third, in the next paragraph you make it clear that World War II pilots were aware of their fuel and normally avoided combat when there was insufficient fuel. Now you deny that same logic to World War I pilots.
To bring the point forward, one need only look at the concept of BINGO fuel. A combat aircraft can only go so far and still have a useful time on target. For example, German fighters having only about ten minutes combat time over Britain before having to head home, Allied fighters only being able to go so far when escorting the bombers.
Thank you for supporting my point! Both of your examples, although set in World War II, show clearly that pilots, as I have been saying, were well aware of their fuel states, and did not enter combat willingly if they did not have the fuel for the combat. The case of German fighters over London is an exception that proves the rule, since in that specific case the fighters knowingly went to the limits of their endurance in order to perform a mission. The fact that their limited combat time is so often referenced clearly indicates that this is not the common manner of operating. As for Allied fighter escorts, one would ask why they turned back when the did? Simple, they knew that they could not safely engage in combat if they flew any further with the bombers. Exactly as I have been saying - pilots knew their fuel states and regulated their actions accordingly. In World War I pilots were no less intelligent, and regulated their fuel usage similarly. Thus, in World War I to claim that German (or any nation's) aircraft consistently entered combat with low fuel is neither historical, logical, sensible, or consistent with your own comments here.
The P51 Mustang with its thousand mile plus range came as quite a shock to the Germans, who were used to waiting til the escorting fighters turned around and headed home, before attacking. In the first few missions the P51s performed exactly that maneuver and when the Germans committed themselves, the Mustangs then turned back again to engage a very surprised enemy.
Again we see that aircraft used their fuel states to govern their actions. The P-51s were able to engage in combat over Germany because they knew they had the fuel to fight and return home.
Why is it, however you do not claim that the German aircraft engaging the P-51s were at a fuel disadvantage? We know as a fact that they had significantly shorter ranges. Therefore, by direct extension of the claims made in this discussion for World War I aircraft, and the (il)logic of the Blue Max fuel rules, they should not have been able to effectively engage the American aircraft. However, we all know (or should know) that to claim that German aircraft operating over Germany would normally be short on fuel for a bomber intercept is absurd; as are the claims that World War I aircraft did not operate in the same manner.
There is no reason that fuel capacities cannot be adjusted for specific scenarios, indeed our own gaming group has done just that. But ir requires also an adjustment in victory conditions to compensate for the challenges in play balance.
What victory conditions? Shooting down the enemy? How does giving improperly designed aircraft more accurate values imbalance a game which claims to be based on history?
Even so, the majority, right or wrong, does rule.
No, to be correct, Nick rules here, not the majority. The majority is just able to shout louder.
You have presented arguments to support your views, just as the others have presented arguments to support their views. It seems that neither side has managed to convince the other, but nothing is served by saying that one side is wrong because they just don't get it. You state that your logic and historical points did not convince anyone. At the same time, the logical and historical points that were raised by the other side did not convince you or your camp, obviously for the same reason, specifically because everyone thinks that they are right and the other guy is wrong.
You attempt to make this into a two sided debate, which is was not. One side (a bad concept in this case) presented logic and history. The other did not debate, but relied on three things. The first was poor historical reasoning based upon the discredited implications of a single repeated fact; that German aircraft had less fuel. The second was a steadfast desire not to have changes made to the game. The third was an intellectually blinding refusal to accept the way history was.
There is a historically correct and incorrect (not necessarily right or wrong) aspect to this discussion. Things happened in certain ways. People may make all the claims they wish for playability, avoidance of change, or other aspects of the game; but, a game which claims to be historical and does not reflect the history of its time period, isn't a historical game.
If people don't want the game changed, that is their mistake, but then let us acknowledge that the form of the game played here is not historical, it is a fiction with at most a limited connection to its claimed historical background. Personally, I would prefer a historical game.
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
