Commander Subtitution Normandy!

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Hey...

Could you just open a second thread, were all the Navy guys were tested if they could replace Admiral Nimitz or make it even better than him?

I don't think leading a navy at sea is quite the same thing as leading a navy in space; and one who excels in one backdrop of a navy (for Piett, space) will most likely not do as well in another (the sea).

[Isolder74]

Historically, Naval commanders can prove themselves quite adept at combat on land. Admiral John Jellicoe, for instance, proved himself to be capable, heroic, and highly innovative in Egypt when he was a Lieutenant during the Mahdist revolt.
So there's no real reason to disregard a naval commander in this scenario, it's just unorthodox.

Admiral Piett it is!

You forgot to vote though

and we have a vote for picard I wonder who the coward trekkie is. I like to know why people pick a option. BTW Stravo the Kirk pic is from StarTrek.com

[Isolder74]

Hey...

Could you just open a second thread, were all the Navy guys were tested if they could replace Admiral Nimitz or make it even better than him?

Suggestion noted and is being considered

but the winner here will be excluded as he will be busy

[Isolder74]

Hey...

Could you just open a second thread, were all the Navy guys were tested if they could replace Admiral Nimitz or make it even better than him?

I don't think leading a navy at sea is quite the same thing as leading a navy in space; and one who excels in one backdrop of a navy (for Piett, space) will most likely not do as well in another (the sea).

I dodn't see as why not. The manuevers would only be now restricted to 2 dimensions otherwise it seems similer enough, heck even easier then what they are used to.

[Mr Bean]

I'm gonna pull a Dark Horse here, I'm going with Sisko

Why?

Simple pre knowledge of the battle at had

For example Napolean two weeks after the battle of Hastings would probably be a better choice of commander than Napolean five minutes before the battle of Hastings if one wanted a Commander for said battlene


Now then its pretty clear that Sisko and Picard(And to a lesser extent Kirk) have studied 20th Century combat, Infact Sisko mentions once or twice when he's off on his field trips(As does Picard... I think just based on probablity thought he mentions that SF officers are required to study war of yesteryear, and frankly one can see it today, WWII is a pretty damn intresting topic, giving them a good chance of having studied said battle)


And if Star Fleet acadmy is anything like a real military acadmy, or even a school, at some point one must write a few papers on if you where Commander X and battle Y what would you have done instea of Commander X at point Z

[Isolder74]

I'm gonna pull a Dark Horse here, I'm going with Sisko

Why?

Simple pre knowledge of the battle at had

For example Napolean two weeks after the battle of Hastings would probably be a better choice of commander than Napolean five minutes before the battle of Hastings if one wanted a Commander for said battlene


Now then its pretty clear that Sisko and Picard(And to a lesser extent Kirk) have studied 20th Century combat, Infact Sisko mentions once or twice when he's off on his field trips(As does Picard... I think just based on probablity thought he mentions that SF officers are required to study war of yesteryear, and frankly one can see it today, WWII is a pretty damn intresting topic, giving them a good chance of having studied said battle)


And if Star Fleet acadmy is anything like a real military acadmy, or even a school, at some point one must write a few papers on if you where Commander X and battle Y what would you have done instea of Commander X at point Z

I did state that they would only know what Ike would so though you have some good points how does this make them the better strategist?

[Howedar]

Good pionts but where is your vote for Dodanna?

Finger spasm







Lest all of you miss the point, a competant field commander is not what is needed here. Ike didn't freakin wade ashore with the first waves of troops; he was off in England coordinating. He is a theater commander, not a battlefield commander. Someone like Dodonna is therefore a better fit than someone like Veers.

[Worlds Spanner]

and we have a vote for picard I wonder who the coward trekkie is. I like to know why people pick a option.

Sorry, that was me and I forgot to post.

The vote is serious but tangential and as I read through the tread again I see it's wrong. But let me get there.

My reasoning applies to a very specific circumstance rather than the entire operation, which is why it's not, in fact, very relevant.

As you know, there were five different landing sites on D-day. Most people think of D-day as the landing on Omaha beach, where fighting raged all day, thousands of allied troops were killed, and it was only by very careful planning and percise execution under tremendous pressure that the allies pulled it off.

Much of this happened due to poor air support, although Omaha was admittedly the best fortified Nazi position.

On some landing sites the bombs dropped before the raids were very accurate. On Utah beach, for example, the landing fources suffered under 200 casualties and the fighting was over in a few hours. Many of the Nazi booby-traps, obstacles, fortifications, and guns were destroyed before the first troops hit the beach, although the allies did land by accident at the best possible site. In THAT situation Picard would be perfect because of his record of twiddling his thumbs and covering all of his bases. Utah didn't require a really sharp battle commander as much as other beaches, but it very quickly required someone who could manage personnel, land more troops, etc.

In that role I think that Picard would be perfect, but he wouldn't in fact be a good replacement for Eisenhower as Supreme Commander, AEF.

So I probably should have posted an aside instead of voting.

[Sea Skimmer]

They all do worse, the only ones who are actual ground commanders don't appear to have any experience with such large forces. Veers might if he commanded all the ground forces on the Executor, but he also has the Rommel complex and wants to be a battalion commander forever. He'd hate his new job.

[Sea Skimmer]

Much of this happened due to poor air support, although Omaha was admittedly the best fortified Nazi position.

No actually it was because all the armored support sank in the channel and the beach did not receive a sufficient naval bombardment. Aircraft are poor at destroying field fortifications, let alone the concrete emplacements the Germans where in, and the carpet bombing attack that missed would have done jack shit to them. In addition an extra regiment had been moved into position behind the beach and the Allies where not aware of it.

On some landing sites the bombs dropped before the raids were very accurate. On Utah beach, for example, the landing fources suffered under 200 casualties and the fighting was over in a few hours. Many of the Nazi booby-traps, obstacles, fortifications, and guns were destroyed before the first troops hit the beach, although the allies did land by accident at the best possible site.

Which was virtually undefended and not bombed or shelled at all so I'm not seeing what your point is. The Germans chose not to garrison it with more then a token screen because the exits where extremely narrow and surrounded by swamp. Aircraft bombing was in no way responsible for the easy victory. Even if it had been bombed, there would be next to nothing to destroy.

[Straha]

General Stillwell, much better at combat manuevers, and less of a person to let Diplomatics get in his way... BUt seeing as how he isn't here I'm going with actually I think I'm going to agree with Mr. Bean here and say Sisko or Picard, not because of what he said but because those two have demonstrated the ability to manage prolonged campaigns against an enemy, Sisko against the Dominion and Picard against the Klingons in the alternate universe without the Enterprise-C dieing to save the Klingons, Whereas no other commander there has shown that same ability on screen, except maybe Donadonna.

[Worlds Spanner]

Much of this happened due to poor air support, although Omaha was admittedly the best fortified Nazi position.

No actually it was because all the armored support sank in the channel and the beach did not receive a sufficient naval bombardment. Aircraft are poor at destroying field fortifications, let alone the concrete emplacements the Germans where in, and the carpet bombing attack that missed would have done jack shit to them. In addition an extra regiment had been moved into position behind the beach and the Allies where not aware of it.

On some landing sites the bombs dropped before the raids were very accurate. On Utah beach, for example, the landing fources suffered under 200 casualties and the fighting was over in a few hours. Many of the Nazi booby-traps, obstacles, fortifications, and guns were destroyed before the first troops hit the beach, although the allies did land by accident at the best possible site.

Which was virtually undefended and not bombed or shelled at all so I'm not seeing what your point is. The Germans chose not to garrison it with more then a token screen because the exits where extremely narrow and surrounded by swamp. Aircraft bombing was in no way responsible for the easy victory. Even if it had been bombed, there would be next to nothing to destroy.

Both of our facts are correct for the most part, our interpretations are where there's disagreement.

I'm not sufficently attached to my position to argue it out. The balance of evidence is on your side, but if I wanted to spend a long time (and ignore Occam's Razor) I could stand by mine.

Mind you, this is not an attempt to say I'm right without any evidence. I'm saying I could be right but I'll concede the point anyway.

Hmmm...that actually sounds like the same statement.

Well, you get the idea. I'm trying to say that you win, but my surrender is not, well, absolute, to stick by the World War II theme.

Of course, the allies demanded absolute surrender.....

*Mumbles until he realizes no one cares.*

[Isolder74]

no he's a diplomat!

Uh, what the hell do you think he was doing for 7 years? You think he was just a passenger with the best seat in the house?

Any of them would be just as good, because they can just call their respective starship and bomb the enemy into oblivion.

If Veers doesn't get his AT-AT's then the starship captians don't get their ships It amazes me that the Enterprise even survive 7 years with that idiot in command. How many time was Picard fired at without returning fire?

[Isolder74]

Good pionts but where is your vote for Dodanna?

Finger spasm







Lest all of you miss the point, a competant field commander is not what is needed here. Ike didn't freakin wade ashore with the first waves of troops; he was off in England coordinating. He is a theater commander, not a battlefield commander. Someone like Dodonna is therefore a better fit than someone like Veers.

I Agree and I wish I could change my vote from Veers to Dodonna. Dodonna is the perfect headquarters man for this operation. He might even be better at finding the good landing zones than Ike was. I wouldn't put it past Dodonna to find and tell the guys at utah to land at the spot they accidently landed at the first place after anylising the imformation about the German defenses. In the Normandy much of the landing choices was chosen for political reasons.

[Darth Yoshi]

Rieekan. His performance at Hoth was excellent, considering the disadvantage the Rebels had.

Sea combat shares less in common with space combat than it does with ground combat.

[Straha]

Rieekan. His performance at Hoth was excellent, considering the disadvantage the Rebels had.

But what he did at Hoth is very different then what they did at normandy and afterwards. If I was going to use Rieekan I'd sub him, maybe, for Monty or Bradley, but not for Ike because I don't want a strategic man being replaced with a tactician.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, you get the idea. I'm trying to say that you win, but my surrender is not, well, absolute, to stick by the World War II theme.

Of course, the allies demanded absolute surrender.....

*Mumbles until he realizes no one cares.*

[Straha]

Cute B-29, but was that a CGI or an Actual Pic?

[Isolder74]

Cute B-29, but was that a CGI or an Actual Pic?

For a hint it says Enola Gay on the side

[Straha]

Cute B-29, but was that a CGI or an Actual Pic?

For a hint it says Enola Gay on the side

So?

[Howedar]

Its quite clearly CGI.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

What was the Enola Gay

[RedImperator]

So?

Don't they teach history anymore? Enola Gay was the bomber that turned Hiroshima into a postmodern scuplture.

[Isolder74]

So?

Don't they teach history anymore? Enola Gay was the bomber that turned Hiroshima into a postmodern scuplture.

It surprises me we even HAD to explain this one! Is the Anti-nuclear people so audatious to try and rewrite history. We dropped the bomb LIVE with it. The Allias and Axis alike turned cities in Europe into smoldering rubble with thousands of pounds of TNT. At the time the A-bomb was only seen as a way to do the same with less risk of lives. The Radiation nightmare came out only after we used one. It is clear that without it Japan would have never surrendered!!

[Straha]

So?

Don't they teach history anymore? Enola Gay was the bomber that turned Hiroshima into a postmodern scuplture.

I knew that, the point was that wether Enola Gay was writen on it or not doesn't affect wether or not it is CGI