Why wasn't Colonel Blair...

[Concordia]

Promoted to Brig. General following the end of the Kilrathi war...

He was LONG overdue for a promotion (if you count the fact that his rank should have been held the whole time from '55 to '65... he was given his rank back... it wasn't like he was promoted from O-3 to O-6 after the end of WC2, he simply got his rightfully deserved rank back.) He had achieved anywhere from Major to Lt. Col back in 2655.

-Concordia

 

[Aries]

he was promoted from O-3 to O-6 at the end of WC2. even if he was an admiral, Tolwyn didn't have enough authority to overturn a court decision.

as for why he didn't get promoted, he retired.

 

[TopGun]

After WC IV he transfered to the Navy and got promoted to Commodore (the Naval evq to Brigadier General)

 

[Delance]

His charachter's name is "Colonel Blair". Promoting his would be very confusing, unless he was no longer the player charachter.

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

Originally posted by Delance
His charachter's name is "Colonel Blair". Promoting his would be very confusing, unless he was no longer the player charachter.

what??

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Promotion to General Officer is much more complex than any of Blair's apparent battlefield promotions. Since there's a set number of general officers at any one time, Blair would have to be placed on a waiting list until a slot was available. Since he was retiring to work with the diplomatic corps, and he was clearly not especially interested in taking credit for Kilrah, it just didn't happen.

Blair was promoted to Brigadier General in 2673, following the Border Worlds conflict.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Delance
His charachter's name is "Colonel Blair". Promoting his would be very confusing, unless he was no longer the player charachter.

They don't exactly allow Generals (or Commodores or Admirals) in the cockpit.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
They don't exactly allow Generals (or Commodores or Admirals) in the cockpit.

Says who? During war, they can fly. In WW2, for example, I think Adolf Galland was put back in the cockpit when he was already a General. Besdies, who is to STOP a General or an Admiral from flying? Admirals, by definition, do not ursurp.

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Delance
Says who? During war, they can fly. In WW2, for example, I think Adolf Galland was put back in the cockpit when he was already a General. Besdies, who is to STOP a General or an Admiral from flying? Admirals, by definition, do not ursurp.

The Japanese found out what sort of chaos occurs in the command chain when your commanding Admiral or a General Officer gets shot down. Look at what happened after they lost Admiral Yamamato, who was arguably the 'heart and soul' of the Japanese campaign in the Pacific.

He was the one who planned the Pearl Harbor attack which, had it been timed better, may have destroyed most of the Pacific Fleet in dock, thus stopping American interference in the Pacific war for some years.

With him dead, the Japanese attempt to conquer the rest of Southeast Asia stalled... which in turn helped contribute to the compete and utter defeat of the Japanese Navy and army over the course of the next year or so. Even if he did lose a good part of the Japanese Navy at the Battle of Midway... he was important enough that the Americans detailed a mission JUST to kill him.

Yeah, it's not a good idea to send your admiral or general out in a relatively unprotected fighter - their job is to win the war, not fly a plane to win a single battle or mission. You lose them... you're losing a lot more than just one pilot or wing commander.

Otherwise Admiral Tolwyn would still be flying fighters on the front-line personally instead of letting that Colonel Blair guy do it.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

There is actually (in the American military, at least) a rule saying that generals can't fly -- and they certainly can't fly combat missions.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Delance
Says who? During war, they can fly. In WW2, for example, I think Adolf Galland was put back in the cockpit when he was already a General. Besdies, who is to STOP a General or an Admiral from flying? Admirals, by definition, do not ursurp.

the general's or admiral's job is to sit behind the lines and plan, give the word to go, and take the blame if anything goes wrong, not to get up and fight. if your general has to get up and fight, you're really in the shitter.

now, generals and admirals ARE allowed in the cockpit, but not for combat

as to who would stop said general or admiral, a higher ranking one

 

[Maniac II]

Originally posted by Aries
the general's or admiral's job is to sit behind the lines and plan, give the word to go, and take the blame if anything goes wrong, not to get up and fight. if your general has to get up and fight, you're really in the shitter.

now, generals and admirals ARE allowed in the cockpit, but not for combat

as to who would stop said general or admiral, a higher ranking one

Hmmm... lemme see... I know a guy who is a Captain in the Navy, and hes a Wing Commander.... i dont think they will pull you outa the cockpit just because your an admiral/general... i mean i can understand a 3 star not being able to be a combat pilot... but i'd figure they would let a 1 star....

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
There is actually (in the American military, at least) a rule saying that generals can't fly -- and they certainly can't fly combat missions.

True, but such rule does not exist on WC. Blair, as a Commodore (not even on the Space Force anymore) did fly more than one combat mission, which included man-to-bug combat. The conversation he has with the CAG make it clear that it's not impossible for him to fly, it is just her decision that he'd better not to.

WCP actually would make a good example of why Commodores shouldn't go inside enemy-controled bases unescorted. But Blair just loves to do this knids of thing, regardless of rank.

Now, for the chain of command. General Galland commanded his air unit, and he also did fly his fighter. Normally, he would shot down allied bombers, be shot down himself, bail, and find his way back to the base and tart over. During a desperate war, such rules and regulations are seldom forgotten.

The US really doesn’t need generals flying aircraft because it’s a superpower. Even a small fraction of the US military forces can deal with most countries entire armies, navies and air forces.

And last, but not least, remember that this rigid ranking system we have today in most armies is a somewhat recent invention. It was somewhat common for generals to go there and fight with the troops, sometimes just for show, sometimes because they were great fighters.

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Delance
True, but such rule does not exist on WC. Blair, as a Commodore (not even on the Space Force anymore) did fly more than one combat mission, which included man-to-bug combat. The conversation he has with the CAG make it clear that it's not impossible for him to fly, it is just her decision that he'd better not to.

WCP actually would make a good example of why Commodores shouldn't go inside enemy-controled bases unescorted. But Blair just loves to do this knids of thing, regardless of rank.

Now, for the chain of command. General Galland commanded his air unit, and he also did fly his fighter. Normally, he would shot down allied bombers, be shot down himself, bail, and find his way back to the base and tart over. During a desperate war, such rules and regulations are seldom forgotten.

The US really doesn’t need generals flying aircraft because it’s a superpower. Even a small fraction of the US military forces can deal with most countries entire armies, navies and air forces.

And last, but not least, remember that this rigid ranking system we have today in most armies is a somewhat recent invention. It was somewhat common for generals to go there and fight with the troops, sometimes just for show, sometimes because they were great fighters.

And look at how many past wars were lost because the commanding General got killed.

Not just battles - wars. There are reasons that, these days, they lock the General up behind the desk at the back if at all possible.

 

[Kalfor]

Btw, just a note
Yamamoto (not to be mixed with the japanese ship Yamato) was shot down while travelling from one place to another in controlled territory, close to Bouganville. It was a vip transport, not a combat fighter. the americans found out about that trip and sent a flight to shoot it down

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Kalfor
Btw, just a note
Yamamoto (not to be mixed with the japanese ship Yamato) was shot down while travelling from one place to another in controlled territory, close to Bouganville. It was a vip transport, not a combat fighter. the americans found out about that trip and sent a flight to shoot it down

It was a Betty bomber, actually - not a VIP transport. It was a combat craft, and he was shot down in an area which wasn't completely controlled by the Japanese - since there was an American base relatively nearby.

Given the American presence so closeby, relatively speaking... it was a bad idea. Cost the Japanese a strategic mind who might've held the Americans back an extra year.

 

[Kalfor]

what class of aircraft it was makes no different
it was a VIP transport mission. Yamamoto being in a Betty or a paper airplane makes no difference
He wasnt in the cockpit of a fighter going do battle, as your previous message implied, and the topic of discussion of this thread

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Kalfor
what class of aircraft it was makes no different
it was a VIP transport mission. Yamamoto being in a Betty or a paper airplane makes no difference
He wasnt in the cockpit of a fighter going do battle, as your previous message implied, and the topic of discussion of this thread

The fact of the matter is this - he was in an aircraft in a war zone, instead of something better equipped to survive. The reason we try not to put our general or flag-rank officers on these damned things, except somewhere so far behind the lines that it's unlikely they'll ever see an enemy, much less shoot it down.

Some of the planners wanted to sink the boat that Yamamato would be on after landing at Bougainville. If this had been over, say, Downtown Tokyo... he'd have been pretty safe from enemy fighter interference. As it is, there was an American base just 400-odd miles away, and fighters stationed there who had the ability to reach Bougainville with external tanks. In other words, this wasn't a nice, safe transport flight well behidn the lines... but damned close to the front, and even with a half-squadron of Zeros covering him... it's a damned foolish thing to be doing.

At least with a ship, there'd have been some chance of surviving its sinking. Instead, the Japanese lost one of their better strategic minds - and it's a lesson in why you do NOT send your admirals or generals that close to the front lines, especially not in something as underdefended as a fighter or bomber.

It'd have been rather like sending President Bush into Iraq while the war was still in its initial stages, while you knew there were SAM stations active, in an F-111... you're just asking for trouble.

 

[Kalfor]

well, the use of the betty to reach bouganville is not that unsafe. Not only he had 6 escort fighters, but there were nearby japanese bases that could scramble fighters. They were inside japanese territory, in such a way that the mission to shot him down was quite hit and run, with the american P38's going in, shooting the betties and running away without fuel to keep dogfighting (not to mention reinforcements could come in at any time)

Also, a boat wouldnt really make that much of a difference. If it was a small one (as I would expect), it would still be riddled with bullets and possibly bombs, with the same effect (not to mention if he did survive, he would be in the middle of the pacific with little time to prepare for it, or where to take cover). Now, lets think of this. The japanese were not stupid, and certainly Yamamoto wasnt. There probably was a reason for him to fly to Bouganville and then take a boat to the shortland islands. I wont go into discussing this because Im not aware of it (though we cant discart over confidence)

Now, your comparission is quite extremist
First, Yamamoto wasnt the leader of a nation. HE had a reason to close to the battlefield, Bush wouldnt. Remember that in ww2, commanders had to be closer to the battlefield to be able to handle them efficiently
Second, you cant even consider comparing the armed forces of Japan and USA in the Pacific to the Iraqi and USA forces currently in Iraq, most of all refering to air control, capacity and power

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Kalfor
well, the use of the betty to reach bouganville is not that unsafe. Not only he had 6 escort fighters, but there were nearby japanese bases that could scramble fighters. They were inside japanese territory, in such a way that the mission to shot him down was quite hit and run, with the american P38's going in, shooting the betties and running away without fuel to keep dogfighting (not to mention reinforcements could come in at any time)

Also, a boat wouldnt really make that much of a difference. If it was a small one (as I would expect), it would still be riddled with bullets and possibly bombs, with the same effect (not to mention if he did survive, he would be in the middle of the pacific with little time to prepare for it, or where to take cover). Now, lets think of this. The japanese were not stupid, and certainly Yamamoto wasnt. There probably was a reason for him to fly to Bouganville and then take a boat to the shortland islands. I wont go into discussing this because Im not aware of it (though we cant discart over confidence)

Now, your comparission is quite extremist
First, Yamamoto wasnt the leader of a nation. HE had a reason to close to the battlefield, Bush wouldnt. Remember that in ww2, commanders had to be closer to the battlefield to be able to handle them efficiently
Second, you cant even consider comparing the armed forces of Japan and USA in the Pacific to the Iraqi and USA forces currently in Iraq, most of all refering to air control, capacity and power

At the same time, he went in an unhardened target... when he could've taken a capital ship with more substantial defenses against a bunch of P-38's. That was the only fighter with any range.. and I doubt they'd have been able to take on a small battle group by themselves, which would have been more prudent if Yamamoto had really needed to visit all those island bases himself. That was why he was out there in the first place - otherwise he'd have been in Japan or at least at the center of a battle group.

This was a mistake, and one that cost him his life and possibly dealt a greater blow to morale than his not going to those bases would have done. That's all he was doing - raising the troops' morale by visiting.. and in doing so, getting his ass shot out of the sky. Boy, that really helped those Japanese soldiers, eh?

The example I gave was to highlight the fact it's STUPID to put someone important at risk in what's basically an undefended target. Yes, they could've called in air support - which would take minutes to arrive. Shooting down a bloody bomber is only a matter of a few minutes time, by which even shooting down the American fighters who did it would not have brought Yamamoto back to life.

It would've been a cheap price to pay - 20 fighters for the strategist who led the Japanese fleet and who almost wiped out the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. Hell of a bargain, really.

There are reasons you keep most of your Generals at home or somewhere far away from the battlefront.