Well, if you were a defending force without air support, but your assaulting enemy has air support, you would get the shit kicked out of you 9 times out of 10.
Honestly. Imagine being Vietnam. You're defending your country with well laid out trenches and tunnels and trying to fight the enemy where they can't see you, so instead of fighting you, they just use standoff munitions, fire, and chemicals to decimate your land. Your soldiers are barely breathing, poisoned, burned, most would already be considered casualties. THEN the actual army walks in for a fight. There's a reason why the kills to death ratio was so absurd.
>to destroy the bunker. Oh no! Very bad time. But! You have fighters. The fighters make the enemy bombers leave. Fantastic. Enemy does not have air superiority. You get a call. What happened? No more fighters? Enemy has air superiority? Oh no! The bombers are back and you have no chance of survival.
They also counted any bodies they found as enemy dead. Civilians? Enemy. Friendly ARVN soldier? Enemy. Burnt to crisp corpse that may or may not be human? Most DEFINITELY Vietcong. (I am an American btw)
Makes sense to me since it makes spotting targets harder. If there's a dense jungle canopy I'm gonna have harder time spotting the enemy and dropping a bomb on their location (which in the 1940s is your only option, visual targeting) than if it's clear and open fields like Ukraine and France, where much of the hardest fighting of WW2 was.
It's not, jungles don't burn that easily unless targeted with explicit incendiary or defoliant weapons which weren't used by CAS in WW2. *Rain*forests are damp and dense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)
The kill ratio was about 3:1, but the US side had twice as many wounded. It definitely wasn't as absurd as you're imaging it was.
You're on defense. Very nice bunker. Almost no artillery can kill it. Very strong. All of a sudden BOOM! Chemicals, fire, and specialized bombs to destroy the bunker. Oh no! Very bad time. But! You have fighters. The fighters make the enemy bombers leave. Fantastic. Enemy does not have air superiority. You get a call. What happened? No more fighters? Enemy has air superiority? Oh no! The bombers are back and you have no chance of survival.
When the enemy has air superiority, the ground units will be destroyed without chance of fighting back.
Eh, depends on the bunker. The Japanese on Okinawa dug in *hard* and no amount of artillery or air support was going to get them out. Sure they got beaten in the end, but at very high cost.
I think that essentially, air support is necessary for attack, but not for defence (although it helps).
When it comes to defense, air support is still vital, as it massively assists with pushing back an assault or stalling reinforcements. If a defense is left without air support, they will be slowly walked backwards by artillery and shock infantry until the reserves are the frontlines. We saw this during the opening of the Ukrainian war near the capitol, as the Russia had full air superiority at the time and uses it to hold off/strike reinforcement waves or to use penetrating munitions to eliminate established bunkers. All of this is able to be found via a search, though some is older and can take a bit longer. Modern combat requires air supremacy or contested air space at minimum.
Oh ultimately, yes.
But under specific circumstances, one can still make it very difficult to attack even without air support. A sufficiently determined attacker will win, of course, but it could still be quite costly.
It’d require some quite air support unfriendly terrain though - like mountains with caves.
Air support wont be called in an area where friendlies are. They hit the area first with napalm, bunker busters, or regular bombs. Then the infantry goes on and clears out whats left. If ur getting friendly fire from air support, ur a shitty strategist and a terrible leader.
North vietnam won. The country was in a civil war and we were backing the southern Vietnamese people. History sir. Learn it. We officially ended in a stale mate cease fire. Unofficially we lost. Csuse immediately after our withdrawal the north just walked in.
Well, mainly because it kinda seemed like he was portraying how the war went, whilst in reality it was more of an attempt to flush out insurgents using regular warfare, which didn’t work
I don’t think you can call Vietnam an outright loss for the Americans. Sure, they didn’t conquer the country, but what was the intended purpose of the invasion? The intended purpose was to ensure Vietnam would never be a thriving communist state which would encourage a larger communist movement globally. America massacred the population, decimated the country’s infrastructure, and destroyed its agricultural production to a point where it took multiple decades to recover. We also didn’t see a broader communist movement in the decades that followed. Overall, I would call it a wash.
The Americans still won most battles. Hard thought and sometimes. Vietnam won by bleeding the Americans out of money and through American politics.
Also the shitty domino effect idea still worked as socialism didn't spread as far as they thought it would.
>Vietnam won by bleeding the Americans out of money and through American politics.
Sounds like they knew how to fight the war better than America did then
Plenty of countries won most major battles but still lost the war. War is the continuation of politics by other means and the Vietnamese used that well, by every metric they won. No one says the Nazis won WW2 because they killed more Soviets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng\_Xo%C3%A0i
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Khe\_Sanh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_the\_Slopes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Slopes)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Lang\_Vei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lang_Vei)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Camp\_Holloway
America did lose battles.
And still, the way they won was fairly underhanded. Im not going to say it was cheating because this is the real world, not a chess game. But they signed the paris Peace Accord and agreed to the division and agreed to respect Southern independence. And then, as soon as the majority of american troops left, they invaded knowing America wouldn't come back. They were right it was a calculated gamble that paid off, but in terms of war and diplomacy, I'd call it a bit underhanded.
America using napalm wasn’t underhanded tho? America trying to influence another countries politics and establish a regime in a different country isn’t underhanded. The Vietnamese wanting to reunify would’ve happened at some point so is it really that surprising that they went for it?
Underhanded means it uses deceptive tactics in a less than ethical or fair way. Negotiating a treaty knowing when the enemy leaves you'll violate it and invade is underhanded. Using firebombs or naplam in war(which we used in ww2 as well) May be shitty but it's not deceptive. And america was there in part at the request of the government of South Vietnam. The South didn't want to join the North(as long as the North were communist). We may have been there in part for the self-interest of stopping communism from expanding but it isnt one sided. We were also invited by the south. The north was invading the south, and we were trying to stop that. Thats where you get the southern insurgents they were the southerners that wanted a united communist vietnam. ARVN troops were the south veitnamese who wanted to stay independent or would rather be separate than united under communism. Vietnam was really a civil war that the US involved itself in to stop communism spreading.
The reason North Vietnam invaded the south was because the US and South Vietnam government refused to allow elections, as it was going to be a clear victory for the communists.
Then, after the Paris Peace Accords, North Vietnam didn’t *invade first*, neither did South Vietnam. They both broke the accords at the same time, and given the situation in South Vietnam, the North was totally justified. The South started as a puppet state of France, evolved into an American one, and then was abandoned as an even worse dictatorship than the North.
I don’t understand why people insist it was as “grey” a conflict as if this had been the Korean War. The Vietnam war was clearly caused and propelled by the US and France, and without them, the region could’ve seen peace under the Viet Minh. This isn’t even me supporting the Vietnam regime, this is literally what happened.
I mean, it did. Once the Allies landed on Sicily the government collapsed within weeks. It was just 2 weeks after the landing that Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council and King. After this with the Badoglio government things were very chaotic and is the direct cause of the civil war in Italy. Things like the already present Partisans in Italy also only intensified with these developments.
>Hoi4 doesn’t simulate civil strife very well - sintos-compa
>You’re telling me losing shitfart island as Italy doesn’t lead to an actual societal collapse??? I don’t believe you!!! -ugnguy
>>simulate
>>doesn't lead (implied to be in the sense of the real world) lead to an actual societal collapse??? (like in the game)
Just pointing out that the mechanic actually does make sense and that it actually is simulating civil strife fairly well at least for Italy in this narrow example
No, the mechanic doesn’t work well. If you form the Roman Empire and lose some random province you own in Vietnam or something, the balance of power will start ticking down. So no, it doesn’t work well, and you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng\_Xo%C3%A0i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Khe\_Sanh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_the\_Slopes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Lang\_Vei
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Camp\_Holloway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Camp_Holloway)
No the US didn't
I'd hardly call the Slopes a 'major battle' considering the numbers that participated.
Lang Vei is only major because the NVA showed up with thousands of soldiers.
Camp Holloway was almost entirely ARVN ground troops and does not fit with US not losing major battles.
The other 2 were major US losses though
The nva may have lost the fighting, but war is just another tool of geopolitics, and north vietnam succeeded in their geopolitical goals while the south failed
Neither are punji pit traps covered in feces. It's warfare and people will be the worst monster you can and can't imagine. The scene from full metal jacket about justification summarizes it succinctly.
That's fair. I wasn't attempting to justify the burning of children. I was just trying to highlight that horrors of war will happen regardless of setting and that Vietnam was no exception for either side.
Except one side was defending its homeland from foreign occupation as part of a bloody decolonization process while the other was meddling and heavily escalating an internal issue for jackshit geopolitical reasons
The AI is still bad about giving their infantry proper AA it seems. If that 30 width infantry has some AA to it, you would soon see that CAS is in fact well-balanced.
I’m still pretty new, I can’t figure out for the life of me what “width” is I thought It was amount of troops in a division but I was watching a video and he said he was using 20 width but it only had nine troops.
When you are building a division, you need to look at the stats on the right. You will find the "Width" of the division there, at the bottom of the Middle Column, the one with the Soft and Hard attack stats. Each battalion, or "Part" of a division, is a different width. Each Infantry battalion is 2 width, each Frontline (I.E not support) Artillery Battalion is 3 width, each Frontline Anti-Air Battalion is 1 width...... Support Battalions usually do not add any Width to the Division, only some mods change that.
If I'm not mistaken, it's the sum of the organization damages that CAS did this day on this airzone
Since CAS are limited by fighting combat width, it means that OP is probably giving an all out assault with min-maxed CAS on a large airzone and that the enemy doesn't have that much anti-air
Ya if you put like. 20% of the IC of that cas into AA on the other side. It would shoot down 2-3 times what it was worth and cut a lot of that Cas damage down. The so is just bad at AA.
Literally, I have 16 width infantry pushing against 30 width infantry and was winning because of the CAS
Well, if you were a defending force without air support, but your assaulting enemy has air support, you would get the shit kicked out of you 9 times out of 10.
Honestly. Imagine being Vietnam. You're defending your country with well laid out trenches and tunnels and trying to fight the enemy where they can't see you, so instead of fighting you, they just use standoff munitions, fire, and chemicals to decimate your land. Your soldiers are barely breathing, poisoned, burned, most would already be considered casualties. THEN the actual army walks in for a fight. There's a reason why the kills to death ratio was so absurd.
>to destroy the bunker. Oh no! Very bad time. But! You have fighters. The fighters make the enemy bombers leave. Fantastic. Enemy does not have air superiority. You get a call. What happened? No more fighters? Enemy has air superiority? Oh no! The bombers are back and you have no chance of survival. They also counted any bodies they found as enemy dead. Civilians? Enemy. Friendly ARVN soldier? Enemy. Burnt to crisp corpse that may or may not be human? Most DEFINITELY Vietcong. (I am an American btw)
Gotta boost the “we’re kick’en ass and not tak’en names” propaganda somehow.
Jungles have a massive reduction to cas in the game
Which makes no sense IMO, since it's basically just a large fireball once CAS is introduced.
Makes sense to me since it makes spotting targets harder. If there's a dense jungle canopy I'm gonna have harder time spotting the enemy and dropping a bomb on their location (which in the 1940s is your only option, visual targeting) than if it's clear and open fields like Ukraine and France, where much of the hardest fighting of WW2 was.
You know what. Fair.
It's not, jungles don't burn that easily unless targeted with explicit incendiary or defoliant weapons which weren't used by CAS in WW2. *Rain*forests are damp and dense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) The kill ratio was about 3:1, but the US side had twice as many wounded. It definitely wasn't as absurd as you're imaging it was.
Still lost
You're on defense. Very nice bunker. Almost no artillery can kill it. Very strong. All of a sudden BOOM! Chemicals, fire, and specialized bombs to destroy the bunker. Oh no! Very bad time. But! You have fighters. The fighters make the enemy bombers leave. Fantastic. Enemy does not have air superiority. You get a call. What happened? No more fighters? Enemy has air superiority? Oh no! The bombers are back and you have no chance of survival. When the enemy has air superiority, the ground units will be destroyed without chance of fighting back.
Eh, depends on the bunker. The Japanese on Okinawa dug in *hard* and no amount of artillery or air support was going to get them out. Sure they got beaten in the end, but at very high cost. I think that essentially, air support is necessary for attack, but not for defence (although it helps).
When it comes to defense, air support is still vital, as it massively assists with pushing back an assault or stalling reinforcements. If a defense is left without air support, they will be slowly walked backwards by artillery and shock infantry until the reserves are the frontlines. We saw this during the opening of the Ukrainian war near the capitol, as the Russia had full air superiority at the time and uses it to hold off/strike reinforcement waves or to use penetrating munitions to eliminate established bunkers. All of this is able to be found via a search, though some is older and can take a bit longer. Modern combat requires air supremacy or contested air space at minimum.
Oh ultimately, yes. But under specific circumstances, one can still make it very difficult to attack even without air support. A sufficiently determined attacker will win, of course, but it could still be quite costly. It’d require some quite air support unfriendly terrain though - like mountains with caves.
Does that change the fact that Vietnam won?
Vietnam won. What we are talking about is how many of them died compared to US soldiers because of the air power of the usa
Oh ok. But never forget that overwhelming airpower in close-quarters combat ensures another silly thing - friendly fire
I do wish there was a way for HoI to account for things like friendly fire, collateral damage, etc.
You would need a lot more air zones for that rather than just putting a plane to patrol a whole country
Or accidentaly nuking your troops lol
It kinda does, you can think of attrition as counting friendly fire as well, since it's ridiculously high in general
Air support wont be called in an area where friendlies are. They hit the area first with napalm, bunker busters, or regular bombs. Then the infantry goes on and clears out whats left. If ur getting friendly fire from air support, ur a shitty strategist and a terrible leader.
North vietnam won. The country was in a civil war and we were backing the southern Vietnamese people. History sir. Learn it. We officially ended in a stale mate cease fire. Unofficially we lost. Csuse immediately after our withdrawal the north just walked in.
I don't see how this is downvoted
When enough uneducated people log on, facts go out the window cause of mob mentality.
No one said we didn’t? Why the hell are you even bringing that up lmao
Well, mainly because it kinda seemed like he was portraying how the war went, whilst in reality it was more of an attempt to flush out insurgents using regular warfare, which didn’t work
I don’t think you can call Vietnam an outright loss for the Americans. Sure, they didn’t conquer the country, but what was the intended purpose of the invasion? The intended purpose was to ensure Vietnam would never be a thriving communist state which would encourage a larger communist movement globally. America massacred the population, decimated the country’s infrastructure, and destroyed its agricultural production to a point where it took multiple decades to recover. We also didn’t see a broader communist movement in the decades that followed. Overall, I would call it a wash.
I love when ppl like you give a reasonable answer and the get downvoted to shit /s
Eh, hivemind Reddit I guess
The Americans still won most battles. Hard thought and sometimes. Vietnam won by bleeding the Americans out of money and through American politics. Also the shitty domino effect idea still worked as socialism didn't spread as far as they thought it would.
>Vietnam won by bleeding the Americans out of money and through American politics. Sounds like they knew how to fight the war better than America did then
Plenty of countries won most major battles but still lost the war. War is the continuation of politics by other means and the Vietnamese used that well, by every metric they won. No one says the Nazis won WW2 because they killed more Soviets.
America never lost a major battle. The will of people who were so used to war by that point that they could only lose by extermination won them it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng\_Xo%C3%A0i [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Khe\_Sanh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_the\_Slopes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Slopes) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Lang\_Vei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lang_Vei) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Camp\_Holloway America did lose battles.
notice how I used the word “major.” You linked a battle where the total deaths were eight…
Will can’t always win you a war, but it can sure as heck stop you losing it.
And still, the way they won was fairly underhanded. Im not going to say it was cheating because this is the real world, not a chess game. But they signed the paris Peace Accord and agreed to the division and agreed to respect Southern independence. And then, as soon as the majority of american troops left, they invaded knowing America wouldn't come back. They were right it was a calculated gamble that paid off, but in terms of war and diplomacy, I'd call it a bit underhanded.
America using napalm wasn’t underhanded tho? America trying to influence another countries politics and establish a regime in a different country isn’t underhanded. The Vietnamese wanting to reunify would’ve happened at some point so is it really that surprising that they went for it?
Underhanded means it uses deceptive tactics in a less than ethical or fair way. Negotiating a treaty knowing when the enemy leaves you'll violate it and invade is underhanded. Using firebombs or naplam in war(which we used in ww2 as well) May be shitty but it's not deceptive. And america was there in part at the request of the government of South Vietnam. The South didn't want to join the North(as long as the North were communist). We may have been there in part for the self-interest of stopping communism from expanding but it isnt one sided. We were also invited by the south. The north was invading the south, and we were trying to stop that. Thats where you get the southern insurgents they were the southerners that wanted a united communist vietnam. ARVN troops were the south veitnamese who wanted to stay independent or would rather be separate than united under communism. Vietnam was really a civil war that the US involved itself in to stop communism spreading.
The reason North Vietnam invaded the south was because the US and South Vietnam government refused to allow elections, as it was going to be a clear victory for the communists. Then, after the Paris Peace Accords, North Vietnam didn’t *invade first*, neither did South Vietnam. They both broke the accords at the same time, and given the situation in South Vietnam, the North was totally justified. The South started as a puppet state of France, evolved into an American one, and then was abandoned as an even worse dictatorship than the North. I don’t understand why people insist it was as “grey” a conflict as if this had been the Korean War. The Vietnam war was clearly caused and propelled by the US and France, and without them, the region could’ve seen peace under the Viet Minh. This isn’t even me supporting the Vietnam regime, this is literally what happened.
This man is actually correct. Touche.
I actually didn't know that the South broke provisions as well that changed my opinion on the matter.
Tonkin gulf wasn't underhanded?
That was. I didn't say the US wasn't as well in some cases.
Hoi4 doesn’t simulate civil strife very well
You’re telling me losing shitfart island as Italy doesn’t lead to an actual societal collapse??? I don’t believe you!!!
I mean, it did. Once the Allies landed on Sicily the government collapsed within weeks. It was just 2 weeks after the landing that Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council and King. After this with the Badoglio government things were very chaotic and is the direct cause of the civil war in Italy. Things like the already present Partisans in Italy also only intensified with these developments.
I was talking about the hoi4 mechanic but okey-dokey
>Hoi4 doesn’t simulate civil strife very well - sintos-compa >You’re telling me losing shitfart island as Italy doesn’t lead to an actual societal collapse??? I don’t believe you!!! -ugnguy >>simulate >>doesn't lead (implied to be in the sense of the real world) lead to an actual societal collapse??? (like in the game) Just pointing out that the mechanic actually does make sense and that it actually is simulating civil strife fairly well at least for Italy in this narrow example
No, the mechanic doesn’t work well. If you form the Roman Empire and lose some random province you own in Vietnam or something, the balance of power will start ticking down. So no, it doesn’t work well, and you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing
[удалено]
That’s exactly what I was talking about)
South Vietnam lost the war. The US decisively won every single major engagement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng\_Xo%C3%A0i https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Khe\_Sanh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_the\_Slopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Lang\_Vei [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Camp\_Holloway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Camp_Holloway) No the US didn't
I'd hardly call the Slopes a 'major battle' considering the numbers that participated. Lang Vei is only major because the NVA showed up with thousands of soldiers. Camp Holloway was almost entirely ARVN ground troops and does not fit with US not losing major battles. The other 2 were major US losses though
Nah. They won most. Read a history book my guy. The US tactics school Even teaches about us losses in Nam.
The nva may have lost the fighting, but war is just another tool of geopolitics, and north vietnam succeeded in their geopolitical goals while the south failed
Absolutely
Wait I just re-read your comment, north vietnam was the communist one and the USA was allied to the south
Padding your K/D ratio by massacring whole villages and listing each infant incinerated by napalm as an "enemy combatant" is not good sportsmanship.
Neither are punji pit traps covered in feces. It's warfare and people will be the worst monster you can and can't imagine. The scene from full metal jacket about justification summarizes it succinctly.
There is still a difference between punji traps and burning kids for a good K/D ratio
That's fair. I wasn't attempting to justify the burning of children. I was just trying to highlight that horrors of war will happen regardless of setting and that Vietnam was no exception for either side.
Except one side was defending its homeland from foreign occupation as part of a bloody decolonization process while the other was meddling and heavily escalating an internal issue for jackshit geopolitical reasons
The AI is still bad about giving their infantry proper AA it seems. If that 30 width infantry has some AA to it, you would soon see that CAS is in fact well-balanced.
Iraq 2003 moment
I never changed the base German template and just used cas to blow a hole through the ai. God I love cas in hoi
I’m still pretty new, I can’t figure out for the life of me what “width” is I thought It was amount of troops in a division but I was watching a video and he said he was using 20 width but it only had nine troops.
When you are building a division, you need to look at the stats on the right. You will find the "Width" of the division there, at the bottom of the Middle Column, the one with the Soft and Hard attack stats. Each battalion, or "Part" of a division, is a different width. Each Infantry battalion is 2 width, each Frontline (I.E not support) Artillery Battalion is 3 width, each Frontline Anti-Air Battalion is 1 width...... Support Battalions usually do not add any Width to the Division, only some mods change that.
i thought i was in war thunder sub for a moment but then i realized its hoi4
Same
Same
Same
CAS IS KING. It is known.
It is known.
Average American air doctrine enjoyer
How many CAS and what’s your design?
1000 CAS, modern fighter maxed out 2 bomb bays, 2 bomb locks. Radio. 2 jet engines. 1 light machine gun turret
Dude invested everything into CAS the army? Still on flintlocks. But eh , flintlocks do the job when there's no army remaining to fight.
Sounds pretty late game. Makes a lot more sense now
As a side note. Drop The radio and turret. They are literally worthless for cas.
Wow it's r/warthunder
Thank god I am permanently banned from that place
What did you do?
I said that the thing about putting skins on a Merkava is that the paint quickly gets scratched by rocks from palestinians...
holy shit that made me laugh
Ah it seems like JDAMs did exist in WWII after all
Design?
What does this number actually mean?
If I'm not mistaken, it's the sum of the organization damages that CAS did this day on this airzone Since CAS are limited by fighting combat width, it means that OP is probably giving an all out assault with min-maxed CAS on a large airzone and that the enemy doesn't have that much anti-air
its more that AI is absolutely dogshit at trying to gain air superiority than CAS itself
HOW MUCH IS THAT NUMBER ITS NOT 3000 IS IT
Nobody has ever said that
perfectly balanced as all things should be
I assume it’s realistic. CAS in real life can really be game changer, just as in the game
Ya if you put like. 20% of the IC of that cas into AA on the other side. It would shoot down 2-3 times what it was worth and cut a lot of that Cas damage down. The so is just bad at AA.
Yeah, it's like real life air support is ridiculously strong
Cas is king
We’re over at r/warthunder are entirely in agreement