|
Post by firefox178 on May 10, 2017 7:33:22 GMT -6
Hmm yeah, we simply could not make any solid ideas since the developers are still laying down the groundwork. Though I may add that I won't be able to enter into more discussions for the time being. My summer classes are almost over so the exams are starting to pile up. I'll be back as soon as my schedule is free.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 9, 2017 10:10:45 GMT -6
Very interesting, so unless the development team decided to include the necessary tech, jet planes would be usable from air bases only. This would mean that the defender now has an advantage since other than nearby air bases to launch my air attacks from, the only other source for air strikes would be from my carriers using propeller aircraft. So the solution to this dilemma is not to dogfight them. Rather hit them at their base or hit their logistics. Though the later strategy is more suited for the air force since I doubt that said factories and fuel sources would be located near enough to the coast for the navy to hit. So that leaves taking them out at their air bases. However, while their air bases would be heavily developed and hence easier to spot, it would also mean that the enemy would also heavily strengthen his security around such bases. Massed aa defenses with the best radar that is available to him.
The only way I could think of to counter this is to use 2 forces. One force would serve as a bait to lure out the jets, while the other hits the base with the goal of destroying as much as possible. Since the jets require more advanced facilities and equipment to operate, they would be rendered inoperable even if I don't destroy them. In fact, if I can destroy their runway then the jets can't safely land baring any nearby air bases that they could land on. Now the reason I don't try to ambush the jets when they are trying to land or lift off is that I am looking at the possibility that the radar would spot my attacking/ambushing forces. The enemy commander could warn his jets of the danger and thus either avoid or engage them. There is also the second option that the enemy commander might put the majority of his jets to the defense of the base, with only a few being used offensively. If this happens, then my only choice is to simply swarm the defenders.
I am operating under the assumption that I would only have my carrier task force to command. Hence, why my plan is either 1-2 punch or an overwhelming attack. The carrier is as you have said a pulse weapon not a salvo weapon. The fewer times I have to launch an attack the better. Hence I could not do repeated attacks over the enemy air base or maintain air superiority for a long period of time.
Edit: Feel free to correct me to any flaws you spot.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 8, 2017 22:27:23 GMT -6
I see, so the plane was too specialized to be much use anywhere else. And yeah I could see that Great Britain would be the most to benefit from it. Kinda like the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito. I honestly wonder if RTW2 would allow the player to be able to dictate the kind of materials put into making their planes. Or will they stick to mainly steel and aluminum.
My next question is back to a more scenario based one. What can I do if say I am facing jet-planes but I only have propeller aircraft to use? The only method that was most effective was to attack their air bases before they could scramble. But that may not be as effective against carrier-borne jet-planes. To make this scenario survivable, will go with the assumption that I have already jet-planes on the way, but will take time to be introduced.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 8, 2017 9:28:08 GMT -6
Wow, I cannot believe how early it was to possibly build jet planes, with only the lack of financial support slowing the progress and implementation. And as you say, that kind of mistake is something the player can easily fix. Though this talk of aircraft has reminded me about one aircraft in particular. The Hughes H-4 Hercules a.k.a the "Spruce Goose". What can you say about it from both a technical and operational standpoint? Could it do the mission it was designed to do if it was given the chance?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 8, 2017 6:50:50 GMT -6
Thanks for the excellent explanations. My next question is whether it was possible to have carrier-based jet planes in the time period planned for in RTW2?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 7, 2017 7:02:16 GMT -6
Hmm, I see. My next questions are how is a floatplane launched from a ship? Like say a spotter plane from a battleship. And how many spare floatplanes one would need to prevent the danger of not being able to scout due to broken equipment. Like what happened to the German ship Admiral Graf Spee. And the loss of that aerial reconnaissance contributed to her eventual lose.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 6, 2017 10:54:18 GMT -6
Very interesting discussion and my respects to your dad and those who served as well. Though this discussion has made me realize a certain question. Which is overall superior: a bi-plane or a seaplane? By this question I mean what advantages and disadvantages each type of plane has over the other that would make you pick one or the other. I am asking this question since both aircraft, by their design, can't compete with the monoplanes launched from carriers or airfields. In other words they can't effectively operate against targets under air cover. I figured this kind of match-up on the surface, at least, seems fair. The criteria would of course include cost, ease of use, adaptability/flexibility and combat power/potential to name a few. You may include other criteria you feel are also important but I have missed.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 4, 2017 11:22:03 GMT -6
Very interesting insight. Though I have to ask is that why did this particular problem was not solved by the Italians and Japanese? I get that their has been inter-service rivalry between the different branches of the armed forces. But surely the heads of each branch must have realized that not working together effectively and efficiently would only weaken their side overall. Wasn't their someone to command, convince or coerce the branches to work as one?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 2, 2017 22:43:46 GMT -6
A VT or proximity fuse works like a police radar or a Doppler altimeter. It sends out a continuous wave signal and beats or mixes the reflected and transmitted signal together. When the resultant signal reaches a certain intensity meaning that the frequency has gone up, then this ignites the fuse. The simple countermeasure is to detect the radiated signal, then transmit a signal back that will cause the fuse to believe it is closer than it is, and detonate at a safe range. This whole system is title "fuse jamming". The German's knew about the proximity fuse technology and were pursuing it. The Japanese Army had a good knowledge of jamming but I doubt that the Navy had any idea of what was destroying their aircraft. Very interesting, was it possible for fighter, dive-bomber or torpedo bombers in the 1940s-1950s, to be outfitted with this kind of tech? Baring that, could a dedicated aircraft be used instead. I figure that new tactics and coordination protocols would have to be invented to fully utilize this tech. Still if it means weakening the incoming aa fire to one's aircraft, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 2, 2017 10:32:47 GMT -6
Apologies if this question can be answered among the links you have given, unfortunately I have yet to finish said links. Anyway, my question is where there methods to counter the effectiveness of proximity fuses? Say tricking said fuses to explode before they could reach their target.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 28, 2017 9:44:09 GMT -6
Just popping in to say thanks again for the very rich information you have provided and to provide an update. Still not finished with reading them all. But from what I have already read, I am simply amazed by how powerful radar is. And the ingenious means used to counter or at least trick them. Will provide more feedback and questions as soon as my time permits.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 22, 2017 11:06:52 GMT -6
Thanks for the links. Much appreciated. And yeah I may take a while. Summer classes are starting for me. I will reply as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 21, 2017 8:08:03 GMT -6
I see. Thanks for the explanation. In other words the best jamming is for the enemy not to know you are there. Trying to blind him might work but you are also giving away your general position. Useful if you were spotted and want to get away, but detrimental when you don't want to be detected at all. Also that knowledge of 50 miles for a detection range is useful to know. Gives me a good estimate of how far my radar can work effectively.
My next question is about anti-air. What were the key requirements that they must fulfill? What techs were necessary to make a good aa battery? I've heard of the Oerlikon 20mm and bofors 40mm. But I had also heard of the third and five inch dual purpose guns. What were the pros and cons of each and other types of of aa batteries? What tactics were used by the gunners and the fleet as a whole to maximize their anti-aircraft fire?
I know the best way to stop air attacks is to have strong air cover, but that is something you can't guarantee. Better to have a reliable back up just in case.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 20, 2017 10:13:25 GMT -6
I see, the tech was simply not their for my idea to work. My next question is about radar jamming. What were the methods used to accomplish this in the 1940's? Was it possible that the techniques and technologies be used on either ships or carrier borne aircraft? My idea is that if my navy is facing a navy that is using radar on their ships to pinpoint my fleet, I would jam their radar to either escape or at least throw off the aim being provided by the radar.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 18, 2017 11:01:10 GMT -6
thanks for the link and the tip. Will try to create that back up file. My next question is whether it was possible to use guided missiles fired from ships in 1950, the planned cut-off period for rtw2? And my other question is, whether unguided rockets fired from ships could be used to hit naval targets in combat. I knew that they were used for shore bombardments, but never heard of them being used against ships. Is the idea impossible, impractical or was just never given the chance to be executed?
|
|