|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 12:26:11 GMT -6
We have a thread on carrier aviation, now lets use this thread to discuss land-based aviation. I want to include in this, air defense systems based on radar. I served in NORAD in the air defense command so I am very familiar with it and much of our equipment and procedures was from the period just after WW2. We should include heavy, medium and light bombers; fighters, fighter-bombers. We should also include close air support. Anything else, bring it up. Again, we don't know how much RTW2 will use of all this, but you never know. Maybe the team will examine our discussions and add some items that they did not consider. Let's try to stay on target but its okay to stray for something interesting. Remember that Big Brother is watching us. Let the games begin.
|
|
|
Post by zulu354 on Aug 4, 2018 13:02:44 GMT -6
Reconnaissance air crafts should play an important role. May even start with air ships like the Germans used during WWI period. Later also torpedo bombers should be considered. Using tactical bombers as torpedo bombers was a common tactic. I don't think to split bombers in so many parts is useful, especially, as RtW2 is a naval game, not an aerial one. Most navies over the world used their air units not to do strategically bombing on ports or something. It was the task of the air forces. For me it is enough to have aircraft carrier based planes as well as some reconnaissance ones, as stated above.
If you really want more types under your command as land based units, I think it's enough to have fallowing categories:
- Reconnaissance - Fighters (probably as a fighter bomber variant if necessary) - CAS (everything like dive bombers, torpedo bombers etc) - Tactical bombers (smaller frames, like B-25, He-111) - Strategical bombers (usually 4 engine frames, like B-17, Lancaster)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 13:09:01 GMT -6
Reconnaissance air crafts should play an important role. May even start with air ships like the Germans used during WWI period. Later also torpedo bombers should be considered. Using tactical bombers as torpedo bombers was a common tactic. I don't think to split bombers in so many parts is useful, especially, as RtW2 is a naval game, not an aerial one. Most navies over the world used their air units not to do strategically bombing on ports or something. It was the task of the air forces. For me it is enough to have aircraft carrier based planes as well as some reconnaissance ones, as stated above. If you really want more types under your command as land based units, I think it's enough to have fallowing categories: - Reconnaissance - Fighters (probably as a fighter bomber variant if necessary) - CAS (everything like dive bombers, torpedo bombers etc) - Tactical bombers (smaller frames, like B-25, He-111) - Strategical bombers (usually 4 engine frames, like B-17, Lancaster) You could add the reconnaissance mission, although generally it was accomplished by fighters and light bombers but let's add it.
|
|
|
Post by zulu354 on Aug 4, 2018 13:17:16 GMT -6
Well, thinking about the Catalina or the FW-200, reconnaissance is not only about to detect enemy fleets. The allies in ww2 were very successful to do their ASW with long range reconnaissance frames to lead their hunter destroyers to German submarines.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 13:23:01 GMT -6
Well, thinking about the Catalina or the FW-200, reconnaissance is not only about to detect enemy fleets. The allies in ww2 were very successful to do their ASW with long range reconnaissance frames to lead their hunter destroyers to German submarines. We could include them, but the Catalina was naval aircraft used for naval scouting but its fine. There was a mission in Europe that Armed Reconnaissance. It was performed by fighter bombers and light bombers. Here is the Allied definition of the armed reconnaissance mission - Pilots are given a general area, usually well behind the enemy lines, in which to find and attack with bombs and machine-gun fire, any target of tactical value. They use their own discretion and initiative as to the targets they select for attack. These targets include...M.T. [motor transport], bridges, camps and barracks, trains, defence works, airfields, ships or barges and fuel dumps...1
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 17:57:13 GMT -6
To those of you who are wondering why we are straying into land-based air and not staying with naval air, let me remind you of the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service and the US Marine Corp. Air. Both were part of a navy, supported the Navy but were land-based. Throughout WW2, there was close cooperation between the Navy’s of the world and their air forces. It did take time to mature and for procedures to be worked out, but it did emerge as a very important part of naval air power.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Aug 5, 2018 18:50:21 GMT -6
On the strategic level, "long-range recon" could be a tech category that increases the likelihood of spotting and engaging raiders and submarines. On the tactical level, will we be sending out Catalina flights ourselves or will it be that the Catalinas (or equivalents) have already done their job just making the battle happen and don't need to be modeled?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 5, 2018 19:28:56 GMT -6
On the strategic level, "long-range recon" could be a tech category that increases the likelihood of spotting and engaging raiders and submarines. On the tactical level, will we be sending out Catalina flights ourselves or will it be that the Catalinas (or equivalents) have already done their job just making the battle happen and don't need to be modeled? If I am not mistaken, parts A and D of this post in the Developer Journal thread contain most or all of the information we have on how RTW2 will handle aircraft. Specifically, it says that we will be able to set one of several search patterns and that air squadrons will automatically be reequipped with more modern types of aircraft as they are developed, with a slight delay.
I personally would expect that the player's ability to set search patterns would be restricted to air groups under the player's operational control, i.e. those on board carriers or catapult-equipped warships in the player-controlled force in an engagement, though this does not necessarily mean that shore-based aircraft would not be present - something like a PBY patrol could be included in a manner similar to the way in which coastal patrols and submarines are handled during engagements in RTW, or even just as a random event similar to the 'seaplane spotted' event that sometimes occurs in RTW engagements.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 10, 2018 10:44:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Aug 11, 2018 1:54:03 GMT -6
I agree that recon type birds should be included, also land based (even if seaplanes) anti sub patrols played a vital role during WW2.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 12, 2018 7:41:45 GMT -6
I think there should be a differentiation in reconnaissance information derived from naval air, whether carrier or land based, and that from a traditional air force. There are numerous examples of recon information being delayed as it was passed from service to service, and/or garbled in force size and location. This could drop (become more correct) as hostilities go on, as pilots/observers improve and info handling procedures get straightened out.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Aug 13, 2018 7:53:53 GMT -6
Force Z was destroyed by land-based airpower, I'd like to see that be able to happen in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 8:21:20 GMT -6
Force Z was destroyed by land-based airpower, I'd like to see that be able to happen in RTW2. For realism, I think that that capability should be added. Remember, those Mitsubishi G3M's were from Naval Air Service Air Groups, part of the Imperial Japanese Navy and as such, were trained with the use of torpedoes. This is important.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Aug 13, 2018 20:53:59 GMT -6
I would hope, yeah, that we can base air squadrons at our naval bases. Airbase capacity should be able to be upgraded just like naval base capacity in the current game. The alternative is imagining a WW2-era naval wargame without Betties (or the Cactus Air Force, or the P-38 Lightning, and so on and so forth).
In my head I simply envision "carrier capable" as a check-box on the plane design screen, which adds weight but enables carrier operations.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 6, 2018 11:10:21 GMT -6
klavohunter - as oldpop2000 notes, Force Z was destroyed by Japanese Navy planes flown from land bases. There's a lot of difference in effectiveness between standard air force and naval air force planes because the latter get training in hitting ships and the former are trained to attack non-moving targets.
|
|