|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 6, 2018 14:23:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 6, 2018 18:46:40 GMT -6
The Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service, if you did not know this already, consisted of carrier aviation and non-carrier aviation. This latter organization was a result of the London Disarmament treaty which had set specific limits on the construction of aircraft carriers and other warships. The IJN decided to use long-range, non-carrier-based aircraft in co-operation with the fleet for offensive operations. Admiral Yamamoto was very involved in this concept and eventually decided that this was important. It gets complex after this with problems of poor radius of the single seat fighters at sea, high-level horizontal bombers, poor spotting by float-planes and an insufficient number of carrier-borne aircraft due to the lack of aircraft carrier permissible under the treaty. It was the solution to these problems that pushed the Navy to develop the A5M and the A6M Zero along with the G3M series and G4M series twin-engine bombers. It was three groups of those aircraft that sank the two British capital ships. Two of the groups did high level bombing to draw the AA fire, the third was trained to do low level torpedo bombing and they are the ones that sank the ships.
With this information, I wonder if this kind of situation should be allowed in RTW2? It was unique to the Japanese so I don't know. We know the British aircraft for the Navy were controlled by the RAF but I don't believe that this is the same issue. However, the US Navy had the PBJ, a navalized version of the B-25. In 1943, North American offered 800 to the US Navy, so they got them and used them for ground attack.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 6, 2018 19:31:38 GMT -6
I'm not sure if this strictly applies, but the Navy did have the Marine air service, which as I understand it was conceived as air support for land operations but whose pilots served both on carriers and on land bases. Not conceptually the same thing, but about as close a parallel as I can see. If the Marines had been given the go-ahead to build a land-based naval-strike force, it could have been useful for the defense of the Philippines but I don't see much use otherwise. Guadalcanal was too much a shoestring - too few planes, pilots, replacement parts and gas.
I'd agree that no other power developed the kind of land-based, naval-controlled air service on the Japanese model, but I can certainly see the utility. Such a service could have been a game-changer for Italy in Mediterranean operations, or if properly staffed and equipped, for Britain in the early days of the Pacific war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 6, 2018 19:39:37 GMT -6
I'm not sure if this strictly applies, but the Navy did have the Marine air service, which as I understand it was conceived as air support for land operations but whose pilots served both on carriers and on land bases. Not conceptually the same thing, but about as close a parallel as I can see. If the Marines had been given the go-ahead to build a land-based naval-strike force, it could have been useful for the defense of the Philippines but I don't see much use otherwise. Guadalcanal was too much a shoestring - too few planes, pilots, replacement parts and gas. I'd agree that no other power developed the kind of land-based, naval-controlled air service on the Japanese model, but I can certainly see the utility. Such a service could have been a game-changer for Italy in Mediterranean operations, or if properly staffed and equipped, for Britain in the early days of the Pacific war. Well, the Marine's actually had their own PBJ equipped squadrons. There were actually seven PBJ equipped squadrons by the close of the war. And yes, they did go after ships such as submarines and transports. Their primary mission was to provide close air support, but the Marines would go after anything sailing or flying, as long as it had a Japanese flag. That attitude has not changed, believe me. They are trained for carrier operations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 6, 2018 23:04:56 GMT -6
Here is an idea for the game. We could develop airborne search sets and install them in twin-engine bombers. Just replace the bottom turret and use it for reconnaissance. Possible? Sure, how about the APS-3 used in PV-2's and later in the wings of Hellcats and PBJ's. It could and was used to equip night fighters.
There is no reason that either a maritime nation or a continental nation can't develop a naval twin-engine bomber or simply adapt a land-based bomber to that purpose. It could be used for long range reconnaissance, anti-shipping, ASW or any other task assigned normally to carriers. The crews would have to be trained to attack moving targets, over-water navigation, and survival in the water. You might need to add some extra fuel tanks to gain more loiter time, but that can all be added in another version of the plane. It could be a useful addition for countries like Italy, AH, Germany, Russia and Japan although she should have a sizeable fleet being a maritime nation. The Junkers JU-88 is a good example except, I would not attempt to add high-angle dive bombing. This increases, or should, structural requirements and thereby increases weight and possibly development time. A 30 degree glide bombing angle is more than adequate for its purpose.
Examples: PB4Y-1 was a navalized B-24. FW-200 Condor was a navalized commercial transport. As already stated, the PBJ navalized B-25.
|
|
|
Post by pikolinian on Sept 19, 2018 9:20:24 GMT -6
What about Mediterranean, siege of Malta? IIRC german planes were not navy ones. And all "siege" took two years, so well into game time frame. With Convoys, fighter planes transfers, etc. Also Base neutralisation (hitting ships and plane in bases), like Malta, but also hunting Tirpitz, and also other big German ships.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Sept 22, 2018 15:09:07 GMT -6
Also Base neutralisation (hitting ships and plane in bases), like Malta, but also hunting Tirpitz, and also other big German ships. That one's a good point! I'm curious how that's going to work - that's indeed a very, very important role for naval aviation in general. Here's to hoping it's all part of the game I imagine there's also going to be something about startegic bombing - maybe modeling it like land war works now, but with the added complication of possibly taking out base capacity, docks and ships in port if it's successful.
|
|
|
Post by millsian on Sept 23, 2018 13:17:46 GMT -6
More German ships were sunk by aircraft in port or by mines dropped by aircraft than by attack at sea so I do think that this is an important dimension to be considered.
Anyone for Gardening
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2018 19:41:49 GMT -6
More German ships were sunk by aircraft in port or by mines dropped by aircraft than by attack at sea so I do think that this is an important dimension to be considered. Anyone for Gardening Well, considering the size of their fleet that isn't saying much. No, I am not a gardener, my wife is. I just study geology.
|
|
|
Post by millsian on Sept 24, 2018 2:12:29 GMT -6
Sorry bit cryptic- gardening was what the RAF called the aerial laying of mines
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Sept 29, 2018 10:55:21 GMT -6
To be fair, RTW always (purposely) understated the impact of mine warfare (for gameplay reasons), so I imagine it would be the same with things like strategic bombing - but it'd still be nice to see it pop up every once in a while, much like you currently sometimes lose ships to mines.
|
|
|
Post by Callahan on Oct 7, 2018 17:52:29 GMT -6
The Italian air force seemed to like to bomb ships of the Italian navy.... When I think of recon missions I think of Sunderland flying boats, FW 200's, PB4y and PBM's.
|
|
|
Post by millsian on Oct 24, 2018 10:21:05 GMT -6
One of the arguments put forward by the RAF between wars to justify their independent existence was that anti shipping strike made coastal defense artillery obsolete.
Conceptually maybe but couple of squadrons of wildebeest ( and subsequently Beaufort) didn’t really justify that claim. The late war strike winds were more effective but weren’t many larger warships to engage by that point.
Will rtw handle flak suppression ? Keeping the aa gunners down for the anti ship ac
Will the anti ship ordinance include rockets What about guns - 20mm up to the 57mm on a mosquito or 75mm on a Mitchell Skip bombing/mast top level bombing vs medium altitude Dive bomb (70degrees plus) vs shallow glide
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 26, 2018 2:22:20 GMT -6
What about guns - 20mm up to the 57mm on a mosquito or 75mm on a Mitchell (70degrees plus) vs shallow glide My reading of large caliber guns on planes during this period was that they generally underperformed in intended roles.(meaning the 57-75mm) A 20mm won't do all that much damage to anything with more than minimal armor and the large anti-tank sized weaponry tended to have feed and reliability issues plus a very low ROF. (At least on German aircraft which is where most of my reading has been focused) I also love the derp that is the p108 from Italy. A 108mm gun on a bomber...sigh, what are you doing Italy.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 26, 2018 16:37:58 GMT -6
It's very hazy, but I think the British had some success (can't remember exactly how much, wasn't 'blown away phenomenal', but I think it also wasn't 'so useless we shouldn't do that again') with their cannon-armed Mosquito's against subs. One of the advantages they would have had is that subs are a bigger target than tanks, which presumably would have been what the German cannnon-armed aircraft would have been focussing on (although that's a complete guess).
|
|