|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 26, 2018 17:29:22 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). You are referring to the De Havilland Mosquito FB Mk XVIII which was designed as an anti-submarine weapon. It was fitted with a 57mm Molins Anti-shipping gun. It flew after the summer of 1943. The first squadron was the 248. This squadron was referred to as the Tseses. They usually had top cover by Spitfires. www.quarryhs.co.uk/Molins.htm
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 27, 2018 10:31:03 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). The Germans mostly used them in ground attack, tho they were also tried in a anti-shipping role, and weirdly enough for bomber interception, mostly on the Me 410. Not terrible results but very disappointing compared to rockets and bombs, esp things like the Fritz-X.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 27, 2018 17:28:59 GMT -6
Aye, that's them oldpop2000, thanks for the link .
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 27, 2018 20:32:26 GMT -6
weirdly enough for bomber interception Why do you feel cannon-armed aircraft for bomber interception is weird? Medium and especially heavy bombers are tough to down with machine guns, especially the lighter 0.303" and 7.92mm machine guns. Also, why do you feel it was mostly on the ME-410? A lot of the wartime interceptors, heavy fighters, and night fighters had two or more 20mm-30mm (or sometimes one or two heavier) cannon for dealing with the big bombers.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 27, 2018 20:36:30 GMT -6
Sorry should have been more specific. 20-30mm cannons generally had no issues in WW2 I was talking exclusively about the larger 50mm> weaponry. The 410 variant I was referencing had a underslung 50mm for bomber interception the idea being to engage from beyond the range of the bombers defensive weapons. It was not terribly effective.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 27, 2018 23:27:15 GMT -6
Speaking of land based air threat - the development of air to ground guided ordnance (Fritz X, HS 293, or ASM-N-2 Bat) are of interest. Bombers at high altitude become a threat, up where effective AA is more difficult. The big British bombs (tallboy, grand slam) of course are major threats - but mainly in port. I can see technology advances with guided weapons countered by technology advances of ECM (jamming the signal to the bomb) being interesting. If you get the guided weapon tech and have an enemy slow to gain the jamming tech - could be very painful for them. In RTW1 ships in port are safe. RTW2 - not so much so the air war offensive and defensive will need to be somehow considered - even somewhat abstractly similarly to how mine warfare and ASW was handled in RTW1.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Dec 4, 2018 14:41:57 GMT -6
As I stated in the main discussion thread of the RTW2. Right now there are 3 ideas about the usage of the land-based air forces for a naval battle: 1. Recon and Intel, like before the Battle of Midway the US PBYs provided intel of the position of the Japanese carrier fleet or in the North Atlantic ocean, the FW-200 designate target for the U-boat wolf packs. 2. Attacking force, like the Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse(I would really enjoy a battle like this!) or Stukas's raid on HMS Illustrious near Malta in 1941.This would definitely make the fraction of Germany, Italy and Japan more playable. 3. ASW. PBYs and PB4Ys would be the most effective tool to cover the ass of my merchants against enemy wolfpack.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 4, 2018 14:59:23 GMT -6
Also be assured that, unless something drastically unexpected takes a step back, that Flying Boats and Medium Bombers will be able to conduct anti-shipping strikes; so if a Mavis boring in at wave-top with a torp under each wing turns your key, be excited. :]
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Dec 4, 2018 21:07:00 GMT -6
And here I am picturing Fritz X and ASM-N-2 Bat (or similar) glide bombs being dropped by my patrol bombers on a single surface raiding cruiser they've stumbled upon while calling in an airstrike. Or earlier in the time frame the torpedo strike as mentioned. With the torpedo bomber being born in 1914 as generally coastal patrol planes... Yeah, ok, I'm excited. I'll wait patiently because I do enjoy the quality of the product produced but I keep having visions of torpedo plane attacks launched from my converted legacy cruisers. You know the ones, they start off as 11000 to 13000 tons displacement with generally 20 knot speed. I'd be a bit afraid of hitting the main battlefleet or battlecruiser squadron at sea due to the short range of my aircraft unless I could get the speed of the carrier up during conversion but as for pre-dreadnoughts or armored cruisers or merchant ships... Sorry, I'm thinking out loud and babbling....
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Dec 4, 2018 23:57:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm excited by the idea of land-based aviation playing its role as it historically did. From search to ASW to direct attack on surface assets, planes have a lot to contribute to the naval war.
|
|