|
Post by corsair on Jan 1, 2019 22:08:29 GMT -6
Sure. But that's a very long way from a weapon which has a good enough accuracy and reliability, along with a reasonable cost, to warrant widespread use aboard ships (and aircraft).
Not entirely, technological breakthrough's in one area, can spur research into other areas. In this case, maybe this invention might spur another person to investigate better, more accurate fusing such as the proximity fuse. The fuse does not necessarily have to use a range radar in its nose. Someone could research heat seeking nose cone. It's hard to predict how one invention will spur others and what path they will take. The Germans in the pre-World War 2 era were, in fact, working on infared and during the war, heat seeking missiles and proximity fuses.
Peacetime research is a different thing from wartime research. The latter puts pressure for results in a timely manner that the former does not. Wartime also results in far more resources being made available to pursue a given technology than would be the case otherwise. Electronics advanced considerably during WWII due to such things , as the nighttime bombing campaign over Germany. I would say that sometimes great ideas arrive well before there is practical technology sufficient to support those ideas.
That said, I would expect research in RTW2 to have similar variability in timing as in its predecessor. So undoubtedly an emphasis on a given area may well result in a technology appearing before its historical appearance. Although we are still left with the long gap between the emergence of guided missiles as a technology and them becoming reasonably effective weapons.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 1, 2019 22:25:18 GMT -6
Taking a step back from modern anti-ship mission, even radio guided ordanance can like the Fritz-x can be highly useful and fits nicely within the time frame of the game. Perhaps missile tech can be near the end of rocket and guidance/search technology and require development in both to use? A national focusing resources into this area can potentially push the application of missile 5-10 years early compare to real life, but need to sacrifice other area of research to compensate. From a gameplay perspective, it is ideally possible for a nation focused on missile tech to at least have a 5-10 year window to use and develop that tech before the game ends in 1950(and for a country not focused on that field of research, perhaps a 10-15 year for them to use missile before the hard 1975 cut off). Otherwise it will be rather awkward to have all these content in game that the player barely be able to utilize.
Given the Fritz-X's reliance on visual guidance from a bomber, the device is unusable if one does not have air superiority, unless one gets lucky. In practice, it's similar to the Okha, except that in the case of the Japanese weapon a human onboard the rocket was guiding it into the target rather than someone on the loitering bomber. The reliance on radio guidance also makes the Fritz-X susceptible to jamming. Now, if you want to think about possibilities, how about a wire-guided bomb/rocket? Now you've removed any concern over the loss of radio guidance to the bomb/rocket (although you are still left with the thorny issue of getting the launching bomber to within visual range of the target).
Just to be clear, I'm not saying there should be no missile technologies in RTW2. It's just that, in our world at least, it took quite a bit of time, money, and development to get them to the point of being consistent, reliable, and effective weapons. Certainly in RTW2 you'll probably be able to advance the development of such technologies to earlier than they appeared historically, but they'll still be in relative infancy and not terribly effective. And if we are going to grant the early development of effective missile technology, then likewise the countermeasures to such ought to be available to pursue as well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2019 22:49:20 GMT -6
Taking a step back from modern anti-ship mission, even radio guided ordanance can like the Fritz-x can be highly useful and fits nicely within the time frame of the game. Perhaps missile tech can be near the end of rocket and guidance/search technology and require development in both to use? A national focusing resources into this area can potentially push the application of missile 5-10 years early compare to real life, but need to sacrifice other area of research to compensate. From a gameplay perspective, it is ideally possible for a nation focused on missile tech to at least have a 5-10 year window to use and develop that tech before the game ends in 1950(and for a country not focused on that field of research, perhaps a 10-15 year for them to use missile before the hard 1975 cut off). Otherwise it will be rather awkward to have all these content in game that the player barely be able to utilize.
Given the Fritz-X's reliance on visual guidance from a bomber, the device is unusable if one does not have air superiority, unless one gets lucky. In practice, it's similar to the Okha, except that in the case of the Japanese weapon a human onboard the rocket was guiding it into the target rather than someone on the loitering bomber. The reliance on radio guidance also makes the Fritz-X susceptible to jamming. Now, if you want to think about possibilities, how about a wire-guided bomb/rocket? Now you've removed any concern over the loss of radio guidance to the bomb/rocket (although you are still left with the thorny issue of getting the launching bomber to within visual range of the target).
Just to be clear, I'm not saying there should be no missile technologies in RTW2. It's just that, in our world at least, it took quite a bit of time, money, and development to get them to the point of being consistent, reliable, and effective weapons. Certainly in RTW2 you'll probably be able to advance the development of such technologies to earlier than they appeared historically, but they'll still be in relative infancy and not terribly effective. And if we are going to grant the early development of effective missile technology, then likewise the countermeasures to such ought to be available to pursue as well.
As with any new technology, there has to be an honest assessment of its effectiveness and under what conditions this effectiveness will be realized. It is true that with the loss of air superiority over the Med, the use of the Fritz X became problematic. The use of the V-1 and V-2 had similar problems. The V-1 could be shot down or flip over to crash, and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate, it was more of a terror weapon than anything else. But terror has it's uses.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 1, 2019 23:41:18 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history. It's really not obvious that nuclear power would lead to nuclear weapons quickly. Nuclear weapons aren't just something they invented, they required a major industry that needed to work for years to get an initial result and additional decades to make something powerful. The initial result just wasn't that useful and cost a staggering sum. Conventional weapons would have accomplished an enormous amount more with that much labor invested. The only reason the Manhattan project was able to get such limitless resources was the very specific circumstances of being at war with a genocidal power that is lead by a madman who likes investing in superweapons, making the US fear that Germany might discover that nuclear weapons were more powerful then they expected. And all of this happened with unique resources available like emptying the silver of Fort Knox and recruiting normally anti-militaristic scientists from anywhere on the earth. Once the US had invested the enormous amount in making an atomic industry the Soviets could imitate it and knew it was worthwhile to do so. But without that imitation, operating through normal funding levels and the difficulty of getting design work done, it would be a project that would take decades. tl;dr: it shouldn't be taken for granted that anyone would have been willing to invest the enormous resources the first nuclear explosion required. and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate It also cost a much as a B-29 bomber which could carry more then twice the payload but land afterwards and be used again. High altitude B-29 bombings did on rare occasion actually hit the target. I can't remember a the quote but didn't some american army air force general observe that the resources wasted on the V-2 did as much harm to Germany as the american strategic bombing campaign or something like that? It's rare to have a weapon so ineffective that it kills more people in the factories where it is produced then in the factories at which it is fired.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 0:09:19 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history. It's really not obvious that nuclear power would lead to nuclear weapons quickly. Nuclear weapons aren't just something they invented, they required a major industry that needed to work for years to get an initial result and additional decades to make something powerful. The initial result just wasn't that useful and cost a staggering sum. Conventional weapons would have accomplished an enormous amount more with that much labor invested. The only reason the Manhattan project was able to get such limitless resources was the very specific circumstances of being at war with a genocidal power that is lead by a madman who likes investing in superweapons, making the US fear that Germany might discover that nuclear weapons were more powerful then they expected. And all of this happened with unique resources available like emptying the silver of Fort Knox and recruiting normally anti-militaristic scientists from anywhere on the earth. Once the US had invested the enormous amount in making an atomic industry the Soviets could imitate it and knew it was worthwhile to do so. But without that imitation, operating through normal funding levels and the difficulty of getting design work done, it would be a project that would take decades. tl;dr: it shouldn't be taken for granted that anyone would have been willing to invest the enormous resources the first nuclear explosion required. and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate It also cost a much as a B-29 bomber which could carry more then twice the payload but land afterwards and be used again. High altitude B-29 bombings did on rare occasion actually hit the target. I can't remember a the quote but didn't some american army air force general observe that the resources wasted on the V-2 did as much harm to Germany as the american strategic bombing campaign or something like that? It's rare to have a weapon so ineffective that it kills more people in the factories where it is produced then in the factories at which it is fired. In 1944 dollars, the estimate is $2 billion dollars. They had a unit price of about $17,877 dollars. Accuracy wise, 100% of the shots fired landed within 11.5 miles of the target. Records show that of the 1225 rockets fired at London, 518 actually hit the Greater London Air Defense Zone which gives you a Circular Error of probability of around 7.5 miles. Unfortunately, much of the data is from a disinformation campaign by the British after the war, so we really don't know exactly how accurate the missile actually was. The V-1 was more accurate, but also more vulnerable. So take your pick. BTW, the unit cost of the B-29 Superfortress was $639,188.
|
|
|
Post by bluewasps on Jan 2, 2019 0:28:02 GMT -6
Is nobody else going to comment on the disgusting impropriety of this thread? I'll have you gentlemen know that we'd rightly call it The March of Missiles around these parts, not a measly, lonely little 'missiles' in the title of the thread! Happy?
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 2, 2019 0:36:22 GMT -6
As with any new technology, there has to be an honest assessment of its effectiveness and under what conditions this effectiveness will be realized. It is true that with the loss of air superiority over the Med, the use of the Fritz X became problematic. The use of the V-1 and V-2 had similar problems. The V-1 could be shot down or flip over to crash, and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate, it was more of a terror weapon than anything else. But terror has it's uses.
Certainly, having the option to develop things like the Fritz-X or Wasserfall or even the Okha would be interesting. I just don't think these should be particularly effective as weapons, however, unless used under optimal conditions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 0:49:13 GMT -6
As with any new technology, there has to be an honest assessment of its effectiveness and under what conditions this effectiveness will be realized. It is true that with the loss of air superiority over the Med, the use of the Fritz X became problematic. The use of the V-1 and V-2 had similar problems. The V-1 could be shot down or flip over to crash, and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate, it was more of a terror weapon than anything else. But terror has it's uses.
Certainly, having the option to develop things like the Fritz-X or Wasserfall or even the Okha would be interesting. I just don't think these should be particularly effective as weapons, however, unless used under optimal conditions.
I don't disagree and I believe that the Germans and Japanese would probably, after the war, agree with us. These weapons have to be used under certain situations when all factors can lead to effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 2, 2019 0:51:25 GMT -6
and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate It also cost a much as a B-29 bomber which could carry more then twice the payload but land afterwards and be used again. High altitude B-29 bombings did on rare occasion actually hit the target. I can't remember a the quote but didn't some american army air force general observe that the resources wasted on the V-2 did as much harm to Germany as the american strategic bombing campaign or something like that? It's rare to have a weapon so ineffective that it kills more people in the factories where it is produced then in the factories at which it is fired.
It's not just the unit production cost, there's also the huge amount of time and resources poured into developing the V-2: the monetary cost of the program was roughly 50% more than was spent by the U.S. on the Manhattan Project, and the sheer amount of physical resources devoted to it, resources which might have been put to better war fighting use in other projects.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 0:55:19 GMT -6
It also cost a much as a B-29 bomber which could carry more then twice the payload but land afterwards and be used again. High altitude B-29 bombings did on rare occasion actually hit the target. I can't remember a the quote but didn't some american army air force general observe that the resources wasted on the V-2 did as much harm to Germany as the american strategic bombing campaign or something like that? It's rare to have a weapon so ineffective that it kills more people in the factories where it is produced then in the factories at which it is fired.
It's not just the unit production cost, there's also the huge amount of time and resources poured into developing the V-2: the monetary cost of the program was roughly 50% more than was spent by the U.S. on the Manhattan Project, and the sheer amount of physical resources devoted to it, resources which might have been put to better war fighting use in other projects.
This is why I gathered the numbers to prove the point of how much of a waste of time,human resources and funds this actually was. Dornberger should have found something else to do, not build this weapon. Of course, the US and their Allies made out like burglars after the war, so they weren't complaining.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 2, 2019 8:30:49 GMT -6
Is nobody else going to comment on the disgusting impropriety of this thread? I'll have you gentlemen know that we'd rightly call it The March of Missiles around these parts, not a measly, lonely little 'missiles' in the title of the thread! Happy? And so the balance of the universe was restored.
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Jan 2, 2019 9:23:56 GMT -6
Missiles could work like faster torpedoes with course correction.
Also, nuclear propulsion should very much be in the game. Chief advantage would be infinite range. It would not be an OP asset.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 2, 2019 14:56:57 GMT -6
As with any new technology, there has to be an honest assessment of its effectiveness and under what conditions this effectiveness will be realized. It is true that with the loss of air superiority over the Med, the use of the Fritz X became problematic. The use of the V-1 and V-2 had similar problems. The V-1 could be shot down or flip over to crash, and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate, it was more of a terror weapon than anything else. But terror has it's uses.
Certainly, having the option to develop things like the Fritz-X or Wasserfall or even the Okha would be interesting. I just don't think these should be particularly effective as weapons, however, unless used under optimal conditions.
I agree that early guided munitions are situationally useful at best and certainly none of them war changing. nevertheless they represent a step in development towards more modern guided munitions. They give a country that decide to invest in the area something to play with before going into real missile tech. I think it’s a good thing that guided munition development have a gradual impact rather than instanenous change to the way battles are fought the moment reliable guided missile is developed. I think it’s ultimately up to the team to decide to what extent will missile tech be present in the game, but if it is to have a revolutionary effect as it had in real life, I believe it should be introduced gradually through intermediate weapons like Fritz-x and later the radar guided Bat, etc...ultimately this could either be a tech tree to “invest to get some useful but unreliable trinkets” to potentially “put your fortune in it to get a war changing weapon”. That said, given player hindsight it may not be a great idea to give player complete agency into when to invest in this tech, perhaps making the category of research only available by chance based on player investment in related fields.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 2, 2019 15:53:48 GMT -6
Things that were useful in sporadic situational circumstances could just be covered by events. After the year 1940 you could randomly get an event to fund a guided missile and a few years later it might trigger randomly each month, sinking anything from a battleship to a garbage scow.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Jan 2, 2019 18:28:35 GMT -6
USS Nautilus was authorized in 1951, laid down in 1952, commissioned in 1954, and finally went to sea in 1955. This slides nuclear powered submarines out of the covered time period of 1925-1950 or 1900-1950 depending on chosen start year.
Yes, but missiles in any meaningful degree also fall outside the 1900-1950 time frame. The first surface-to-air missile-armed ship (a heavy cruiser conversion which still retained its forward 8" guns) didn't enter USN service until 1955.
Anti-aircraft missiles, both air to air and surface to air do fall outside of the time period. Air to surface and surface to surface do not.
|
|