|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 14, 2019 11:33:40 GMT -6
Also, the Ohka had a rocket engine. There was also a quite interesting animated short made in 1993 about the Ohka.
I know, but since it was only used during final approach to the target, rather than as a cruising engine, I figured it wasn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 15, 2019 2:37:06 GMT -6
As I recall, Japanese planes taking off with the specific intention of launching a kamikaze strike were loaded with as much fuel as possible, or a large bomb, basically anything that would explode after impact, or worsen the subsequent fire. They would also have anything unnecessary removed. Further, they even used craft specifically designed for the role, like the Ohka, basically a manned glide bomb, or the Ki-115 Tsurugi, a very cheap, wood-and-steel plane with no gun armament but the ability to carry a single 1800lb bomb. Even the landing gear would detach immediately after take-off, to be re-used.
In other words, kamikaze strikes are very different from individual choice.
The motivation behind the Kamikaze or choosing to crash a damaged plane deliberately is the same and most Kamikaze pilots were volunteers, making it an individual choice for them as well. They all knew that flying normal non-kamikaze missions they wouldn't be coming back alive either, but that if flying Kamikaze they could inflict many times more damage to the enemy. In fact many of the skilled Fighter Aces of Japan were not allowed to sign up for Kamikaze attacks even when they wanted and tried to do so, because they were much more valuable escorting the rookies that did the attack to give them a greater chance of getting through. I agree with you that the preparation is very different, but the reason and motivation is the same: The pilot is not likely to be able to return home alive, so he can sacrifice himself and do more damage to the enemy instead of trying to get home. The preparation just follows naturally based on having this knowledge before launching, instead of after. For RTW2 a minimal implementation suggestion of Kamikaze could be something as follows: - New mission unique to Japan unlocked if Japan is behind X in warscore - Allows you to fly fighters in a dive bombing mission which expends the aircraft on attack attempt. - Releases an "incendiary/HE bomb" ( reuse same mechanic ) if they can make a hit and the bomb is considered to be X% of the planes weight. Optional: - Increase accuracy and damage of smaller caliber AA on the ship being attacked by X% ( due to the plane approaching much closer than a normal attack ) - Double maximum range of mission ( no need for return flight ) - Increased damage and chance to set fires based on how much fuel the plane have left - Ability to use both bombers and fighters - Special kamikaze "missiles" (Ohka) for Medium bombers and "torpedoes" (Kaiten) for large submarines. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 15, 2019 3:14:32 GMT -6
The motivation behind the Kamikaze or choosing to crash a damaged plane deliberately is the same and most Kamikaze pilots were volunteers, making it an individual choice for them as well. They all knew that flying normal non-kamikaze missions they wouldn't be coming back alive either, but that if flying Kamikaze they could inflict many times more damage to the enemy. It should be remembered that a great deal of societal pressure can be brought to bear on a person to compel them to "volunteer" to do something without expressly conscripting them for the purpose, that in the Interbellum and World War II era an "anything for the Emperor and the Empire" mentality was heavily encouraged by the Japanese government, and that it is possible to phrase a request for "volunteers" in such a way as to make declining to volunteer appear shameful or dishonorable in the extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 15, 2019 3:46:10 GMT -6
As I recall, Japanese planes taking off with the specific intention of launching a kamikaze strike were loaded with as much fuel as possible, or a large bomb, basically anything that would explode after impact, or worsen the subsequent fire. They would also have anything unnecessary removed. Further, they even used craft specifically designed for the role, like the Ohka, basically a manned glide bomb, or the Ki-115 Tsurugi, a very cheap, wood-and-steel plane with no gun armament but the ability to carry a single 1800lb bomb. Even the landing gear would detach immediately after take-off, to be re-used.
In other words, kamikaze strikes are very different from individual choice.
The motivation behind the Kamikaze or choosing to crash a damaged plane deliberately is the same and most Kamikaze pilots were volunteers, making it an individual choice for them as well. They all knew that flying normal non-kamikaze missions they wouldn't be coming back alive either, but that if flying Kamikaze they could inflict many times more damage to the enemy. In fact many of the skilled Fighter Aces of Japan were not allowed to sign up for Kamikaze attacks even when they wanted and tried to do so, because they were much more valuable escorting the rookies that did the attack to give them a greater chance of getting through. I agree with you that the preparation is very different, but the reason and motivation is the same: The pilot is not likely to be able to return home alive, so he can sacrifice himself and do more damage to the enemy instead of trying to get home. The preparation just follows naturally based on having this knowledge before launching, instead of after. For RTW2 a minimal implementation suggestion of Kamikaze could be something as follows: - New mission unique to Japan unlocked if Japan is behind X in warscore - Allows you to fly fighters in a dive bombing mission which expends the aircraft on attack attempt. - Releases an "incendiary/HE bomb" ( reuse same mechanic ) if they can make a hit and the bomb is considered to be X% of the planes weight. Optional: - Increase accuracy and damage of smaller caliber AA on the ship being attacked by X% ( due to the plane approaching much closer than a normal attack ) - Double maximum range of mission ( no need for return flight ) - Increased damage and chance to set fires based on how much fuel the plane have left - Ability to use both bombers and fighters - Special kamikaze "missiles" (Ohka) for Medium bombers and "torpedoes" (Kaiten) for large submarines. This suggestion seems alright to me, though I have a few minor complaints.
I'd like it more if everyone had the ability to do this. Maybe make it available for the Japanese more easily, but let everyone else do it too.
Small calibre AA shouldn't have an accuracy or damage bonus. Yes, the plane is approaching much closer, but they have to actually stop the plane from hitting the ship. Even a kamikaze that gets shot down will still do full damage if it hits (possibly even more, if it gets set on fire). I'd suggest giving the boost to medium calibre AA instead (I'm assuming that medium calibre would include weapons of around 40mm calibre), since those were the weapons that were most likely to destroy a kamikaze before it hit the ship (late in WW2, most ships were fitted with the 40mm Bofors or the British "pom-pom," rather than the 20mm Oerlikon, for this very reason).
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 15, 2019 3:53:17 GMT -6
This suggestion seems alright to me, though I have a few minor complaints.
I'd like it more if everyone had the ability to do this. Maybe make it available for the Japanese more easily, but let everyone else do it too.
Small calibre AA shouldn't have an accuracy or damage bonus. Yes, the plane is approaching much closer, but they have to actually stop the plane from hitting the ship. Even a kamikaze that gets shot down will still do full damage if it hits (possibly even more, if it gets set on fire). I'd suggest giving the boost to medium calibre AA instead (I'm assuming that medium calibre would include weapons of around 40mm calibre), since those were the weapons that were most likely to destroy a kamikaze before it hit the ship (late in WW2, most ships were fitted with the 40mm Bofors or the British "pom-pom," rather than the 20mm Oerlikon, for this very reason).
Your right, I meant medium caliber AA. I confused it with another game that only have small/large caliber type AA. Ships that were refit to better deal with Kamikazes often had their 5" DP guns removed to make room for more 40mm Bofors. It should be remembered that a great deal of societal pressure can be brought to bear on a person to compel them to "volunteer" to do something without expressly conscripting them for the purpose, that in the Interbellum and World War II era an "anything for the Emperor and the Empire" mentality was heavily encouraged by the Japanese government, and that it is possible to phrase a request for "volunteers" in such a way as to make declining to volunteer appear shameful or dishonorable in the extreme. Correct. However it doesn't make much of a difference in this case because a Rookie Kamikaze pilot in Japan in 1945 would have had about the same chance to survive 5 normal missions as surviving the Kamikaze attack. It was a small chance to survive both ( many Kamikaze had to return home or ditch not finding a target ). |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 15, 2019 4:42:57 GMT -6
This suggestion seems alright to me, though I have a few minor complaints.
I'd like it more if everyone had the ability to do this. Maybe make it available for the Japanese more easily, but let everyone else do it too.
Small calibre AA shouldn't have an accuracy or damage bonus. Yes, the plane is approaching much closer, but they have to actually stop the plane from hitting the ship. Even a kamikaze that gets shot down will still do full damage if it hits (possibly even more, if it gets set on fire). I'd suggest giving the boost to medium calibre AA instead (I'm assuming that medium calibre would include weapons of around 40mm calibre), since those were the weapons that were most likely to destroy a kamikaze before it hit the ship (late in WW2, most ships were fitted with the 40mm Bofors or the British "pom-pom," rather than the 20mm Oerlikon, for this very reason).
Your right, I meant medium caliber AA. I confused it with another game that only have small/large caliber type AA. Ships that were refit to better deal with Kamikazes often had their 5" DP guns removed to make room for more 40mm Bofors. Out of curiosity, what game were you thinking of? I'm kinda new to the whole "naval sim" scene, and I'm interested in having a look at anything. |
|
ilyusin28
New Member
I'm Japanese,so I can't write English well.
Posts: 35
|
Post by ilyusin28 on Feb 15, 2019 6:42:06 GMT -6
I firmly against Kamikaze. Kamikaze is taboo in Japan.
You should not insist on things you can only enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 15, 2019 7:01:42 GMT -6
If RTW2 is like RTW1 in that wars are limited and home areas are not vulnerable to loss or invasion then there is no real justification ethically for the formation of suicide attackers. The concept is best left to history. One less thing that has to be programmed and tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 15, 2019 9:20:57 GMT -6
Thread is about 'multiple bombs', so lets try to stick as close as possible to that subject without wandering far afield.
Also, at this point suicide attacks may or may not be included in RTW2; if they are I am inclined to suggest we make them optional.
|
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Feb 15, 2019 9:25:40 GMT -6
It might be quite useful for your plane to carry a SAP bomb and then some smaller HE bombs if you are unsure of what target you’re going up against.
|
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 15, 2019 10:59:41 GMT -6
As far as the multiple bombs/bombloads topic, is there any confirmation/denial on rockets being included? While I don't know specifically of rockets being utilized against ships, I don't see any reason why either munitions such as the 5" FFAR/HVAR or the larger "Tiny Tim" could be used for that purpose. While they'd have very little ability to penetrate armored belts or decks, I'm rather certain that having a set of aircraft launched rockets being splashed across your superstructure makes for a good day.
I firmly against Kamikaze. Kamikaze is taboo in Japan. You should not insist on things you can only enjoy. Regardless of the cultural taboo against the idea now, it was a part of history and a significant event for naval combat. In addition, the Kamikaze may now be looked at with some disdain, but for many years it was considered a great and noble sacrifice, something to be proud of. My point being, to apply modern cultural norms when deciding which historical events should be acknowledged seems rather foolish to me.
Furthermore, I do not think the assumption when considering the portrayal of kamikaze should be that is glorification of the act. The use of kamikazes was an act of desperation, a hope that the Allies could be bled so badly they would accept a compromise peace. In my case personally, the most vivid impressions I have of the horrors of war come from their portrayal in games. A player will almost certainly not choose the option to engage in these attacks lightly, because it would mean sacrificing the naval air units they built from the ground up. Conversely, a player facing a nation utilizing these tactics would have to face the reality that their attempt at forcing an enemy's collapse may mean that the kamikazes might succeed, perhaps crippling their surface fleet before victory can be achieved and making a lesser peace attractive.
If RTW2 is like RTW1 in that wars are limited and home areas are not vulnerable to loss or invasion then there is no real justification ethically for the formation of suicide attackers. The concept is best left to history. RtW1 allowed for nations to undergo governmental collapse as a result of a war, so I'm not sure I'd say RtW1 wars are all limited. I always assumed that home areas weren't invasion material due to the time period, where an entrenched defender was extremely hard to root out. Thus colonial possessions were much more attractive, as they'd likely only have smaller defensive forces. And of course, having a war end in defeat despite winning every naval battle because the Army lost the ground war would be extremely disappointing. I'd also argue that the Japanese undertook kamikaze missions before the Allies were preparing for the Home Island invasions, although I'd dispute the use of the term "ethically".
This is a really strange point to make, I have to say. Of course a developer has to choose what to spend their time and effort on, but your phrasing makes it seem like RtW2 is just a obligation to get to an arbitrary point rather than something worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2019 12:02:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Feb 15, 2019 12:03:11 GMT -6
As far as the multiple bombs/bombloads topic, is there any confirmation/denial on rockets being included? While I don't know specifically of rockets being utilized against ships, I don't see any reason why either munitions such as the 5" FFAR/HVAR or the larger "Tiny Tim" could be used for that purpose. While they'd have very little ability to penetrate armored belts or decks, I'm rather certain that having a set of aircraft launched rockets being splashed across your superstructure makes for a good day.
AFAIK British used rockets to attack coastal shipping in Norway and France. Those were used from long range fighter-bombers, like Beaufighters. Though those were 5in HE shells on a stick so while they were effective against merchants and small crafts, I do not think they would be against DD and up. |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 15, 2019 12:22:41 GMT -6
As far as the multiple bombs/bombloads topic, is there any confirmation/denial on rockets being included? While I don't know specifically of rockets being utilized against ships, I don't see any reason why either munitions such as the 5" FFAR/HVAR or the larger "Tiny Tim" could be used for that purpose. While they'd have very little ability to penetrate armored belts or decks, I'm rather certain that having a set of aircraft launched rockets being splashed across your superstructure makes for a good day.
AFAIK British used rockets to attack coastal shipping in Norway and France. Those were used from long range fighter-bombers, like Beaufighters. Though those were 5in HE shells on a stick so while they were effective against merchants and small crafts, I do not think they would be against DD and up. Surely 5" HE would be effective against destroyers? |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 15, 2019 12:25:10 GMT -6
I brought them up briefly when Kamikazes were discussed several months ago, but just in passing to show that organized airplane-based suicide attacks were hardly limited to just the Japanese. AFAIK British used rockets to attack coastal shipping in Norway and France. Those were used from long range fighter-bombers, like Beaufighters. Though those were 5in HE shells on a stick so while they were effective against merchants and small crafts, I do not think they would be against DD and up. They also used some non-explosive rockets, designed to penetrate the pressure hull of a U-boat. Still, a wing of aircraft making an explosive/incendiary rocket attack on a DD or CL would probably be pretty damaging. I find that DDs don't play well with 5" rounds. |
|
