|
Post by hoffmads on Apr 29, 2019 14:37:35 GMT -6
With the expanded timeline, is it possible that the will be more training focuses than just the original three? The ability to focus on, say, fighter or bomber crew training would be nice, and the availability of more focuses (other things like ASW or damage control could be considered too) would really give flavor to the different competing navies.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 29, 2019 23:44:25 GMT -6
I think air combat training focuses (e.g. air combat, bombing, recon, night attack) would ideally be seperate from the regular ship ones. It doesn't make sense that your regular surface ships become more expensive to maintain due aircrew training and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on Apr 30, 2019 1:11:47 GMT -6
I think air combat training focuses (e.g. air combat, bombing, recon, night attack) would ideally be seperate from the regular ship ones. It doesn't make sense that your regular surface ships become more expensive to maintain due aircrew training and vice versa. You have a good point there. My suggestion is for a system where multiple potential focuses exist, but only a few can be chosen. You're right, however, that it's absurd to charge a higher maintenance cost for a ship to which a given focus is inapplicable. Perhaps a system could be devised whereby only ships involved in the focus would become more expensive to maintain, so that an aircraft focus would charge aircraft carriers and airbases, but a general focus such as night fighting or damage control would affect all ships. At this point, I'm honestly just brainstorming.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 30, 2019 1:57:40 GMT -6
Why not just increase the aircraft maintenance cost? There is one according to this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1727/garrisons-games-conversationsAnd if running too many focuses is a problem, it could be choice of two out of any, so you could only have 2 ship focuses, two air focuses or one ship and one air at maximum. Damage control would be a good idea for additional focus for ships, though hopefully not a no-brainer in latter stages due to dual utility in both surface combat and air defense.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 2, 2019 4:43:14 GMT -6
The goal in RTW2 is to make aircraft operations as efficient as possible so that the player is not overwhelmed with detail and has to perform 'click-fests', but yet keep enough detail to make choices matter and to give some flavor to that portion of the game. It is admittedly a difficult balance to achieve (as mentioned for some existing games), but hopefully our choices will satisfy most players tastes in this area. will different attack patterns be available like the japanese torpedo attack pattern and their dive bombing pattern ?
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 2, 2019 5:22:47 GMT -6
I'd support some linkage of training quality to time and money spent - in the aftermath of high losses the player would be sorely tempted to 'cut corners' and put pilots in seats, letting them learn on the job even if it increased the losses. I believe that's the route the Japanese took, and it really came back to bite them. Britain simply ran out of manpower; a lot of Montgomery's caution stemmed from the fact that high losses simply could not be replaced. Pilot losses are not always a question of training, many times its the construction of the aircraft. Lack of armored glass on the cockpit, self-sealing tanks, glycol tanks in front of the cockpit, lack of armor plate behind the pilot will all contribute to excessive losses as will the failure to provide or use parachutes. It can also be a function of poor radios and tactics. The initial spitfire's had some of these issues and therefore pilots losses were high. The German's did not have such issues but there pilots simply did not have replacements so they flew until they died. This is how many of them gained victories over 100 or 200 enemy aircraft. They were not rotated. The US pilots were rotated home, to provide training. The Japanese had all these problems including a poorly designed aluminum fuel tank built too close to the wing spar and ribs so that a bullet passing through the tank would create hydrostatic pressure wave and it could snap the wing off of the plane. If you watch gun camera videos of the Zero's, this is exactly what happened. so to contribute a bit to your arguments and also "debunk" the last statement aircraft are most likely to go down after being hit in these areas cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*lFhFi-5JsP-zhW7Al5_a6A.jpegthis means rear fuselarge wing roots front fuselarge/pilot and engine are the main priorities which determine wether or not a plane survives alot of planes have protection basically every single plane does lets compare the zero and the p47 the p47 has a 12mm plate from feet to head in his pilot seat the zero has the same coverage but its 13mm instead (all zero models except some of the first ones) so in theory the zero should survive longer problem is the general ruggedness of the zeroes structure is not great while the p47 has a very though structure now to the statement the zeros wing was ripped off because of hydrostatic preassure first i will present the fuel layouts for the following aircraft in order p47 zero hurricane he111 stuka bf110 www.lonesentry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/p-47-fuel-system.jpgi.imgur.com/LfHL6Ev.pngi.imgur.com/1NeUEH6.jpgi.imgur.com/NMoR2Br.jpgi.imgur.com/x7hrxum.jpgi.imgur.com/lnMPbKX.jpgnotice all of them have wing root fuel tanks if the zero was effected by this then the others should in theory also be effected to the same degree especially because some have larger fuel tanks now it could be attributed to the zeroes poor structural integrity but in fact the wing roots arent too weak www.asisbiz.com/il2/Zero/Mitsubishi-A6M-Zero/images/Artwork-technical-drawing-of-Mitsubishi-A6M3-Zero-cut-away-0A.jpgas you can see the wing roots have some of the thickest alluminium in the intire plane now onto some guncam footage www.youtube.com/watch?v=39hapSX4frwyou will notice the fuel tanks get lit up alot but never once is a wing lost
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 3, 2019 16:33:02 GMT -6
I did some research into this issue of the Japanese Zero wing tanks. They were what is called in the industry "integral tanks". These are areas inside the wing that is sealed off, and used to store fuel. They cannot be removed for inspection. In my world, its called a "wet wing". Now, this type of wing is used almost exclusively on larger civilian aircraft. However, to gain fuel capacity and save weight, the Zero designers of the wing used the wet wing. This means that any shell passing through that area of the wing, which on the Zero was from the wing root at the fuselage out to about the fourth rib, will cause a hydrodynamic pressure wave, just like a depth charge does in the water. That pressure wave, can, under circumstances, snap off a wing or break the ribs and as such, might cause the pressure of a maneuver to break off the wing. The wing does not have to explode, although it can, but it doesn't have to. It can just snap off, which it did on many occasions. The Japanese twin engine bombers had the same wet wing or integral wing and had the same issues as the Zero. If the designers had installed a separate tank, into the wing, it would have added weight and the plane design could not handle it. You cannot armor protect integral fuel tanks or but you can install self-sealing bladders which they did. It did add some complications for fuel control, maintenance but could protect the plane better.
Sorry for the delay in providing this information but I wanted to do some extensive research and try to find some good drawings.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 3, 2019 18:46:19 GMT -6
If the designers had installed a separate tank, into the wing, it would have added weight and the plane design could not handle it. You cannot armor protect integral fuel tanks or but you can install self-sealing bladders which they did. It did add some complications for fuel control, maintenance but could protect the plane better There was a video I watched on Japanese aircraft protection. It stated that, had the Japanese altered the G4M to have self-sealing fuel tanks, it would have imposed a 40% reduction in range. That would have been a massive tradeoff for some rather iffy gains in survivability and not played to the Japanese's strengths.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 3, 2019 19:18:32 GMT -6
If the designers had installed a separate tank, into the wing, it would have added weight and the plane design could not handle it. You cannot armor protect integral fuel tanks or but you can install self-sealing bladders which they did. It did add some complications for fuel control, maintenance but could protect the plane better There was a video I watched on Japanese aircraft protection. It stated that, had the Japanese altered the G4M to have self-sealing fuel tanks, it would have imposed a 40% reduction in range. That would have been a massive tradeoff for some rather iffy gains in survivability and not played to the Japanese's strengths. This is exactly true. The problem for the Japanese was always engine power. They needed range due to the distances in the Pacific and China, but more importantly ordnance carrying capability. The Betty had a Kasei engine with 1530 hp, fourteen cylinders. As a comparison, our B-25's had an engine rated at 1700 hp. It does make a big difference. Our B-26 Marauder had an engine power of well over 2000 hp. The German JU-88 engine initially was rated at 1340 hp but that climbed to 2125 over time. Power to weight is always important in a aircraft. However, there are other factors that can and do contribute, such as octane rating of the fuel, aerodynamics of the wing and fuselage metal surfaces, the weight of the internal structures etc. Lift to drag is important. Its complex, trust me.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2019 15:04:05 GMT -6
Just wanted to add something about the wet wing. Most naval aircraft use the wet wing idea. The wet wing is sealed with a fuel-resistant compound at the wing is built. This eliminates the usual rubber cells or tanks. It is now called a fuel cell. Another fact about fuel tanks and such is that most aircraft guns use an incendiary shell every, say 6 or 7th, round. If that incendiary hits the fuel tank whether it is self-sealing or not, it will light off that tank and down she goes. This is what you see with most gun camera videos. I will search for some to show you.
|
|