|
Post by DeMatt on Jul 2, 2019 6:31:45 GMT -6
I'd like to suggest two new research entries in the Missiles area, before any actual missiles: - Light rocket projectiles: improves accuracy and penetration of 0-125lb bombs.
- Heavy rocket projectiles: improves accuracy and penetration of 126-250lb bombs.
It's worth noting that these do not improve damage, and are not cumulative with one another. I think they should be applicable to all forms of bombing attack (level, glide, dive), but should not change the type of bombing attack.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 2, 2019 7:41:50 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea, but unless the game permitted the player to substitute, say, eight light rockets for a 1,000lb bomb or something like that I can't see much use for it, especially if rocket technology isn't developed in the early aviation period when light bombs are most likely to be used.
I would also suggest that, at least for level/glide bombing, unguided rockets might be better handled as a counter to AAA than as a penetration boost - you can fire a rocket from further away than you can drop a bomb, meaning you don't need to spend as much time in a ship's AA envelope while attacking it, and while it's unlikely that a fairly light rocket could compete with a decently-heavy bomb for penetration you don't need much penetration to knock out an unarmored light or medium AA position.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 2, 2019 12:22:36 GMT -6
Did anything use rockets with a level bombing profile (aside from rocket-boosted guided bombs)? At the very least I would not expect it to help accuracy; firing rockets against the flight direction is likely to produce unpredictable weathercocking.
Guided bombs aside, I think all period rocket attacks used essentially the same flight profile--a somewhat shallow dive (although DBs could still use a steeper dive to avoid AA; I just don't know of any DB actually equipped with rockets because it is a profound waste of the accuracy and lethality of dive bombing). This would probably be within the reach of all airframe types, as the shallower dive does not require a DB's dive brakes and G tolerance (although rockets are a waste of a medium bomber's payload; relative to other projectiles, rockets have much more drag than weight), but would be a distinct attack profile, not a modifier to their natural profile.
|
|
|
Post by DeMatt on Jul 2, 2019 16:03:42 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea, but unless the game permitted the player to substitute, say, eight light rockets for a 1,000lb bomb or something like that I can't see much use for it, especially if rocket technology isn't developed in the early aviation period when light bombs are most likely to be used. My other suggestion, here, is for essentially that. I would also suggest that, at least for level/glide bombing, unguided rockets might be better handled as a counter to AAA than as a penetration boost - you can fire a rocket from further away than you can drop a bomb, meaning you don't need to spend as much time in a ship's AA envelope while attacking it, and while it's unlikely that a fairly light rocket could compete with a decently-heavy bomb for penetration you don't need much penetration to knock out an unarmored light or medium AA position. I'm leery about messing with the AA rules. The suggestion is as it is in part to keep it simple; if you can come up with a simple change (bonus to the LAA timing roll?), feel free to add it. Did anything use rockets with a level bombing profile (aside from rocket-boosted guided bombs)? At the very least I would not expect it to help accuracy; firing rockets against the flight direction is likely to produce unpredictable weathercocking. Two points: - I didn't intend for the research to be specifically "you now use FFAR/Tiny Tim", any more than mounting 5" guns means their caliber is exactly 127mm. It could imply general improvements in bomb design - more aerodynamic, better fins, etc.
- I'd expect that flying boats and medium bombers would, at the time of this tech, be deploying 500lb bombs at the minimum, and thus beyond the scope of this tech.
Guided bombs aside, I think all period rocket attacks used essentially the same flight profile--a somewhat shallow dive (although DBs could still use a steeper dive to avoid AA; I just don't know of any DB actually equipped with rockets because it is a profound waste of the accuracy and lethality of dive bombing). This would probably be within the reach of all airframe types, as the shallower dive does not require a DB's dive brakes and G tolerance (although rockets are a waste of a medium bomber's payload; relative to other projectiles, rockets have much more drag than weight), but would be a distinct attack profile, not a modifier to their natural profile. As per my comment above, keeping the existing attack profiles is a matter of keeping the changes simple. A new attack profile would imply changes to how the aircraft interacts with AA, and that's a ball of wax I didn't want to get into.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 2, 2019 16:21:12 GMT -6
Two points: - I didn't intend for the research to be specifically "you now use FFAR/Tiny Tim", any more than mounting 5" guns means their caliber is exactly 127mm. It could imply general improvements in bomb design - more aerodynamic, better fins, etc.
- I'd expect that flying boats and medium bombers would, at the time of this tech, be deploying 500lb bombs at the minimum, and thus beyond the scope of this tech.
I didn't intend for the research to be specifically "you now use FFAR/Tiny Tim", any more than mounting 5" guns means their caliber is exactly 127mm. It could imply general improvements in bomb design - more aerodynamic, better fins, etc. But why call it rocket research if it doesn't in some way involve rockets?[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by DeMatt on Jul 2, 2019 16:53:39 GMT -6
But why call it rocket research if it doesn't in some way involve rockets? Well, then, it could be the development of RATO packs. I mean, that fine a hair-splitting is like saying:
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 2, 2019 17:14:19 GMT -6
I hope that you are being sarcastic?
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jul 3, 2019 10:52:58 GMT -6
Did anything use rockets with a level bombing profile (aside from rocket-boosted guided bombs)? At the very least I would not expect it to help accuracy; firing rockets against the flight direction is likely to produce unpredictable weathercocking.
Britain used the RP-3 rocket on strikes on the merchant marine, infrastructure and vehicles in WW2. rocket armed mosquitos had quite a bit of success in Norway and even the early jet aircraft of the Fleet air arm had rocket munitions available.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 3, 2019 11:18:29 GMT -6
Did anything use rockets with a level bombing profile (aside from rocket-boosted guided bombs)? At the very least I would not expect it to help accuracy; firing rockets against the flight direction is likely to produce unpredictable weathercocking.
Britain used the RP-3 rocket on strikes on the merchant marine, infrastructure and vehicles in WW2. rocket armed mosquitos had quite a bit of success in Norway and even the early jet aircraft of the Fleet air arm had rocket munitions available.
To be clear, I am not disputing that rockets were used in maritime purposes, I am just arguing that it would be extremely inaccurate to treat them as a modifier to all the existing profiles--particularly level bombing, which never involves approaching or pointing at the target. (Although now that I think about it, a rocket attack would be very similar to a single strafing pass.)
|
|