|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Mar 6, 2020 13:12:25 GMT -6
When making a historical accurate setup,maybe the number of aircraft is not so important. At the beginning of WWII land based aircraft was very inefficient when trying to sink ships. The UK for instance was using mostly recon aircraft: the light Avro Anson, and a few Hudson (they could damage surfaced u-boots, that's all). Only a handful of torpedo bombers Beaufort were coming active. Anyway, still by 1942 they had not developed an efficient anti-ship force. I'm of course thinking of the Channel dash when they were able to send off only a few biplanes! Spitfires cannot sink ships. Germany's situation was even worst. By 1940 their only efficient anti-ship plane was the short range Stuka used by the Luftwaffe (i. e. no naval training) Italy likewise. In 1940 they were just introducing the SM79 as a torpedo bomber. But very few would be released during the war for this purpose. Most of the production would be kept as bombers for the air force. Anyway, the italians had not used torpedo bombers before so not only they had few airplanes, they also had to devise the best way to use them and to train the crews out of scratch. The USA entered the war still thinking that they could sink any ship approaching the American coasts using the 4 engine B-17s. They were sent to Pearl Harbour and the Philippines with that in mind: to sink ships. But of course a high altitude bombing of a moving target was just a waste of time. Only the Japanese have developed the weapons, tactics and training to seriously threat enemy ships lurking near their land bases. So regardless of numbers, the situation during the first couple of years in WWII was that land-based aircraft were not a serious danger for fleets. They could damage and sometimes sink merchant ships and submarines and even if lucky a lonely destroyer or gunboat (most likely the airplane would be shot down). But they could not sink an armoured ship. Japan being the only exception.
So how all this applies to RTW2?
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Mar 6, 2020 13:16:33 GMT -6
So how all this applies to RTW2?
My suggestion to the NWS team We all want and enjoy our carrier-based aircraft being very efficient and deadly. But I think land based aircraft should be kept at a low level of efficiency as long as possible. That would be historically correct as that was the case in WWII until 1942 or so. And I think it would improve the experience of playing the game.
Is it possible to delay torpedo bombers and dive bombers only for land bases? Is it possible to give then lower attack effectiveness than to carrier based aircraft?
Maybe Japan should be an exception. It could have a quick development of land base aircraft as a national characteristic. ..
In any case, maybe more scenarios in the mid of the oceans and in remote land areas away from the dangerous land planes would be necessary from the 1940s onwards.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 7, 2020 5:13:40 GMT -6
Certainly for the UK that was a funding issue as much as anything. The RAF focussed their resources into Fighter and Bomber Commands, leaving Coastal Command underfunded. Similarly, the Fleet Air Arm had been an RAF responsibility that was also somewhat neglected until the services were separated out.
Once the need for such a service was realised, things did improve rapidly. The Blenheim rapidly became the Beaufort then the Beaufighter (counting as medium bombers in-game). The Sunderland was joined by the Catalina and Liberator for long ranged work.
Likewise, you neglected the German FW 200 Condor reconnaissance aircraft and Heinkel 115 floatplane in the maritime role. The Heinkel was successful against lightly defended convoys supplying Russia, whilst the Condors summoned the wolf-packs in the Atlantic (not reproduceable in game AFAIK).
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 10, 2020 7:06:32 GMT -6
TheOtherPoster - I absolutely do not agree, and I point to the Royal Navy ships lost at Crete and Malta, to the sailors aboard Prince of Wales and Repulse and to other cases, such as Konigsberg, from 1939-41. Those biplanes wrecked Bismarck and nearly put paid to the Italian battle-line at Taranto. Sometimes it is not the plane it's the pilot and payload. Land-based aircraft were clearly capable of sinking warships, even in the early years of the war, and having only a small number of them in a strike was counterbalanced by the sparse and poor shipboard antiaircraft batteries and general lack of CAP. I do agree that the various air services had an inflated idea of the damage they could do (in general - to populations, industry and to ships) but a lot of that was a consequence of having to wage a publicity war for funding.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 10, 2020 8:48:43 GMT -6
Just my three cents ( inflation). The two air groups that sank the POW and Repulse were part of the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service, specifically the Genzan and Kanoya air groups. They were specifically trained in their Nell bombers for ship killing. They were trained for long range over-ocean navigation and torpedo attacks at less than 30 feet. They were part of the training for possible interceptive operations against the US fleet as it moved across the Pacific to relieve the Philippines as a part of War Plan Orange. They were flying out of air bases around Saigon. Of course, War Plan Orange, was never fully realized for many reasons, but it was part of the Rainbow plans.
The US plans were for our long range bombers to drop bombs in level flight on ships underway but this was found, very early to be very ineffective. Hits were negligible. Its hard to compare the planning for anti-ship attacks in Europe versus the Pacific. I think we all realize this.
As for the British, the German's did not have a fleet worth discussing, so the British never felt that land based naval attack aircraft were important since they had fleet carriers to accomplish the purpose. Bismarck was hit by carrier based torpedo bombers. The German's were more interested in tactical support than attacking the British Navy. The British RAF was based on long range bomber attacks on German industrial, the so called strategic bombing. Italy had bombers and did train for naval attack but never was able to have cooperation between the Regia Marina and Regia Aeronautica.
Now, how does this relate to the game? Well, it doesn't, not completely because the Italians, Germans and everyone else will have navies so land-based attack aircraft against naval targets is important. It has worked well for me as Japan equipping Hokkaido, Japan and Formosa with air bases and naval attack. It probably will help the other nations in Europe. This is the difference. The game is different, its virtual.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Mar 12, 2020 10:54:11 GMT -6
Land based aircraft in a historical scenario for RTW2 in 1930s and 40s.
I think it is important to remember that in RTW2, we are playing as the head of the navy. So aircraft production and how it is divided between the army and the navy is beyond our power. We can go our way on the ships we build because we are the admiral but not to imagine that, for example, Germany is producing aircraft mostly for the navy.
During WWII all European countries prioritized aircraft production for land operations because the land war was all-important for them. Only a fraction of the produced aircraft would end up in the naval services.
So I guess a historically accurate -and playable- scenario for RTW2 would be to accept that in the 1930s and 40s all European nations have only limited number of land-based aircraft available. I guess we could still build more and bigger bases but the total number of land-based planes should be limited and should increase slowly. The maximum number of aircraft to build could be connected with some technology or with the airbase size: i. e. when 20 plane bases allowed = up to 100 planes in total? etc Japan and the USA would have more land planes allowed. But is important we can play in the Pacific in areas a bit far away (i e with few and small airfields nearby). Maybe invading Guadalcanal?
|
|