|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 16, 2020 18:14:55 GMT -6
Don't be overawed by the FW-200 Condor. While it claimed about 90,000 tons of shipping and 343,000 in total, it had heavy losses especially after the British put hurricanes on catapults. It also had structural issues. It really wasn't that effective. I think the FW-200 sometimes takes the credit for the actions of the less well known Ju-290. Both of which would nonetheless be better described as patrol aircraft, being somewhat long ranged with comparatively light payloads, which in turn made them better for calling in the wolf packs. The FW-290 did not take its first flight until around 6 July 1942 and wasn't assigned the role of a long-range reconnaissance in July 1943. While you might be correct, the shipping attacks and reported tonnage lost was during theNorwegian campaign, If I remember. Will check on this. I know the tonnage lost to the FW-200 was successful until mid-1941. With the advent of the BV 138 flying boat, the FW-200 crews were not allowed to attack shipping to conserve their numbers as they were used as transport. It was used for supply transport during the Siege of Stalingrad and after that, transportation of men and supplies was it only job.
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Jul 17, 2020 11:51:10 GMT -6
When talking about irl, Heavy bombers should become useful as attack craft when guided weapons become available - carrying bigger missiles/bombs for longer range, for example.
|
|
|
Post by imperatoraugust on Jul 17, 2020 13:37:33 GMT -6
The US used heavy bombers to drop tons of mines over the pacific shipping routes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 17, 2020 14:50:35 GMT -6
The US used heavy bombers to drop tons of mines over the pacific shipping routes. You are referring to Operation Starvation. a420650.pdf (587.17 KB) Here is monograph on that operation.
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Jul 20, 2020 10:25:05 GMT -6
Aerial mine-laying would be an excellent reason to make use of heavy bombers. Other uses could be airfield suppression, or general strategic bombing. This could actually be an extremely easy addition to the game.
The heavy bomber type could simply be added to the request aircraft design page, perhaps with an appropriate tech(s) added as well. Heavy bomber squadrons are able to be assigned to airbases just like medium bombers, perhaps limited to bases size 60 and above to account for their greater runway needs. Then add another selection option in the same manor as the one for subs, with these options:
Fleet support: Heavy bombers act just like other land based planes, and attempt to attack ships, probably as ineffectively as zeppelins do currently. Will improve dramatically once ASM research is completed.
Airfield suppression: Same sorts of effects as the choice for land based air at mission start, heavy bombers unavailable in battles, and suffer some attrition.
Strategic Bombing: Some random trickle of VPs, heavy bombers unavailable in battles, and suffer increased attrition.
Aerial mine-laying: Unlocked with research, and has the same sorts of effects as unrestricted submarine warfare. May need to have a national modifier for effectiveness, eg more effective against Japan or GB, less so against US or Germany. Heavy bombers unavailable in battles, and suffer some attrition.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 20, 2020 13:36:58 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - yes... but a lot of weapons have a limited lifespan of effective use. arminpfano - the US was developing a system to allow a heavy bomber loaded with explosives to be crashed into a target. The crew were (I think I remember) supposed to parachute out before the end. The progeam pretty much ended with the mishap that killed Joseph P Kennedy Jr, JFK's older brother. Project Aphrodite was an attempt to use unmanned B-17s (redesignated BQ-17) loaded with explosives against static land targets. A CQ-17 would act as 'mothership". At least 4 BQ-17s were used operationally, but inflicted minimal damage to their targets before the project was scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by hargentannhaus on Jul 21, 2020 0:12:06 GMT -6
My opinion is here, outside the use as patrol planes, which are already in the game as PB/flying boats, heavy bombers have no home in a navy airforce till the invention of heavy standoff weapons.
All the missions, strategic bombing, suppression of enemy infrastrcture and even mine-laying could and should be done by the airforce. In the case the navy wish to do it on it's own. We have the Army vs Navy conflict like imperial japan in WW2.
The heavy bomber first becomes a navy weapon, when in the late days of WW2 ASMs come into use. They become a real danger, when the soviet union puts rockets under the Bear and the Badger. Which could also be displayed in the game with late game medium bombers.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jul 21, 2020 2:58:18 GMT -6
My opinion is here, outside the use as patrol planes, which are already in the game as PB/flying boats, heavy bombers have no home in a navy airforce till the invention of heavy standoff weapons. All the missions, strategic bombing, suppression of enemy infrastrcture and even mine-laying could and should be done by the airforce. Largely I feel the same. A while ago I made the suggestion that heavy bombers could be represented best through an air war that plays out in the background, although perhaps influenced in part by the players actions. Alternatively, since that might result in a lack of player input, that strategic bombing campaigns might appear as an event, as I detailed in this thread. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2794/army-offensive-event-expansion
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 21, 2020 7:22:18 GMT -6
My opinion is here, outside the use as patrol planes, which are already in the game as PB/flying boats, heavy bombers have no home in a navy airforce till the invention of heavy standoff weapons. All the missions, strategic bombing, suppression of enemy infrastrcture and even mine-laying could and should be done by the airforce. In the case the navy wish to do it on it's own. We have the Army vs Navy conflict like imperial japan in WW2. The heavy bomber first becomes a navy weapon, when in the late days of WW2 ASMs come into use. They become a real danger, when the soviet union puts rockets under the Bear and the Badger. Which could also be displayed in the game with late game medium bombers. An interesting idea but...the game at present lacks in flexibility in the aircraft area at present. Some early war aircraft designated heavy bombers were later reclassified as medium bombers. Furthermore, this is primarily a game based around naval conflict. Aircraft had a much larger impact in real life than is represented by the game but to go too far down that path could increase frustration - it's bad enough when a random submarine torpedoes one of your ships (or they hit a mine), consider if aircraft could do the same (other options include bombing ships at anchor). Mind you, there could be a trick missing from the aircraft abilities: minesweeping. Vickers Wellingtons were fitted with giant metal hoops which were used to generate a magnetic field to cause appropriately fused mines to explode
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 21, 2020 10:40:50 GMT -6
My opinion is here, outside the use as patrol planes, which are already in the game as PB/flying boats, heavy bombers have no home in a navy airforce till the invention of heavy standoff weapons. All the missions, strategic bombing, suppression of enemy infrastrcture and even mine-laying could and should be done by the airforce. In the case the navy wish to do it on it's own. We have the Army vs Navy conflict like imperial japan in WW2. The heavy bomber first becomes a navy weapon, when in the late days of WW2 ASMs come into use. They become a real danger, when the soviet union puts rockets under the Bear and the Badger. Which could also be displayed in the game with late game medium bombers. ..... Mind you, there could be a trick missing from the aircraft abilities: minesweeping. Vickers Wellingtons were fitted with giant metal hoops which were used to generate a magnetic field to cause appropriately fused mines to explode Yes, the Wellingtons had to fly at 60 feet with 35 feet the minimum safe altitude. The Germans did the same thing with the BV(Blohm & Voss) 138 titled the Sea Dragon. They used the C-1 variant. I personally would not used such a weapon because of the possible crew losses. It makes no real sense.
|
|
|
Post by hargentannhaus on Jul 21, 2020 23:16:31 GMT -6
..... Mind you, there could be a trick missing from the aircraft abilities: minesweeping. Vickers Wellingtons were fitted with giant metal hoops which were used to generate a magnetic field to cause appropriately fused mines to explode Yes, the Wellingtons had to fly at 60 feet with 35 feet the minimum safe altitude. The Germans did the same thing with the BV(Blohm & Voss) 138 titled the Sea Dragon. They used the C-1 variant. I personally would not used such a weapon because of the possible crew losses. It makes no real sense. The airplane which was mainly used by the Luftwaffe for this mission was the old good Ju 52 3/m MS.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 22, 2020 7:29:31 GMT -6
Yes, the Wellingtons had to fly at 60 feet with 35 feet the minimum safe altitude. The Germans did the same thing with the BV(Blohm & Voss) 138 titled the Sea Dragon. They used the C-1 variant. I personally would not used such a weapon because of the possible crew losses. It makes no real sense. The airplane which was mainly used by the Luftwaffe for this mission was the old good Ju 52 3/m MS. Yes they did, they had a seaplane version and the land version that performed that mission. They were Ju 52/3m MS for MS. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_52#/media/File:JU_52_Minensuchgruppe_Mausi.jpg
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on Jul 25, 2020 19:58:24 GMT -6
You know, an idea to have the Heavy Bombers in game would be for them to exist in parallel, you don't use them ever, but you can request a navalized version of one as a sort of heavy flying boat of sorts, at prestige cost*, since you are going to the army or air force or getting their cast offs Not sure if it is worth it, game wise, but the option of getting naval versions of non naval aircraft could be intereting, it would be immersive which would be a reward on itself
*less than buying foreign for most nations, maybe more for nations like Japan, though to be more serious on this tangent, having a shadow army/airforce that is getting a share of the goods (as more than a wartime event) could be more than interesting, every X years in peace time having some back and forth with other services, getting requirements from other services (maybe constructing some sort of landing support vessel? seeing more of the tail of the navies would be a neat thing to have)and, in the initial idea of this, allowing other services to have non naval versions of your air arm kit would net you prestige and maybe end up as egg on your face when the non naval version not only outperforms yours but is also seen as instrumental in winning the war
take the above a bit stream of thoguht, at least in part, because I hadn't meant to write most of that but I kinda liked it
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Jul 25, 2020 22:08:49 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - yes... but a lot of weapons have a limited lifespan of effective use. arminpfano - the US was developing a system to allow a heavy bomber loaded with explosives to be crashed into a target. The crew were (I think I remember) supposed to parachute out before the end. The progeam pretty much ended with the mishap that killed Joseph P Kennedy Jr, JFK's older brother. Project Aphrodite was an attempt to use unmanned B-17s (redesignated BQ-17) loaded with explosives against static land targets. A CQ-17 would act as 'mothership". At least 4 BQ-17s were used operationally, but inflicted minimal damage to their targets before the project was scrapped. This was the operation that changed history. The eldest son of Joseph Kennedy, Joe Jr, was being groomed to be president. He died when the BQ-17 he was flying exploded after take off. The BQ-17 was an extremely dangerous beast. It had to be hand flown for take off with the volunteer pilot bailing out after getting the aircraft up and clean. Due to the death of Joe Jr the hopes of the Kennedy clan fell to John who was almost lost himself with PT-109. By the way, Joe Jr had completed his 25 missions in PB4Ys and was eligible to return home before volunteering for Aphrodite.
|
|
|
Post by bry7x7x7 on Jul 26, 2020 11:42:34 GMT -6
arminpfano - the US was developing a system to allow a heavy bomber loaded with explosives to be crashed into a target. The crew were (I think I remember) supposed to parachute out before the end. The progeam pretty much ended with the mishap that killed Joseph P Kennedy Jr, JFK's older brother. Well, that particular incident was to annihilate a bunker complex that was supposed to house the 3rd "V" weapon. V1 being the flying, or rather "buzz" bombs. V2 being the (at the time) long range rockets. And the V3 was going to be the world's largest gun that could fire onto England from a very comfy position, not unlike the railway guns. Sadly the operation ended up being a loss when D-Day happened and the complex was found to have been abandoned.
|
|