Mailbox

[Logi]

... Ledeper's

The scout was based on the Blexiot

[ctwaterman]

Just looking at your Turret and Gun Tech are you sure you have a Quad 14"/356mm Gun Mount ????????

Charles

[Logi]

I'm currently designing it, perhaps I should make that footnote ;)

[Logi]

CT Alert! I tried to move your post to here, but somehow it disappeared. Nevertheless, I will reply to you here.

I lowered the number of rockets carried to a mere 4, and lowered the payload to 20 kg instead of 25 each. Probably still to much, but reply here.

[ctwaterman]

You might want to think about how much the shell of a Pack Artillary howizer weighs.   The Warhead is at most 4 or 5 Lbs.

So if you go with a Crate carrying 12 Rockets each weighing in at say 20Kg with a 2Kg warhead you might get something closer to what a Pack Artillary Peace in firepower.

What you are trying to do is get a very fast bombardment off but the disadvantage is you wont be able to engage pinpoint targets.   I will  look for an example of Mountain Artillary for you to examine.

Charles

[ctwaterman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_65/17_modello_13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrhardt_7.5_cm_Model_1904

There is a few links a full list of other links can be found here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mountain_artillery

Most of the Mountain Artillary is horse drawn or mule carried Called Pack Artillary by some nations.   Usually it breaks down into 4 parts and is carried one part per mule at around 400 to 500 lbs per mule.  Ammunition is carried seperately on other mules.

Shells size varries from 4.3Kg to 13kg or more for some of the 100mm guns.

So what you want to do is create a weapon where the gun is the wooden crate and the Shells at 13kg is the rocket with possibly a 3 to 4Kg bursting charge.   You will get a very high initial volley from this weapon for the same tonnage as say 1 Gun and 100 rounds of ammunition but then you will be out of ammunition.  Also if your target happens to be a couple of dug in Machine guns in a mountain pass holding up your entire advance you dont really have the ability to aim directly at the machine guns ;)

Charles

[Logi]

I see. I was lacking the numbers to base the payload on, my bad.

[ctwaterman]

Not a problem your payload is similar to the 150 Lbs Russian 122mm rockets but lacking their range :)

Charles

[Logi]

Ok, I change the payload to 12 Kg with a 4 kg bursting charge (should I change the range to, I would think so) in wooden crate that houses 20 of them. That's a nice 400 pounds total.

[ctwaterman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Nebelwerfer_41


I dont know range on most of the rocket systems I see here are shorter then the 7km you are getting for a small rocket.  The Range of the US 2.75 " rocket is less then 4Km up until recent modification extended that range to 7km I think. ???

Charles

[Logi]

http://www.answers.com/topic/30-cm-nebelwerfer-42

I'll been using kilo-yards, not kilometers. I said the screaming arrows range is 5 kiloyards, not 7 kilometers. 5 kiloyards is equal to 4.58 kilometers :'(

[ctwaterman]

Ouch... brain hemmerage

Ok...

Charles

[Walter]

For the Friedrichshafen G.III (1915) you need the 1913/1916 tech and for the Handley Page H.P. O/400 (1917), the Martin MB-1 (1918) and the Caproni Ca.36 (late war) you need the 1917/1918 tech.

So with the exception of the ESC's Bomber #1, you used planes to base your bomber on for which you do not have the technology and I would not be sure what proper stats are, especially since you used so many planes.


I think it is better to just use one plane to base your bomber on then to use 5. It makes things too hard to figure out. Still comparing it to the G.III, it does appear to be better than it, except for ceiling so I really think that this plane requires a minimum of 1913/1916 and it would fall in the "long-range bombers" category at that point (so $0,40 per 25 planes).

[Walter]

Looked around at the stats. Comparing the NA-01 with the next tech level G.III...

Friedrichshafen G.III vs NAMCo NA-01

Tech: 1913/1916 vs 1910/1914
Crew: 3 vs 3
Length: 42 ft vs 54 ft
Wingspan: 77 ft 9.25 in vs 88 ft
Height: 12 ft vs 13 ft
Empty weight: 5,941 lb vs ~6,900 lb
Max takeoff weight: 8,664 lb vs ~10,000 lb
Powerplant: 2× 260 hp engines vs 5x 120 hp engines
Maximum speed: 84 mph vs 90 mph
Range: 5 hours, ~373 mi vs 12 hours, ~700 mi
Service ceiling: 14,764 ft vs ~10,000 ft
Armament: 2-3× 7.92 mm MGs, 2,200 lb bombs vs 1x 10mm MG, 2,000 lb bombs

Eventhough it has 80 more hp, the NA-01 is significantly bigger with 5 engines (thus more drag) and heavier than the G.III (and looking at the other planes, MTOW should probably be in excess of 12,000 lb) yet it carries about as much as the G.III and is faster.

[Logi]

Wait what? I got.

Friedrichshafen G. III vs NAMCo NA-01
Tech: 1913/1916 vs 1910/1914
Crew: 3 vs 3
Length: 42 ft vs 54 ft
Wingspan: 77.76 ft vs 88 ft
Height: 12 ft vs 13 ft
Empty Weight: 5,941 lb vs ~6,900 lb
MTOW: 8,664 lb vs ~10,000 lb
Powerplant: 2 x 260Hp vs 5 x 120hp
Maximum speed: 84 mph vs 90 mph
Range: 373 mi vs 700 mi
Ceiling: 14, 764 ft vs ~10,000 ft
Armament: 2 x 7.92mm MGs + 3,307 lb bombs vs 1 x 10mm MG + 2,000 lb bombs

It carries less than the G. III. The MTOW probably should be higher.


AND

Long-Range Bomber title is just put there because it has more range than my other planes which are severely short-ranged compared to historical planes. I matched the Baltic Confederation's bomber range and that was a plane made in 1914. I doubt he had 1916 tech at that time.

EDIT: he didn't even have the tech in 1916/H1! My point here is its not a real long-distance bomber. I am calculating the return trip so that makes its operational range around 340 mi, not long.