Aircraft Idea

[The Rock Doctor]

The ground combat system has an air component.  It is generalized and large-scale - nicely complementing the division/corps level scale of our ground war.

[maddox]

I agree with Blooded.  Aircraft are a complement, not a decisive weapon nor replacement for the battlefleet.

Each time people talked about an Nverse IV, alternative settings were proposed, where aircraft were useless or not even feasable.
Just to avoid Pearl Harbors or Tarantos.

Miketr's chart is a good start, as we use the same idea for Airships, MAS boats, Submarines and Tanks.

Desertfox, I do like your "Vanilla plane" example.

I know at least 2 people on the forum who can talk about aircraft from a pure technical point, with you as resident up and comming engineer.
We can use that knowledge, especialy behind the screen to deduct the "real capacity of vanilla planes".
Imagine a Sopwith Pup with the Bentley BR1 engine.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I kinda like Fox's vanilla plane idea as well.

As Bavaria I see "standard" planes being quite passable. A "1916 fighter" is really all I need.  However, over in WW as the Dutch, range was and is a real issue. The second part is range with bombloads that hit certain breakpoints. A decent point system that would allow such tradeoffs could be of merit for folks.

[ctwaterman]

The latest group of conversations and this set of posts show why I wanted to limit aircraft abilities. This is supposed to be a Naval game. Around 1935, war finally became all about aircraft. The technical abilities of aircarft reached a point where the writing was on the wall(even if many chose not to see it). If abused, which it will be... you can't deny it... this point could be reached earlier(such as the massive application of the Cuckoo).

Taranto and Pearl Harbor happened the British were planning a raid using their 4 Carriers on the German fleet in Port in late 1918 or early 1919 the war ending prevented us from having fleets attacked in port before the end of World War 1.

The Wright Brothers first Plane sale was to the US Army.   Since the Invention of Ballons and planes people have seen the use of such fragile device as a tethered hot air baloon when connected to a telgraph cable.

Here we have already limited the Aircraft race.  Nobody can build a real Aircraft Carrier until sometime mostlikely in the Mid to late 1920.   The best we can do is sea plane tenders.  I think people are too scarred of Carriers to realize land based aircraft are more likely to sink something before a carrier based one ever does.

Now as for the arguements of without a WW1 aircraft development would have been slowed.  That is undoubtedly true, however the counter argument is without a WW1 all technological development would have been slowed.  We would have no Tanks, No 1918 Infantry Divisions and we certainly wouldnt have incrimental improvements in the size, fire power of the Naval Ships.  Armor development, guns, firecontrol, night fighting, submarines all would been developed at a significantly slower rate as well.

I agree on a Chart similar to the Sub Tech you  have Aircraft Tech Years and a few different types of Aircraft on the chart and as time progresses new types of Aircraft get added to the chart.  In most cases the Aircraft are flavor text that add to the results of land battles  they are not decisive war winner yet !!!!!  But there will come a time when you wont be able to win a battle without controling the air over that battlefield.

Unless you  believe the old joke about two Russian General staring out across the straits of Dover and won says to the Other.. so who won the airwar.

Charles

[miketr]

I have no objection to the idea of a program or system to "design" aircraft but we need a system to make use of whatever is produced.

Rocky could you give a little more detail on the combat system you use?

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Yes, but it may take a couple of days - I've got family showing up this afternoon for pre-Christmas visiting.

[miketr]

Letting family get in the way of gaming... BAH! ;)

Have a good time.

[Desertfox]

Here we have already limited the Aircraft race.  Nobody can build a real Aircraft Carrier until sometime mostlikely in the Mid to late 1920.   The best we can do is sea plane tenders.  I think people are too scarred of Carriers to realize land based aircraft are more likely to sink something before a carrier based one ever does.

So true. Which is why during a discussion about aircraft carriers, I made a comment about using the money I couldnt use on a CV on unsinkable carriers. The cost of a 20k ton carrier will get you 20 airfields, which are unsinkable, and have more and better aircraft. If anything, the lack of aircraft carriers will lead to MORE ships being sunk by aircraft.

Now as for the arguements of without a WW1 aircraft development would have been slowed.  That is undoubtedly true, however the counter argument is without a WW1 all technological development would have been slowed.  We would have no Tanks, No 1918 Infantry Divisions and we certainly wouldnt have incrimental improvements in the size, fire power of the Naval Ships.  Armor development, guns, firecontrol, night fighting, submarines all would been developed at a significantly slower rate as well.

I have made the argument against all those cases. Why do we have tanks at all? Some developments would have happened, because we have had some wars. Night fighting, minewarfare, and subs have seen considerable action in the last few wars.

In most cases the Aircraft are flavor text that add to the results of land battles  they are not decisive war winner yet !!!!!  But there will come a time when you wont be able to win a battle without controling the air over that battlefield.

Depends on the war. A WWI type war between land based powers, air power will play a small part. But how about a war which involved an amphibious assault against say NS, where I can deploy around 500 planes against an invasion force with none?

[ctwaterman]

Depends on the war. A WWI type war between land based powers, air power will play a small part. But how about a war which involved an amphibious assault against say NS, where I can deploy around 500 planes against an invasion force with none?

That would all depend on the aircraft but realistically you have a great way to harass and attack the enemies beach head with only weather and a bunch of Light AAA guns to stop you.  On the other hand the Red Barron was shot down flying low with .303 rifle bullet probably fired from a Light Machine Gun mounted on a simple mount so that it could engage aircraft.

Your Level bombers will have little effect on Ships unloading off the beach head but will cause alot of chaos and some casualties heck you might even damage some merchants or sink a ship with no deck armor.

Your Torpedo Bombers will find that as I pointed out they have to be within about 50 miles of you airfield or you just wont be able to attack reliably but by 1918 that moves up to about 100 miles operating from land bases and seaplanes.

All told the harassment and additional chaos you cause could be the decisive edge you need to throw the Invasion back into the sea.

By the mid 1920's that will completely change.

Charles

[Desertfox]

Don't forget straffing fighters, and the unarmored landing crafts that would be used. Also all of the landing ships would be stopped, making easy targets for torpedo bombers. With 1918+ aircraft and no decent AA, such a landing could turn into a real massacre.

[Guinness]

Landing ships would be stopped, but in very shallow and potentially confined waters. A smart invasion force would rig barrage balloons and other defenses as well. I don't think aerial torpedoes would have quite the decisive effect you might think, at least not until the state of the art improves.

Now dive bombing: that's another story. Fish in a barrel as you might say.

[TexanCowboy]

Well, the British solution at Taranto was fairly good, and was not really dependent on technology. But yeah, I agree.

[ctwaterman]

Barrage Ballons might work...

If I am mooring my ships in a confined area off a beach head I am deploying Torpedo Nets to protect them.  And once we develop aircraft that can withstand the riggors of a steep dive with a bomb load and not tear their wings off when pulling out then yes we can contimplate dive bombing.  Like I said by the Late to Mid 1920 things will begin to change.

The Combination of defenses taken to prevent MTB and Sub attacks on my achorage off shore will completely thwart the Airborne Torpedo Bombers.
The Best approach will to be constantly attack the beach head where all the supplies are pilling up on the beach.  Straffing Fighters work to harrass troops and they can cause casualties but the fighters are nearly as susceptible to ground fire as the troops.  The highest losses among aircraft is attacking low and slow that is both for good straffing or a torpedo attack.

Lets go with one of the best airborne attack by Torpedo Bombers ever that I can quickly think of Taranto.  12 Torpedo Bombers managed to make 11 torpedo attacks for 6 hits and 1 Dud they sank 3 Italian BB all three were raised.  By Comparison the Japanese launched 40 aircraft armed with Torpedoes and manged 13 hits.  6 On West Virgina, 5 on the Target Accomidations Ship USS Oklahoma and 2 more on USS Neveda.  Considering all the targets accept Nevada were sitting ducks.

Anyway I really dont see the torpedo bomber being a serious threat until we start to get into the 1920's.  They can attack unarmed merchants at sea they can try to attack slow combatants at sea but the weapon is a 16" Topr not the latter 18" Torps designed for use by planes.