Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Patrick Hunt]

We can divert part of the current complex to Raven T next turn and convert a load of the current Ravens into Raven T as well next turn so it's numbers will go up fast enough, the Osprey has to be made from scratch and costs more so we need it's initial production run in larger numbers.

Next turn I'll probably convert say 1.4 of the current complex giving us 100 Raven T per turn and leaving 1800 to convert to produce our new fighter.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am sure that fighter complex is gonna produce new fighters)

But I'd like to switch it all to Raven(T) and building new factory for new fighters, getting our own swordfishs (even if land based) After all they have huge advantage as torpedo bomber - we can base it on any island on tiny air bases

[Patrick Hunt]

The Raven T is inferior to the Osprey, numbers aren't everything in a war and the Osprey beats the Raven T in every single aspect other then numbers. So we need the Osprey more then the Raven T when we already have a load of Ravens we can convert to form a Raven T force.

We'll have 200+ Ravens we can convert next turn on top of the 50 built, 250 of them is plenty while the Osprey force is built up.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Guys, Stop this absurd - "convert existing aircrafts". Really. You wonna take second hand, worn out airframe  and spend workhours almost equal to making new aircrafts . Why not make a new one?
Outdated design to be scrapped, that's their fate

Raven (T) can land anywhere as I said. Raven(T) is almost as good as Osprey in aur superiority situation
And numbers are everything

[Patrick Hunt]

Yes because were losing the air war right? I mean we were outnumbered 6-1... wait we're winning.
But we're losing the naval war right? Because our enemy had more ships then us...... no we're winning that war as well.
But we're losing the artillery war right? Because our enemies fleet in total has more cannons.... no we're not losing in that war either.

Huh thats odd when numbers are everything.

How is it absurd? If the Raven is still perfectly capable of acting as a fighter ( Which it is. ) Then no problem with taking off it's guns and bolting a torpedo onto it. A quick tune up to make sure all is in working order and your good to go.
The only difference is a quick service, pulling guns and putting on a torpedo can be done in a day on multiple planes. Where as building a new Raven T from scratch takes more then a day per Raven.

[evilcherry]

The Raven T is, face it, crap and is more like a competing design for the osprey in case it did not go well. In addition the osprey at least got much better range, and it also have more bombing capacity per pilot.
The only advantage is that it is a more familiar design.
We should not let war exhaustion hold us down.

While the islands are strategically awkward and can act as a valid cb, It doesn't make sense for us to cede land if we are winning. We could ask for industry, but personally I don't think we could convincingly ask for that unless their very existence is under threat.

War Reparations in terms of money or weapons, in addition to a dead monarch would be a sensible deal.

[Patrick Hunt]

I don't really wanna build any Raven T at all but a few to place on Crow with all the Raven fighters is useful enough for now.

Well keep the land but move our people off. Protecting them ain't worth the trouble it would be.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Then no problem with taking off it's guns and bolting a torpedo onto it.

Raven(T) is much more complex modification than that. Read updates, please

three Raven(T)s are, at the very least, equal to Osprey in anti-ship role, that's so obvious to me that I can't understand how people can claim otherwise.

[3_14159]

Are numbers everything? Of course they aren't. But neither is quality. What matter is the total effectiveness.
Air situation: In total it has been something like 300 ravens versus 800 enemy fighters. Which means about 600 'fighter-equivalents' vs 800 of theirs. And, in fact, our remaining force supports that, with 77 remaining vs ca 330 for them. Win for us due to a better fighter in sufficient numbers.
The artillery war we've basically won only through luck (Cod). Before, they all but annihilated our artillery positions. Loss for us due to less numbers of about equal quality.
The naval war is far from won, after all, there hasn't been any real engagement.

On the Raven(T) conversion: It has an increased wingspan, among others, meaning you need new wings to use it. You have not only to take off the MGs and bolt on a torpedo, but have to balance it, increase structures to hold said torpedo and so on. Compare the empty (that is without torpedo) weights: 800kg vs 1350kg. Somewhere those 550kg have to come from, even if you could otherwise use it completely. So that modification is going to require more than bolting.

I would rather propose a Raven Mk. II update, placing bombs on the fighter and keeping it otherwise intact, with concentration on keeping the modification as simple as possible. Thoughts on that?

three Raven(T)s are, at the very least, equal to Osprey in anti-ship role, that's so obvious to me that I can't understand how people can claim otherwise.

However, the Osprey has more range and speed, allowing it faster strikes.
Don't get me wrong - I like the Raven(T) as secondary, cheap torpedo bomber to harass, for example, enemy shipping and to place it almost everywhere (aerodynamic). For attacking warships, harbours and convoys, I'd rather have the Osprey.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

However, the Osprey has more range and speed, allowing it faster strikes.
Don't get me wrong - I like the Raven(T) as secondary, cheap torpedo bomber to harass, for example, enemy shipping and to place it almost everywhere (aerodynamic). For attacking warships, harbours and convoys, I'd rather have the Osprey.

Yep, but Osprey are better for future (mostly because they are dual purpose) Ravens are better know. And logic dictates that building production facilities for a variant of aircraft that we have 2 year experience with (and same engine, most labor intensive part of an aircraft) is easier than starting new aircraft from scratch. That's why I like D way, way more than A and view them as absolutely different strategies
Also, I seriously doubt that we'll get 2400 PP, more like 1200 or even less
It's like attempt to triple Raven's production last turn. Very likely to fail

And one question
Why Raven(T) is worse for attacking warships??

[Patrick Hunt]

We'll be getting both types of bomber but the Osprey is the more important of the two and needs a bigger facility to produce in numbers.

Were going offensive soon so we need it more then the Raven as well.

[3_14159]

Yep, but Osprey are better for future (mostly because they are dual purpose) Ravens are better know. And logic dictates that building production facilities for a variant of aircraft that we have 2 year experience with (and same engine, most labor intensive part of an aircraft) is easier than starting new aircraft from scratch. That's why I like D way, way more than A and view them as absolutely different strategies
[...]
And one question
Why Raven(T) is worse for attacking warships??

On the other hand, we might need the experience for building the next fighter.

I was assuming that there are two risks for torpedo bombers/bombers in torpedo attacks:
- Being intercepted by enemy fighters
- Being shot at by AA during their approach.
For the first one, well, the Raven(T) is slower and probably much less manoeuvrable than the original design.
For the second one, the Osprey is faster allowing it to do the final bombing run faster.
Is there something I overlooked?

On the other hand, for an offensive we could use the Raven from forward airfields without problems. That might be worth it, especially if we get a ground attack (even marginally) variant of it.

Oh, and a request for all of you: If you think something's better or more needed, please don't just state it but give arguments why it is so. Thanks!

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Ok, let's take some scenarios

Scenario one:
10 ravens(T) approach enemy warships on low attitude (that's what you need to a launch torpedo,) launch 10 torpedoes from 1.5km\2km and quickly turn around long before enemy can unleash all it's AA guns\machineguns to max effectiveness . They use their low speed and maneuverability to aim and ensure that torpedo lands safely
Meanwhile 10 Ravens above them protect torpedo bombers against enemy fighters. Should enemy fighter go to low flying torpedo bombers, they will give our fighters fighting advantage

Scenario two
Same as above but we have 3 Ospreys that can launch only 6 torpedoes, due to higher speed\lower maneuverability can't turn around that fast and have harder time to aim. Easier to detect (and hit) due to much larger size, need to launch torpedoes in groups of two, making choices to hit lower (6 widespread torpedoes are better than three groups of two)

Scenario three
Osprey are carrying bombs and attack enemy ships as dive bombers, they aproach at higher attitude (you need it to dive),  ravens that escort them need to go close to enemy ships, too,  Diving puts them in direct contact with all AA guns of the enemy

Scenario four
To ensure a hit, 10 Raven(T) go much closer to launch torpedoes from 200-300meters. Enemy gunners have 10 small targets too choose from

Scenario five
To ensure a hit 3 Osprey go close to enemy ship, enemy gunners have three large targets and can concentrate fire on them... To use all torpedoes they need to attack twice


While Osprey's can do more damage as dive bombers, that's a more risky way to attack. As torpedo bombers they are worse than a wing of ravens. Ospreys are dive bombers, that can be used as a torpedo bomber. They are not torpedo bomber

Torpedo bombers are slow, low attitude aircrafts

[evilcherry]

1. You missed something important: Manpower.

2. Ospreys have radio capacity, meaning they are an organized team in the air. Raven(T)s, or as I propose seagulls, are launched, given directions, and hope they have contact.

3. The flight characteristics of the seagull, needless to say, is inferior to the osprey. Their armor is lighter, meaning they are less likely to survive an attack in the first place, and every plane down is a man down.

4. Everything that can be done with 10 seagulls can be done with 10 Ospreys with less risk, and yet you can only mass so many planes in an area until they are too close to do a evasive maneuver.

5. If you stand by your tactic, why not suicide bombers in the first place?

[3_14159]

This means that Raven(T)s (or seagulls) are more effective when attacking in big groups as torpedo bombers.

However, aside from several things evilcherry has already pointed out, I believe you underestimate scenario 3 (and therefore scenario 5, as it will probably never be used).
'Osprey are carrying bombs and attack enemy ships as dive bombers, they aproach at higher attitude (you need it to dive),  ravens that escort them need to go close to enemy ships, too,  Diving puts them in direct contact with all AA guns of the enemy'
A typical attack on an enemy fleet might look like that:
- Ospreys and Ravens close in a height of several kilometres
- Over the target, Ravens continue to provide air cover
- Ospreys dive on targets, drop their bombs at 500-750m [1], then pull up again
- All move back.
This means we have to separate the vulnerable phases into three: Before/after arriving on station, diving and coming out of the dive.
- Before/After: They're vulnerable to high-altitude AA weapons. Certainly not MGs, and other guns are set to detonate on a specific altitude which they (hopefully) won't set correctly.
- Dive itself: Most AA guns I've read about were unable to target targets directly above them; maximum angles of ca. 80-85° seem to have been the norm. This would mean they'd be under much less fire than a torpedo bomber, for example, especially as the fire is reduced in effectiveness due to having to climb.
- Recovery: That's the main problem. As they cannot continue completely vertically, they will be vulnerable against AA guns. Their best chance is to have sunk (slash damaged) the ship already and shocked the gunners.

I agree with you on that the Raven is a more cost-effective torpedo bomber, yet the diving procedure of the Osprey will - in my opinion - be superior to a torpedo attack on a prepared and defending foe. (The latter had not been clear for me before. Thanks for your analysis!)

[1]: Pretty much made that up from the Ju-87s diving procedure