Print

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

[Taricus]

Well, as you already said, it can't be used for dive bombing, so that leaves it's option as a level bomber.

[Aseaheru]

We need a air superiority fighter right now. Havent had one since the old ravens...

As for radar and sonar, sonar we need for our ships as they got some new sub. Radar we need for everything.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Ground attack aircraft doesn't have to be a diving bomber....

A new design proposal to help keep our bomber losses down, as well as provide some close air support to our ground troops with some modification, able to exchange torpedoes for standard bombs and vice-versa. Also mount a single 15mm MG (Slash autocannon) in the nose, and a pair of 8*54mm MGs on the rear for it to be able to defend itself.

How I read this: Make Osprey-like aircraft that is better defended from rear, faster due to having two engines, and likely better armored, thus allowing us to reduce our losses and switch production from Ospreys to this new aircrafts

We need a air superiority fighter right now. Havent had one since the old ravens.

Sparrow is an air superiority fighter.

[Aseaheru]

Is it? I am gonna have to read that again.

I am a bit shocked that noone wants the tench, what with the "friendly" subs and the herrings only having one survivor.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

a) I tend to note vote for projects copypasted from wikipedia  (and from LATE WW2)
b) Herrings are doing their job to keep enemy fleet busy, high loses was expected
c) We don't have production facilities to produce enough larger subs
d) Our fleet has other needs, like less fuel hungry torpedo boats, cruisers, proper destroyers

[Taricus]

The hunter is adequate for now.

Still curious on how two tank variants got proposed last turn, but a new one this turn isn't voted on at all :/

[evilcherry]

I feel we should prioritize on a faster bomber rather than a High-flying, near-strategic Bomber. After all unless it is a carpet bombing mission, you cannot simply hope that you can drop bombs from 24000 feet and still hit the intended target.

[3_14159]

Why do we want HE bullets? Are they really effective against well armored aircraft?

The idea, I think, is that HE bullets are also useful if they hit the wing. Currently, hitting the wings with ball bullets just means a hole circa fifteen millimetre wide. Using a high-explosive shell would mean a much wider one.  [This uses that wings are too large to armour effectively]
Hitting the armoured body itself with a HE round will punch a bigger hole through it too, I believe, as planes are not as much armoured as tanks, for example.
This is one of the reasons I like the 15mm much more than the 10mm gun. The bullet is circa 3.375 times heavier (1.5^3), which means that it has 3.375 times the weight, 3.375 times the propellant resulting in the same muzzle velocity, but only 2.25 times the area when hitting, so much higher armour penetration.

@Bomber discussion:
The question is what we want to achieve, for all of this. We already have a CAS bomber (the Osprey), and actually no immediate need for one due to not fighting on the ground. We need it for its role as ship-attacking plane.
Now, if we want a heavy (that is, strategic) bomber to attack their production facilities and harbours, we at first need a high bomb load. This isn't achievable by close air support planes like the Osprey since this would make it too slow resulting in a very high vulnerability against both fighters and ground-level flak.
Using a high-flying design, we force the enemy to only use its fighters - hopefully after having to refit them - and make his flak inefficient or, in the case of low-calibre weapons, unusable.

I feel we should prioritize on a faster bomber rather than a High-flying, near-strategic Bomber. After all unless it is a carpet bombing mission, you cannot simply hope that you can drop bombs from 24000 feet and still hit the intended target.

I think that's pretty much impossible to do effectively while carrying a high bomb load. Taking the Osprey as example, we can probably get about a thousand kilo per engine at those performance levels. To actually be faster than the enemy lightning, let's say seven hundred and fifty. That seems pretty low considering that we also need defensive armament (since now reachable by enemy fighters) and are vulnerable to ground-based flak.

[evilcherry]

I could have agreed to a strategic fighter but I guess we need to know what our capabilities are first. I just don't see 4 of the so-called 900kWs are good enough for it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I feel we should prioritize on a faster bomber rather than a High-flying, near-strategic Bomber. After all unless it is a carpet bombing mission, you cannot simply hope that you can drop bombs from 24000 feet and still hit the intended target.

That's why I'd prefer radio navigation, but even without it bombing of large targets like harbor, drydocks, industrial cities aren't that hard

I could have agreed to a strategic fighter but I guess we need to know what our capabilities are first. I just don't see 4 of the so-called 900kWs are good enough for it.

You mean strategic bomber, right?
Your problem, guys, everyone of you wants late WW2 designs, NOW
Three 900kw engines like offered in my 8.1, even if they are weaker than their power says, is more than enough comparing to bombers of mid 1930s (B-10: two 746kw engines, Savoia-Marchetti SM.81: three 522kw, Bloch MB.210: two 709kw engines )


Problem with 8.1. It's hard to do really high attitude bomber without high attitude engines that no one but me voted for
And using them as night bombers is hard without radio navigation

On bomb load, 1000kg per plane, should we achieve their near invulnerability is quite good bombload considering our goals... I'd really prefer to bomb their cities and win the war with Battle Of Britain style. But constant bombing of their harbors and production facilities should disturb their production enough to make our bombing runs worthwhile, and it will force them to divert their design teams on flaks\high attitude fighters. Good outcome

[Patrick Hunt]

So now you want to do war crimes? Mass murder civilians in cities for a tactic that failed then and will likely cause our enemies allies to attack us now?

We don't attack civilian targets.

[3_14159]

Problem with 8.1. It's hard to do really high attitude bomber without high attitude engines that no one but me voted for
And using them as night bombers is hard without radio navigation

You are right, I suppose. Voting for 8.1, too, as this additionally should result in higher performance of the Sparrow at higher altitudes, probably allowing it to actually escort our bombers.

I am, however, against systematic bombing of civilian populations and would rather bomb production facilities with the goal to first reduce their air production and airfields, then their naval one.
After all, by attacking the airfields we force them to engage and, if we achieve a local superiority, can probably present them with high losses.

[Taricus]

I'd like to point out it's not the engine that dictates how high th aircraft can go, it's the airframe. A high-altitude engine would only boost climb rate.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Actually both. But if engine refuses to work in low oxygen environment, whatever airframe you have will not get your aircraft far

[Funk]

Im for building a force of bombers.
in useade we should aim to get the maxim number over the target as fast as we can to dominate the local air space and overwhelm ground based defaces.
Target wise oil refinerys burn nicely and tend not to be some where people live.

Early in ww2 there was no way to bomb accuracy unless using divebombers.
daylight helped with accuracy but not much better and a greater risk.

The reality use of bombing was not in military damage but in forceing them to build and man anti air defences.
WW2 bombing was amazingly inaccurate.

Forty-nine percent of RAF Bomber Command's bombs dropped between May 1940 and May 1941 fell in open country.
1 in 3 bomber got with in 5 mile of it target