Print

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

[evilcherry]

anyway I would want to see some consensus designs for
1. Our fighter
2. Our next Capship
3. In a general sense our strategy

Before putting any further proposals to vote.

[Patrick Hunt]

I'll do my votes in a little while, I've updated the spoilers but from now on if you don't do your spoiler I'll skip your project entirely and carry on as if it's not there. It's even in the rules that you have to do it.

Sparrow should be fine as is, we can edit it to add the 10mm once it's ready.
Capship I dunno really.
Strategy, we need to completely remove them from the air and drive there fleet off or sink it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Heavy fighters, at the end of the day, largely failed its mission as a bomber-destroyer, as the light fighter is always more nimble and thus much better in dogfighting, and it turned out that the light fighter is actually no less capable of bomber interceptions.

This timeline doesn't have not match our timeline, we are not at early forties here...

Besides,  P38 lightning  was quite successful  aircraft and I'd not say it was outperformed by Zeros, it had problems with German aircrafts, but that's mostly it became outdated for 1944 not because of design flaws

_____________________
Capship is impossible for the next few years. We have no docks big enough, we have no guns good and big enough, we aren't in great shape with auxulary systems\engines either...
Anyway we need 300mm and eventuall 400mm guns to make battleships.. If we'll ever make them


Epsilion is a clear production vote... Why people keep putting stuff in wrong categories?

[Patrick Hunt]

So you can read spoilers just not write them yourself. I wanted to see if anyone would actually notice.

[evilcherry]

Just get back to business, UR. What will make a deal here?

I simply don't want another debacle of last turn.

[3_14159]

As far as I read it, there's no need for a deal: The only difference between your designs is the inclusion of a limited-traverse LMG. (And a radio, but I am assuming that to be included in 4.1, too).

[evilcherry]

As far as I read it, there's no need for a deal: The only difference between your designs is the inclusion of a limited-traverse LMG. (And a radio, but I am assuming that to be included in 4.1, too).

I just no one proposed another P38 or something similar. We need an air superiority fighter, not an interceptor or a night fighter right now.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Well,I am fine with Sparrow for now, let our own I-16 to appear

Of cause I'd prefer twin engined, because in that era idea to outrun enemy fighters can work better, because they are way better to convert to ground attack role, because it's better for patrolling and  killing those naval scouts\seaplane torpedo bombers,  better for escorting Ospreys and so on

But looks like you guys prefer to fight a pure defensive war and get a defensive, mass-produced short ranged fighter  to cover only our own territory. Maybe it's safer route...


In fact I have an idea of three engined fighter, hehe, but looking at how opposed people to ahistorical designs...

[Patrick Hunt]

A twin engine design is not better, how can it cover the Ospreys better? A single engine is already going to be faster so that all we need.
Out running enemy fighters isn't what we want, killing them is and that requires a plane build to dogfight not run away.
It's not better for patrolling at all if anything it's worse since it'll spend less time in any given area then the single engine making it more likely it'll miss an enemy force thats coming.
Better for killing enemy scouts and bombers? Not really it'll still have to get past the fighter screen first which again needs dog fighting more then speed.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

A twin engine design is not better, how can it cover the Ospreys better? A single engine is already going to be faster so that all we need.

Early twin engined fighters tended to be faster, yep, later spitfires and the-likes with the super engines closed the gap and me110 became obsolete, German attempts to make new twin enginer failed, as me210 was a very bad design and me410 was mediocre, no much better than me110...  Do355 was a very interesting concept but it was one of wunderwaffes that never had a chance to get mass produced

And Twin engined usually have more range, because they need less engine power to maintain cruising speed

Out running enemy fighters isn't what we want, killing them is and that requires a plane build to dogfight not run away.

You don't understand how important speed (especially climbing speed) is in dogfight. Also outrunning needed not for running away but to dictate battle conditions

It's not better for patrolling at all if anything it's worse since it'll spend less time in any given area then the single engine making it more likely it'll miss an enemy force thats coming.

One word: nonsense

Better for killing enemy scouts and bombers? Not really it'll still have to get past the fighter screen first which again needs dog fighting more then speed.

How do you think why real world fighters switched from biplanes to monoplanes while biplanes have much better turning radius? Again, you don't understand how dogfighting works. 
Besides scouts and floatplanes tend to fly escortless, their range is huge comparing to air superiority fighters
Also, unless enemy has ridiculous number of fighters for escorts (Aka Allies in 1944), screens are trivial to avoid on faster plane

[Patrick Hunt]

Unless said screen maintains formation at which point you have no choice but to engage it directly to get to the planes it's protecting.

If your faster plane is in an area for 5 minutes instead of 10 because it's faster then your patrol has a 50% lower chance of spotting any enemies in said area. It can't spot an enemy if it's not in the area and since patrols typically don't move at full speed anyway speed has nothing to do with ability to patrol.

Climbing speed will do you bugger all good in a dogfight, once you engage if you turn away to try climbing the enemy fighters are going to shred you from behind before you can get out of range to turn around to dive again, thats why it was typically a case of a making 1 dive to engage then staying in the fight. Turning your back on your enemy is never a good idea.

I meant a single engine will be faster then the Osprey. A plane that can fly twice as fast as the Osprey makes no difference when it has to match it's speed to the Ospreys otherwise it completely fails at it's entire purpose. Twin engines had a very limited shelf life and were not particularly more effective then single engines even then.

[evilcherry]

To me it is a difference in Doctrine.

If you are a follower of the "superiority first, bombers later, then UR's design works fine. Heck if you want to defend superiority you need to be able to pick what to fight.

But if you are those who believe that local air superiority is enough, then turning speed and maneuverability would be much more important. The job of fighters is basically deter their opponent from attacking attack crafts (i.e. anything that is not a superiority fighter) and once the ordnance are dropped to cover their retreat.

And, if you really need range, drop tanks are your friend.

[3_14159]

There seems to be considerable problems with the terms of a dogfight.
Generally, as I've learnt it, there are two ways to fight a dogfight, colloquially known as:
- Turn & Burn: You try to outturn your opponent. Both fly towards another, make one pass then turn and try hanging behind the other. The more manoeuvrable wins.
- Zoom & Boom: You dive - using higher altitude and speed - towards the enemy, forcing him to get hit or bleed off energy (that is, speed and/or altitude - until he can't do anything for fear of stalling. Or he doesn't see you and you get him the first pass.[1]

Both are ways to win aerial combat. Which one do I prefer? The latter, pretty much.

Out running enemy fighters isn't what we want, killing them is and that requires a plane build to dogfight not run away.

Running away requires speed. Speed facilitates zoom and boom tactics.

But looks like you guys prefer to fight a pure defensive war and get a defensive, mass-produced short ranged fighter  to cover only our own territory. Maybe it's safer route...

For now, yes. At the currently known ranges, the Osprey can cover the distance to the enemy mainland. Even more so from Crow's Island. So, until we actually invade, I think we'll be fine.

If your faster plane is in an area for 5 minutes instead of 10 because it's faster then your patrol has a 50% lower chance of spotting any enemies in said area. It can't spot an enemy if it's not in the area and since patrols typically don't move at full speed anyway speed has nothing to do with ability to patrol.

My math hurts.
If you have a faster plane, let's say by double for ease of calculation, then it usually has about double the cruise speed than the other one. This means only half of the time spent in Area X if only flying through it. But it can cover area Y in the same time, too. So, half the density of patrols over twice the area means the same overall patrol density.

Climbing speed will do you bugger all good in a dogfight, once you engage if you turn away to try climbing the enemy fighters are going to shred you from behind before you can get out of range to turn around to dive again, thats why it was typically a case of a making 1 dive to engage then staying in the fight. Turning your back on your enemy is never a good idea.

No. There is one important thing in dogfights, and that's energy. Energy means speed and altitude, and you can trade one for the other. The fighter with more energy has the initiative, can engage and disengage at will. You do not accept a turning contest if you're turning worse. You fly in, pump the other full of lead forcing him to evade, then repeat that until he hasn't got any energy left to evade.

[1] Colloquial post for Z&B for a flight simulation: http://www.netaces.org/bnz/bnz.htm

[Patrick Hunt]

The fighter with more energy is still going to die if it tries to turn away from it's enemy to climb again because you can not climb fast enough to get out of range in the 3 seconds it will take the enemy to turn and fire on your unprotected back.

Theres a reason it was generally considered a better idea to fight even when at a disadvantage rather then retreat. If you run or attempt to disengage in a fight where you don't have something to cover you then your enemy is going to do massive damage when you turn away, Fast or not you ain't outrunning the bullets they pump into your back so the speed based fighter only works if you have a dog fighter to bog the enemy down to allow you to disengage safely.
Also, if the enemy plane has a significant advantage in maneuverability and aerodynamics Zoom & Boom goes out the window because he's gonna evade you without losing enough energy to allow your tactic to work. If you focus on 1 you inherently make yourself vulnerable to the other so you either need to balance out both or have 2 designs that work in tandem to cover each others weaknesses.

The point is though your enemies odds in any 1 single patrol circuit are higher that he'll get through if he only has a 5 minute window of being caught per circuit, equal over all but high speed does not make any actual difference for patrol.

The Sparrow should be more then capable of acting offensively as well, if the Osprey has the range to hit the enemy mainland from our own then the Sparrow being lighter should have even further range unless something goes badly wrong.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Also, if the enemy plane has a significant advantage in maneuverability and aerodynamics Zoom & Boom goes out the window because he's gonna evade you without losing enough energy to allow your tactic to work. If you focus on 1 you inherently make yourself vulnerable to the other so you either need to balance out both or have 2 designs that work in tandem to cover each others weaknesses.

Tell that to me262 pilots.
And to poor Soviet pilots that piloted very nimble I-153 against clumsy me110 and somewhat less clumsy me109

he Sparrow should be more then capable of acting offensively as well, if the Osprey has the range to hit the enemy mainland from our own then the Sparrow being lighter should have even further range unless something goes badly wrong.

Weight and fuel reserves are somewhat related....

The point is though your enemies odds in any 1 single patrol circuit are higher that he'll get through if he only has a 5 minute window of being caught per circuit, equal over all but high speed does not make any actual difference for patrol.

The point is that twin engined stays in the air longer and cover larger area