Tojo or Oscar vs. Allied sweeps

[PaxMondo]

The induction issue was across the board. They finally started to see results in '44 and continued to improve until the end of the war. But even in mid '45 it was still the biggest issue in terms of keeping aircraft in the air.

They had the capability, but the insistence to invent it on their own is what doomed them in this instance. This was not a new problem, but in other areas they did well to work things out. AFV's, granted what they produced were not marvels, but their designs were more than adequate. They came up with an original suspension system that worked quite well. The fact that the Army wanted numbers and were not inclined to re-tool to the new models does not reflect the design and production capability; it simply wasn't used.

The induction systems were different though. Multi-stage induction is a very difficult fluid mechanics solution, one that the European (and US) countries worked through with a lot of trial and error. It is only in the last 15 years or so that sufficient computer power has become available to really do rigorous solutions of the equations on a large scale. (Sure, crays could do it the 80's, but that was too $$$$). That's why in the last 10 years you see so many turbo/super charge solution in cars. Japan got a late start and simply ran out of time. The failure to realize this and address it through trade was a major oops on their part IMHO ... they could have/should have traded for this in '41 ... getting Jill/Judy in '42 and Sam in early '43 ... certainly the outcome doesn't likely change much per se, but no AFB is going to like that fight.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

In reply to Aurorus:
The problem was numbers. The US being much more industrialised and mechanised than Japan at the time, many more US citizens of military age had experience with basic mechanics of cars, tractors or planes - skills the military could build on - than their average Japanese counterpart coming from a country which was largely rural and with one foot still in the middle age.The individual Japanese aircraft mechanics might have been as good as the Americans, but there were not enough of them. That's why AV support is in short supply for Japan in DBB.

As I say, I understand the idea behind the reduction in aviation support. It is my obsessive-compulsiveness that rebels against it. The reduction in Japanese engineering capabilities in DBB is probably much needed, actually. Japan can build airfields and port in stock at very unrealistic speeds.

I am adapting to the reduced aviation support in DBB, slowly but surely, and am more at peace with it now that I have overcome some of my obsession with never flying planes off an airfield with less aviation support than aircraft.

I suppose my biggest objection to DBB is that is produces far more clicks to arrange rear-area support in a game already filled with clicks.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The induction issue was across the board. They finally started to see results in '44 and continued to improve until the end of the war. But even in mid '45 it was still the biggest issue in terms of keeping aircraft in the air.

They had the capability, but the insistence to invent it on their own is what doomed them in this instance. This was not a new problem, but in other areas they did well to work things out. AFV's, granted what they produced were not marvels, but their designs were more than adequate. They came up with an original suspension system that worked quite well. The fact that the Army wanted numbers and were not inclined to re-tool to the new models does not reflect the design and production capability; it simply wasn't used.

The induction systems were different though. Multi-stage induction is a very difficult fluid mechanics solution, one that the European (and US) countries worked through with a lot of trial and error. It is only in the last 15 years or so that sufficient computer power has become available to really do rigorous solutions of the equations on a large scale. (Sure, crays could do it the 80's, but that was too $$$$). That's why in the last 10 years you see so many turbo/super charge solution in cars. Japan got a late start and simply ran out of time. The failure to realize this and address it through trade was a major oops on their part IMHO ... they could have/should have traded for this in '41 ... getting Jill/Judy in '42 and Sam in early '43 ... certainly the outcome doesn't likely change much per se, but no AFB is going to like that fight.

You are glossing over the practical details actually entailed in reaching any intellectual property agreement with the Third Reich.

Obtaining access to intellectual property rights from the Third Reich was a fiendishly difficult task. Germany was as guilty as Japan in terms of not seeking technology transfers from others and put up a similar wall to exporting technology. This was an era of nationalism, not capitalism, determining industrial production. The Germans wasted the economic wealth of their conquests by generally insisting on moving production to Germany itself rather than allowing licence production elsewhere.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The induction issue was across the board. They finally started to see results in '44 and continued to improve until the end of the war. But even in mid '45 it was still the biggest issue in terms of keeping aircraft in the air.

They had the capability, but the insistence to invent it on their own is what doomed them in this instance. This was not a new problem, but in other areas they did well to work things out. AFV's, granted what they produced were not marvels, but their designs were more than adequate. They came up with an original suspension system that worked quite well. The fact that the Army wanted numbers and were not inclined to re-tool to the new models does not reflect the design and production capability; it simply wasn't used.

The induction systems were different though. Multi-stage induction is a very difficult fluid mechanics solution, one that the European (and US) countries worked through with a lot of trial and error. It is only in the last 15 years or so that sufficient computer power has become available to really do rigorous solutions of the equations on a large scale. (Sure, crays could do it the 80's, but that was too $$$$). That's why in the last 10 years you see so many turbo/super charge solution in cars. Japan got a late start and simply ran out of time. The failure to realize this and address it through trade was a major oops on their part IMHO ... they could have/should have traded for this in '41 ... getting Jill/Judy in '42 and Sam in early '43 ... certainly the outcome doesn't likely change much per se, but no AFB is going to like that fight.

You are glossing over the practical details actually entailed in reaching any intellectual property agreement with the Third Reich.

Obtaining access to intellectual property rights from the Third Reich was a fiendishly difficult task. Germany was as guilty as Japan in terms of not seeking technology transfers from others and put up a similar wall to exporting technology. This was an era of nationalism, not capitalism, determining industrial production. The Germans wasted the economic wealth of their conquests by generally insisting on moving production to Germany itself rather than allowing licence production elsewhere.

Alfred

You are correct, it would have been difficult to say the least. While it would have been the rationale thing to do (help an ally), Nazi Germany as you note was hardly rationale. But I also do not think it had the national priority that maybe it should have with Japan either. All speculation. However, at least for me, it make for a wonderful underlying story line for a mod.

Appreciate you chiming in here. Nice to see you again.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

For my mod I am probably going to raise P38s mnvr a couple of points and the P51 as well. On the other hand I lowered the P40Ns absurd mnvr rating back to where it belongs.

I think its durability needs a looking at. It has two engines, but doesn't seem to get any bonus for that. A little absurd.

[decourcy2]

When we built CHS we rebuilt all aircraft by eight, number of engines, and gauge of skin. So, there should some effect from the number of engines built in. Although, many of my fixes ended getting lost in the switch to AE so who knows.
That is why I am building my new mod, Don has always liked his little ships, I like production conundrums.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

For my mod I am probably going to raise P38s mnvr a couple of points and the P51 as well. On the other hand I lowered the P40Ns absurd mnvr rating back to where it belongs.

I think its durability needs a looking at. It has two engines, but doesn't seem to get any bonus for that. A little absurd.

The Lightning's durability rating is already about 20% higher than the Warhawk and about 15% higher than the Mustang. Raise the durability rating much higher and there may well be a risk of making it 100% impervious to practically all Japanese aircraft weapons.

Every "historical fact" in AE has to be accommodated within the legacy code to generate overall outcomes which fall within the historical envelope of standard, not outlier, results.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

When we built CHS we rebuilt all aircraft by eight, number of engines, and gauge of skin. So, there should some effect from the number of engines built in. Although, many of my fixes ended getting lost in the switch to AE so who knows.
That is why I am building my new mod, Don has always liked his little ships, I like production conundrums.

So your would be aware that the core AE devs were heavily involved with CHS for classical WITP. Have you considered the possibility that when then moved over to develop AE and gained direct access to the code, they gained a much deeper appreciation of what exactly was feasible?

Alfred

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

For my mod I am probably going to raise P38s mnvr a couple of points and the P51 as well. On the other hand I lowered the P40Ns absurd mnvr rating back to where it belongs.

I think its durability needs a looking at. It has two engines, but doesn't seem to get any bonus for that. A little absurd.

The Lightning's durability rating is already about 20% higher than the Warhawk and about 15% higher than the Mustang. Raise the durability rating much higher and there may well be a risk of making it 100% impervious to practically all Japanese aircraft weapons.

Every "historical fact" in AE has to be accommodated within the legacy code to generate overall outcomes which fall within the historical envelope of standard, not outlier, results.

Alfred

But still below that of the Thunderbolt (if I'm remembering correctly). Were Jugs really more durable?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




I think its durability needs a looking at. It has two engines, but doesn't seem to get any bonus for that. A little absurd.

The Lightning's durability rating is already about 20% higher than the Warhawk and about 15% higher than the Mustang. Raise the durability rating much higher and there may well be a risk of making it 100% impervious to practically all Japanese aircraft weapons.

Every "historical fact" in AE has to be accommodated within the legacy code to generate overall outcomes which fall within the historical envelope of standard, not outlier, results.

Alfred

But still below that of the Thunderbolt (if I'm remembering correctly). Were Jugs really more durable?

Bergerud's excellent Fire in the Sky discusses the inherent durability advantages of the radial engine fighters of the day versus the in-line engine craft cited above. The USN got it right in terms of sacrificing some aerodynamics in exchange for greater durability.

[decourcy2]

I am unsure what you are referring to but if it was about some errors that crept back in after CHS then yes, they are errors. There are planes with the wrong speed (not by a couple mph, but by 30), planes whose A and B model have been reversed on armament, aircraft that should have armour that do not etc.

And before you attack me, I am not talking about minor differences of opinion, I am talking about errors that are clear and large.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

It is my understanding (which may be incorrect, as I am no expert on the subject) that the problems that the Japanese encountered in aircraft maintenance were the result of supply deficiencies: spare parts and replacement tools, not the result of any deficiencies in their flight mechanics, who were as good as any flight mechanics of any military at that time. This would be represented more in game terms by supply rather than service rating. The high service rating is based, I think, on the fickle nature of the late-war Nakajima engine, which was prone to breakdowns in the field. Again, I may be mistaken and am no expert on the subject.

Japanese flight mechanics were well trained but just like Japanese pilots, they were in very short supply. The real problem with Japan's industrial output and technical abilities was their educational system. You have to have a well educated population to have a strong industry or produce pilots and mechanics in numbers. Japan did not. After the pools of well trained personnel were used up there just was not much of a foundation for training more. You just can't make up for an under educated population in a year or two.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Alfred




The Lightning's durability rating is already about 20% higher than the Warhawk and about 15% higher than the Mustang. Raise the durability rating much higher and there may well be a risk of making it 100% impervious to practically all Japanese aircraft weapons.

Every "historical fact" in AE has to be accommodated within the legacy code to generate overall outcomes which fall within the historical envelope of standard, not outlier, results.

Alfred

But still below that of the Thunderbolt (if I'm remembering correctly). Were Jugs really more durable?

Bergerud's excellent Fire in the Sky discusses the inherent durability advantages of the radial engine fighters of the day versus the in-line engine craft cited above. The USN got it right in terms of sacrificing some aerodynamics in exchange for greater durability.

The Lightning was a very durable aircraft but also very complex. The Thunderbolt was a very durable aircraft but not so complex. I am sure that was a factor in the designers decisions.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



But still below that of the Thunderbolt (if I'm remembering correctly). Were Jugs really more durable?

Bergerud's excellent Fire in the Sky discusses the inherent durability advantages of the radial engine fighters of the day versus the in-line engine craft cited above. The USN got it right in terms of sacrificing some aerodynamics in exchange for greater durability.

The Lightning was a very durable aircraft but also very complex. The Thunderbolt was a very durable aircraft but not so complex. I am sure that was a factor in the designers decisions.

I remember reading P-38: Fork Tailed Devil some years ago. In it the pilots discussed the improvement in reliability as models progressed throughout the war. Several talked about the ability of the plane to fly on one engine. Many expounded on the benefits of having that backup on long flights over water. I imagine 'durability' is factored into anything that allows the airplane to survive and RTB. The 2E fighters like the P-38 were inherently more durable than similarly engined 1E contemporaries.

[Barb]

P-38 vs P-47... Two engines versus one. Redundancy in flight systems is always a good thing
But on the other hand you have a two liquid cooled inline engines versus one air-cooled radial. Few bullets into your coolant circuit and two engines are not going to help you to get anywhere anyway. Yet there are stories of some big radial engines continuing on despite a cylinder head being shot-off! [X(]

It is also a reason why the P-40s/P-51s/Hurricanes/Spitfires were not that durable when used for strafing (especially in ETO, with abundance of German 37/20mm flak). Lot of planes had to crash land in enemy territory when hit in their coolant systems (radiators etc, are usually found on the bottom of the plane, so directly exposed to ground fire).

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Bergerud's excellent Fire in the Sky discusses the inherent durability advantages of the radial engine fighters of the day versus the in-line engine craft cited above. The USN got it right in terms of sacrificing some aerodynamics in exchange for greater durability.

The Lightning was a very durable aircraft but also very complex. The Thunderbolt was a very durable aircraft but not so complex. I am sure that was a factor in the designers decisions.

I remember reading P-38: Fork Tailed Devil some years ago. In it the pilots discussed the improvement in reliability as models progressed throughout the war. Several talked about the ability of the plane to fly on one engine. Many expounded on the benefits of having that backup on long flights over water. I imagine 'durability' is factored into anything that allows the airplane to survive and RTB. The 2E fighters like the P-38 were inherently more durable than similarly engined 1E contemporaries.

And this is why I think the P-38 durability in-game is a smidge too low.