Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aircraft Loads

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Aircraft Loads Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/5/2012 5:01:05 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1135
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline



quote:



Actually, if you use filter 0, you will have 2 x 800 on every mission, in addition to what you specify for the specific mission since filter 0 is default load (at least I think this is right). So even if you specify a torpedo load 2, with 2 x 800 set at filter 0, you'd end up with a naval load of 1 torpedo AND 2 x 800.



Thank you Shark7.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 61
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/5/2012 7:13:15 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
@Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget

Oh poop doodle. Read farther in Jaremy's spreadsheet and found the notes on mission profiles. Systems Command calculated normal max combat at 10000lb loads and max load at 12800lbs, but cautioned against anything greater than 8000lb for a B-17G. The reduction in range was extreme. Noted that the nominal combat load for both the B-17 and B-24 was 4-5000 lbs of bombs. The graphs make it very clear.

The standard mission profile was a ‘long range power’ approach at 10,000 feet, a ‘normal power’ climb to 25,000 feet to stabilize in time for a 15 minute ‘max power’ bomb run, then a return to base at 25,000 feet and landing with 5 to 10% reserve fuel. Seems loaded bombers have issues with specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes.

Using the standard mission profile gets an 870 mile radius for 10000lb military load and 1010 miles with 8000lb. The high altitude profile (a 25,000 feet approach) drops the radius 10% from 870 to 790 miles. A “max bomb” profile (12800lbs) drops the radius 20% from 870 to 690 miles. And a ‘high speed’ profile at normal/military power all the way, drops the radius by 32% from 870 to 690 miles for a standard mission aspect. More bombs and higher altitude makes things worse proportionately.

And that’s just for the B-17. The guys sent me the same things for the B-24 and everything else.

Looks like the game range and load numbers are very well thought out.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 62
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 5:20:49 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none.
Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now.


So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann:

Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions.

So I could set it up like this:

100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00
30kg GP bomb 4 external 08

So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it.

Yep That is how the code should work.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 63
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 6:22:46 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

@ Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget

Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right.

Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25*
2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a
1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02
1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02
1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04
500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04
250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04
100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12
* is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed



Thanks for the data. I don't see a way to have a bomb load for overloaded short range missions. Wishful thinking on my part.

_____________________________


(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 64
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 6:23:57 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 65
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 9:16:42 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none.
Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now.


So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann:

Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions.

So I could set it up like this:

100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00
30kg GP bomb 4 external 08

So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it.

Well, literally translation would be:
Cut normal range to listed "short range", and put all bombs in that mode.
Add Drop Tanks, implement current normal range, as DT normal range, and exchange extra 30kg bombs for Drop Tanks.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 66
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 2:49:53 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

@ Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget

Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right.

Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25*
2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a
1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02
1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02
1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04
500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04
250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04
100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12
* is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed



quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

@Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget

Oh poop doodle. Read farther in Jaremy's spreadsheet and found the notes on mission profiles. Systems Command calculated normal max combat at 10000lb loads and max load at 12800lbs, but cautioned against anything greater than 8000lb for a B-17G. The reduction in range was extreme. Noted that the nominal combat load for both the B-17 and B-24 was 4-5000 lbs of bombs. The graphs make it very clear.

The standard mission profile was a ‘long range power’ approach at 10,000 feet, a ‘normal power’ climb to 25,000 feet to stabilize in time for a 15 minute ‘max power’ bomb run, then a return to base at 25,000 feet and landing with 5 to 10% reserve fuel. Seems loaded bombers have issues with specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes.

Using the standard mission profile gets an 870 mile radius for 10000lb military load and 1010 miles with 8000lb. The high altitude profile (a 25,000 feet approach) drops the radius 10% from 870 to 790 miles. A “max bomb” profile (12800lbs) drops the radius 20% from 870 to 690 miles. And a ‘high speed’ profile at normal/military power all the way, drops the radius by 32% from 870 to 690 miles for a standard mission aspect. More bombs and higher altitude makes things worse proportionately.

And that’s just for the B-17. The guys sent me the same things for the B-24 and everything else.

Looks like the game range and load numbers are very well thought out.



Thanks for the info...Mr. Thomas did an excellent job with ranges he arrived at for the base scenario and an "averaged" aircraft.

For those who are interested here is the bombload diagram and for a B-17...Obviously load would be contingent on mission & range. Hope the scan came through clear enough to read.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 67
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/6/2012 5:19:51 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7109
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Do we have a defined city attack filter? Would be most useful for the 4Es obviously, but every plane can do the city attack mission.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 68
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 2:43:32 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Do we have a defined city attack filter? Would be most useful for the 4Es obviously, but every plane can do the city attack mission.

City attack is lumped under "Land". When I set up the filters I actually forgot about City Attack.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 69
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 3:15:28 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Actually I do have a spare setting - '1'

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 70
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 3:31:57 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Actually I do have a spare setting - '1'



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 71
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 1:43:34 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
City attack filter is included in 1118e

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 72
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 1:54:20 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

City attack filter is included in 1118e




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 73
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 4:15:32 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7109
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries.

I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 74
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 4:55:38 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 75
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 5:12:11 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries.

+1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?

Maybe, worth a testbed check to see.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 76
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 5:33:33 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Now, it seems all works perfectly. My take on historical KATE bombload:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available

1x250kg+6x60kg bombs for ground/airfield attacks

2x250kg GP bombs (they have better effect, and there are no armor on submarines) for ASW warfare. TMJ SRT S-24 mentions, that KATEs used normal bombs during ASW duty.

All slots taken.
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?

It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth).

I have somewhere specification for Allied air DC - it had weight of 350 lb, and 70% of it was explosive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries.

I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?

Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 77
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 6:54:49 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7109
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges


I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.







_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 78
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 6:59:32 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7109
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, it seems all works perfectly. My take on historical KATE bombload:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available

1x250kg+6x60kg bombs for ground/airfield attacks

2x250kg GP bombs (they have better effect, and there are no armor on submarines) for ASW warfare. TMJ SRT S-24 mentions, that KATEs used normal bombs during ASW duty.

All slots taken.
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?

It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth).

I have somewhere specification for Allied air DC - it had weight of 350 lb, and 70% of it was explosive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries.

I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?

Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there?





Well here is what I've done to start with. Simply modeled the M19 Incendiary Cluster bomb (Each bomb is a 500lb GP bomb case with a pack of 36 M69 Incendiaries) A B-29 could carry 37 of these. Remember, this is just a SWAG as far as stats, but a Napalm type weapon would have a good Anti-soft component (So doubling or tripling the Anti-soft value I have here might even be acceptable).






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 79
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/7/2012 10:53:52 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2738
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
I'm confused - been toying around with the PBY payloads a bit, but can't get torps to work.

I have used on normal range:
4x500lb GP filter 52 > Port, Airfield, alternate Naval attack
2 Torps filter 02 > Naval attack

Extended range:
4x250lb GP filter 52 > Port, Airfield, alternate Naval attack
4x325lb Depth Bomb filter 64 > ASW

Torps and Depth Bombs are in different slots.

In the game, I get 4xbombs on Port, Airfield, on Naval Attack "Using Bombs", plus now 4x500lb for normal range search missions (WAD?) resp. 4x250 for ext. as well as 4xDepth Bombs (ext. only) on ASW - so everything ok BUT for Naval Attack with "Using Torpedoes" and torpedos present at the Air HQ in same base > payload still reads 4x500lb (resp. 4x250lb on ext.).

Have tried other combinations, but either torps won't show up, or naval search is without bombs, or naval attack usings bombs has only ext load but no normal range payload etc.

Could someone help me please with the correct filter setup for:
- Normal range Naval attack 4x500lb if "using bombs", 2xTorps if "using torpedoes", 4x250lb only on Naval attack ext
- 4x500 resp 4x250lb ext for Port / AF
- 4x250lb for Naval search
(ASW no problems)



_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 80
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/8/2012 12:31:06 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2868
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available


A Kate with 2x250kg bombs should have more range since it can get almost more 300kg of fuel - in practice would not be 300kg since engine oil needs to be increased for more range.


quote:

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges



French had 75kg SM depth charge but if their stocks in Indochina are depleted yeah.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 81
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/8/2012 1:04:31 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges


I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.








I found similar info, thanks so much for what you have. I assume in the editor I set them up like regular DC's except they have much shallower range.


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 82
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/8/2012 1:26:10 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7109
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Pretty much. The following seem to be how it is done.

load cost = total weight
Effect = charge weight
Accuracy = sink rate
range = max depth



_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 83
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/8/2012 2:09:34 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available

It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 84
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/10/2012 11:10:04 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available

It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.

That would be great!
I could also use similar upgrade for naval weapons, to better simulate new ammunition/targeting systems, although it can be harder to implement, because upgrade should only happen in bigger ports.

Anyway, some food for thoughts. This is from US brochure from April 1942:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 85
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/30/2012 5:34:01 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.

It seems, that report JAPANESE BOMBS (O-23) from December 1945 (pages 26-29) have short description of this armament. There are two pre-war bombs:
TYPE 99 - weight 63.6-67.9 kg
TYPE 1 - weight 266 kg

and there was EXPERIMENTAL 19, with some electronics detection - weight 180 kg. I am guessing this model was carried by LILY, because it is shown as armed with 4x250 kg, which is far too much for this plane type (especially, since ASW bomb weights 266 kg)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 86
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/30/2012 8:22:09 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Thanks Shark.

_____________________________


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 87
RE: Aircraft Loads - 10/31/2012 1:41:00 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2241
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available

It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.



It might be easier to have the plane upgrade and change the ordinance.

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 88
RE: Aircraft Loads - 11/1/2012 12:09:28 PM   
dwg

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice).


Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 89
RE: Aircraft Loads - 11/1/2012 3:36:12 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14519
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice).


Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?

Look in the Tech Support forum - it's a public Beta process!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Aircraft Loads Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113