Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Missiles

 
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: Missiles Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 4:03:36 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
Hi. Fritzerini with same specs as Ohka in a Betty. 18.5% hits. Not bad.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Natali -- 10/23/2012 4:15:54 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 31
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 4:12:19 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
And …
Fritzerini PGM on a Ki-21-II Sally. 16.7% hits. Not so good but maybe it was the smoke of burning tankers.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Natali -- 10/23/2012 4:16:30 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 32
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 5:01:44 PM   
JSG


Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2012
Status: offline
1,000 feet attacks exploit that missile attacks are immune to AAA. This means immunity against heavy AAA which they shouldn't have with guided bombs and it distorts the escorts/CAP issue. I'm trying to avoid that. I suppose I couldn't stand this for hundreds of turns, doesn't feel right (= rather gamey).
I wouldn't even like it for Ohka, for Ohka was a glide weapon that required a fine launch altitude for range.

@Shark: More importantly, Ohkas were human-guided and the engine was meant for them.

I'll later check some things. I have a suspicion the engine probably treats AP and GP bombs differently.
The "accuracy" variable of the GP bombs reminds me more of "blast radius" than accuracy, for sure (that would still be redundant to soft rating, of course). The "accuracy" value grows a lot with bomb size.

< Message edited by JSG -- 10/23/2012 5:40:43 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 33
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 5:33:16 PM   
JSG


Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2012
Status: offline
I tested 255 acc SAP bombs on B7A2 Ryusei with 70s crews, 15k feet set altitude (release at 1k to 3k feet).

The results are still underwhelming, not much better than used from D3As early in he war.
I score on average only 3-4 800 kg hits on targets for every Ryusei lost, some pilots decide to kamikaze (I don't like that for low priority targets) and the targets were mere AKs and DDs.
I suppose this level of performance is inadequate against an Air or Surface Combat TF and falls well short of Fritz-X-like performance.

Maybe I'll test next how a torpedo fares if range is increased. Several technologies (torpedo glider, Bombentorpedos with up to 3 km range, torpedoes with guidance, rolling bombs) could justify such a device as not too gamey.

I suppose I'm not going to be able to build a non-gamey model of the Fritz-X in WITPAE.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 34
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 7:39:47 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4217
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Fritz X need to be launched at 20000ft to have the claimed penetrating power. The range was not much more than 1km...
There were many failures despite the high profile successes.
There should also simultaneous release limits, i don't have data for Fritz but 18 Hs293 was the maximum number in air due to radio frequency limitations.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 35
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 9:13:31 PM   
JSG


Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2012
Status: offline
Actually, Fritz-X was found to work fine at altitudes 4,000 to 9,000 metres. That's about 13,000 to 27,000 ft and operational drops from up to 8,000 m. Only ships such as King George V class did really necessitate more than 3/4 of the maximum penetration possible. Fritz-X had air brakes because of controllability issues at very high speeds, so it did not need the full maximum drop altitude for maximum impact velocity.

Command limit for Fritz-X was 18 at a time (S 203 "Kehl"), but they did at times fly radio recce missions in advance to see which channels are not jammed.

CEP was 7 m with all non-malfunctioning bombs impacting in a radius of 13 m (40 test drops from 4,000 to 7,000 m).


Fritz X:
22 missions
108 PC 1400 X were onboard
60 dropped on target
44 functioned
16 malfunctioned

of the 44 which functioned:
14 direct hits
7 effective near misses (effect expected because of underwater explosion similar to a mine hit)
13 misses
10 times impact not observed

14/108 ~ 13%
21/108 ~ 19%
Improvements of dud rate were to be expected if the munition had been in use more often, for a longer time. It did obviously still have teething problems.

A hit on BB Littorio penetrated from top to bottom, detonated below and caused a flooding by 900 tons of water. Warspite took in 5,000 tons after three hits. Such floodings mean that even without secondary effects (fires, explosions), a battleship couldn't take more than about 5-6 such hits without sinking (~one slightly understrength bomber group attack).
Other hits demonstrated that gunners could aim for and take out main ammunition magazines onboard of battleships and cruisers and sink even battleships with 1-2 hits this way.


source: Almost all from
"Die deutsche Luftfahrt"
Volume 10: "Flugkörper und Lenkraketen",
first edition (new edition is overdue)

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 36
RE: Missiles - 10/23/2012 10:56:58 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7825
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JSG

1,000 feet attacks exploit that missile attacks are immune to AAA. This means immunity against heavy AAA which they shouldn't have with guided bombs and it distorts the escorts/CAP issue. I'm trying to avoid that. I suppose I couldn't stand this for hundreds of turns, doesn't feel right (= rather gamey).
I wouldn't even like it for Ohka, for Ohka was a glide weapon that required a fine launch altitude for range.

@Shark: More importantly, Ohkas were human-guided and the engine was meant for them.

I'll later check some things. I have a suspicion the engine probably treats AP and GP bombs differently.
The "accuracy" variable of the GP bombs reminds me more of "blast radius" than accuracy, for sure (that would still be redundant to soft rating, of course). The "accuracy" value grows a lot with bomb size.


Yep, Okha was most definitely human guided, and as such was just as susceptible to the limits of any aircraft. IE the pilot could be incapacitated.

In all truth, the Fritz X was a glide bomb (not at all unlike glide bombs in use today, though the guidance system was more primitive). So I'm wondering how Fritz X works as a bomb with higher accuracy as opposed to being treated more like an Okha?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JSG)
Post #: 37
RE: Missiles - 10/24/2012 2:47:32 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6214
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
As a "Fritz" type was, as you say, more a PGM thasn an ASM I think your premise works OK.

I've been trying to get something to fire from outside of the target hex, I'll be happy with the adjaecent hex but lots of trials didnt work.
Even though you can set the range as 200 miles + they only work within the same hex, reasonable as you cant set another hex as the target.

This might be OK for an Okha but not for the "Loon" types with longer range unless you make it a kamikaze type aircraft, not sure this setting works for the Allies.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 38
RE: Missiles - 10/25/2012 9:16:49 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I too am trying to get something to work outside the hex - particularly in view of the USAAF and USN programs based on the V-1.

aka V-1

Republic-Ford JB-2From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search JB-2/KGW Loon

Republic/Ford JB-2 at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Type Cruise missile
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1945-1950
Used by United States Army Air Forces
United States Air Force
United States Navy
Production history
Manufacturer Republic Aircraft
Willys-Overland
Ford Motor Company
Produced 1944-1945
Number built 1,391
Specifications
Weight 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg)
Length 27 feet 1 inch (8.26 m)
Diameter 34 inches (860 mm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warhead High explosive
Warhead weight 2,000 pounds (910 kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Engine Ford PJ31 pulsejet
660 lbf (2.9 kN)
Wingspan 17 feet 8 inches (5.38 m)
Operational
range 150 miles (240 km)
Speed 425 miles per hour (684 km/h)
Guidance
system Radio command
Accuracy 0.25 miles (0.40 km) at 100 miles (160 km)


JB-2 Loon being inspected by USAAF personnel at Wendover AAF, 1944.
JB-2 being air launched for flight test by B-17 bomber during testing of weapon at Eglin Field, 1944
In flight after air launch, 1944
Ground preparation prior to air launch, 1944
JB-2 Loon being prepared for a test launch at Holloman AFB about 1948.
A Loon being fired from USS Cusk in 1951The Republic-Ford JB-2 Loon was a United States copy of the German V-1 flying bomb. Developed in 1944, and planned to be used in the United States invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall), the JB-2 was never used in combat. It was the most successful of the United States Army Air Forces Jet Bomb (JB) projects (JB-1 through JB-10) during World War II. Postwar, the JB-2 played a significant role in the development of more advanced surface-to-surface tactical missile systems such as the MGM-1 Matador and later MGM-13 Mace.

Contents [hide]
1 Wartime development
2 Postwar testing
3 JB-2 survivors
4 See also
5 References
6 External links


[edit] Wartime developmentThe United States had known of the existence of a new German secret weapon since 22 August 1942 when a Danish Naval Officer discovered an early test version of the V-1 that had crashed on the island of Bornholm; in the Baltic Sea between Germany and Sweden. A photograph and a detailed sketch of the V-1 test unit V83 was sent to Britain. This led to months of intelligence-gathering and intelligence-sifting which traced the weapon to Peenemünde, on Germany's Baltic Coast, the top-secret German missile test and development site.[1]

As more intelligence data was obtained though aerial photography and sources inside Germany, it was decided in 1943 for the United States to develop a jet-powered bomb as well. The United States Army Air Forces gave Northrop Aircraft a contract in July 1944 to develop the JB-1 (Jet Bomb 1) turbojet-powered flying bomb under project MX-543. Northrop designed a flying-wing aircraft with two General Electric B1 turbojets in the center section, and two 900 kg (2000 lb) general purpose bombs in enclosed "bomb containers" in the wing roots. To test the aerodynamics of the design, one JB-1 was completed as a manned unpowered glider, which was first flown in August 1944.[1]

However, in July 1944, three weeks after German V-1 "Buzz Bombs" first struck England on June 12 and 13, American engineers at Wright Field, fired a working copy of the German Argus As 014 pulse-jet engine, "reverse-engineered" from crashed German V-1s that were brought to the United States from England for analysis. The reverse engineering provided the design of America's first mass-produced guided missile, the JB-2.[2]

By 8 September, the first of thirteen complete JB-2s, reverse engineered from the material received at Wright Field in July was assembled at Republic Aviation. The United States JB-2 was different from the German V-1 in only the smallest of dimensions. The wing span was only 2½ inches wider and the length was extended less than 2 feet (0.61 m). The difference gave the JB-2 60.7 square feet of wing area versus 55 for the V-1.[1]

This was the first unmanned guided missile in America's arsenal. The first launch of a JB-2 took place at Eglin Army Air Field in Florida by the 1st Proving Ground Group on 12 October 1944. In addition to the Eglin group, a detachment of the Special Weapons Branch, Wright Field, Ohio, arrived at Wendover Field, Utah, in 1944 with the mission of evaluating captured & experimental systems, including the JB-2. Testing was from a launch structure just south of Wendover's technical site. The launch area is visible in aerial imagery ( WikiMiniAtlas
40°41′53″N 114°02′29″W / 40.69806°N 114.04139°W / 40.69806; -114.04139). Parts of crashed JB-2s are occasionally found by Wendover Airport personnel.[1]

In December 1944, the first JB-1 was ready for launch. The missile was launched by a rocket-propelled sled along a 150 m (500 ft) long track, but seconds after release the JB-1 pitched up into a stall and crashed. This was caused by an incorrectly calculated elevon setting for take-off, but the JB-1 program was subsequently stopped, mainly because the performance and reliability of the GE B1 turbojet engines were far below expectations. In addition, the cost to produce the Ford copy of the Argus pulse-jet engine of the JB-2 was much less than the GE turbojets. Subsequently work proceeded on the JB-2 for final development and production.[1][3]

An initial production order was 1,000 units, with subsequent production of 1,000 per month. That figure was not anticipated to be attainable until April 1945. Republic had its production lines at capacity for producing P-47 Thunderbolts, so it sub-contracted airframe manufacturing to Willys-Overland. Ford Motor Co built the engine, designated IJ-15-1, which was a copy of the V-1's 900-lb. thrust Argus-Schmidt pulse-jet. Guidance and flight controls were manufactured by Jack and Heintz Company of Cleveland, Ohio, and Monsanto took on the task of designing a better launching system, with Northrop supplying the launch sleds. Production delivery began in January 1945.[1]

An envisioned 75,000 JB-2s were planned for production. A USAAF launching squadron was formed in anticipation for using the weapons both against Nazi Germany and Japan. However, the end of the European War in May 1945 meant a reduction of the number of JB-2s to be produced, but not the end of the program. Army commanders in Europe had dismissed it as a weapon against Nazi Germany, as the strategic bombing concept was implemented and by 1945 the number of strategic targets in Germany was becoming limited. However, the JB-2 was envisioned as a weapon to attack Japan. A 180-day massive bombardment of the Japanese Home Islands was being planned prior to the amphibious landing "by the most powerful and sustained pre-invasion bombardment of the war". Included in the assault were the usual naval bombardment and air strikes augmented by rocket-firing aircraft and JB-2s.[1]

A navalized version, designated KGW-1, was planned to be used against Japan from LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) as well as escort carriers (CVEs). In addition, launches from PB4Y-2 Privateers were foreseen and techniques developed. The official U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet on the JB-2 states just before the end of the war, an aircraft carrier en route to the Pacific took on a load of JB-2s for possible use in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, however the name of the carrier has never been identified. In addition, according to one Eglin AFB history, an unidentified USAAF unit in the Philippines was preparing to launch JB-2s against Japan.[1] The war's end led to the cancellation of Operation Downfall and the production of JB-2s was terminated on 15 September. A total of 1,391 units were manufactured.[1]

[edit] Postwar testingThe U.S. Army Air Force continued development of the JB-2 as Project MX-544, with two versions — one with preset internal guidance and another with radar control. Several launch platforms were developed, including permanent and portable ramps, and mobile launching from beneath the wings of Boeing B-17G or Boeing B-29 bombers, much as the Heinkel He 111H-22 had actually done late in the war for the Luftwaffe. Testing continued from 1944 to 1947 at Eglin to improve launch and guidance.

The U.S. Navy's version, the KGW-1, later redesignated LTV-N-2, was developed to be carried on the aft deck of submarines in watertight containers. The first submarine to employ them was the SS-348 Cusk which successfully launched its first Loon on February 12, 1947, off Point Mugu, California.

After the United States Air Force became a fully independent arm of the National Military Establishment 18 September 1947, research continued with the development of unmanned aircraft and pilotless bombers, including the already available JB-2.

The USAF Air Materiel Command reactivated the JB-2 as Project EO-727-12 on 23 April 1948, at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, the former Alamogordo Army Air Field. The JB-2 was used for development of missile guidance control and seeker systems, testing of telemetering and optical tracking facilities, and as a target for new surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles (ironically fulfilling the former V1's covername, Flakzielgerät — anti-aircraft target device). The JB-2 project used the North American Aviation NATIV (North American Test Instrument Vehicle) Blockhouse and two launch ramps at Holloman: a 400 ft (120 m), two-rail ramp on a 3° earth-filled slope, and a 40 ft (12 m) trailer ramp. The 40-foot trailer ramp was the first step toward a system which would eventually be adapted for the forthcoming Martin MGM-1 Matador, first operational surface-to-surface cruise missile built by the United States. The program at Holloman was terminated on 10 January 1949 after successful development of a radio guidance and control system that could control and even skid-land a JB-2 under the control of an airborne or ground transmitter.[1]

The 1st Experimental Guided Missiles Group used JB-2s in a series of tests in the late 1940s at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. In the spring of 1949, the 3200th Proof Test Group tested launching JB-2s from the under the wings of B-36 Peacemaker bombers at Eglin AFB.[4] About a year later, JB-2s were tested as aerial targets for experimental infrared gunsights at Eglin.[5]

In the summer of 1992, military crews uncovered the well-preserved wreckage of a JB-2 at a site on an Air Force-owned section of Santa Rosa Island. Most crash sites on the barrier island were little more than flaky rust, but after the find, officials were planning further searches.[6]

[edit] JB-2 survivorsNational Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton, Ohio
U.S. Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida
Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum, McMinnville, Oregon
(Engine only, operational) Planes of Fame air museum, Chino, California[1]
A JB-2 is on open-air display at the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry in Wasilla, Alaska.
Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT), Auckland, New Zealand
Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill AFB, Utah has an original JB-2, "Wendover Willie" [2]
Point Mugu Missile Park, on open-air display at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California.
Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, New York.
National Air and Space Museum at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Washington, D.C.
Milford Township Park at Milford, IL [7].
A JB-2 is on open-air display at the American Legion post in Wheaton, Minnesota.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 39
RE: Missiles - 10/25/2012 9:21:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
While an Okha was human guided, Japan had mastered R/C technology for aircraft and had R/C aircraft as targets well before the war.
During the war it got a good deal farther than the US did in terms of missile guidance [The Bumblebee program took until the 1950s
to produce test vehicles and was still unreliable in the early 1960s - and it barely got past definition during WWII]. Admittedly the
best systems were based on German technology - so was our first mass produced missile system (in spite of many USAAF designs
in competition to be first). There is no reason an Okha might not be designed for pilotless flight - and I won't use them except on that
assumption - because (like Adm Yamamoto) I oppose suicide tactics on military efficiency grounds alone. They are still subject to
countermeasures - as is Fritz X - the radio can be jammed - and the control or launch aircraft can be shot down. In game terms,
we cannot tell the actual guidance system - it simply doesn't matter. We are limited to things like range, and effect, etc. Fritz X was
definitely a fine idea and was either the foundation or the inspiration for many weapons since.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: JSG

1,000 feet attacks exploit that missile attacks are immune to AAA. This means immunity against heavy AAA which they shouldn't have with guided bombs and it distorts the escorts/CAP issue. I'm trying to avoid that. I suppose I couldn't stand this for hundreds of turns, doesn't feel right (= rather gamey).
I wouldn't even like it for Ohka, for Ohka was a glide weapon that required a fine launch altitude for range.

@Shark: More importantly, Ohkas were human-guided and the engine was meant for them.

I'll later check some things. I have a suspicion the engine probably treats AP and GP bombs differently.
The "accuracy" variable of the GP bombs reminds me more of "blast radius" than accuracy, for sure (that would still be redundant to soft rating, of course). The "accuracy" value grows a lot with bomb size.


Yep, Okha was most definitely human guided, and as such was just as susceptible to the limits of any aircraft. IE the pilot could be incapacitated.

In all truth, the Fritz X was a glide bomb (not at all unlike glide bombs in use today, though the guidance system was more primitive). So I'm wondering how Fritz X works as a bomb with higher accuracy as opposed to being treated more like an Okha?



< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/25/2012 9:22:37 AM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 40
RE: Missiles - 10/25/2012 9:31:43 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the link Alfred, better than the mysterious comments and "PM me" approach of some.

This confirms my use of AtG rockets, I allowed each aircraft type 2 salvos of rockets and really bad accuracy.

Given that it was possible to recreate the Bat "bomb", has anyone any ideas on how to add the "Loon" (US V-1)


First off, I agree with the whole cryptic thing, its really annoying. Personally, if I learn something, I'll just share it with the community.

On the JB-2 Loon, I've gotten some ideas, the only thing is I really have no idea how to set up the penetration for a missile. Is it more or less than a gun? As far as accuracy and warhead, those are rather easy. The JB-2 had an accuracy of 0.25 miles when fired at a target 100 miles away...translated, if you launched it at a land target 100 miles away, the missile would land within 1/4 of a mile of the target. Max range is 150 miles (264 in editor settings). Effect should be 2000 given the JB-2s 2000 lb warhead.

You would assume that the JB-2, if used against a ship would easily penetrate (or at least if not penetrate massively damage) even a BB. The real question is, given the state of the technology in 1945, was it capable of engaging a ship? The only references I have to its proposed use was saturation bombardment of Japanese defenses on the Home Islands. Of course with the newest beta giving us the ability to define different payloads for different missions, then this becomes less of an issue as you can assign the JB-2 Loon to bombers carrying out ground attack or city attack missions, but use standard bombs for the Naval Interdiction mission.

JB-2s were also successfully launched from ships and submarines, and there could lie a problem. If there were not capable versus ships, but you add them to ships, the game will likely use them against ships anyway.



It appears the intent of USAF (using them from bombers) and USN (using them from LSTs and CVEs) was land bombardment. I don't see how to use them against ships unless a different guidance system is developed. In that case, they would be SAME HEX weapons. A generation later, the same issue came up with cruise missiles. Many early ones had long ranges, but were generally not able to be targeted because how could the launching ship or sub know where the target was? Mostly they only could know at tactical ranges. In WWII I think that would clearly be the case.

My question is - can we model the Loon for bombardment purposes? My first answer is - yes - as an aircraft - rated for 0 pilots -
and carrying a "Loon warhead" device which is a bomb. It would then also be possible to shoot down with figher planes or AAA
and it is slow enough that is very practical - see the UK when defending against the V-1. The only problem is - the "missiles"
would then return to the launching ship. This we might have to rationalize. Well - there is another problem - we can give them
to a CVE - but not an LST - one of the major platforms intended. Or can we?

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 41
RE: Missiles - 10/25/2012 12:16:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Turns out the JB-2 Loon, claimed to be the first operaional US cruise missile (although
I think JB-1 Bat was first), WAS developed with two different guiance sytems, as well
as intended for both air and surface launch. This suggests modeling with two diffenent
devices.

The aircraft contemplated for use during WWII was the PB4Y - and the test aircaft which
was also considerd for operational use post war was the B-17E. The B-29 was also
contemplated as a platform.

I have created an experimental ASM version I consider to be radar guided. For that
reason its useful range is lower than the missile's absolute range - due to target
acquisition issue. For that reason the "out of hex" issue is not germane, and the existing
code should work fine.

For the record, the absolute range is 149 miles.

The device is called

JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM

it is a plane guided missile

Weight 5023 pounds

warhead 2100 pounds

range in this form 66 (37.5 miles)

Alternate device 206 (4,000 pound bomb)

A strictly historical scenario would define it as available on a PB4Y
(probably two per plane)

A slightly more liberal scenario would probably have B-17E and B-29
carriers - likely two per B-17 to normal range - four for a B-29
with two for B-29 extended range

I have not yet figured out a version for surface bombardment
but I did learn submarines should be added to the list of vessels
able to launch them

I suspect defining them as a bomber with 0 pilots is the best solution
available

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/27/2012 12:36:59 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 42
RE: Missiles - 10/25/2012 2:52:44 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7825
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the link Alfred, better than the mysterious comments and "PM me" approach of some.

This confirms my use of AtG rockets, I allowed each aircraft type 2 salvos of rockets and really bad accuracy.

Given that it was possible to recreate the Bat "bomb", has anyone any ideas on how to add the "Loon" (US V-1)


First off, I agree with the whole cryptic thing, its really annoying. Personally, if I learn something, I'll just share it with the community.

On the JB-2 Loon, I've gotten some ideas, the only thing is I really have no idea how to set up the penetration for a missile. Is it more or less than a gun? As far as accuracy and warhead, those are rather easy. The JB-2 had an accuracy of 0.25 miles when fired at a target 100 miles away...translated, if you launched it at a land target 100 miles away, the missile would land within 1/4 of a mile of the target. Max range is 150 miles (264 in editor settings). Effect should be 2000 given the JB-2s 2000 lb warhead.

You would assume that the JB-2, if used against a ship would easily penetrate (or at least if not penetrate massively damage) even a BB. The real question is, given the state of the technology in 1945, was it capable of engaging a ship? The only references I have to its proposed use was saturation bombardment of Japanese defenses on the Home Islands. Of course with the newest beta giving us the ability to define different payloads for different missions, then this becomes less of an issue as you can assign the JB-2 Loon to bombers carrying out ground attack or city attack missions, but use standard bombs for the Naval Interdiction mission.

JB-2s were also successfully launched from ships and submarines, and there could lie a problem. If there were not capable versus ships, but you add them to ships, the game will likely use them against ships anyway.



It appears the intent of USAF (using them from bombers) and USN (using them from LSTs and CVEs) was land bombardment. I don't see how to use them against ships unless a different guidance system is developed. In that case, they would be SAME HEX weapons. A generation later, the same issue came up with cruise missiles. Many early ones had long ranges, but were generally not able to be targeted because how could the launching ship or sub know where the target was? Mostly they only could know at tactical ranges. In WWII I think that would clearly be the case.

My question is - can we model the Loon for bombardment purposes? My first answer is - yes - as an aircraft - rated for 0 pilots -
and carrying a "Loon warhead" device which is a bomb. It would then also be possible to shoot down with figher planes or AAA
and it is slow enough that is very practical - see the UK when defending against the V-1. The only problem is - the "missiles"
would then return to the launching ship. This we might have to rationalize. Well - there is another problem - we can give them
to a CVE - but not an LST - one of the major platforms intended. Or can we?


Make sure to give the the maximum service rating so that they at least go down for maintainence would help with the multiple launch problem.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 43
RE: Missiles - 10/26/2012 1:09:18 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Good idea. I like that.

I think there is a problem with developing the radar guidance for the air launch version of the JB-1.

Clearly it should be after the end of the historical war - and if it isn't soon after that - the game
will end - so it probably is late 1945.

In a non-historical mod, higher priority might permit it by around July 45.

So the surface launch JB-2 - in production from 1/45 - would be available sooner than the
air launch version - which needs development of guidance.

Now we could do a surface launch anti-ship version with radar on the same date basis.

But a land bombardment type - available early in 1945 - should not be an anti-ship weapon -
unless one assumes it is R/C and you have a ship or plane in the target hex.

Cieling (if using an aircraft as missile) is 4000 feet.

And the first cruise missiles were biplanes - later ones monoplanes - so the concept isn't entirely
radical.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 44
RE: Missiles - 10/26/2012 8:34:19 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16314
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
First, a story. You know sailors and sea stories, right?

To digress - there is a Navy saying: What is the difference between a sea story and a fairy tale?

A fairy tale begins with "once upon a time"

A sea story begins with "this is no s..t"

Otherwise, no difference.

Well, this is a true story, sailor or not. Once upon a time, in the early 1980s, I found myself
assigned by my company to work as "resident computer engineer" at the USAF SIL (Software
Integration Laboratory) for the ALCM at the Kent Spaceflight Center of Boeing.

After you entered the secure area with the actual computers and devices which permitted them
to measure the "flights" of simulated missiles (the control surfaces, driving motors and guidance
portions of the missles were physically present, but sensors measure the movements so computers
can calculate the impact on flight)

on your right hand, on the wall over a desk, was a standard sheet of typing paper - on its side
- with a charcoal drawing of a V-1 missile.

Its caption read "The First Cruise Missile"

Now I knew that it was the first jet powered operational cruise missile when the Germans used it in WWII.

I even knew we had copied it and studied it in several forms.

But I didn't know it was OUR first operational and mass produced cruise missile.

So much for my story. The point is that I worked in the world of analysis of cruise missile flight profiles.

After careful consideration of all the factors I can think of, I conclude that the surface attack version
of the JB-2 Loon can be best simulated in the AE system as a Ground Attack Rocket. While it is true the
actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes -
its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile. As a terror
weapon launched against a vast metropolis like London, it was marginally useful - even then most missed.
But our system does not provide for such random area targets. The simple AE engine wants to assign
one device to one target - and does so automatically. The entire option for strategic bombardment by
bombers seems not to work anything like actual strategic bombing. Even atomic bombs don't work
anything like actual atomic bombs.

Note the planning for Olympic and Coronet contemplated firing the JB-2 as "pre invasion bombardment" -
it was not intended as a strategic or terror weapon in the sense the V-1 was. For these reasons, using it
in the same hex makes sense. So its use as a ground bombardment rocket with a rather large warhead
makes sense. So my second JB-2 device - available from 1/45 - is the JB-2 Loon/SSM. My first
launching platform is a modified LST - designated LST(G) w Loon SSM - to make it easy for players who
have not read my notes to gasp what it is. The LST is a standard USN Type II LST with the forward
40 mm mounting replaced by a JB-2 launcher - it fires one round with 100 reloads. Cargo capacity
of the LST is reduced to only 450 - the rest of the space is for storage of missiles, assembly areas,
fuel storage areas, and an elevator so the missiles can be moved when assembled to the upper deck.
It is almost identical to the JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM - except it has an accuracy of 5 (vice 50) and a range
of 74 (vice 66).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/27/2012 12:33:31 AM >

(in reply to JSG)
Post #: 45
RE: Missiles - 10/26/2012 11:56:33 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
That's a GREAT story. It's been around for a long time and it's good to see it come back again.

My favorite telling of it is by Doc Travis Taylor from the Rocket City Rednecks show. He showed a picture of the drawing in his book (was by Clyde Coombs at NASA Marshall instead of Boeing) and of course they had to built a pulse air-breather to run off beer farts (oxy/methane). Have to Love rednecks!

Great to see the story again. I think we lose too much history depending on the WWW.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 46
RE: Missiles - 12/20/2017 12:13:13 AM   
RyanCrierie


Posts: 1327
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
While it is true the actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes - its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile.

JB-2 could hit with a CEP of about 1,500 feet at a range of 50 statute miles.

_____________________________


(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 47
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Missiles Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.125