cplprice
Posts: 94
Joined: 7/8/2011 From: Chickamauga GA Status: offline
|
Gotta' say, you guys have provided some really great answers. El Cid Again gave me the reason why it should not be an option: quote:
Matrix programmers are essentially correct: Army and Navy aircraft, even when otherwise identical, have different electrical systems, different radios and different weapons. I was re-reading Francillon, and I had started thinking what a difference it would have made had Japan's Army and Navy cooperated more prior to the establishment of the Munitions Ministry in November, 1943. (They still didn't fully cooperate even then) Realistically, all aircraft types would have still needed to have been researched, because you gain knowledge, technological innovation, etc. even when developing failed types, that go into developing the next generation. I had just wanted to explore what would have happened if the best type in each category had been adopted for full scale production, cross service. Production of marginal types could be avoided or scaled back. I'll just cross copy the aircraft and assign them the proper designations, then the individual service can decide upon adoption. I didn't want to have to have to set up a different factory to produce an army and a navy version because in reality the aircraft could be produced on one line, just in batches with the different service specific options. (Example the USAAF B-25 and US Navy/USMC PBJ were the same aircraft, made on the same production lines, just different service specific details. The USAAF just transferred that portion of the B-25C and B-25D production blocks from specific plants to the Navy).
|