A question for the aircraft historians.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A question for the aircraft historians.

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 >> The War Room >> A question for the aircraft historians.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/6/2016 10:16:10 PM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

Hi guys,

Could someone please give me a quick explanation of the difference between the Blenheim IV and VD? By game stats it looks like the VD gained 2 machine guns and lost 100 miles of range. But why?

Thanks!

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

Post #: 1

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/6/2016 10:53:38 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Probably gained weight from guns/ammo and better protection/armor.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 2

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/7/2016 3:34:47 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Like most aircraft during the war Blenheims lost performance as more weight was added. The look of the Blenheim V was different from the IV. The nose had a different shape.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 3

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/7/2016 3:51:19 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Like most aircraft during the war Blenheims lost performance as more weight was added. The look of the Blenheim V was different from the IV. The nose had a different shape.

Bill

It seems like in the years leading up to the war, air forces were seeking aircraft with the longest range/biggest payload. Six months into the war, aircrew and aircraft losses convinced them that survivability was worth the drop in performance so armour and self-sealing tanks and defensive armament became the norm. Comparing the B-17D to the B-17 E/F shows this.
The Japanese had a different outlook on loss of personnel - it is good to die for the emperor and all that bushido stuff, so they never got on the survivability bandwagon until they were already behind the loss/replacement curve.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 4

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/7/2016 6:23:27 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

The last bomber variant was conceived as an armoured ground attack aircraft, with a solid nose containing four more Browning machine guns. Originally known as the Bisley, (after the shooting competitions held at Bisley), the production aircraft were renamed Blenheim Mk V and featured a strengthened structure, pilot armour, interchangeable nose gun pack or bombardier position, and yet another Mercury variant, this time with 950 hp (710 kW).

Wiki

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 5

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/7/2016 11:55:55 PM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

Thanks for the answers everyone. I assumed it was a factor of armor, but the in-game model doesnt seem any more armored than its predecessor.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 6

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/8/2016 12:39:35 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Thanks for the answers everyone. I assumed it was a factor of armor, but the in-game model doesnt seem any more armored than its predecessor.

Check the durability ratings for both - the later model should be higher.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 7

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/8/2016 1:35:31 AM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

Hmmm, negatory. 30 on both.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 8

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/8/2016 1:44:58 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Some info on the Blenheim and its marks

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_bristol_blenheim_V.html

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 9

RE: A question for the aircraft historians. - 1/8/2016 3:00:16 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Hmmm, negatory. 30 on both.

Interesting! All the weight was in added armament then, unless there was a payload increase or radar added.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 10

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> A question for the aircraft historians.

Page: [1]