|
el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/3/2006 6:42:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog
According to my research, starting with the B-24D, it had an internal bomb load of 8,800 and 2 external mounting for 2 4,000 lb bombs. The same for the B-24H/J.
The B-17C had 4,800 internal bomb load with external mounting brackets.
The B-17D had 4,800 internal bomb load, with external brackets removed.
The B-17F/G had 9,600 internal bomb load max, but short range so typical load was 4,000-5,000 for 1,400 miles. It had 2 external mountings for 2 4,000 lb bombs, bringing the bomb load to 17,600, but was extremely short range and seldom used.
In your data files for max load, you are using 10,000 for the B-17D, 17,600 for the B-17E/F/G - these include the external mounts for 2 4,000 lb bombs in these figures.
In your data files for max load, you are using 8,800 for the B-24D, 12,800 for the B-24J. These both should be 8,800 internal and/or 16,800 including 8,800 internal and 2 4,000 external mountings
There might be a problem or two, but generally I think your data is pretty good. However, there may be some confusion about the way WITP works. We only have two things we define: "normal bomb load" in the form of a specific definition (including internal and external weapons) and a total weight "maximum bomb load." The design requires we state the maximum load - actually it can be MORE than bomb load and IS MORE for some planes - if they have drop tanks or if they are transport planes.
This data is ONLY used (according to Joel Billings) to determine the airfield size - and the system cannot work as intended unless we tell it the truth: what is the maximum load the plane could carry (the more the longer the runways). [For an interesting discussion of this, see Luftwaffe Over Amerika - a new book - on the problems with very heavy German bombers and runways too long for any site in Europe unless tows or RATO is used.] Anyway, I don't care if the fitting is "rarely used" - if it is present - it counts - unless there is a technical reason to ignore the designer's intent - which I will consider (but I don't just ignore the design intent - I have to have sound reason to violate the system).
I don't think there is much doubt about the B-24 - it has the same load even as a transport (due to not removing the armor!). But the B-17 shows a lot of different data in lots of books - and likely it is all "true" in some sense or other. About the only surprise for me is your "4800 pounds" figure - it is uniformly 5000 pounds in all references I have seen - but that sort of difference is often just a matter of rounding - operators probably called 4800 pounds a 5000 pound load and maybe it confused people? Since the plane carried 500 pound bombs, it seems unlikely the normal load would be something other than a multiple of 500. Since the USAAF tables are for range with 5000 pounds, it seems very likely this is the right value. But a 500 pound bomb does not weigh 500 pounds - so maybe that is the problem? I don't remember exactly what it is. Anyway - an error under 10% is not important enough to matter and I regard it as a quibble. Since I (and my reviewer) had many books with 5000 pound figures, the standards of CHS and RHS require we use the reference book data - the data "easily verifiable by average users with access to a library."
The more practical question is this: do you think somehow the books in my library (and in Joe's) are all way off base? Do you think we need to change these datum points because of some game impact? I regard the range/payload data as much better than what I began with (CHS 155). Your bombers carry much more over a greater distance. Should we not see how that works for a while?
|
|
|
|
