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: TBF and TBM Avengers

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: TBF and TBM Avengers Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/23/2006 8:35:33 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs."

I'd suggest getting the "Bloody Shambles" series, which verifies what I have posted. After all, it is the most detailed work on the subjet matter in question: the air war in SouthEast Asia. It is apparent from reading this work that the Dutch were regularly using the Do24Ks on strike missions, IMO wasting many good search a/c in the process. They actually sank a large tanker (19,000 tons) in Davao harbor on Dec 23, 1941.

I'll agree that the Do24Ks should not have the ability to carry torpedoes, but it does appear that the RNEIAF made wide use of them as strike aircraft (again, incorrectly IMO). I understand about the range issue, but the Dutch were staging the aircraft in forward locations from which to make the strikes, a standard WW2 practice that UV/WITP does not simulate, so to me that is less of a concern than it appears to be to you.

Rather than disparaging what others have to offer, you might try widening your database. Or at least adjusting your attitude towards those who disagree.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 31
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/23/2006 9:39:52 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Well let's see from another point of view. El cid: does any of your sources about DUTCH version of Do-24 (that's important as every country ordered planes for their needs) mention that they didn't have bombs? If no, leave them as they are - because CHS is supposed to use VERIFABLE data.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 32
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 2:42:50 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

"All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs."

I'd suggest getting the "Bloody Shambles" series, which verifies what I have posted


I am sorry sir. You misunderstood my meaning. I SAID "I see your datum point" - I have BS and I greatly respect it. But it is NOT a data source on the performance of a Do-24K with an unspecified bomb load!
It does NOT tell us what the bomb load was or what impact that had on range. I can NOT just interpret a "450 pound bomb" (which, FYI, is NOT a WITP device) as "leave the 18 inch torpedo entry as is" NOR do I know what the range should be if it carried an unspecified number of these? Worse, I do not know if it was kicked out the door, or properly released (as field modded A6M5s could drop a 250 kg bomb could)? We do not even know if the weapon ever worked? [BS says there was a claim, NOT verified by the other side. That is not the same as a viable weapon - even if technically dropped - if it was like the C-130 kicking incident in 1982 - it does NOT equate to a bomber]. We need to know more - and I will not even look for the data unless people want to believe this was a real weapon system with a chance of success. Even then, we must actually FIND real data - or estimate it - if you trust me to do that. A real simulated plane needs realistic data - otherwise just make up superman pieces to play with.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 33
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 2:48:16 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Rather than disparaging what others have to offer, you might try widening your database. Or at least adjusting your attitude towards those who disagree.


Sir, you have misunderstood my meaning. I will not insult (except possibly in response to a string of insults) on principle. When I say I disagree it is not in the least because I do not value feedback - and in fact I have got several valuable things from feedback - almost always things I didn't know.

Further, you really misunderstood my reaction to your datum. I have BS, I read it, I confirm your datum (except not the part about "widely used for strike" and not the part about "sank" anything - it does not say that - but it says there were attacks and there was a CLAIM of a sinking - and I believe you as well as your source - which I regard as first class).

My reaction was technical: it is not enough even if true - even if there is a sinking. We don't know the bomb load. We don't know the impact of that load on range. We don't know the release mechanism (yet). That impacts how we treat the chance of a hit (is it like a normal bomb, or less? Translate - were there bomb sights - or not? Was it kicked out the door - or properly dropped?} Get me THAT data I will use it. Convince me most players want it in the game- I will do an engineering calculation for you too - THAT is what I said.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 34
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 2:52:12 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Well let's see from another point of view. El cid: does any of your sources about DUTCH version of Do-24 (that's important as every country ordered planes for their needs) mention that they didn't have bombs? If no, leave them as they are - because CHS is supposed to use VERIFABLE data.


Yes - I tried to say that. There is no mention in AIRCRAFT references of ANY offensive bomb load for ANY version of the DO-24 - INCLUDING the Dutch order. That is my problem. The guidelines laid down by Joe would not permit me to make up data not in any source. The BS item is about USE - and it is not technical data - except it tells us about a "450 pound bomb" - something very odd sounding. I also agree to modify the plane data anyway but ONLY IF it is a consensus that this is a case warranting that. So I did not quite say no - just 'not enough data to say yes'.


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 35
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 3:10:29 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Okay, Sid, I guess that my feathers were a little ruffled by the tone of your previous post. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW, Bloody Shambles did not say that there was a claim for the sinking of the tanker, it claimed that in the air raid of Dec 23 (conducted by 3 Dorniers of GVT-5 from Talesei Island, New Guinea and 3 Dorniers from Tondano, Celebes) the GVT-2 aircraft made one direct hit and two near misses on the 19,262 ton tanker Tonau Maru, leaving it burning - from which it was to sink later. Since you do know this work (BS), you will note that they didn't say that the pilots made a claim of a sinking, but rather that they sank the tanker (as opposed to the 17th Dec action where a GVT-2 Dornier claimed the sinking of the destroyer Shinonome, but the authors pointed out that it was reported to have succumbed to a mine - the difference in the way they present the information is the clue that they feel the tanker is a good claim).

Here's my point: the game system, with its inability to simulate raids using a forward staging base as a refueling stop, fudges the situation so much that the difference between the operational range of the Do24K in search mode and the that in bombing mode is not likely to make a huge difference. In many areas of the game we are only hoping to get a flavour of the way the war actually went, not a truly detained simulation (beyond the capabilities of the game engine).

When you add to that the very small numbers of Do24Ks in the game, their use as bombers is less likely to make much difference (as opposed to their use as torpedo bombers - I wholeheartedly agree with you here) in the game overall - except to rid the allied player of reasonable search aircraft early on. Thus I myself would not be one likely to use them in such a manner, until and unless the final Dutch base is in extremis...

My thought is that they should be given the capability to use a 250lb bomb (one each? two each?). This gives them a slight capability to be used in the manner in which the RNEIAF actually used them (which is what we want our game to allow us, correct?), but not a game breaking capability. As I continue to read BS (ooh... I hate that acronym for the books) I will keep my eyes open for any firther information on this matter.

Overall, I have been impressed with much of what you have been proposing in your posts, but this is one area where I feel that what you are proposing is actually removing a realistic flavour of the game. I would rather propose that their load be altered to that of a light GP bomb. That's my take. Thanks for listening...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 36
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 3:15:49 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		As far as the "were widely used" comment, think about the numbers of Dorniers originally available to the RNEIAF at this time. Then count the numbers used in these minor raids - it appears to be a large percentage of the numbers of Dorniers they had. It was telling to me that a few days after the raids I mentioned in the post above they reorganized their squadrons, re-equipping some of the Dornier eqipped units with Catalinas (which the player is not allowed to do until May '42).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 37
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 12:32:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Here's my point: the game system, with its inability to simulate raids using a forward staging base as a refueling stop, fudges the situation so much that the difference between the operational range of the Do24K in search mode and the that in bombing mode is not likely to make a huge difference. In many areas of the game we are only hoping to get a flavour of the way the war actually went, not a truly detained simulation (beyond the capabilities of the game engine).


It is hard to trust data which says a DO-24K has torpedo armament. But the range is too short - so MAYBE the range is the range with offensive weapons. My version will have much better search value since it will have the correct range. But the real range in the reference books - because it is not tied to a bomb load - is going to be a LOT different than the range WITH a bomb load. Essentially, the operational range of a pure search plane is simply the ferry range minus some reserve factor - likely about 10-15%. [In my games - where weather is more of a factor - you never dare run to full ferry range - or you will lose the plane! You always have at least a 5% fuel reserve even for that - and 10% is smarter.] But the range with bombs will be only 40% of ferry range - in standard WITP terms. The problem is, I don't know what is normal or maximum bomb load, nor what ranges these are associated with, in order to convert to WITP terms. But it DOES make a LOT of difference. Very likely - in this case - the bomb load also meant less fuel could be carried (so the plane would not exceed maximum take off weight) - and if so that would be yet another reduction in range. Planes DESIGNED not to have a bomb load lose a LOT of range when you start carrying bombs.

Your idea - use lighter bombs - is not bad. It would permit using already existing devices. And it might simulate the lower chance of hitting from an improvised system somewhat. But we need more data than we have to know if this bomb release system was somewhat normal or literally a "kick out the door" thing? And if it was the latter, reducing the value of a hit is not as good as reducing the chance of a hit. Because if you DID hit the bomb would not really be smaller. I would like more data - and I suspect this was not an operationally significant thing. But I am willing to be shown otherwise.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 38
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 12:34:27 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It was telling to me that a few days after the raids I mentioned in the post above they reorganized their squadrons, re-equipping some of the Dornier eqipped units with Catalinas (which the player is not allowed to do until May '42).


That can be fixed. When SHOULD the replacement be allowed?


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 39
PB2Y Coronado - 1/24/2006 12:42:11 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is an amazing and fine airplane - flying boat - but it was really NOT used! No less than 210 PB2Y-3 were built - 10 went to UK as transports - and 31 more were converted to transports for USN. The other 169 were essentially hack and research aircraft, or unissued. The game shows two squadrons of them - VP 13 and VP 15. But this is basically false. [TTS Pacific did have 4 - and these were technically maintained by VP 13 - but it was not a PB2Y unit and it does not seem to have had more than four. Further, these four appear to have been transport versions. A similar number were assigned to TTS Norfolk - and those were the BIGGEST units to have them at all!]

This is a strange case. The plane was built and bought and held. So it COULD have been assigned to squadrons and used. On the other hand, it was not. If we kill the plane, we get a slot for a plane that was used. If we keep it, we allow players an option real commanders had - but didn't use. Should a "historical" mod ALLOW use of a plane that was not historically considered worth using IF it really did get built and bought?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 40
RE: PB2Y Coronado - 1/24/2006 7:29:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Should a "historical" mod ALLOW use of a plane that was not historically considered worth using IF it really did get built and bought?


I think 'yes' - in a perfect world. I realize that we are up against limits on slots etc. What are the approximate stats of the PB2Y-3 (WITP terms)?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 41
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/24/2006 9:09:09 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

It was telling to me that a few days after the raids I mentioned in the post above they reorganized their squadrons, re-equipping some of the Dornier eqipped units with Catalinas (which the player is not allowed to do until May '42).


That can be fixed. When SHOULD the replacement be allowed?







Good question. My reading shows that GVT-2 was re-equipped after the losses of Dec 26, GVT-3 received Catalinas around Dec 29 and GVT-16 was allowed a rest before returing to operations re-equipped with Catalinas. Maybe Jan 1 '42 is a good choice?



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 42
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/24/2006 11:51:40 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I think the F7F was envisioned for use aboard the Midway Class CVs. Don't know if you have them or not though.


Actually they were supposed to be carrier capable, and were tested on an Essex class carrier. However, it was discovered that the tailhook assembly was too weak and was corrected in a later model. Since I am at work and do not have references in front of me I cannot give more specifics. As far as the Midway only, I cannot recall that they were specifically designed for the Midways, just that they were considered "to hot" for the Essexs, as at the time the US Navy had zero experience in landing tricycle landing gear planes on carriers. The Marines were, however, glad to have them. The F7F's did operate off carriers during the Korean Conflict. Since none of the Midways were used in that conflict then they would have had to operated off an Essex. Like all of the "Iron Works" planes they were extremely rigged and capable of absorbing damage.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 43
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/25/2006 2:40:43 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		If the F7F is decided to be not carrier capable for CHS then we will have to watch upgrade paths. Some type - maybe it's FM-2 Wildcat - upgrades to F7F. I could have models mixed up, but I know that some carrier fighter squadrons are set to upgrade to F7F.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/25/2006 8:12:49 PM >

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 44
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/25/2006 3:10:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Well..always wanted P-80A for late 1945 to 1946...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 45
RE: PB2Y Coronado - 1/25/2006 9:53:35 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

What are the approximate stats of the PB2Y-3 (WITP terms)?


Think of it as "the American Emily."


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 46
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/25/2006 9:55:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Well..always wanted P-80A for late 1945 to 1946.


It is already in the database and, while I don't like it, it will stay. There are several high performance Japanese planes - so if a game gets into 1945/6 it needs to have balance. The P-80 was not a particularly good fighter plane.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 47
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/25/2006 9:58:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If the F7F is decided to be not carrier capable for CHS


It is not for this round of CHS - because Allied planes are not generally up for review. But it IS up for RHS - and that may mean it will make the next CHS release. I DID get F7F in by combining two Buffalo slots into one. Only two squadrons use the Buffalo in the game (a third one also wrongly uses it - VMF111 SHOULD use F3F). They won't use it long. They don't need two slots for the -2 and -3 versions - which have the same engine and armament and differ only in protection.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 48
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/25/2006 9:59:58 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

My reading shows that GVT-2 was re-equipped after the losses of Dec 26, GVT-3 received Catalinas around Dec 29 and GVT-16 was allowed a rest before returing to operations re-equipped with Catalinas. Maybe Jan 1 '42 is a good choice?


Thanks. Will fix for RHS. Allied planes got several reviews already and are not generally up for change this round of CHS. But Andrew is doing SOME work on big bombers for the Allies.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 49
Corsair - 1/25/2006 10:04:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The USN long didn't use the Corsair from carriers - about a year. Only AFTER FAA used them in the op against the Tirpitz were they used. Don Bowen suggested making all Corsairs land based only. After review I decided to make the first model - F4U-1 - land based only. The version that appears next - F4U-1D - a fighter bomber version - appears at the right time for carrier ops - and it is the version FAA actually did use for them. Players who want to use Corsairs from carriers must upgrade to this model to get that capability without excessive attrition. I replaced the F4U-1 slot with the F4U-2 night fighter - only 32 were made - but they achieved a fantastic score - and were available long before the F6F night fighter version. Only two units had this plane - and not in great numbers - obviously - given only 32 were made!

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 50
Beaufighter models - 1/28/2006 2:45:14 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The current OB has Beaufighter IC models which never served in the Pacific theater - so I deleted it. The Beaufighter 1F model first appears in Sept 1942 in 27 RAF Squadron - but the game OB NEVER assigns it to that unit. ALL the units it is assigned to NEVER operated it. I suppose whoever did this OB lacked unit data so they just guessed. And the significant upgrade was to the X model - which changes the unit from a night fighter to a strike unit. So I trade the 22 model in the game for the X model - I cannot even confirm details of the 22 model. These actions conspire to create one more slot - and to require significant research on what certain squadrons operated - since it wasn't Beaufighter. See Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 51
Swordfish - 1/29/2006 3:05:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is a strange airplane. By the time the Pacific War begins, it is no longer a torpedo bomber, and 100% of the planes were shot down on the last mission it attempted as such (explaining why it was never attempted again). But it could operate from very small ships, and it was used to develope two very secret things: radar to find subs (or other targets) and rocket weapons. Instead of torpedoes it carried 3 500 pound bombs or depth charges. It used ASV radar to find submarines. And it used a 3 inch armor piercing rocket to kill what it found (particularly at night).

The same 3 inch rocket was also carried by Wildcats, Hellcats and Avengers in FAA service. So I am experimentally adding this as a device, and also radar - both achieved the first kill of a U boat by this means a few days after the Pacific War began. I suspect these devices will make the Swordfish worth having - and players may regret its relatively low production rate. But it is certainly an interesting plane - and a chance to test wether we can make rockets that work. These should work in various roles - but best against surface targets from low altitude. The problem with them is the low rate of fire - they have an "accuracy" rating of only 1. But if you shoot 8 times the number of planes you might get a hit - and IF you do - you will be impressed with the effects of that hit. So I theorize. The range of this weapon is 2 in our system.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 52
RE: Swordfish - 1/29/2006 7:32:45 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline 		Cid

I'm interested if you find that equipping swordsfish with radar will have any effect

Ill do some testing if you send me your stats

Cheers

Hipper



_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 53
RE: Swordfish - 1/30/2006 12:15:28 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Ill do some testing if you send me your stats


anyone wanting to test airplanes with new weapons ratings,
new devices (AI for Japanese night fighters, rockets for FAA planes,
57mm gun for Ki-102b, snorkel, midget subs or Kaiten for Japanese submarines, radar on Japanese submarines which had it) - send me your address

trevethans@aol.com

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 54
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/30/2006 3:14:21 AM   
Dutchgy2000


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/3/2005
Status: offline 		Ok, technical details...


Do-24K-1 (first 12, in the reconnaissance role)

Wingspan: 27,00 meter
Length: 21,95 meter
Height: 5,75 meter overall including rotating propellers
2,10 meter, only fuselage, including cockpit
Fuselage width 3,00 meter
7,40 meter with Stummeln
Surface area's 108 m² overall, including ailerons and flaps
Stabilo 18,44 m²
Rudders 9,10 m²
Flaps 8,75 m²
Wing angles 4½ degrees swept back in the middle
4½ degrees swept back at the ends
3½ degrees V at the back of the wings
Fuel 8 Stummel tanks (2670 liter) and 2 wing tanks (1880 liter) totaling 4550 liter
Oil 3 tanks totaling 390 liter
Engine Three x Wright Cyclone GR 1820-F52
Propellers Hamilton Type 3E 50-31, metal, constant speed, 3,50 meter diameter, 3 per engine
Speed Maximum 280 km/h at sea level with 3 x 745 hp at 2100 rpm.
Maximum 305 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 760 hp at 2100 rpm.
Cruise 205 km/h at sea level with 3 x 372 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Cruise 220 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 380 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Landing 108 km/h
Fuel consumption 215 gr/hp at cruise speed at sea level
215 gr/hp at cruise speed at 1770 meter
Ceiling 5600 meter
Climb time To 1000 meter in 3 minutes 30 seconds
To 2000 meter in 6 minutes 45 seconds
To 3000 meter in 10 minutes 45 seconds
To 4000 meter in 16 minutes 30 seconds
To 5000 meter in 27 minutes 30 seconds
Range 1270 km at sea level at cruise speed without wind factor
1340 km at 1770 meter at cruise speed without wind factor
Weight Empty 7695 kg
fixed equipment 660 kg
variable equipment 345 kg
Empty (equipped) 8970 kg
crew 480 kg
fuel 0-2725 kg
oil 0-190 kg
ammunition 0-35 kg
Take-off 12400 kg
Maximum 13500 kg
Take-off run 17 seconds
85 seconds without middle engine at 12400 kg weight
64 seconds without middle engine at 11500 kg weight
76 seconds without one of the outboard engines at 10000 kg weight
Crew 5
Armament Three Colt-Browning 7,7 mm machineguns with 500 rounds each.


Do-24K-1 (first 12, in the bomber role with 12 x 50 kg bombs)

Wingspan: 27,00 meter
Length: 21,95 meter
Height: 5,75 meter overall including rotating propellers
2,10 meter, only fuselage, including cockpit
Fuselage width 3,00 meter
7,40 meter with Stummeln
Surface area's 108 m² overall, including ailerons and flaps
Stabilo 18,44 m²
Rudders 9,10 m²
Flaps 8,75 m²
Wing angles 4½ degrees swept back in the middle
4½ degrees swept back at the ends
3½ degrees V at the back of the wings
Fuel 8 Stummel tanks (2670 liter) and 2 wing tanks (1880 liter) totaling 4550 liter
Oil 3 tanks totaling 390 liter
Engine Three x Wright Cyclone GR 1820-F52
Propellers Hamilton Type 3E 50-31, metal, constant speed, 3,50 meter diameter, 3 per engine
Speed Maximum 275 km/h at sea level with 3 x 745 hp at 2100 rpm.
Maximum 300 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 760 hp at 2100 rpm.
Cruise 200 km/h at sea level with 3 x 372 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Cruise 215 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 380 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Landing 108 km/h
Fuel consumption 215 gr/hp at cruise speed at sea level
215 gr/hp at cruise speed at 1770 meter
Ceiling 5500 meter
Climb time To 1000 meter in 4 minutes
To 2000 meter in 7 minutes 30 seconds
To 3000 meter in 11 minutes 45 seconds
To 4000 meter in 17 minutes 30 seconds
To 5000 meter in 27 minutes 30 seconds
Range 1270 km at sea level at cruise speed without wind factor
1340 km at 1770 meter at cruise speed without wind factor
Weight Empty 7695 kg
fixed equipment 705 kg
variable equipment 345 kg
Empty (equipped) 9015 kg
crew 480 kg
fuel 0-2105 kg
oil 0-165 kg
ammunition 0-35 kg
bombs 0-600 kg
Take-off 12400 kg
Maximum 13500 kg
Take-off run 18 seconds
85 seconds without middle engine at 12400 kg weight
64 seconds without middle engine at 11500 kg weight
76 seconds without one of the outboard engines at 10000 kg weight
Crew 5
Armament Three Colt-Browning 7,7 mm machineguns with 500 rounds each. 600 kg bombs


Do-24K-1 (first 12, in the bomber role with 6 x 200 kg or 4 x 300 kg bombs)

Wingspan: 27,00 meter
Length: 21,95 meter
Height: 5,75 meter overall including rotating propellers
2,10 meter, only fuselage, including cockpit
Fuselage width 3,00 meter
7,40 meter with Stummeln
Surface area's 108 m² overall, including ailerons and flaps
Stabilo 18,44 m²
Rudders 9,10 m²
Flaps 8,75 m²
Wing angles 4½ degrees swept back in the middle
4½ degrees swept back at the ends
3½ degrees V at the back of the wings
Fuel 8 Stummel tanks (2670 liter) and 2 wing tanks (1880 liter) totaling 4550 liter
Oil 3 tanks totaling 390 liter
Engine Three x Wright Cyclone GR 1820-F52
Propellers Hamilton Type 3E 50-31, metal, constant speed, 3,50 meter diameter, 3 per engine
Speed Maximum 275 km/h at sea level with 3 x 745 hp at 2100 rpm.
Maximum 300 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 760 hp at 2100 rpm.
Cruise 200 km/h at sea level with 3 x 372 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Cruise 215 km/h at 1770 meter with 3 x 380 hp, weighing 11000 kg
Landing 108 km/h
Fuel consumption 215 gr/hp at cruise speed at sea level
215 gr/hp at cruise speed at 1770 meter
Ceiling 5500 meter
Climb time To 1000 meter in 4 minutes
To 2000 meter in 7 minutes 30 seconds
To 3000 meter in 11 minutes 45 seconds
To 4000 meter in 17 minutes 30 seconds
To 5000 meter in 27 minutes 30 seconds
Range 1270 km at sea level at cruise speed without wind factor
1340 km at 1770 meter at cruise speed without wind factor
Weight Empty 7695 kg
fixed equipment 675 kg
variable equipment 345 kg
Empty (equipped) 8985 kg
crew 480 kg
fuel 0-1560 kg
oil 0-140 kg
ammunition 0-35 kg
bombs 0-1200 kg
Take-off 12400 kg
Maximum 13500 kg
Take-off run 18 seconds
85 seconds without middle engine at 12400 kg weight
64 seconds without middle engine at 11500 kg weight
76 seconds without one of the outboard engines at 10000 kg weight
Crew 5
Armament Three Colt-Browning 7,7 mm machineguns with 500 rounds each. 1200 kg bombs


* Starting with the X-13 the middle gunturret was equipped with a 20 mm Hispano-Suiza type 404 cannon.

Edit:
From the history of the X-13: September 19th 1938 tests were done dropping 50kg and 200 kg bombs.

As for result:

.....Ordered by the CZM, on December 17, an attack was made (by GVT-7) on three enemy ships near Miri. On arrival, the enemy force consisted of 1 large cruiser (actualy the DD Shinonome) steaming with high speed in the direction of Cam Ranh Bay, 1 anchored merchant ship (Hiyoshi Maru) and 1 small torpedoboat (Minesweeper W7). The aircraft attacked seperately shortly after dawn with a 5-minute interval. Each aircraft carried 6 bombs of 200 kg. The X-32 (piloted by Flying Officer B. Sjerp) arrived over the area first, and attacked the cruiser, which was hit by two or three of the five bombs dropped (one failed to detach itself from the rack). Apparently, the ammunition for the aft turret exploded. A white column of smoke rose to about 1500 or 2000 metres; after about one minute, the ship had stopped and after about 5 minutes, the area between the stern and the two stacks had disappeared beneath the surface. The ship evaded about 10 seconds after dropping the bombs, and stopped after it had turned about 4 points (app. 45 degrees)...... (The captain, Commander Hirosi Sasagawo and his entire crew of 228 men, perished.)

source: Bureau Maritieme Historie/The Hague - "De strijd in Nederlands Oost-Indië: verrichtingen van de MLD in Nederlands Oost Indië gedurende de Japanse opmars".




< Message edited by Dutchgy2000 -- 1/30/2006 4:58:27 AM >

_____________________________

Our business in the field of fight, Is not to question, but to prove our might.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 55
DO-24K - 1/30/2006 4:30:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This is a very interesting set of data from what appears to be an impressive secondary source.

I note that it contradicts data from English references (e.g. Aircraft of the Third Reich) and it ALSO contradicts data from Bloody Shambles (e.g. the aircraft bomb size is given as 450 kg there and 200 kg here). Under the guidelines I was given for CHS, it is not accessable enough to permit an ordinary person in English to verify the data.

However, I myself do not have to use the CHS guidelines for my own mod. MY problem is slightly different: how to resolve contradictory data?
Compounded by a need for more technical fact than even your wonderful material has: I need to know how these weapons were sighted and released? [Are these kicked out the door? Is there a bombsight?]
The usual standard - data is "verified" when contained in more than one source - applies to the data this plane carries no offensive weapons insofar as it appears in several references. But I believe it is likely these references are probably citing each other, and further in the end probably citing material from the German manufacturer. I don't actually disbelieve your source. I find it entirely plausible that operational practice may have changed things from the way the plane was built.

Your data goes a long way toward dealing with the problems of "what was the bomb load" and "what was the range at a specified bomb load." The only technical problem with it in game terms is that there is no 200 kg bomb and no slots to add bombs - but I might be able to deal with that one way or another. More critical is "how improvised is this?" If there is no bomb sight or proper release mechanism, the code may misrepresent the hit chances so much I cannot use it. IF this was a manufacturers built in capability, OR IF it was a fully remanufactured Dutch modification, THEN it would be just like any other bomber - and the code will work.

The final issue I have is this: In general CHS (and I) do not use the web as a source. We have more scholarly standards. While shat you have given is properly cited, I have not seen the actual document at the pages in question. This can be fixed by emailing an image to trevethans@aol.com.
I technically do not speak Dutch, but I can read it (probably because I read German and other Indo-European languages). I do not mind using a foreign language source (although that is not the CHS standard) - and I often do with respect to German, Japanese and Russian materials. But I need to at least see (and file) what I am using.

(in reply to Dutchgy2000)
Post #: 56
Sea Hurricane/SeaFire - 1/31/2006 2:39:37 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Sea Hurricane never served in the Pacific - so we can kill this slot. All units assigned this unit (apparently only 880 squadron) have seafire.

Seafire is only on eight squadrons in the Pacific:

807, 809, 879 (all right) and 899 (should be on Chaser)
801 and 880 should be on Implacable
887 and 894 should be on Indefatigable

3 of the latter 4 are missing - and 880 is on the wrong ship.

See British Naval Aircraft Since 1912.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 57
RE: Sea Hurricane/SeaFire - 1/31/2006 8:38:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sea Hurricane never served in the Pacific - so we can kill this slot. All units assigned this unit (apparently only 880 squadron) have seafire.

Seafire is only on eight squadrons in the Pacific:

807, 809, 879 (all right) and 899 (should be on Chaser)
801 and 880 should be on Implacable
887 and 894 should be on Indefatigable

3 of the latter 4 are missing - and 880 is on the wrong ship.

See British Naval Aircraft Since 1912.


I'm seeing all sorts of data posted by El Cid here and most of it has no documentation listed. I hope this stuff is not going to be shoved into CHS without verification. Seems to me the Sea Hurricane did serve in the Pacific aboard Indomitable I beleive (they were still aboard during Pedestal in Aug 42). Lots of guys researched the FAA groups and put it in, no reason why it should get removed because someone offers questionable data.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 58
Lancaster and Lincoln (Revised) - 2/1/2006 12:20:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am very confused by the CHS treatment of the Lancaster/Lincoln. [Some marks of Lancaster were renamed Lincoln and apparently one of these is in the set]. My best guess is the intent was to recreate Tiger Force - a planned British deployment of Bomber Command to the Far East which got interrupted by the end of the war. [For details, see Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson, the analyst for BC]. I say this because these units appear in October and December 1945 - or in 1946.

This treatment means that units do not appear in India which participated in the war from there - these being 9 and 617 squadrons. And the planes are wrong. The planes listed are Lancaster VI and Lincoln B.1. Both are listed as bombers. This is essentially wrong:

Mark VI is simply a reengined Mark I or Mark II never intended for the Far East (AND ONLY 9 were ever done). The Mark I (F.E.) DID eventually go - after the war was over. But it is NOT the plane that really operated in the theater DURING the war. That would be Mark III. The Lincoln is really a renamed Mark IV or Mark V. But Mark IV is an ECM aircraft, not a bomber, and only 635 squadron used it. I can't find any indication the Mark V was actually produced - and it seems that version would have been a post war one. In the event the Mark I (F.E.) was the last version produced - but not during the war. Possibly the Mark V is another name for the Mark I (F.E.)?

In any case, few units operated any version of the Lancaster in the Far East. Those that did used the Mark III - so I am substituting that for the Mark VI. I do not see any reason not to use the same plane for Tiger Force units - and if a player wants 9 and 617 squadrons assigned to it he can move them from India. So that will free up the Lincoln slot for another plane or future mods. I will make 9 and 617 sqadrons available sooner, and the other units can appear late, but with the Mark III - which is the major production version of this aircraft in any case.

Game planes carry 2 x 4,000 pound bombs. But the normal bomb load of these aircraft was either 12,000 or 14,000 pounds of bombs - so I think it should be rated as 3 x 4,000 pound bombs. And while "special" versions could carry the Grand Slam - they have no radar - and most planes had a maximum load of 18,000 pounds.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/2/2006 11:36:31 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 59
RE: Lancaster and Lincoln - 2/1/2006 2:07:37 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am very confused by the CHS treatment of the Lancaster/Lincoln. [Some marks of Lancaster were renamed Lincoln and apparently one of these is in the set]. My best guess is the intent was to recreate Tiger Force - a planned British deployment of Bomber Command to the Far East which got interrupted by the end of the war. [For details, see Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson, the analyst for BC]. I say this because these units appear in October and December 1945 - or in 1946.


Your guess is correct - they are there as part of Tiger Force.

quote:

This treatment means that units do not appear in India which participated in the war from there - these being 9 and 617 squadrons. And the planes are wrong. The planes listed are Lancaster VI and Lincoln B.1. Both are listed as bombers. This is essentially wrong:


The squadrons that were meant to be part of Tiger Force were combined into groups ("Wings") to make some space in the air group database. So that is why you don't see the individual squadrons. They are all there (including No.9 and No.617) as part of these larger formations.

Also, the two aircraft are the Lincoln and the MkVII (FE), not the MK VI.

Andrew

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: TBF and TBM Avengers 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

1.172