RE: Aircraft Loads

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: Aircraft Loads

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: Aircraft Loads

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aircraft Loads - 11/1/2012 4:30:13 PM

dwg

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg

Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?

Look in the Tech Support forum - it's a public Beta process!

Aha!

Thanks

< Message edited by dwg -- 11/1/2012 4:31:38 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 91

RE: Aircraft Loads - 11/1/2012 5:45:39 PM

fodder

Posts: 2160
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges

I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.

Japan also had 250kg air dropped depth charges, I know for sure they were carried by Nells and Lornas. See page 15.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200B-0504-0540%20Report%20E-14.pdf

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 92

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/19/2012 2:03:40 PM

el cid again

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

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The overall problem with bomloads, is that with increasing number of bombs, also increases number of hits. So by using historical bombloads, we will get strange result, when it is filtered by game engine. Here is my theory, how it should be implemented, to work in current engine:

Fighters should become main aircraft for attacking airfields.
Example:
ZERO carries 2x60kg bombs. Since number of hits is most important for closing airfields, this type of plane should carry most bombs. Change should be something like 8x15kg bombs (same bombload)

Light attack bombers (mostly 1E) - they should be main ground support.
Example:
ANN/MARY carries 1x250 kg bomb. Since number of hits is most important for eliminating LCU devices, not size of bomb, they should carry more devices, than 2E bombers (so more, than 4). Change should be something like 5x50kg

2E bombers - heaviest tactical support. 4 devices seems to work OK, anything more is streching game engine, but because we need unity in same class models, bombs can be represented as "sticks" (TM by NEMO) of 2 bombs each. Japanese bombers do not carry more than 4 250 kg bombs (at least in current Scenarios), but quite a lots of Allied 2E bombers carry more.
As a side note - it seems, that size of bomb is more important during checking if plane hit on ground will be destroyed. Lots of smaller bombs generate more hits, but planes tend to be only damaged.

4E bombers - ONLY STRATEGIC ATTACKS. They should barely hit anything in support role. The whole bombload should be represent as ONE (maximum TWO) device. Something like one large bomb, with effect of sum of all carried bombs. That way they are only good for attacking industry, or destroying stockpiles at bases, as they generally score less hits, than smaller planes (although their hits are sure kill). That can create problem with naval attacks, but bombload, in this case, can represent 1-2 bombs effect, but have greater accuracy (to simulate releasing of whole bomb-bay in one go).

To sum up:
4E - 1, or 2 devices
2E - 2-4 devices (NO MORE!)
1E - more, than 4 devices for ground attacks (they can still carry ONE large bomb against ships)
Fighters - more, than 4 devices for ground attacks

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/19/2012 2:04:33 PM >

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 93

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/22/2012 8:23:58 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.

It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):

Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 94

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/23/2012 10:28:06 AM

el cid again

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

France had its own Depth Charges. They were not very impressive. But they did have them. I will see if I can find you a data link.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMFR_ASW.htm

A similar list for Japan does not show a 250 kg charge. I will see if I can find one in my written materials (which are extensive).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm

IF ASW bombs count,
Type 1 No 25 Mark 2, Model 1 might be what you refer to. It is actually 266 kg (586 lbs) and has an explosive filling of 54% of its weight.
It was regarded as effective at a range of 10 meters from the target pressure hull. This weapon had a special nose to help it enter the water
properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges

I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.

Japan also had 250kg air dropped depth charges, I know for sure they were carried by Nells and Lornas. See page 15.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200B-0504-0540%20Report%20E-14.pdf

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/23/2012 10:38:17 AM >

(in reply to fodder)

Post #: 95

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/23/2012 10:52:21 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.

Depth Charges - and ASW bombs - which are almost the same thing - depth fused bombs designed for water entry with minimal change in direction -
DO work in AE. They do not particularly know they are attacking submarines, however. We get reports of hits on other vessels - and in fact - a near miss by a DC would probably be worse than a direct hit by a similar sized bomb - no matter what the ship protection scheme may be! [Water is incompressable, and nearby explosions tend to burst seams, causing serious flooding] The way to model an "Air DC" or "Air ASW Bomb" is to start with a bomb device, not a DC device - and then calculate effect and other values appropriately. I standardized them all to have an armor penetration value of 22 mm - which is the actual design used by WWII British ASW weapons developers. Since I also give subs an "armor rating" (= 1/3 of the pressure hull - since hull is not the same as armor per se) - so the statistical way AE works has a way to rate the sub hull (in a relative to each other sense).

Other air ASW weapons - notably a very effective "mine" (torpedo with a code name) use by the US and its allies - can be modeled in the same way. Simply figure out a system for "accuracy" - I used the lethal area of the weapon times the number dropped (I drop DC in pairs, mostly - and rate them on the same scale as ship DC patterns - which almost always involve more than 2). The main reason the AS torpedo works so well is a high accuracy rating.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 96

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/23/2012 6:09:34 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.

Yes.

However, the Air ASW routine is different from the Naval ASW routine, so don't expect the same results. I would think twice about using technical suggestions from people who have no clue how the game engine works.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 97

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/23/2012 11:02:39 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.

It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):

You keep on saying that carrying more bombs is always better but it just not that simple.

Carrying more bombs (unless they are presented as a stick load) provides a better opportunity to score more hits. But more hits does not necessarily mean more damage is inflicted as damage inflicted is a factor of bomb effect.

In terms of the game engine, for the purpose of shutting down airfields, it really doesn't profit one to inflict more "hits" if the cumulative bomb effect is less than that achieved from fewer hits using bigger bombs.

To move onto naval attack. What would be the point of an aircraft carrying more bombs, none of which are capable of penetrating say a cruiser's armour over an aircraft carrying fewer bombs but each capable of penetrating the armour.

Alfred

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 98

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/27/2012 1:19:38 PM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

Can anyone provide a list of links with aircraft data sheets? I am only really asking for Guadalcanal era aircraft for now. It is hit or miss for US aircraft and got Bupkiss on any other nationality.

Thanks all.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 99

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/29/2012 7:48:25 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.

It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):

You keep on saying that carrying more bombs is always better but it just not that simple.

Carrying more bombs (unless they are presented as a stick load) provides a better opportunity to score more hits. But more hits does not necessarily mean more damage is inflicted as damage inflicted is a factor of bomb effect.

That is currently hardly an issue, because 90% of planes uses only the same 500 lb/250 kg bombs.

quote:

In terms of the game engine, for the purpose of shutting down airfields, it really doesn't profit one to inflict more "hits" if the cumulative bomb effect is less than that achieved from fewer hits using bigger bombs.

Nope. I have rearmed VALs with 3x60 kg bombs for airfield attack (which is less, than 3/4th of original 250 kg bomb load/effect wise), and result was 10-15% more damages to airstrip. Since it is pretty rare to hit with whole bombload, you can assume, than no more than 2 bombs would hit for every plane. It gives like 2 times more hits, but only HALF of effect, yet airfield was MORE damaged, as a result.
It is possible, that it is easier to destroy plane with bigger bomb (but difference was around 3%, and definitely more planes was damaged overall), and bigger bomb should destroy more supply, with supply hit, but that is all.

quote:

To move onto naval attack. What would be the point of an aircraft carrying more bombs, none of which are capable of penetrating say a cruiser's armour over an aircraft carrying fewer bombs but each capable of penetrating the armour.

Again, planes currently carries the same bomb. The only exception, I can recall, are DBs.
Now, if you use bigger bombs, it will make plane more preferable to Naval Attack, but you need capacity to carry them, which again put 4Es as preferred platform - so no solution for this problem with current engine, except using "sticks" (TM by NEMO)

quote:

ORIGINAL: packerpete

Can anyone provide a list of links with aircraft data sheets? I am only really asking for Guadalcanal era aircraft for now. It is hit or miss for US aircraft and got Bupkiss on any other nationality.

WIKIPEDIA should have most basic data for all planes (OK, maybe only for one model)
You can use this site http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/,
or this site, which I have found better, but it is in Czech. Not, that I understand much of this language, but planes have tables in two versions, and one of them is in english (although it seems to be automatic translation) http://www.valka.cz/

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 100

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/29/2012 2:52:51 PM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

Having extensively modded a number of game elements, I understand all too well how play balance can be severly damaged - or enhanced - by making such fundemental changes (like ordinace loads). I am trying to get my head around what is worth changing so that I can ponder what the effect might be. For example, I am not terribly interested in adding power to mid and late war allied bomb loads, because I view the net effect to be more or less in balance.

Are their air frame candidates that jump out at the group as needing enhancement that could avoid a somewhat lengthy review on my part?

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 101

RE: Aircraft Loads - 12/30/2012 12:17:23 AM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Having extensively modded a number of game elements, I understand all too well how play balance can be severly damaged - or enhanced - by making such fundemental changes (like ordinace loads). I am trying to get my head around what is worth changing so that I can ponder what the effect might be. For example, I am not terribly interested in adding power to mid and late war allied bomb loads, because I view the net effect to be more or less in balance.

Are their air frame candidates that jump out at the group as needing enhancement that could avoid a somewhat lengthy review on my part?

Holy Perspicacity, Batman! Do I see an intelligent statement, here? Ya think someone is actually getting it? Woof !!!

Way to go Top!

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 102

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/13/2013 1:07:14 PM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

I'm having problems with the 1.0.0.7 editor copying the new bomb filter data from the aircraft data to the airgroups units. Sometimes it carries the data, at other times not. Is this the latest editor? Is it better just to use witploadAE ? Is there any plan to re-do the editor ?

[edit] Tested with witpload and it works no better. There is a glitch here and I'm not sure what it is yet. I'll post some screen shots tomorrow after some Zzzzz.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 2/13/2013 1:38:04 PM >

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 103

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/13/2013 7:16:28 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

I'm having problems with the 1.0.0.7 editor copying the new bomb filter data from the aircraft data to the airgroups units. Sometimes it carries the data, at other times not. Is this the latest editor? Is it better just to use witploadAE ? Is there any plan to re-do the editor ?

[edit] Tested with witpload and it works no better. There is a glitch here and I'm not sure what it is yet. I'll post some screen shots tomorrow after some Zzzzz.

I am just wondering if you are not going to the Air Groups tab and then resetting your groups using the Tools/Set Air Groups?

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 104

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/14/2013 3:04:37 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

I'm having problems with the 1.0.0.7 editor copying the new bomb filter data from the aircraft data to the airgroups units. Sometimes it carries the data, at other times not. Is this the latest editor? Is it better just to use witploadAE ? Is there any plan to re-do the editor ?

[edit] Tested with witpload and it works no better. There is a glitch here and I'm not sure what it is yet. I'll post some screen shots tomorrow after some Zzzzz.

I've experienced similar issues with the editor, not consistently though so nothing to share with Michael. I've been using witploadae since and manually taking care of it in the spreadsheets. Have not had any issues with that so really surprised you are having problems.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 105

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/14/2013 4:41:15 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.

Yes.

However, the Air ASW routine is different from the Naval ASW routine, so don't expect the same results. I would think twice about using technical suggestions from people who have no clue how the game engine works.

This then begs the question,

I was about to start working on my mod again, is it worth putting DC on aircraft for asw patrol or should I just stick with bombs?

_____________________________

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 106

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/16/2013 7:20:35 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

I'm having problems with the 1.0.0.7 editor copying the new bomb filter data from the aircraft data to the airgroups units. Sometimes it carries the data, at other times not. Is this the latest editor? Is it better just to use witploadAE ? Is there any plan to re-do the editor ?

[edit] Tested with witpload and it works no better. There is a glitch here and I'm not sure what it is yet. I'll post some screen shots tomorrow after some Zzzzz.

I am just wondering if you are not going to the Air Groups tab and then resetting your groups using the Tools/Set Air Groups?

Yup, that should fix the problem, but in most cases you just need to select different mission in game, and filters will kick-in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.

Yes.

However, the Air ASW routine is different from the Naval ASW routine, so don't expect the same results. I would think twice about using technical suggestions from people who have no clue how the game engine works.

This then begs the question,

I was about to start working on my mod again, is it worth putting DC on aircraft for asw patrol or should I just stick with bombs?

Technically those were not ship-borne DCs, but modified bombs. Lots of explosives, but they had quite low depth setting. So in-game probably bigger effect/better accuracy would be enough, as it will not be carried on other types of mission.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 107

RE: Aircraft Loads - 2/24/2013 5:44:22 AM

dwg

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest
Are their air frame candidates that jump out at the group as needing enhancement that could avoid a somewhat lengthy review on my part?

For aircraft data, the best source I've found is Ryan Crierie's collection of scans of original Airplane Characteristics and Performance datasheets, which go right down to not just loadouts, but performance with specific loadouts. See:
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

I haven't gone through them to match against the database, but it's probably on my list of things to do at somepoint.

And don't miss his WITP pages while you're there if you haven't seen them before.

The major change I'd personally make is (semi-)independent of the armament filters and that's adding rockets to late-war allied (particularly Commonwealth) strike aircraft. While I'm primarily thinking of fighter-bomber and coastal strike missions, it does cross over into the ASW discussion as the RAF used the solid-head 25lb 3" RP-3 rocket* as an anti-submarine weapon to punch holes in the pressure hull of surfaced or diving submarines, deliberately designing a double-ogive head to ensure they held course on entering the water. How best to implement that is left as an exercise for the user ;)

My personal taste is that historical flavour has as much a place as game balance, but I'm someone who prefers to play solitaire rather than head-to-head. And, coming out of that, Beaufighters without rockets is just wrong!

* Exactly the same weapon as the better known HE 60lb 3" RP-3 rocket - the different heads simply screwed on to a common body. Ironically the explosive head designed for anti-shipping use proved better at land attack, while the solid head intended for AT use turned out to be better as an anti-shipping weapon.

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 108

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/16/2013 1:38:14 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

A little follow up.

I added the Mk VIII depth charge to a single squadron of Sunderland's and put them in my game. They are flying out of Sydney and have a pretty target rich environment. I have run 100 turns and found no kills by the Sunderland's with their DC. They have had numerous "attacks" but the PBY's flying out of San Diego have had similar luck and there has only been 2 sub kills to date, none of which were done by the Sunderland's. While its not conclusive, I am wondering if the air dropped DC are working. When I get to the end of 42 I will look again to see if they have been successful.

_____________________________

(in reply to dwg)

Post #: 109

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/16/2013 4:29:55 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

A little follow up.

I added the Mk VIII depth charge to a single squadron of Sunderland's and put them in my game. They are flying out of Sydney and have a pretty target rich environment. I have run 100 turns and found no kills by the Sunderland's with their DC. They have had numerous "attacks" but the PBY's flying out of San Diego have had similar luck and there has only been 2 sub kills to date, none of which were done by the Sunderland's. While its not conclusive, I am wondering if the air dropped DC are working. When I get to the end of 42 I will look again to see if they have been successful.

As you imply, the lack of a hit does not mean the DC code failed. So one thought - if you have a save where it appears that the DC was used, Michael might be able to look at it and determine if the DC code worked.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 110

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/17/2013 4:52:40 PM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

I am attempting to use depth charges on aircraft too. I am curious how you set up the device's stats. Did you just use the ship version stats and did you use the extended range load outs versus full load for ASW aircraft.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 111

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/18/2013 1:48:41 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Look in this thread for sharks posts, he lays out the DC that I used and then how to set it up in the editor.

_____________________________

(in reply to packerpete)

Post #: 112

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/18/2013 2:39:33 AM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

Thank you sir. That is what I was after. Now back to the editor.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 113

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/19/2013 11:20:02 PM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

In your mod was the charge/effect weight modified for the torpex filler? Torpex is 50% more powerful than TNT.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 114

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/19/2013 11:37:33 PM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

Found some more info. with sink rates.(British) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm

American http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 115

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/19/2013 11:55:08 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I did not take into account torpex. I will have to look at that. Also thanks for the links.

_____________________________

(in reply to packerpete)

Post #: 116

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/24/2013 1:46:28 PM

packerpete

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

Ok now I am perplexed, which by the way is 100 percent less effective than torpex.

I think I missremembered that US airborne depth charges were modified ship depth charges ie. mk-7=mk-17/mk-47 and the mk-9=mk-29 but cannot confirm that and cannnot find the sink rates for the airborne weapons or the proper info for the airborne depth charges at all.

Any one have any better info?

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 117

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/24/2013 2:40:56 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I have not looked at the US yet because the information was easier to find for the Brits. If push comes to shove, I would just make them similar to the Brit's.

So far in my game, I have not had one hit with the air dropped DC. I looked at the AI side and in fact the two I thought I had sunk they were not listed. It could be the exp of the air crews and I may have to wait till both the US and Brits air crews have higher exp with ASW.

_____________________________

(in reply to packerpete)

Post #: 118

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/23/2014 3:54:57 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Has someone made progress on alternate bomb loads and the concept of "bomb sticks"?

I have goofed around a bit but can't get it to work - forgive me my poor understanding of the game mechanics.

First of all I can't get sticks to work in the game with the bomb load filters.

I am also unsure about the number of sticks and how to adjust accuracy and effect (probably opening a can of worms here).

And finally "typical" alternate bomb loads are open to debate unless one has access to historical data.

But as long as the "sticks" don't work, the last two points remain secondary for the moment.

So back to the filters.

As you can see in the screenies, for testing I have set up "sticks" for the Nell in the ground attack role - 2 sticks of 4x60kg GP bombs on normal range and 2 sticks of 3x60kg for extended range. I also gave her 2 sticks of 2x100kg SAP bombs for naval and port attack and 2 sticks of 4x(60kg)Type 99 Depth bombs for ASW.

When the air group is in training mode (A), all bomb loads show up as desired with sticks.

But when in ground attack mode (B) or port attack mode (C), there are no sticks but just 2x single bombs.

However, in ASW mode (D) the depth bombs the sticks are showing up.

What's wrong with the ground and port attacks?

I have set 'Alt Device' and 'Alt Use' for the sticks to "0".

Load costs for the 4x60kg stick is 528, for the 2x100kg SAP stick 440 and the 4xType 99 stick 600 i.e. the total load for two sticks stays well below max load of the Nell.

Need help from the experts!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 119

RE: Aircraft Loads - 3/23/2014 5:45:58 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

I'm not an expert but 372-100kg SAP bombs(2) are set in weapon 15 but 1881-250kg SAP bomb are set in weapon 6.
I think weapon matter to link reduce and normal load, so 372-100kg should be in the weapon 16.

For the B case, I think order for filter is important, so you can't have filter 08 after 33

< Message edited by Gaspote -- 3/23/2014 6:56:05 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 120