Flattop Recon/Radar units

[m10bob]

If the large Japanese and American CV's can be equipped with their (historic) 4 plane Japanese recon units, and American radar units, can the game handle them?
I know it would not violate the "number carried" rule(to prevent aerial operation), but would the game engine allow this??

[el cid again]

Japan has its recon squadrons in RHS - later in the war. In EOS these appear even at the start of the war - with a historic recon plane not actually proceeded with. They are not- however - radar fitted.

This can NOT be done for US carriers in general. The problem is hard code: we can only have four squadrons per ship.
If we go with five- you get only a half squadron (9 planes in USN speak) per squadron. If we go with six, the carrier becomes a transport and won't fly anything.

But we COULD adopt an RHS trick - which applies to both sides right now. I combine squadrons when they have identical planes - producing dual squadron units - so the Carrier "thinks" it has only four squadrons. While we could not do it for the three Allied ships (in EOS) that have already got this - we could do it in all other cases we wanted to - freeing up a slot for a recon element. It would work. Wether or no radar works is a different question: there is a theory it does NOT work at all for planes. I am unable to say difinitively at this time.

[m10bob]

Sid sez:"But we COULD adopt an RHS trick - which applies to both sides right now. I combine squadrons when they have identical planes - producing dual squadron units - so the Carrier "thinks" it has only four squadrons"


I think this makes a lot of sense, (since all the planes would go to the same target anyway!.)

[el cid again]

We need data on the recon elements. What planes? What fittings (radar, drop tanks, weapons)? From what date - they seem absent when the war begins??? How many planes?

[m10bob]

The larger Japanese carriers had 2 recon planes, the earliest being "clean" D4y1-c "Judy"..This was replaced by the Nakajima C6n Saiun "Myrt" approx July 1944..
The former in its' recon role was only armed with a top rear firing 7.7 MM MG,yhr latter armed the same or with 2x20mm cannon armed to fire obliquely.

These are from the Taylor book but also in the Stewart Wilson book.

I doubt you have room for the American "recon"planes because the 2 TBM's used as such were not permanent "recon" planes, and they were on the same carriers as the radar types.
(If you did use them, it might be as a 2 plane element prior to the advent of radar night fighters??)
As noted in a prior post, the original USN night fighters did not have the benefit of their own radar and were in use at least as early as Santa Cruz, but worked in conjunction with air radar TBF/TBM/s as soon as THEY became available.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/c6n.htm

[m10bob]

3 view




TECHNICAL DATA

Description: Single-engined three-seat carrier-borne reconnaissance aircraft, or land-based two-seat night fighter (C6N1-S and C6N3). All-metal construction with fabric-covered control surfaces.

Accommodation: (Reconnaissance aircraft) Crew of three, comprising pilot, navigator/observer and radio operator/gunner in enclosed cockpit. (Night fighter version) Crew of two, comprising pilot and radio operator/navigator in enclosed cockpit.

Powerplant:
One Nakajima NK9B Homare 11 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,820 hp for take-off, 1,600 hp at 2,000 m and 1,500 hp at 6,500 m, driving a four-blade constant-speed metal propeller (17-Shi prototype).
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,990 hp for take-off, 1,870 hp at 2,000 m and 1,700 hp at 6,500 m, driving a three-blade constant-speed metal propeller (C6N1 and C6N1-S).
One Nakajima NK9K-L Homare 24 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,980 hp for take-off and 1,780 hp at 9,000 m, driving a four-blade constant-speed metal propeller (C6N2 and C6N3).



Armament:
One flexible rear-firing 7.92 mm Type 2 machine-gun (all versions except C6N1-S and C6N3).
Two fuselage-mounted oblique-firing 20 mm Type 99 cannon (C6N1-S and C6N3).
External stores: one 730 litre ventral drop tank.
C6N1
Dimensions:
Span 12.50 m
Length 11.00 m
Height 3.96 m
Wing area 25.5 m2
Weights:
Empty 2,968 kg
Loaded 4,500 kg
Maximum 5,260 kg
Wing loading 176.5 kg/m2
Power loading 2.3 kg/hp
Performance:
Maximum speed 329 kt at 6,100 m
Cruising speed 210 kt
Climb to 6,000 m
in 8 min 9 sec
Service ceiling 10,470 m
Normal range 1,663 naut miles
Maximum range 2,866 naut miles

Production: A total of 463 C6Ns were built by Nakajima Hikoki K.K. at the Koizumi and Handa plants between March 1943 and August 1945.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The larger Japanese carriers had 2 recon planes,

Actually this was only at Midway - and only one carrier had them - because there were only two D4Y1-C available to use at that time.

The late war carrier air groups were a completely different organization. Indeed, carriers did NOT have air groups as such. Instead, a LAND BASED air WING existed for every THREE carriers - and assets were assigned as required. But basically - put in per carrier terms - there were FIVE air units - a squadron of fighters - a squadron of fighter bombers - a squadron of dive bombers - a squadron of torpedo bombers (these last two might be the same type - but had different weapons) - and a flight of SIX recon planes - C6 type. In all forms of RHS you have this late war organization now - except it appears there are only four carrier air units - the two fighter units forming a combined squadron. In RHSEOS ONLY you have a similar organization earlier - with C3 type recon planes in the recon unit.

[wdolson]

The cannon armed Myrts were not used for recon.  They were forced into service in an attempt to come up with some sort of night fighter.  A fighter version of the Dinah was also pressed into service.  Neither performed all that well.  The airframes weren't designed to carry armament.  They were built for speed and range and were pretty fragile.

The first USN night fighters were a TBF/TBM with one or two Hellcats.  The GCI would get them in the ballpark, then the TBF would get them closer.  Butch O'Hare was killed on the first night intercept by friendly fire.  The rear gunner on the TBF mistook him for Japanese and shot him down.

Bill

[m10bob]

Sid..Bill...You are both correct.....[:D]

[Dili]

http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/s/1195/65/0
 
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/s/1195/65/1

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The cannon armed Myrts were not used for recon.  They were forced into service in an attempt to come up with some sort of night fighter.  A fighter version of the Dinah was also pressed into service.  Neither performed all that well.  The airframes weren't designed to carry armament.  They were built for speed and range and were pretty fragile.

The first USN night fighters were a TBF/TBM with one or two Hellcats.  The GCI would get them in the ballpark, then the TBF would get them closer.  Butch O'Hare was killed on the first night intercept by friendly fire.  The rear gunner on the TBF mistook him for Japanese and shot him down.

Bill

There are two different C6N1s in RHS - the recon plane indeed has no cannon- only a rear firing MG
and the -S version is indeed a night fighter - albiet not a carrier night figher. It was not ineffective however - and indeed was the only effective Japanese night fighter. Fully 6000 radar sets were built for it - not the usual case with Japanese radar - and it was about as good as first Generation Allied AI radar was in some respects. Lots of problems prevented the plane from reaching its potential - and this is a digression because it isn't a carrier recon plane - but a development of one. The recon plane was without peer in the world. In general, Japanese recon was ahead of the world, and we were so inspired by that we have invested a lot in doing that sort of thing ever since.

[m10bob]

The American TBM when used for recon could carry an internal, droppable fuel tank of 270 gallons, bringing total fuel capacity to 605 gallons.

Source:Titans of the Seas..Belotes..

[el cid again]

At the moment, putting a drop tank on a plane in a UNIT does NOTHING for its range. Code looks at the AIRCRAFT type.
IF we put the tank on the plane in the type database - we would extend its loaded range. Or we could create a separate type - but that takes a slot. What would you give up to get it??

[el cid again]

OK - this will work.

Torpedo bombers have NO loadout!!!

They invoke a special routine - the routine gives them torpedoes - bombs - or nothing - per mission.
And whatever we put in the loadout - it has NO impact on the mission! That is - you get one torpedo -
one or two bombs - of a fixed size too - whatever you program.

But drop tanks we can put in! And that means for a recon mission you get the no load range required.
What is the range of the plane with drop tanks???? I must calibrate the endurance to that. I can use
either 1 x 205 gallon tank or 3 x 90 gallon tanks.

[m10bob]

Sez duration was 7.6 hours..390 miles out, 290 in, and sez the range "out" was normally 400 each way..(The carriers were moving in the same direction on the first example, in pursuit after the battle of the Phillipine Sea..

Of course, this was no bombs/torps!..

[el cid again]

Got it. Both TBF versions have a drop tank now. This will permit recon missions - I suggest you put one squadron per TF on them too. BUT its only operational impact will be to increase the cost of an extended range mission - that is what drop tanks really do. The range of the plane is fabulous - and the tank explains why. It had no impact on armed missions at all - because unlike land bombers - the torpedo bomber ignores the listed loadout.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Got it. Both TBF versions have a drop tank now. This will permit recon missions - I suggest you put one squadron per TF on them too. BUT its only operational impact will be to increase the cost of an extended range mission - that is what drop tanks really do. The range of the plane is fabulous - and the tank explains why. It had no impact on armed missions at all - because unlike land bombers - the torpedo bomber ignores the listed loadout.

Seems to me this would be a perfect job for one of the baby flattops, (or CVL which at least can keep up with the big boys.)..

[el cid again]

I believe - had the war lasted longer - USN might have gone over to specialized flat tops. There is some military logic to a bit of everything on every ship - but it isn't as efficient - and when you have MANY ships - you can afford to be more efficient - and get more combat power thereby. In this case, what I mean is ships would go over to about two types - fighters and some other type (dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ASW and recon, etc).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I believe - had the war lasted longer - USN might have gone over to specialized flat tops. There is some military logic to a bit of everything on every ship - but it isn't as efficient - and when you have MANY ships - you can afford to be more efficient - and get more combat power thereby. In this case, what I mean is ships would go over to about two types - fighters and some other type (dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ASW and recon, etc).

That is exactly what was tried for a short time when the Lexington and the Hermes first teamed up at Noumea.
The Hermes took on all the fighters, the Lex took all the TBF's..

[Dili]

A "torpedo bomber" can be used as a sort of Army Cooperation aircraft with recon ability, attack ability  and without torpedo?  I think the "Dive Bombers" in game have a bonus point for precision bombardment that should not be handed to Ki-36 Ida and other planes that could make light attacks but werent very effective or in my projects some Italian and German aircrafts, but i am not sure if TB is the best way to handle this.