Ju 87 for RHS-EOS?

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In ALL forms of WITP (not just RHS) there is a Ki-67 ARMY plane with torpedo capability. There was even a "torpedo regiment" specializing in joint missions with JNAF in the JAAF.

In RHSEOS family, JAAF may be assigned G3M and G4M bombers - with torpedo loadouts. Some units DEFAULT INITIAL aircraft assignment are with these bombers - although I assigned them with 8 x 100 kg bombs vice 1 x torpedo in most or all cases. But a PLAYER can change that! [If you "double convert" a unit - to any other bomber - then back to G3M or G4M - it will pick up the default loadout of 1 torpedo]

The Ki-67 (in Stock anyway!) arrives in late 1944. So it's not a solution to for the lack of an IJ Army bomber with Torpedos for most of the war (Ju 88s would be available from the start of the war or soon after).

Of course if you allow Army units to upgrade to Naval bombers then I agree there is little use for the Ju 88. In the PTO the Betty is likely to be superior in most situations.

Re the Fw 190:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That said, the FW-190 - and its TA derivitive - were superb. But try to remember that a brand new fighter in Germany is not yet available in Japan. While political willingness to release the design increases as the war wears on, there remains the problem of getting the technical information over there - and then working it up.

You appear to be asking for a time delay between it's ETO debut and it appearing in the PTO? That seems reasonable and unfortunately kills off the Liquid cooled late war high altitude Fw 190s and the Ta 152 which addressed Dili's objections. Approximately a year to convert, would that be reasonable?

That still leaves early mark Fw190s as potentially viable options. The A1 was in production by mid '41 in Germany. So if we add on a year this would be a competitor to the early Tony & Tojos in mid/late '42. Sure the early Fw 190s were not that reliable but then neither was the Tony and I suspect the Fw 190 A1 would stand up quite well in comparison. Especially if you have the real '42 Tony's and Tojo's rather than the composite one stock WitP uses.

The Fw 190 A3 (Spring '42 in Germany so spring '43 in PTO) with the improved engine should also be quite competitive compared to the other Japanese alternatives at that time.

Re the Ju 88

Very interesting options on loads Dili [:)] Where did you get it and do you have any more for us [:)]


[Edited for grammar]

[Dili]

I think it's a copy of a Junkers paper( it think it was a commercial one to export Ju-88 but i am not sure). I think i have got it from one of those booklets about Ju-88. I dont have more data like this concerning ranges of Ju-88. To know the realistic ranges and if the public  numbers are right we need always to look at weights, engine power and fuel quantity, many times publications mix the best case for weapons with best range . The more comon A4 version improved on this ones(weapon load mostly) that were for A1 but i dont have them and i still didnt worked in most aircraft data for WITM 40 so i dont have extrapolated numbers. Going on ships for now. 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In ALL forms of WITP (not just RHS) there is a Ki-67 ARMY plane with torpedo capability. There was even a "torpedo regiment" specializing in joint missions with JNAF in the JAAF.

In RHSEOS family, JAAF may be assigned G3M and G4M bombers - with torpedo loadouts. Some units DEFAULT INITIAL aircraft assignment are with these bombers - although I assigned them with 8 x 100 kg bombs vice 1 x torpedo in most or all cases. But a PLAYER can change that! [If you "double convert" a unit - to any other bomber - then back to G3M or G4M - it will pick up the default loadout of 1 torpedo]

The Ki-67 (in Stock anyway!) arrives in late 1944. So it's not a solution to for the lack of an IJ Army bomber with Torpedos for most of the war (Ju 88s would be available from the start of the war or soon after).

Of course if you allow Army units to upgrade to Naval bombers then I agree there is little use for the Ju 88. In the PTO the Betty is likely to be superior in most situations.

Ju-88 will NOT carry a torpedo. That is, its normal bomb load is only 500 kg - and it extended bomb load is 250 kg.
If we re-rated the plane - so its max bomb load was its normal bomb load (2000 kg or 1 torpedo) the extended bomb load would then (hard code) become 2x250 kg bombs. But the range would decrease dramatically. MaxLoadRange for a Ju-88A4 is 796 km - only 44.4% of the 1789 km NormalLoadRange. That equates to a FERRY Range of 4 hexes, an extended and normal range both = 1 hex. If we cheated and made ferry range 6 hexes, it would let extended range go to 2 hexes. Hardy worth it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That said, the FW-190 - and its TA derivitive - were superb. But try to remember that a brand new fighter in Germany is not yet available in Japan. While political willingness to release the design increases as the war wears on, there remains the problem of getting the technical information over there - and then working it up.

You appear to be asking for a time delay between it's ETO debut and it appearing in the PTO? That seems reasonable and unfortunately kills off the Liquid cooled late war high altitude Fw 190s and the Ta 152 which addressed Dili's objections. Approximately a year to convert, would that be reasonable?

That still leaves early mark Fw190s as potentially viable options. The A1 was in production by mid '41 in Germany. So if we add on a year this would be a competitor to the early Tony & Tojos in mid/late '42. Sure the early Fw 190s were not that reliable but then neither was the Tony and I suspect the Fw 190 A1 would stand up quite well in comparison. Especially if you have the real '42 Tony's and Tojo's rather than the composite one stock WitP uses.

The Fw 190 A3 (Spring '42 in Germany so spring '43 in PTO) with the improved engine should also be quite competitive compared to the other Japanese alternatives at that time.


[Edited for grammar]

The problem here remains slots. We don't have either Tony in EOS family scenarios. The available slots are for dive bombers (Ki-48 II) or fighter bombers (Ki-45 II). Both were requested by players (e.g. Mifune and Nemo) who believe these are important JAAF capabilities. This thread is about getting a new bomber - Ju-87 - and I expanded it to include all bombers - but not fighters. Fighters would probably need to trade for a fighter slot. And by the time a FW-190 is available - it would need to replace one of the superb later Japanese fighter types. The early slot it might replace is Me-109. But the Me here is used as a stopgap while waiting for the Ki-44 I. Do you really want to do away with a 20mm armed land based interceptor very early? I suppose we also might replace the Ki-44 I itself - but I myself think the 44 may be a better interceptor - and anyway it is not plausable that a German interceptor would be preferred to it. The Ki-44 almost certainly will have more range than an ETO designed aircraft - which is important for Japan - and not much can stand up to its combination of punch, maneuverability, speed and ROC. It is hard to show that Japan's mistake was not building more of these when it isn't even in the set!

I require a month per function - except for transportation or jigging. Thus always 1 month to get political permission to even negotiate, 1 month to negotiate a licence agreement, 1 month to convert the design to Japanese methods, 1 month to tool up the first line - always these 4 months are in the set. For transport of jigs and sample airframe, I require 8 months and assume two attempts are required, because about half of Yanagi operations between Germany and Japan are sunk. That is a year. But then you only START production: for a 1 engine aircraft you need 3 more months, for a 2 engine aircraft you need 5 more months - to get finished product from the line. Add 1 month to that for time to distribute and work up. These are optimistic numbers which assume Japanese DOMESTIC norms would apply to an imported aircraft during initial work up - and that is a bit of a stretch.

The exceptions are aircraft ALREADY licenced in Japan - particularly if the jigs and sample airframe(s) are also already in Japan - noted in my listings above. Only one licenced aircraft does not have jigs pr samples in Japan - the FW-200 never made it. Thus an Me-109E or a Ju-87A can enter production about the beginning of 1942 - as could some types not contemplated here (e.g. Ju-86).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think it's a copy of a Junkers paper( it think it was a commercial one to export Ju-88 but i am not sure). I think i have got it from one of those booklets about Ju-88. I dont have more data like this concerning ranges of Ju-88. To know the realistic ranges and if the public  numbers are right we need always to look at weights, engine power and fuel quantity, many times publications mix the best case for weapons with best range . The more comon A4 version improved on this ones(weapon load mostly) that were for A1 but i dont have them and i still didnt worked in most aircraft data for WITM 40 so i dont have extrapolated numbers. Going on ships for now. 

These values appear to be overstated - and it might well be some form of commercial advertising. A number of materials indicate values from which I was able to build a model which produced the numbers listed above, which are from my master spreadsheet (built from all sources and then regularized so missing values are plugged in). If there is a way to verify these range/load values, the Ju-88 might be worthy of considering - say instead of a Ki-49 I.

In WITP terms, if a 1 metric ton load = normal load (and then 500 kg = extended load) - normal load range would then be 30 hexes = transfer range = 120 hexes and extended range 40 hexes. [I don't believe that] If a 1.5 metric ton load = normal load (and then 750 kg = extended load) - normal load range would then be 24 hexes = transfer range = 96 hexes and extended range 32 hexes. [I still don't believe it] If a 2.4 metric ton load = normal load (then 1200 kg = extended load) - normal load range would then be 13 hexes = transfer range = 52 hexes and extended range 17 hexes. Maybe - and it would certainly solve the problem of no bomber with a serious load for Japan.

These values do not appear internally consistent - and would require some unusual engineering (e.g. say tanks for fuel) to explain.

[Dili]

"Ju-88 will NOT carry a torpedo. That is, its normal bomb load is only 500 kg - and it extended bomb load is 250 kg."
 
In Europe  normal bomb load would be in 1000-2000kg bracket. The 1000-1500kg seems about right for A1. Maybe nearer 2000kg for the more powerfull A4. You could also tweak it to make the Max Combat range=Torpedo(cant remember torpedo weight)=1000kg load ( note that only in mid-late 42 Ju-88 got torpedos) and normal combat range with a 2000 kg of offensive load. I dont know if it is possible to use the torpedo only in max range in game. I suppose not.

[el cid again]

Nope - torpedoes default to a special routine. That works ONLY for naval targets (logical) - although it will try to attack even the smallest PT boat with them - and hit! - and extended range then automicacally gets 2x250 kg bombs - period. You will also carry 3 x 250 kg bombs for non-naval targets at normal range. No matter how many torpedoes you put in the loadout, hard code assumes it is a single torpedo.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

"Ju-88 will NOT carry a torpedo. That is, its normal bomb load is only 500 kg - and it extended bomb load is 250 kg."

In Europe  normal bomb load would be in 1000-2000kg bracket. The 1000-1500kg seems about right for A1. Maybe nearer 2000kg for the more powerfull A4. You could also tweak it to make the Max Combat range=Torpedo(cant remember torpedo weight)=1000kg load ( note that only in mid-late 42 Ju-88 got torpedos) and normal combat range with a 2000 kg of offensive load. I dont know if it is possible to use the torpedo only in max range in game. I suppose not.

The Japanese torpedo weighs 800 kg. And we hardly are going to use a different torpedo - slot issues.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

"Ju-88 will NOT carry a torpedo. That is, its normal bomb load is only 500 kg - and it extended bomb load is 250 kg."

In Europe  normal bomb load would be in 1000-2000kg bracket. The 1000-1500kg seems about right for A1. Maybe nearer 2000kg for the more powerfull A4. You could also tweak it to make the Max Combat range=Torpedo(cant remember torpedo weight)=1000kg load ( note that only in mid-late 42 Ju-88 got torpedos) and normal combat range with a 2000 kg of offensive load. I dont know if it is possible to use the torpedo only in max range in game. I suppose not.

I did not mean to say a Ju-88 will not carry a torpedo IRL - I mean it must be greater than normal load to do so. And we don't do max loads (usually). If we do say a torpedo (1764 pounds) is normal load - it will reduce the range. Unless of course the normal load is indeed 1000 kg - in which case it can carry a 800 kg torpedo to normal range.

Normal load cannot be 2000 kg because that is max load. But 1000 kg it might be. Note, however, that the range in the document for 1000 kg is impossible - and it looks like it really is transfer range. It may be a technical defnition makes that clear - and German statistics sometimes include assumptions. [e.g. "Range is always given assuming 0% reserves, 0 load, fly to empty tanks, with specified fuel" - and the fuel for that load is then associated with that range - and everyone knows that you only get 42% of that (or whatever %) if you actually carry the stated load to half the range it can fly to with load. It is somewhat logical to have a uniform standard of that sort. But it isn't the range you can fly to with load in such a case.] Nothing is free. And a Ju-88A can only fly 3002 km with max fuel and no load - period. Something is wrong with this table.

[Dili]

The JFM are the initials of Junkers Flugzeug-und Motorenwerke A.G and the date is 1939.
 
http://www.junkers.de.vu/ good details of produtions and history.

[Dili]

I just see you list A version which is probably the A0. That was almost a prototype.

Preproduction was started in 1938 with 8 Ju88A0. About 20 of the Ju88A2 were sold to Finland in 1939. The mass production of the Ju88 started in 1940 with the A4-series. About 17 major subtypes of the Ju88A were designed until the end of WWII.

http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_ju88_p2.htm

From the link above. If you want a Ju-88 you'll have to get the A4. The A1 performance i posted above. You need to find out the incresae in weight/power/fuel load of A4 and extrapolate.

[el cid again]

I doubt a prototype was licenced for production in Japan. Probably A1 at least. I agree - an A4 is the right one. If produced in 1940, it could have been available for production in Japan early in the war. The problem is - the war begins in 1939 - so how do the jigs and samples get to Japan????

I may have this data. Will check with Greene.

Regretfully, my table data is dead on correct. The plane in question is the A4. It was designed to fullfill the Schnellbomber specification which was for a 500 kg normal bombload - and it has EXACTLY a 500 kg internal bombload (in the form of ten 50 kg bombs - not bigger bombs). It could ALSO carry 4 x 250 kg bombs externally (or alternatively the same weight as 2 x 500 kg bombs) - but that would be maximum load - and being external - it would dramatically reduce range due to increased drag (not just increased load).

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I doubt a prototype was licenced for production in Japan. Probably A1 at least. I agree - an A4 is the right one. If produced in 1940, it could have been available for production in Japan early in the war. The problem is - the war begins in 1939 - so how do the jigs and samples get to Japan????

I may have this data. Will check with Greene.

Via Russia?

Basically anything that is available in Germany up to the end of 1940 at least would have been able to be sent via train across Russia. Germany may have been planning for war but Stalin was still keen on the pact and thought it was going to hold for a lot longer than it did. Japanese/Russian relations were not great but they were both keen not to upset the other by this stage. Nor in the Soviets case Germany.

[el cid again]

I don't think so. No German aircraft ever went to Japan via Russia. Nor do I see how to send one this large? And it would be way too important in 1940 - being the latest and most important German bomber - no way it would be risked.

Nor was the Ju-88 licenced to Japan. But it was licencable in July 1941 - political permission is obtainable - and the process of negotiations can begin. It will take about 18 months to reach operational units. That is, about the beginning of 1943. And that in the form I listed - with 500 kg normal load (WITP does NOT use max load) - and no torpedo. It appears the A4 did NOT have a torpedo as designed - and apparently no form of Ju-88 had a torpedo in July 1941 - so there is no way to negotiate for it at that time. I don't think a 500 kg normal load is worth it. The specs I gave above for range turn out to be correct: exactly 3002 km ferry range.

[Dili]

Regretfully, my table data is dead on correct. The plane in question is the A4. It was designed to fullfill the Schnellbomber specification which was for a 500 kg normal bombload - and it has EXACTLY a 500 kg internal bombload (in the form of ten 50 kg bombs - not bigger bombs). It could ALSO carry 4 x 250 kg bombs externally (or alternatively the same weight as 2 x 500 kg bombs) - but that would be maximum load - and being external - it would dramatically reduce range due to increased drag (not just increased load).

 
That is wrong because it is the plane specification.
 
Bomb bay A4 : 20x50kg or 10x50kg+1220lit (322gal) or 1220lit+680lit; plus 4x1000kg ext points.
 
Btw the A1 had 1200hp and A4 1400hp.

[el cid again]

Well - it is in the standard we use for CHS and RHS for German aircraft (Warplanes of the Third Reich) - and it is confirmed by other materials (Warplanes of the Luftwaffe, Combat Aircraft of World War II). I also think it is probably difinitive. Greene used German source materials. I will check with Gunston in his different book Combat Aircraft of World War II). He confirms: "1100 pounds (500 kg) internal and four external racks rated at 2200 pounds (1000 kg)."
This for the A4. For WITP purposes the nomal load of this aircraft is 500 kg - and its max load is 3302 pounds = 1500 kg (which goes under the maxload field for use in determining airfield size - but isn't used in the loadout). The internal load of a bomber is its normal range bomb load. External loads are going to significantly reduce the range data - as you know. Either you are misreading the data for external hard points thinking 1000 kg means each when it is the total - or quoting someone who didn't understand that 1000 kg was for all - not for each. But Weal et al, Greene and Gunston are way to creditable to all be wrong. Anyway - those are our standards we use to settle disputes - and when they agree - they agree.

[Dili]

If you want to be obtuse and ignorant it is up to you.

[el cid again]

Everyone is ignorant - and that is a quote from Ben Franklin. "It just depends on the subject." He also pointed out it is a "curable disease" - you can "inform the discretion" of a person who does not know. I have checked this matter four ways - three in standard English references - and I am morally certain you are misreading the loading for the external load. Even if you are not- the NORMAL load must be the INTERNAL one - and that is certainly the value for which normal range data is given. I also worked in aviation engineering support as a contractor for Boeing: it makes perfect sense the internal load is half the external one - and it would make little sense if it was one eighth. General principles of aviation design dictate that the interpretation of Greene, Gunston, Weal and myself is reasonable. It may be we are all ignorant - but at least we are reasonably so. I need something very convincing to override this sort of consensus position - which is to say I can be convinced. But can you?

[Dili]

Dogmatic, preconceptuous.
 
I suppose this doesnt means anything to you: ETC 250, ETC 500, ETC 1000...

[el cid again]

The fact the Ju-88 was designed to meet the Schnellbomer specification, and did so exactly, should have been enough to convince you. That all the renowned US and British aviation authorities agree on the data should have been more than enough for you. If we had a bet, I won - even if we had to settle in court - not only the preponderence of the evidence - but beyond a reaonable doubt- the Ju-88 A had a designed bombload of 500 kg. A loadout listing shows 10 x 50 kg weapons - and that also confirms 500 kg - as indeed so does your listing of 20 x 25 kg bombs. It isn't me who is being obtuse in this matter. Unless you have evidence - it is settled as far as I am concerned. Name calling does not change the data - about which I have no feelings whatever. I don't care what the data is - or if I was right or wrong: but it has to make sense. The data in the references and the specifications and the loadouts all conspire: we know - as well as we can know short of going back in time - and better than we usually know - the Ju-88A4 had a normal internal bombload of 500 kg. It could carry twice that on four external hardpoints - the loadout listings showing either 4 x 250 kg or 2 x 500 kg - which all confirm the reference listing of 1000 kg external. That is a reasonable figure - and consistent with thinking in the mid-1930s - it makes sense every possible way. Sorry if you are uncomfortable with reasonable, even when confirmed and documented. That is not my problem.