Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Actually, if you use filter 0, you will have 2 x 800 on every mission, in addition to what you specify for the specific mission since filter 0 is default load (at least I think this is right). So even if you specify a torpedo load 2, with 2 x 800 set at filter 0, you'd end up with a naval load of 1 torpedo AND 2 x 800.
Yep That is how the code should work.ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: michaelm
If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none.
Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now.
So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann:
Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions.
So I could set it up like this:
100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00
30kg GP bomb 4 external 08
So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it.
ORIGINAL: US87891
@ Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget
Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right.
Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25*
2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a
1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02
1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02
1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04
500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04
250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04
100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12
* is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed
Well, literally translation would be:ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: michaelm
If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none.
Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now.
So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann:
Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions.
So I could set it up like this:
100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00
30kg GP bomb 4 external 08
So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it.
ORIGINAL: US87891
@ Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget
Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right.
Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25*
2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a
1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02
1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02
1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04
500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04
250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04
100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12
* is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed
ORIGINAL: US87891
@Treespider
@ LargeSlowTarget
Oh poop doodle. Read farther in Jaremy's spreadsheet and found the notes on mission profiles. Systems Command calculated normal max combat at 10000lb loads and max load at 12800lbs, but cautioned against anything greater than 8000lb for a B-17G. The reduction in range was extreme. Noted that the nominal combat load for both the B-17 and B-24 was 4-5000 lbs of bombs. The graphs make it very clear.
The standard mission profile was a ‘long range power’ approach at 10,000 feet, a ‘normal power’ climb to 25,000 feet to stabilize in time for a 15 minute ‘max power’ bomb run, then a return to base at 25,000 feet and landing with 5 to 10% reserve fuel. Seems loaded bombers have issues with specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes.
Using the standard mission profile gets an 870 mile radius for 10000lb military load and 1010 miles with 8000lb. The high altitude profile (a 25,000 feet approach) drops the radius 10% from 870 to 790 miles. A “max bomb” profile (12800lbs) drops the radius 20% from 870 to 690 miles. And a ‘high speed’ profile at normal/military power all the way, drops the radius by 32% from 870 to 690 miles for a standard mission aspect. More bombs and higher altitude makes things worse proportionately.
And that’s just for the B-17. The guys sent me the same things for the B-24 and everything else.
Looks like the game range and load numbers are very well thought out.
City attack is lumped under "Land". When I set up the filters I actually forgot about City Attack.ORIGINAL: Shark7
Do we have a defined city attack filter? Would be most useful for the 4Es obviously, but every plane can do the city attack mission.
+1ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)]
Maybe, worth a testbed check to see.ORIGINAL: Shark7
I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?
It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth).ORIGINAL: oldman45
Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?
Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there?ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)]
I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?
ORIGINAL: oldman45
One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)]
ORIGINAL: inqistor
Now, it seems all works perfectly. My take on historical KATE bombload:
Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available
1x250kg+6x60kg bombs for ground/airfield attacks
2x250kg GP bombs (they have better effect, and there are no armor on submarines) for ASW warfare. TMJ SRT S-24 mentions, that KATEs used normal bombs during ASW duty.
All slots taken.It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth).ORIGINAL: oldman45
Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?
I have somewhere specification for Allied air DC - it had weight of 350 lb, and 70% of it was explosive.
Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there?ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)]
I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?
