Missiles

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the link Alfred, better than the mysterious comments and "PM me" approach of some.

This confirms my use of AtG rockets, I allowed each aircraft type 2 salvos of rockets and really bad accuracy.

Given that it was possible to recreate the Bat "bomb", has anyone any ideas on how to add the "Loon" (US V-1)

First off, I agree with the whole cryptic thing, its really annoying. Personally, if I learn something, I'll just share it with the community.

On the JB-2 Loon, I've gotten some ideas, the only thing is I really have no idea how to set up the penetration for a missile. Is it more or less than a gun? As far as accuracy and warhead, those are rather easy. The JB-2 had an accuracy of 0.25 miles when fired at a target 100 miles away...translated, if you launched it at a land target 100 miles away, the missile would land within 1/4 of a mile of the target. Max range is 150 miles (264 in editor settings). Effect should be 2000 given the JB-2s 2000 lb warhead.

You would assume that the JB-2, if used against a ship would easily penetrate (or at least if not penetrate massively damage) even a BB. The real question is, given the state of the technology in 1945, was it capable of engaging a ship? The only references I have to its proposed use was saturation bombardment of Japanese defenses on the Home Islands. Of course with the newest beta giving us the ability to define different payloads for different missions, then this becomes less of an issue as you can assign the JB-2 Loon to bombers carrying out ground attack or city attack missions, but use standard bombs for the Naval Interdiction mission.

JB-2s were also successfully launched from ships and submarines, and there could lie a problem. If there were not capable versus ships, but you add them to ships, the game will likely use them against ships anyway.

It appears the intent of USAF (using them from bombers) and USN (using them from LSTs and CVEs) was land bombardment. I don't see how to use them against ships unless a different guidance system is developed. In that case, they would be SAME HEX weapons. A generation later, the same issue came up with cruise missiles. Many early ones had long ranges, but were generally not able to be targeted because how could the launching ship or sub know where the target was? Mostly they only could know at tactical ranges. In WWII I think that would clearly be the case.

My question is - can we model the Loon for bombardment purposes? My first answer is - yes - as an aircraft - rated for 0 pilots -
and carrying a "Loon warhead" device which is a bomb. It would then also be possible to shoot down with figher planes or AAA
and it is slow enough that is very practical - see the UK when defending against the V-1. The only problem is - the "missiles"
would then return to the launching ship. This we might have to rationalize. Well - there is another problem - we can give them
to a CVE - but not an LST - one of the major platforms intended. Or can we?

[el cid again]

Turns out the JB-2 Loon, claimed to be the first operaional US cruise missile (although
I think JB-1 Bat was first), WAS developed with two different guiance sytems, as well
as intended for both air and surface launch. This suggests modeling with two diffenent
devices.

The aircraft contemplated for use during WWII was the PB4Y - and the test aircaft which
was also considerd for operational use post war was the B-17E. The B-29 was also
contemplated as a platform.

I have created an experimental ASM version I consider to be radar guided. For that
reason its useful range is lower than the missile's absolute range - due to target
acquisition issue. For that reason the "out of hex" issue is not germane, and the existing
code should work fine.

For the record, the absolute range is 149 miles.

The device is called

JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM

it is a plane guided missile

Weight 5023 pounds

warhead 2100 pounds

range in this form 66 (37.5 miles)

Alternate device 206 (4,000 pound bomb)

A strictly historical scenario would define it as available on a PB4Y
(probably two per plane)

A slightly more liberal scenario would probably have B-17E and B-29
carriers - likely two per B-17 to normal range - four for a B-29
with two for B-29 extended range

I have not yet figured out a version for surface bombardment
but I did learn submarines should be added to the list of vessels
able to launch them

I suspect defining them as a bomber with 0 pilots is the best solution
available

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the link Alfred, better than the mysterious comments and "PM me" approach of some.

This confirms my use of AtG rockets, I allowed each aircraft type 2 salvos of rockets and really bad accuracy.

Given that it was possible to recreate the Bat "bomb", has anyone any ideas on how to add the "Loon" (US V-1)

First off, I agree with the whole cryptic thing, its really annoying. Personally, if I learn something, I'll just share it with the community.

On the JB-2 Loon, I've gotten some ideas, the only thing is I really have no idea how to set up the penetration for a missile. Is it more or less than a gun? As far as accuracy and warhead, those are rather easy. The JB-2 had an accuracy of 0.25 miles when fired at a target 100 miles away...translated, if you launched it at a land target 100 miles away, the missile would land within 1/4 of a mile of the target. Max range is 150 miles (264 in editor settings). Effect should be 2000 given the JB-2s 2000 lb warhead.

You would assume that the JB-2, if used against a ship would easily penetrate (or at least if not penetrate massively damage) even a BB. The real question is, given the state of the technology in 1945, was it capable of engaging a ship? The only references I have to its proposed use was saturation bombardment of Japanese defenses on the Home Islands. Of course with the newest beta giving us the ability to define different payloads for different missions, then this becomes less of an issue as you can assign the JB-2 Loon to bombers carrying out ground attack or city attack missions, but use standard bombs for the Naval Interdiction mission.

JB-2s were also successfully launched from ships and submarines, and there could lie a problem. If there were not capable versus ships, but you add them to ships, the game will likely use them against ships anyway.

It appears the intent of USAF (using them from bombers) and USN (using them from LSTs and CVEs) was land bombardment. I don't see how to use them against ships unless a different guidance system is developed. In that case, they would be SAME HEX weapons. A generation later, the same issue came up with cruise missiles. Many early ones had long ranges, but were generally not able to be targeted because how could the launching ship or sub know where the target was? Mostly they only could know at tactical ranges. In WWII I think that would clearly be the case.

My question is - can we model the Loon for bombardment purposes? My first answer is - yes - as an aircraft - rated for 0 pilots -
and carrying a "Loon warhead" device which is a bomb. It would then also be possible to shoot down with figher planes or AAA
and it is slow enough that is very practical - see the UK when defending against the V-1. The only problem is - the "missiles"
would then return to the launching ship. This we might have to rationalize. Well - there is another problem - we can give them
to a CVE - but not an LST - one of the major platforms intended. Or can we?

Make sure to give the the maximum service rating so that they at least go down for maintainence would help with the multiple launch problem.

[el cid again]

Good idea. I like that.

I think there is a problem with developing the radar guidance for the air launch version of the JB-1.

Clearly it should be after the end of the historical war - and if it isn't soon after that - the game
will end - so it probably is late 1945.

In a non-historical mod, higher priority might permit it by around July 45.

So the surface launch JB-2 - in production from 1/45 - would be available sooner than the
air launch version - which needs development of guidance.

Now we could do a surface launch anti-ship version with radar on the same date basis.

But a land bombardment type - available early in 1945 - should not be an anti-ship weapon -
unless one assumes it is R/C and you have a ship or plane in the target hex.

Cieling (if using an aircraft as missile) is 4000 feet.

And the first cruise missiles were biplanes - later ones monoplanes - so the concept isn't entirely
radical.

[el cid again]

First, a story. You know sailors and sea stories, right?

To digress - there is a Navy saying: What is the difference between a sea story and a fairy tale?

A fairy tale begins with "once upon a time"

A sea story begins with "this is no s..t"

Otherwise, no difference.

Well, this is a true story, sailor or not. Once upon a time, in the early 1980s, I found myself
assigned by my company to work as "resident computer engineer" at the USAF SIL (Software
Integration Laboratory) for the ALCM at the Kent Spaceflight Center of Boeing.

After you entered the secure area with the actual computers and devices which permitted them
to measure the "flights" of simulated missiles (the control surfaces, driving motors and guidance
portions of the missles were physically present, but sensors measure the movements so computers
can calculate the impact on flight)

on your right hand, on the wall over a desk, was a standard sheet of typing paper - on its side
- with a charcoal drawing of a V-1 missile.

Its caption read "The First Cruise Missile"

Now I knew that it was the first jet powered operational cruise missile when the Germans used it in WWII.

I even knew we had copied it and studied it in several forms.

But I didn't know it was OUR first operational and mass produced cruise missile.

So much for my story. The point is that I worked in the world of analysis of cruise missile flight profiles.

After careful consideration of all the factors I can think of, I conclude that the surface attack version
of the JB-2 Loon can be best simulated in the AE system as a Ground Attack Rocket. While it is true the
actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes -
its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile. As a terror
weapon launched against a vast metropolis like London, it was marginally useful - even then most missed.
But our system does not provide for such random area targets. The simple AE engine wants to assign
one device to one target - and does so automatically. The entire option for strategic bombardment by
bombers seems not to work anything like actual strategic bombing. Even atomic bombs don't work
anything like actual atomic bombs.

Note the planning for Olympic and Coronet contemplated firing the JB-2 as "pre invasion bombardment" -
it was not intended as a strategic or terror weapon in the sense the V-1 was. For these reasons, using it
in the same hex makes sense. So its use as a ground bombardment rocket with a rather large warhead
makes sense. So my second JB-2 device - available from 1/45 - is the JB-2 Loon/SSM. My first
launching platform is a modified LST - designated LST(G) w Loon SSM - to make it easy for players who
have not read my notes to gasp what it is. The LST is a standard USN Type II LST with the forward
40 mm mounting replaced by a JB-2 launcher - it fires one round with 100 reloads. Cargo capacity
of the LST is reduced to only 450 - the rest of the space is for storage of missiles, assembly areas,
fuel storage areas, and an elevator so the missiles can be moved when assembled to the upper deck.
It is almost identical to the JB-2 Loon/Radar ASM - except it has an accuracy of 5 (vice 50) and a range
of 74 (vice 66).

[Natali]

That's a GREAT story. It's been around for a long time and it's good to see it come back again.[:)]

My favorite telling of it is by Doc Travis Taylor from the Rocket City Rednecks show. He showed a picture of the drawing in his book (was by Clyde Coombs at NASA Marshall instead of Boeing) and of course they had to built a pulse air-breather to run off beer farts (oxy/methane). Have to Love rednecks!

Great to see the story again. I think we lose too much history depending on the WWW.

[RyanCrierie]

While it is true the actual maximum range of the JB-2 version of the V-1 is 149 statue miles - more than three hexes - its accuracy is so terrible that at such a range it will miss a specific target by 3/8 of a mile.

JB-2 could hit with a CEP of about 1,500 feet at a range of 50 statute miles.