AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Who how does clean out the large air fields with the decent amount of fighters ? And put sweep... so they by installments fly that very not advantageously when enemies are much...
Sorry for my english
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
This depends on assumptions, but i am seeing Venturas, A-20's, Hudson's with a crew of 2. They had only one pilot position and usually only one pilot.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
I believe the Ventura and Hudson had crew positions for a co-pilot, but it wasn't always used. The Lockheed bombers were converted airliners.
Bill
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
In the manual(Ventura) and pilot notes(Hudson) they don't have co-pilot position.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Hello..When the North American A 36 was released, it was described as a dive bomber by the USAAF..It and the P-51A were built at the same time, but both purpose built for different functions.
The A36A and P51A both had the Allison engine, but the A36 was a dive bomber,the P51A a fighter-bomber.
The A36A even had dive brakes, both over and underwing.
The A36A carried 6x.50 MG's(as in game) while the P51A carried only 4x.50MG's(as in game.
Other than the MG's, the only really noticeable thing about the two in appearance, was the P51A had the Allison V-1710-81 engine.
50 of the P51A's ordered were acquired by the RAF as the Mustang II
35 others were converted to F6B recon planes.
If this area of the forum is meant for questions only, I am asking why this is not reflected in the game?(Both are listed purely as "fighters".)
Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World by John W.R.Taylor..ISBN 0-339-50471-0
This is on site of the USAF:
Unofficially named the "Invader," the A-36A Apache dive bomber was the first U.S. Army Air Forces version of the Mustang (the Mustang was officially developed for Britain in 1940). The first A-36 flew in September 1942, and North American completed production of 500 A-36As in March 1943.
Assigned to the 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups (Dive), the A-36A first saw action against the the island of Pantelleria in June 1943. During the Italian campaign, A-36A pilots flew bomber escort and strafing missions as well as ground support bombing attacks. A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in India. In 1944 bomb rack equipped P-51s and P-47s replaced the A-36A when experience showed that these high-altitude fighters were more suitable for low-level missions than the A-36As.
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns; 1,000 lbs of bombs externally
Engine: Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 365 mph
Cruising speed: 250 mph
Range: 550 miles
Ceiling: 25,100 ft.
Span: 37 ft.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 12 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 10,000 lbs. loaded
Serial number: 42-83665
The A36A and P51A both had the Allison engine, but the A36 was a dive bomber,the P51A a fighter-bomber.
The A36A even had dive brakes, both over and underwing.
The A36A carried 6x.50 MG's(as in game) while the P51A carried only 4x.50MG's(as in game.
Other than the MG's, the only really noticeable thing about the two in appearance, was the P51A had the Allison V-1710-81 engine.
50 of the P51A's ordered were acquired by the RAF as the Mustang II
35 others were converted to F6B recon planes.
If this area of the forum is meant for questions only, I am asking why this is not reflected in the game?(Both are listed purely as "fighters".)
Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World by John W.R.Taylor..ISBN 0-339-50471-0
This is on site of the USAF:
Unofficially named the "Invader," the A-36A Apache dive bomber was the first U.S. Army Air Forces version of the Mustang (the Mustang was officially developed for Britain in 1940). The first A-36 flew in September 1942, and North American completed production of 500 A-36As in March 1943.
Assigned to the 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups (Dive), the A-36A first saw action against the the island of Pantelleria in June 1943. During the Italian campaign, A-36A pilots flew bomber escort and strafing missions as well as ground support bombing attacks. A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in India. In 1944 bomb rack equipped P-51s and P-47s replaced the A-36A when experience showed that these high-altitude fighters were more suitable for low-level missions than the A-36As.
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns; 1,000 lbs of bombs externally
Engine: Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 365 mph
Cruising speed: 250 mph
Range: 550 miles
Ceiling: 25,100 ft.
Span: 37 ft.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 12 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 10,000 lbs. loaded
Serial number: 42-83665

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: JeffK
Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.
Jeff..Thank you..I appreciate your time....(I am also happy to have such a fantastically simple editor with the game!!)

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.
The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Since my fairly recent health-driven retirement..I finally have time to play with the editor in a big way..In past I have altered things, mostly ranges and cargo capacity of transport planes.(I have a great source book for this)..ORIGINAL: Symon
At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.
The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE
Now, I am experimenting to learn if their might be some "bonus's" or functions of labeling things FB vs Fighter..
I have learned how to allow a plane to carry both drop tanks AND bombs both short and long range.(I did not know how till now.)
I am working to see how "attack bomber" affects a planes capabilities..Hoping it might be the "magic elixir" which allows the low-level missions of ground support planes without incurring the somewhat harsh morale drops.
I can honestly say that after all this time, I still learn new things every single time I play the game..
John, there is NOTHING to apologize about this game..Gadzooks, it is great..

-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 3:14 am
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Overall it's looking splendid! [:'(]
My best tank game - https://www.tankius.com/game/tank-trouble.html
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
What is wrong with the stock Wirraway?
This site says it carried 500 lb of bombs. This would translate into 2 x 250 lb loadout instead of the stock 2 x 100 lb loadout.
http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily. ... rraway.htm
This site says it carried 500 lb of bombs. This would translate into 2 x 250 lb loadout instead of the stock 2 x 100 lb loadout.
http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily. ... rraway.htm
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Shouldn't Walrus be CV capable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermari ... anding.jpg
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
The Walrus wasn't an amphibian, it could land on a carrier or land with a landing gear kit. The Kingfisher could also swap floats for landing gear too.
Bill
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
I always read about it as an amphibian. It has retractable main wheels as shown in this pic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supe ... an2007.jpg
It is also classified as an amphibian in game.
It is also classified as an amphibian in game.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Gentlemen
Geeky amateur historian type question.
Not understanding the editor et al...
Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?
I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.
Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.
Geeky amateur historian type question.
Not understanding the editor et al...
Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?
I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.
Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
I don't have the game open right now but in most scenarios at an airfield just west of Townsville on Australia's East Coast or Brisbane....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330
AKA General Patton
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
AKA General Patton
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
-
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
- Location: Millersburg, OH
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
ORIGINAL: Macclan5
Gentlemen
Geeky amateur historian type question.
Not understanding the editor et al...
Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?
I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.
Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.
Pretty sure it's Brisbane. I moved it to Charter Towers when it arrived. Playing stock scenario 1
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Thanks GP / Dave.
Question: Is it possible or is there a variable that allows it to start in Pearl ?
Question: If it shows up there is it due to my ineptness as a player ? or some such variable ? Does the date / fall of Philippines affect it?
--
I am curiously asking only because in 'my first start' of the GC (before I knew anything - before I read anything) I seem to think I recall it showing up in Pearl.
What peaked my curiosity is that V Bomber (and possibly the HQ Squadron of B17) 'absorbed command' of the entire USAAF Hawaiian AF before the VII Bomber Command showed up.
This of course bothered the wanna- be- historian in me.
I made sure to move out the V Bomber Command Squadron to CONUS quickly in my 'for real game' and of course you are correct it spawned in Brisbane.
VII Bomber Command opened in Pearl and correctly took command of USAAF Hawaii.
--
Background:
Having captured Rabul I am contemplating moving V Bomber forward. I am the type of player that consults history and I am debating where to move it to..
i.e. Historically Jackson Airbase Port Moresby and or Nadzab Forward Airbase New Guinea.
Safe enough for now but I am considering Rabul
Question: Is it possible or is there a variable that allows it to start in Pearl ?
Question: If it shows up there is it due to my ineptness as a player ? or some such variable ? Does the date / fall of Philippines affect it?
--
I am curiously asking only because in 'my first start' of the GC (before I knew anything - before I read anything) I seem to think I recall it showing up in Pearl.
What peaked my curiosity is that V Bomber (and possibly the HQ Squadron of B17) 'absorbed command' of the entire USAAF Hawaiian AF before the VII Bomber Command showed up.
This of course bothered the wanna- be- historian in me.
I made sure to move out the V Bomber Command Squadron to CONUS quickly in my 'for real game' and of course you are correct it spawned in Brisbane.
VII Bomber Command opened in Pearl and correctly took command of USAAF Hawaii.
--
Background:
Having captured Rabul I am contemplating moving V Bomber forward. I am the type of player that consults history and I am debating where to move it to..
i.e. Historically Jackson Airbase Port Moresby and or Nadzab Forward Airbase New Guinea.
Safe enough for now but I am considering Rabul
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
For me, the point of playing the game is to see if you can do better than historical. That means deviation from what happened and any option you choose is a valid one. I am sure the USAAF would have considered using Rabaul as a major base if it could have been captured before it was too far behind the lines.
Nadzab, by historical accounts, was a muddy hell-hole with tent facilities that only really got functional after the fighting had moved on. Seems like a poor place to put an HQ, but maybe there was one there.
Nadzab, by historical accounts, was a muddy hell-hole with tent facilities that only really got functional after the fighting had moved on. Seems like a poor place to put an HQ, but maybe there was one there.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth