Page 5 of 8

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:31 pm
by Dili
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

A Kate with 2x250kg bombs should have more range since it can get almost more 300kg of fuel - in practice would not be 300kg since engine oil needs to be increased for more range.

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges


French had 75kg SM depth charge but if their stocks in Indochina are depleted yeah.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:04 pm
by oldman45
ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)]

I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.






I found similar info, thanks so much for what you have. I assume in the editor I set them up like regular DC's except they have much shallower range.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:26 pm
by Shark7
Pretty much. The following seem to be how it is done.

load cost = total weight
Effect = charge weight
Accuracy = sink rate
range = max depth


RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:09 am
by michaelm75au
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
It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:10 pm
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: michaelm
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
It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.
That would be great!
I could also use similar upgrade for naval weapons, to better simulate new ammunition/targeting systems, although it can be harder to implement, because upgrade should only happen in bigger ports.

Anyway, some food for thoughts. This is from US brochure from April 1942:

Image

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:34 pm
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: Shark7

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.
It seems, that report JAPANESE BOMBS (O-23) from December 1945 (pages 26-29) have short description of this armament. There are two pre-war bombs:
TYPE 99 - weight 63.6-67.9 kg
TYPE 1 - weight 266 kg

and there was EXPERIMENTAL 19, with some electronics detection - weight 180 kg. I am guessing this model was carried by LILY, because it is shown as armed with 4x250 kg, which is far too much for this plane type (especially, since ASW bomb weights 266 kg)

Image

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:22 pm
by oldman45
Thanks Shark.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:40 am
by oldman45
ORIGINAL: michaelm
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
It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.


It might be easier to have the plane upgrade and change the ordinance.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:09 am
by dwg
ORIGINAL: michaelm

I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice).

Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:36 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice).

Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?
Look in the Tech Support forum - it's a public Beta process!

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:30 pm
by dwg
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: dwg

Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?
Look in the Tech Support forum - it's a public Beta process!

Aha!

Thanks

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:45 pm
by fodder
ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)]

I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.





Japan also had 250kg air dropped depth charges, I know for sure they were carried by Nells and Lornas. See page 15.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200B-0504-0540%20Report%20E-14.pdf

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:03 pm
by el cid again
The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The overall problem with bomloads, is that with increasing number of bombs, also increases number of hits. So by using historical bombloads, we will get strange result, when it is filtered by game engine. Here is my theory, how it should be implemented, to work in current engine:

Fighters should become main aircraft for attacking airfields.
Example:
ZERO carries 2x60kg bombs. Since number of hits is most important for closing airfields, this type of plane should carry most bombs. Change should be something like 8x15kg bombs (same bombload)

Light attack bombers (mostly 1E) - they should be main ground support.
Example:
ANN/MARY carries 1x250 kg bomb. Since number of hits is most important for eliminating LCU devices, not size of bomb, they should carry more devices, than 2E bombers (so more, than 4). Change should be something like 5x50kg

2E bombers - heaviest tactical support. 4 devices seems to work OK, anything more is streching game engine, but because we need unity in same class models, bombs can be represented as "sticks" (TM by NEMO) of 2 bombs each. Japanese bombers do not carry more than 4 250 kg bombs (at least in current Scenarios), but quite a lots of Allied 2E bombers carry more.
As a side note - it seems, that size of bomb is more important during checking if plane hit on ground will be destroyed. Lots of smaller bombs generate more hits, but planes tend to be only damaged.

4E bombers - ONLY STRATEGIC ATTACKS. They should barely hit anything in support role. The whole bombload should be represent as ONE (maximum TWO) device. Something like one large bomb, with effect of sum of all carried bombs. That way they are only good for attacking industry, or destroying stockpiles at bases, as they generally score less hits, than smaller planes (although their hits are sure kill). That can create problem with naval attacks, but bombload, in this case, can represent 1-2 bombs effect, but have greater accuracy (to simulate releasing of whole bomb-bay in one go).

To sum up:
4E - 1, or 2 devices
2E - 2-4 devices (NO MORE!)
1E - more, than 4 devices for ground attacks (they can still carry ONE large bomb against ships)
Fighters - more, than 4 devices for ground attacks

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:23 am
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.
It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):

Image

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:28 am
by el cid again
France had its own Depth Charges. They were not very impressive. But they did have them. I will see if I can find you a data link.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMFR_ASW.htm

A similar list for Japan does not show a 250 kg charge. I will see if I can find one in my written materials (which are extensive).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm

IF ASW bombs count,
Type 1 No 25 Mark 2, Model 1 might be what you refer to. It is actually 266 kg (586 lbs) and has an explosive filling of 54% of its weight.
It was regarded as effective at a range of 10 meters from the target pressure hull. This weapon had a special nose to help it enter the water
properly.


ORIGINAL: fodder

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: oldman45

One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)]

I did find some info on DCs.

OK, USN:

AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb

344lbs weight
243lbs charge
70' max depth

AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb

350lb weight (160kg)
215lb charge (98kg)
125' Max Depth

An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb

650lb weight (295kg)
464lb charge (211kg)
125' max depth

Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these

British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs)

Mk VIII Depth Charge

256lbs (112kg)
170lb (77kg) Charge
25' depth setting
8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate
Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts

MK VII Airborne DC

420lbs (191kg)
290lbs (130kg) charge
25' Depth Setting
9.9'/sec sink rate
Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts

France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges

Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.





Japan also had 250kg air dropped depth charges, I know for sure they were carried by Nells and Lornas. See page 15.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200B-0504-0540%20Report%20E-14.pdf

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:52 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.


Depth Charges - and ASW bombs - which are almost the same thing - depth fused bombs designed for water entry with minimal change in direction -
DO work in AE. They do not particularly know they are attacking submarines, however. We get reports of hits on other vessels - and in fact - a near miss by a DC would probably be worse than a direct hit by a similar sized bomb - no matter what the ship protection scheme may be! [Water is incompressable, and nearby explosions tend to burst seams, causing serious flooding] The way to model an "Air DC" or "Air ASW Bomb" is to start with a bomb device, not a DC device - and then calculate effect and other values appropriately. I standardized them all to have an armor penetration value of 22 mm - which is the actual design used by WWII British ASW weapons developers. Since I also give subs an "armor rating" (= 1/3 of the pressure hull - since hull is not the same as armor per se) - so the statistical way AE works has a way to rate the sub hull (in a relative to each other sense).

Other air ASW weapons - notably a very effective "mine" (torpedo with a code name) use by the US and its allies - can be modeled in the same way. Simply figure out a system for "accuracy" - I used the lethal area of the weapon times the number dropped (I drop DC in pairs, mostly - and rate them on the same scale as ship DC patterns - which almost always involve more than 2). The main reason the AS torpedo works so well is a high accuracy rating.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:09 pm
by Symon
ORIGINAL: Shark7

This also begs the question, can a Depth Charge device now be used with code 64 on the ASW mission. One that certianly comes to mind is the Ka-1 which did carry DCs.

Yes.

However, the Air ASW routine is different from the Naval ASW routine, so don't expect the same results. I would think twice about using technical suggestions from people who have no clue how the game engine works.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:02 pm
by Alfred
ORIGINAL: inqistor
ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.
It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):



You keep on saying that carrying more bombs is always better but it just not that simple.

Carrying more bombs (unless they are presented as a stick load) provides a better opportunity to score more hits. But more hits does not necessarily mean more damage is inflicted as damage inflicted is a factor of bomb effect.

In terms of the game engine, for the purpose of shutting down airfields, it really doesn't profit one to inflict more "hits" if the cumulative bomb effect is less than that achieved from fewer hits using bigger bombs.

To move onto naval attack. What would be the point of an aircraft carrying more bombs, none of which are capable of penetrating say a cruiser's armour over an aircraft carrying fewer bombs but each capable of penetrating the armour.

Alfred

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:19 am
by packerpete
Can anyone provide a list of links with aircraft data sheets? I am only really asking for Guadalcanal era aircraft for now. It is hit or miss for US aircraft and got Bupkiss on any other nationality.

Thanks all.

RE: Aircraft Loads

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:48 am
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: inqistor
ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with your fighter theory (for early fighters anyway)

is that they lacked the hard points for more than two bombs. You CAN mount a 15 kg bomb, or 30 kg, or 60 kg - on any hardpoint.
But there are only two of them. [Cluster bombs - present for the Allies - somewhat solve this issue - in that they typically permit
4 smaller bombs per hard point. The devices are defined - but not used by stock aircraft as far as I am aware. But they work very well!
If you use them.]

It is perfectly true that more smaller bombs really matter for airfield attacks. And I doubt a Mary or Ann can carry a 250 kg bomb. Anyway, it is not
listed as the standard loadout. 50 kg bombs are. Light bombers often carried 30 kg and even 15 kg bombs - especially to longer ranges.
It is not matter of historical bombload, but working of game engine. Two bombs are worse, than MORE THAN TWO bombs, so no reason to use fighters, if you can send bombers, and score more hits. Fighters does not seem to hold better against AA fire (they will probably fight better - in airfield attack role, against enemy CAP only).
Obvioulsy you have to keep some limits, so overall bombload weight would be one of it, although I am trying to simulate this device (however 10 bombs seems to be probably too much in this case):

You keep on saying that carrying more bombs is always better but it just not that simple.

Carrying more bombs (unless they are presented as a stick load) provides a better opportunity to score more hits. But more hits does not necessarily mean more damage is inflicted as damage inflicted is a factor of bomb effect.
That is currently hardly an issue, because 90% of planes uses only the same 500 lb/250 kg bombs.
In terms of the game engine, for the purpose of shutting down airfields, it really doesn't profit one to inflict more "hits" if the cumulative bomb effect is less than that achieved from fewer hits using bigger bombs.
Nope. I have rearmed VALs with 3x60 kg bombs for airfield attack (which is less, than 3/4th of original 250 kg bomb load/effect wise), and result was 10-15% more damages to airstrip. Since it is pretty rare to hit with whole bombload, you can assume, than no more than 2 bombs would hit for every plane. It gives like 2 times more hits, but only HALF of effect, yet airfield was MORE damaged, as a result.
It is possible, that it is easier to destroy plane with bigger bomb (but difference was around 3%, and definitely more planes was damaged overall), and bigger bomb should destroy more supply, with supply hit, but that is all.
To move onto naval attack. What would be the point of an aircraft carrying more bombs, none of which are capable of penetrating say a cruiser's armour over an aircraft carrying fewer bombs but each capable of penetrating the armour.
Again, planes currently carries the same bomb. The only exception, I can recall, are DBs.
Now, if you use bigger bombs, it will make plane more preferable to Naval Attack, but you need capacity to carry them, which again put 4Es as preferred platform - so no solution for this problem with current engine, except using "sticks" (TM by NEMO)
ORIGINAL: packerpete

Can anyone provide a list of links with aircraft data sheets? I am only really asking for Guadalcanal era aircraft for now. It is hit or miss for US aircraft and got Bupkiss on any other nationality.
WIKIPEDIA should have most basic data for all planes (OK, maybe only for one model)
You can use this site http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/,
or this site, which I have found better, but it is in Czech. Not, that I understand much of this language, but planes have tables in two versions, and one of them is in english (although it seems to be automatic translation) http://www.valka.cz/