Drop Tanks.

[el cid again]

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... /ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

There is some confusion here - and it is probably my fault. I regard myself as a member of the CHS team - and have done some small things for CHS - BUT CHS has decided NOT to do a major plane revision (AFTER it was completely done at their request). So this discussion is about RHS planes - NOT CHS planes. RHS has attempted to greatly expand the types of planes available, and to significantly better state the data of existing planes to a consistent standard. RHS also is open to changes ANY TIME better information can be shown - while CHS gives a priority to "stability" - meaning no change for great periods of time.

Second, you have not observed the list posted above: many - most - of the planes on your list HAVE drop tanks already in RHS - the first major mod to offer any.

Third, it is not good enough to say a plane had them. I need to know how many and what size (if more than one combination, the maximum case)? And the performance range wise in that case. If it is not in my references, I need to know where you know that from? I am freezing the plane files for this release set in about 24 hours (so I can work on other files) - do this now or it will wait for May revisions post RHS release.
I have four or five references on each plane in your list which is not in my list above and NONE states drop tanks were options. Often references are not comprehensive - but it was a massive effort to look up EVERY possible Allied plane - which I did - and I cannot spend time now looking for what is not in the books. I have data entry to do. Find it and I will verify it - but don't just say it - say it formally - with numbers and how you know them. And don't duplicate my effort - if the plane is on my list above - it has the tanks - so don't list it again.

[el cid again]

As the articles above do not claim the Hayabusa flew directly Rabaul/Gcanal/Rabaul, is it possible they staged through bases en route.

Why are you conveniently ignoring the glorious introduction of the Hayabusa over Malaya? Where might they have staged in the Gulf of Siam? Granted there is that island found by Tsuji - it is just off the coast of Cambodia - and while it did facilitate the operations - it still means they had to fly both ways - and operate at the distant end. If you are going to be analytical, don't ignore the data.

[JeffroK]

The Ki43's of 64th Sentai were moved to Duong Dong airfield on Phu Quoc Island to provide air cover to the Invasion Convoys.
"Bloody Shambles vol 1 p 73

KI43's were met over Kota Bharu & Butterworth on 8 Dec

Air distance from Saigon to Penang is 580miles/1160 miles return, to Singapore is 678/1356, the info above says the Ki43 could do 1800+ with tanks fitted, so this implies the range is easily handled. But is this a combat or ferry range?

59th Sentai with about 20 Ki-43 moved to Nakhorn , about 120km north of Singora about 10 Dec.

On 11 Dec 64th Sentai began to use the Kota Bharu airfield (using British Fuel!) to cover operations towards Kuantan

I dont doubt the extra range the Ki-43 got with tanks, just that it could emulate the A6M2 and achieve Rabaul/Guadalcanal. The early movement of Ki-43 into Sthn Thailand/Nthn Malaya answer your comments about the excellent showing of the Ki-43 in that theatre without confirming an exceptional range.

My books gives the Ki-43IIb a maximum range of 1988 miles (twice) and the the Ki-43III 1320 miles (normal), hence the problem in getting this right.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... /ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

There is some confusion here - and it is probably my fault. I regard myself as a member of the CHS team - and have done some small things for CHS - BUT CHS has decided NOT to do a major plane revision (AFTER it was completely done at their request). So this discussion is about RHS planes - NOT CHS planes. RHS has attempted to greatly expand the types of planes available, and to significantly better state the data of existing planes to a consistent standard. RHS also is open to changes ANY TIME better information can be shown - while CHS gives a priority to "stability" - meaning no change for great periods of time.

Second, you have not observed the list posted above: many - most - of the planes on your list HAVE drop tanks already in RHS - the first major mod to offer any.

Third, it is not good enough to say a plane had them. I need to know how many and what size (if more than one combination, the maximum case)? And the performance range wise in that case. If it is not in my references, I need to know where you know that from? I am freezing the plane files for this release set in about 24 hours (so I can work on other files) - do this now or it will wait for May revisions post RHS release.
I have four or five references on each plane in your list which is not in my list above and NONE states drop tanks were options. Often references are not comprehensive - but it was a massive effort to look up EVERY possible Allied plane - which I did - and I cannot spend time now looking for what is not in the books. I have data entry to do. Find it and I will verify it - but don't just say it - say it formally - with numbers and how you know them. And don't duplicate my effort - if the plane is on my list above - it has the tanks - so don't list it again.

Which aircraft are listed but you dont have info on the use of tanks, I'll dig deeper.

P39D With 145.7gal , 1100 miles @196mph

Same for P-400

P-38J With 2 x 250gal, 2260 miles @186mph @10,000ft
Clean, 475miles @ 339mph @ 25,000ft or 800 miles @ 285mph @ 10,000ft or 1175 miles @ 195mph @ 10,000

P-51C Clean 955 miles @ 397mph @ 25,000ft or 1300 miles @ 260mph @ 10,000ft

P-51D-25-NA Clean 950 miles @ 395mph @ 25,000ft
Max range 2300 miles No data

P-40E/Kittyhawk 1A Clean 650 miles, with 43 Gal tank 850 miles and 1400miles with 141.5 gal tank

P-40N 340 miles with 500lb Bomb, 3100 miles with ferry tanks
Clean 750 miles @ 10000ft or 1080 miles with 62.4 gal tank.

Hurricane IIB Clean,460 miles @ 178mph or 920 miles with 2 x 44gal tanks.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... /ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

There is some confusion here - and it is probably my fault. I regard myself as a member of the CHS team - and have done some small things for CHS - BUT CHS has decided NOT to do a major plane revision (AFTER it was completely done at their request). So this discussion is about RHS planes - NOT CHS planes. RHS has attempted to greatly expand the types of planes available, and to significantly better state the data of existing planes to a consistent standard. RHS also is open to changes ANY TIME better information can be shown - while CHS gives a priority to "stability" - meaning no change for great periods of time.

Second, you have not observed the list posted above: many - most - of the planes on your list HAVE drop tanks already in RHS - the first major mod to offer any.

Third, it is not good enough to say a plane had them. I need to know how many and what size (if more than one combination, the maximum case)? And the performance range wise in that case. If it is not in my references, I need to know where you know that from? I am freezing the plane files for this release set in about 24 hours (so I can work on other files) - do this now or it will wait for May revisions post RHS release.
I have four or five references on each plane in your list which is not in my list above and NONE states drop tanks were options. Often references are not comprehensive - but it was a massive effort to look up EVERY possible Allied plane - which I did - and I cannot spend time now looking for what is not in the books. I have data entry to do. Find it and I will verify it - but don't just say it - say it formally - with numbers and how you know them. And don't duplicate my effort - if the plane is on my list above - it has the tanks - so don't list it again.

Which aircraft are listed but you dont have info on the use of tanks, I'll dig deeper.

P39D With 145.7gal , 1100 miles @196mph

Same for P-400

P-38J With 2 x 250gal, 2260 miles @186mph @10,000ft
Clean, 475miles @ 339mph @ 25,000ft or 800 miles @ 285mph @ 10,000ft or 1175 miles @ 195mph @ 10,000

P-51C Clean 955 miles @ 397mph @ 25,000ft or 1300 miles @ 260mph @ 10,000ft

P-51D-25-NA Clean 950 miles @ 395mph @ 25,000ft
Max range 2300 miles No data

P-40E/Kittyhawk 1A Clean 650 miles, with 43 Gal tank 850 miles and 1400miles with 141.5 gal tank

P-40N 340 miles with 500lb Bomb, 3100 miles with ferry tanks
Clean 750 miles @ 10000ft or 1080 miles with 62.4 gal tank.

Hurricane IIB Clean,460 miles @ 178mph or 920 miles with 2 x 44gal tanks.

JeffK...While the thread was started by you, your agenda seems to be toward the improvement of Allied planes, alone.
We do appreciate your listing of the Allied planes and their needs, but for the sake of future "sharpshooters", Sid MUST have your source of references to be able to verify the info.
Please note EVERY comment made by he or I has a link to the info.
The details of the Hayabusa I which I entered, are directly quoted from a New Zealand museum.I provided their phone number and directions to their building, and mailing address..They were NOT referring to a ferry range.This is a seperate issue.
Sid has explained his links to info on a professional basis, as he did it for a living, militarily.
He felt compelled to reveal this info to dispel any belief his info was based on "gut feeling", or nationalistic fervor/prejuidice,etc.
He is reporting facts as he is able to verify them.

I was an information analyst, (now called an intelligence analyst), MOS#96B..I did this in the American Army Ranger program, meaning I was in the field, carrying arms, and trying to glean info while an active enemy was making it clear he did not wish for me to be there.
I was not a REMF, and was real careful to get my info correct the first time, (if nothing else because I had no desire to return to get it again.
My info was never based on my "opinion", but only on what I could verify/prove, with people looking over my shoulder.
I request you provide references, (or be ready to provide them), when you make claims.
The statement you made ref a Japanese war hero, is less than honorable.
Much less.
I do not blame you, but the idea was engendered on the reading public by somebody else.
Something my dad taught me many years ago, famous people will always have their detractors, but that number of detractors will multiply greater once the person has died, and is no longer present to defend himself.
Sid is much more diplomatic in his comments above, than I ever could be.
He and I are soldiers of arms, from the same war.
We have never met, but we are brothers.
As is Sakai....................
................................................................
None of the modders is paid for the contributions they do for the rest of us.
They are usually all willing to listen to anybody, but please include sources of info.

[mlees]

I understand the post, m10bob. However, regular folks have much less access to museum's and the physical hardware to get performance data.

All I have is (the more or less common) reference books. I can post links to those, but according to your standards, that is less than satisfactory. Therefore, you wish to limit the input to a very small, select group of individuals. ("Industry experts" like aircraft restoration folks at the Smithsonian, for example.)

The rest of us (I served, but not in combat) on these boards are enthusiasts of the subject matter, but as a hobby ("passion" may be too strong of a word), and not a job. So, while we be amateurs, we still wish to "contribute" in some small way to these various endevours. And I applaud your devotion to accuracy.

Your post, while possibly not meaning to, was read by me as "your work ain't good enough, and I had a gun pointed at me too." Well, I salute your service (sincerely), and thank you for it. But please, go easy on my thin hide. A simple "Please post your references, or we can't use them" might have been good enough. *whimpers* I just want to help...

[el cid again]

My books gives the Ki-43IIb a maximum range of 1988 miles (twice) and the the Ki-43III 1320 miles (normal), hence the problem in getting this right.

You are correct - and I have followed the books - until physical and eyewitness evidence came to my attention. Physical evidence is hard to argue with - and combined with actual practice - it would win in court.

[el cid again]

JeffK...While the thread was started by you, your agenda seems to be toward the improvement of Allied planes, alone.

I don't think that is fair: due to his thread we are about to more than double the range of the Ki-43I - something I long wondered about but had no evidence to support (other than actual mission ranges - the data in the references did not show this). It may not have been what he had in mind - but it is the effect.

Note that this is better simulation - but every plane with drop tanks vs the same without has LESS performance - that is it loses bomb power at range. I like that - but it is not about making the planes more powerful - in general - unless the range actually changed - which is not the usual case. Most range increases were due to better data - and many were the result of others work in both CHS and RHS.

[el cid again]

I understand the post, m10bob. However, regular folks have much less access to museum's and the physical hardware to get performance data.

All I have is (the more or less common) reference books. I can post links to those, but according to your standards, that is less than satisfactory. Therefore, you wish to limit the input to a very small, select group of individuals. ("Industry experts" like aircraft restoration folks at the Smithsonian, for example.)

The rest of us (I served, but not in combat) on these boards are enthusiasts of the subject matter, but as a hobby ("passion" may be too strong of a word), and not a job. So, while we be amateurs, we still wish to "contribute" in some small way to these various endevours. And I applaud your devotion to accuracy.

Your post, while possibly not meaning to, was read by me as "your work ain't good enough, and I had a gun pointed at me too." Well, I salute your service (sincerely), and thank you for it. But please, go easy on my thin hide. A simple "Please post your references, or we can't use them" might have been good enough. *whimpers* I just want to help...

Everybody be nice. We have our own agendas and standards - and it is unlikely we will all always agree on everything. My requests are requests - not demands - and I personally believe this is a valuable thread which caused errors in my own work (I believed the "word" on the board tanks are "ignored" by code: they are not) to come to light - before I released - which I am grateful for.

Also note that WITP is BETTER than we thought it was - like the rescue of pilots thing we learned about not long ago - the code is BETTER than we knew - or were told. That is not bad either.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I understand the post, m10bob. However, regular folks have much less access to museum's and the physical hardware to get performance data.

All I have is (the more or less common) reference books. I can post links to those, but according to your standards, that is less than satisfactory. Therefore, you wish to limit the input to a very small, select group of individuals. ("Industry experts" like aircraft restoration folks at the Smithsonian, for example.)

The rest of us (I served, but not in combat) on these boards are enthusiasts of the subject matter, but as a hobby ("passion" may be too strong of a word), and not a job. So, while we be amateurs, we still wish to "contribute" in some small way to these various endevours. And I applaud your devotion to accuracy.

Your post, while possibly not meaning to, was read by me as "your work ain't good enough, and I had a gun pointed at me too." Well, I salute your service (sincerely), and thank you for it. But please, go easy on my thin hide. A simple "Please post your references, or we can't use them" might have been good enough. *whimpers* I just want to help...

Partner..You and I are on the same page..My prior post was directed at one person in particular, as my greeting should have made clear.
You,mlees, are a GREAT contibutor, as I feel JeffK will be as well...............

[JeffroK]

If attempts to provide some info get bagged by a select few, It would be better to keep my info to myself.

I DO NOT pretend to be an expert, but I have a lot of info at hand and if it starts the relevant people in the right direction thats great.

My Agenda is not intended to be towards the Allied planes only, but the vast weight of data is to American & British aircraft. What little info is around on Japanese types is of very poor quality, at least I found something on the Hayabusa. I researched and found reasonable explanations for the ability of the Hayabusa to have covered Northern Malaya after the opening days. I cannot find any comments on them being over G/canal, which only means I need to look further. Also, my pathetic mod has the peurile American nicknames for Japanese types deleted and where possible, the Japanese name added.

Somehow you think I have insulted you and accused you of being a REMF, I cant see where??

As to my personal opinion of Subaru Sakai, I have read a number of books and articles where his exploits are queried and in a number of places proven incorrect. His claims of aerial victories have also been doubted and brought down by (about) 20-25.

PS. If every one wants to wave their old fellow about their previous exploits, I spent some time based at Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne. WA and had a fewyears in an Intelligence based role.

Does that make me perfect and my research beyond question, no bloody way.

[mlees]

I do not wish to anger ANYONE. The Matrix webgoers have impressed me as, generally, much more mature than what I see on other website forums, as well as extremely well informed on a subject matter that I have had a life long interest in. (WW 2 history.)

I enjoy reading, and participating if I can, in the discussions herein. I have not "black listed" anybody yet (with the "ignore posts" feature). I hope I have not earned a spot on someone else's list.

When I read posts, I "hear" a voice in my head doing the narration, along with what my mind assumes is the intended "tone of voice" and word stressing. Usually I get the intended meaning correctly. Sometimes not. When I get it wrong, I either ask for clarification, or very occasionally, I embarass myself. If I have got it wrong again, my sincere apologies.

Hmmm. I better save the above statement for future use. Like the man once said to me: "Son, your mouth is writing checks your face is gonna have to cash in!"

[RevRick]

Hey, folks.. just checking in from a busy week (four meetings, a Bible Study on Revelation, and a Choir Practice in addition to the other stuff - worship, etc.) and want to put a word in here. This is a great thread about a great game with a question I have been concerned about for a long time - which basically began with "Why in the name of pluperfect purgatory is a F4F flying cover over it's own base with two bombs on board and no drop tanks?" So I began modding it out with what I have read either recently, as in Warren Bodie's book on the P-38, or...ah.. less recently.. as the bit about Joe Foss and others having drop tanks on their Wildcats on the Canal, or even talking with my Uncle (now deceased) who flew both F4Fs and F4Us out there in 42-43.

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.

I have continued in the last few days to check different game settings - such as with the P-38 with two 250 gal tanks, and found that result to be almost unbelievable - except for what Lindbergh did with them in the Pacific. What I would like to see is a believable, and functional (in the game sense) range/load combination which could be realistic. Like, what did the P-40 do with the 147 imperial gallon drop tank - or what that just a transfer device? And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity? Some of the data I have stored in my rapidly becoming overload Cranial Memory Banks is from over 40 years of reading, and I have no earthly idea where it came from, nor the time to try to dig it out. So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game. It keeps me from bashing some parishioners sometimes. I don't have to "play nice with others in the game." I can fire Ghormley automatically, and not worry about it.

Now that I have rambled, keep up this good thread, guys, and don't let it dissolve into bickering. None of us have all the answers, and I suspect we have a lot more questions anyway.

Shalom;

[JeffroK]

Rev Rick,

Your post and mine clashed and mine dissapeared [:o]

I'll have to do it again (PS The Spit carried Bombs because there weren't enough German/Japanese opposition to keep them employed at this stage)

K-43 in Malaya
From JAPANESE ARMY AIR FORCE FIGHTER UNITS AND THEIR ACES by Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa & Christopher Shores
On the opening day the 64th Sentai escorted bombers to the Penang area (Ayer Tawar) and claimed aerial and ground victories. (Page 29)
59th Sentai escorted light bombers to Kota Bharu claiming 6 Buffalo's
Which proves the Ki-43 could fly to Northern Malaya from Indo-China

On Dec 9, 64th Sentai STAGED through Singora on the way to Kota Bharu and 59th Sentai moved to Nakhorn, about 100km north of Singora.

So the JAAF used stages to increase the range of their aircraft

By 12 jan 42 both 59 & 64th SEntais were based at Ipoh.

So the Ki-43 performed well over Malaya, RAF pilots called them Zekes (as even the Japanese public weren't aware of them) but differentiated the Zekes with engine guns and Zekes with wing cannons. But apart from 1st day raids, no mention is made of other long distance missions. (My opinions)

1 & 11 Sentai (12th Hikodan) re-equipped with Ki-43-I in June & July 42, they made their way to Truk (another source says flown to Soerbaja & CV to Truk) were the were finally led to Rabaul. 11th arriving on 18 Dec and 1st on 9 Jan 43.

This allowed 11th Sentai to move to Buka Is and 1st moved to Ballale (Shortland Is) from where on 27 Jan the first JAAF sorties over G/canal were flown . (Page 38)

Sadly their book doesnt provide any performance info except for the basics, its an interesting read though, it looks like the JAAF shot its bolt over China & manchuria and was less effective over the Pacific & Sthn Asia after the first rush.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Hey, folks.. just checking in from a busy week (four meetings, a Bible Study on Revelation, and a Choir Practice in addition to the other stuff - worship, etc.) and want to put a word in here. This is a great thread about a great game with a question I have been concerned about for a long time - which basically began with "Why in the name of pluperfect purgatory is a F4F flying cover over it's own base with two bombs on board and no drop tanks?" So I began modding it out with what I have read either recently, as in Warren Bodie's book on the P-38, or...ah.. less recently.. as the bit about Joe Foss and others having drop tanks on their Wildcats on the Canal, or even talking with my Uncle (now deceased) who flew both F4Fs and F4Us out there in 42-43.

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.

I have continued in the last few days to check different game settings - such as with the P-38 with two 250 gal tanks, and found that result to be almost unbelievable - except for what Lindbergh did with them in the Pacific. What I would like to see is a believable, and functional (in the game sense) range/load combination which could be realistic. Like, what did the P-40 do with the 147 imperial gallon drop tank - or what that just a transfer device? And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity? Some of the data I have stored in my rapidly becoming overload Cranial Memory Banks is from over 40 years of reading, and I have no earthly idea where it came from, nor the time to try to dig it out. So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game. It keeps me from bashing some parishioners sometimes. I don't have to "play nice with others in the game." I can fire Ghormley automatically, and not worry about it.

Now that I have rambled, keep up this good thread, guys, and don't let it dissolve into bickering. None of us have all the answers, and I suspect we have a lot more questions anyway.

Shalom;

Hullo RevRick..As usual, thought provoking questions..As light at the Spit was, I agree it would be a real travesty to load it down with bombs. Of course it would also be insane to force F4F's to provide CAP with bombs as well..(HA!)..
Apparently Sid learned of this strange possibility and is doing all kinds of experimenting to see what he can do to make it more practical, for all parties concerned.
You prior comments on your modding has been a catalyst to look for further inequities, as have the remarks of everybody in this thread..
Sid needs this info, with references to head off armchair critics in the future.
It's painfully apparent, that as GREAT as the game is, itself, many of the planes simply never had realistic range values.
The drop tanks in particular were not just for ferry range, (as seems to have been thought in some cases). This is why the Brits, (and later other nations) began making cheaper "throwaway" tanks for their extended combat missions.
I suspect many of us have seen that John Wayne flick where he pilots an F6F, and when the enemy is sited, the entire flight drops their wing tanks. Well, they were not on a "ferry" mission....Just normal everyday combat......
Maybe attrition can play a role in a bases ability to fly those long range missions too?? If supply falls to a certain level, maybe the CPU recognizes the supply of drop tanks is exhausted and the long flights go in the toilet??

[el cid again]

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?

Good questions all.

I don't like all the answers though.

Bombers NEVER carry their maximum bomb load - for example. Sorry.

On the other hand, they DO carry LESS bombs to extended range.

Some planes change between torpedoes and bombs - and probably depth charges - based on mission.

Fighters probably carry no bombs to extended range.

The way drop tanks work is they increase "endurance" - which means the amount of extra range varies with cruising speed. IF we compare a plane with no drop tanks to one with - most of ours had "invisible" drop tanks so it makes no difference - but say the new Ki-43I - which gains range because we didn't know its drop tank range -

then the normal range and the extended range ALSO increase -
but ONLY because the drop tanks increased the transfer range - and these are 25% and 33% of that. Figure at extended range the AI uses the tanks - and normal it does not. There is some evidence that the AI won't even fly the long range missions if your supplies aren't good.

Sid

[el cid again]

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.

Ask the Brits. It is what the references say. I guess if you have no planes to shoot at, it is nice to have something to do!

[el cid again]

And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity?

Essentially yes.

The way it seems to work is this:

IF you fly extended (or transfer) range missions, you don't carry bombs, so you don't attack on the ground with bombs (you can still use that 37mm gun);

If you transfer to a short distance, no drop tanks, but also no bombs - just transfer.

IF you use tanks, the mission costs more supply points - just the same (per unit weight) as if you carried bombs.

[el cid again]

So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game.

It is very simple (crude?) - but remarkable for all that.

Planes carry normal load to normal range;
die rolls may change the actual weight of bombs (2x500 pound bombs may be replaced by 1x1000 pound bomb; in stock that matters not a whit; in RHS it actually changes what happens - due to a trick)

Planes carry a reduced loadout to extended range; IF it is a regular plane that means fewer bombs; IF it is a plane with drop tanks, it means mostly you carry drop tanks

Transports are wierd - they carry normal load to extended range

And NOTHING EVER carries maximum load to any range. Max load is ONLY used to define the base size requirement - and that is official.

[Hard Sarge]

Not here to flame anyone or there style or there info

but over all, I see a lot of stuff that you are just plain missing the point

Max range

combat max range ?
peacetime max range ?

biggest thing I see that you keep missing, is drop tanks in combat are only as good as the internal fuel load, you load a plane with external fuel load that is greater then your internal, once you drop tanks, you are never going to make it home

now ferry tanks and ferry ranges can be much greater, as you do not need to worry about your internal fuel load, as you are not going to be dropping your tanks
(so when you see a statement like, 400 miles clean and 1300 miles with X tanks, that is not combat)


I have noticed that the ranges in UV/WitP are much longer then in BoB/BTR

why?, the first thing that jumps out, since most of them are the same planes, is the cruise speed, most planes in BoB/BTR us combat cruise, while it looks like in UV/WitP they are using travel cruise

(for some of those fancy long ranges for the JP fighters during the war, keep one thing in mind, not every pilot in the squadron could fly it that long, the good ones, the best ones could)

keep up the reseach, you digging up some good stuff, just don't count every number as the final word

(ducks his head and runs away to hide for another 6 months)