Advertisement
by Nearly Finland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:48 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:53 pm
Nearly Finland wrote:I appreciate the manufacturing and development realism advice. So semi-modern aircraft don't pop up out of nowhere, they have to be gradually developed, bit by bit, starting from flimsy Wright flyers. This makes sense, and is reflected in the region rules as a "culture point cost tech tree". I'm trying to ask more about tactics in the field of battle, though, so maybe more general questions would help. So given 1920s-era aircraft, what types of aircraft would be best at the anti-shipping role? What would they do to go about finding and attacking enemy ships, what methods would be used? Is there any way that they could operate in concert with friendly ships, similar to Close Air Support planes coordinating with ground forces?
EDIT: And, of course, how effective is the AA of the battle fleet against them?
by Puzikas » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:53 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Does the failed reconnaissance trip by HMS Engadine's planes at Jutland count? If yes that gets pushed back 2 years. :3
Nearly Finland wrote:Well, the first wright-style aircraft flies in the 1910s, and there was no WW1, Germany is still a confederation.
Gallia- wrote:TBF as Allanea mentioned the problem isn't so much flying as it is carrying useful bomb quantities.
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:55 pm
by Purpelia » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:58 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:58 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Nearly Finland wrote:I appreciate the manufacturing and development realism advice. So semi-modern aircraft don't pop up out of nowhere, they have to be gradually developed, bit by bit, starting from flimsy Wright flyers. This makes sense, and is reflected in the region rules as a "culture point cost tech tree". I'm trying to ask more about tactics in the field of battle, though, so maybe more general questions would help. So given 1920s-era aircraft, what types of aircraft would be best at the anti-shipping role? What would they do to go about finding and attacking enemy ships, what methods would be used? Is there any way that they could operate in concert with friendly ships, similar to Close Air Support planes coordinating with ground forces?
EDIT: And, of course, how effective is the AA of the battle fleet against them?
In your situation it would be more like 1916 because nobody has had the idea yet that planes can do other things than flying over enemy fleets and inspect them. :3
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:58 pm
Nearly Finland wrote:I appreciate the manufacturing and development realism advice. So semi-modern aircraft don't pop up out of nowhere, they have to be gradually developed, bit by bit, starting from flimsy Wright flyers. This makes sense, and is reflected in the region rules as a "culture point cost tech tree". I'm trying to ask more about tactics in the field of battle, though, so maybe more general questions would help. So given 1920s-era aircraft, what types of aircraft would be best at the anti-shipping role? What would they do to go about finding and attacking enemy ships, what methods would be used? Is there any way that they could operate in concert with friendly ships, similar to Close Air Support planes coordinating with ground forces?
Nearly Finland wrote:EDIT: And, of course, how effective is the AA of the battle fleet against them?
Purpelia wrote:To be fair, if he does not have a WW1 his setting won't have a lot of the aviation experience that sprung up from that war. So if he wants to have aircraft be a non factor (relatively) he can simply say that they do exist but because that experience is lacking people still look at them as novelty scout machines. And thus even if somebody did strap a V8 to them the focus was more on delivering more mail or flying faster and further and nobody really thought to develop proper bombing tactics, squadron flying tactics etc. And that would basically kill the aircraft as a bomber until some proper fighting was done for people to figure these things out the hard way.
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:22 pm
by Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:25 pm
by Puzikas » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:41 pm
Gallia- wrote:Puzikas wrote:
No because thats not really a "fight" since they werent armed
Unless like the officer fired his Webly lel
But dig this:
In 1956 VP-7 bombed a shitton of orcas that were eating all the food fish off the coast of Iceland to save the fishing industry from collapse. Depth bombs, 5" HVAR rockets, 12.7mm machine guns, and .45 caliber pistol ammunition was all listed as expenditures during the anti-killer whale campaign.
Which means some motherfucker leaned out the side of a P-2 Neptune and shot a fucking whale with a .45.
I didn't know the Navy wore such massive spurs.
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:48 pm
by Allanea » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:59 pm
Gallia- wrote:Does Allanea consider that these men are a multiple rocket launcher?
Yeah this is about as much an aircraft carrier as men jumping off cliffs with wings on their arms are an airplane. Very good disingenuous statement though. You are good at hyperbole and literal statements designed to deceive.Langley gave up the project after two crashes on take-off on October 7 and December 8, 1903.
Very successful aircraft carrier good job.
But besides that:This required a catapult for launching. The craft had no landing gear, the plan being to descend into the water after demonstrating flight which if successful would entail a partial, if not total, rebuilding of the machine.
Next you'll be telling us that a rocket sled is a fighter jet or something because they both have ejection seats? The analogy is apt since the only thing Langley's dumb catapult had in common with an aircraft carrier was that they both have catapults. I guess a better comparison is this, though:
Rare image of the US Navy's secret amphibious aircraft carrier, designed to use pre-existing runways.
by Nearly Finland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:03 pm
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:21 pm
Allanea wrote:Gallia- wrote:Does Allanea consider that these men are a multiple rocket launcher?
Yeah this is about as much an aircraft carrier as men jumping off cliffs with wings on their arms are an airplane. Very good disingenuous statement though. You are good at hyperbole and literal statements designed to deceive.
Very successful aircraft carrier good job.
But besides that:
Next you'll be telling us that a rocket sled is a fighter jet or something because they both have ejection seats? The analogy is apt since the only thing Langley's dumb catapult had in common with an aircraft carrier was that they both have catapults. I guess a better comparison is this, though:
(Image)
Rare image of the US Navy's secret amphibious aircraft carrier, designed to use pre-existing runways.
You're missing my point and it is this:
It's really hard to conceive of a circumstance where humanity has had aircraft, but has not, somehow, conceived flying them off ships, because the idea of launching them off ships is literally older than the planes themselves.
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:34 pm
by Allanea » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:36 pm
Gallia- wrote:I thought he just had a grant for the airplane tbf.
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:37 pm
by North Arkana » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:58 pm
Puzikas wrote:modern aircraft have serious problems carrying sufficent bombs to threaten other aircraft as well
Except that one time the F-15 bombed a helicopter but that was metal
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:37 pm
by Laritaia » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 pm
Gallia- wrote:Is it fine to assume that fixed installations, like airbases, should have centrally controlled VSR/FCR for their air defense systems, like Skyshield? Or is local FCR for each gun a better option? But is there any reason why I shouldn't have a central VSR for an SPAA battery? Should each SPAA have a VSR and FCR, or just a FCR? I ask because I'm worried about the cost of VSRs over FCRs.
OTOH central VSR requires either wires or radio links to work I guess, which is kind of a bummer. Also can I press the FCR into VSR duty like Shilka or is it better to have a separate for both like Crotale NG?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, does an SRADS SPAA need to know about threats greater than 20-ish km, and should this be done on the vehicle itself or at a dedicated, towed or mobile, early warning radar?
by Gallia- » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:55 pm
Laritaia wrote:Gallia- wrote:Is it fine to assume that fixed installations, like airbases, should have centrally controlled VSR/FCR for their air defense systems, like Skyshield? Or is local FCR for each gun a better option? But is there any reason why I shouldn't have a central VSR for an SPAA battery? Should each SPAA have a VSR and FCR, or just a FCR? I ask because I'm worried about the cost of VSRs over FCRs.
OTOH central VSR requires either wires or radio links to work I guess, which is kind of a bummer. Also can I press the FCR into VSR duty like Shilka or is it better to have a separate for both like Crotale NG?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, does an SRADS SPAA need to know about threats greater than 20-ish km, and should this be done on the vehicle itself or at a dedicated, towed or mobile, early warning radar?
a "fixed" Gun battery probably doesn't need a dedicated VSR, instead you could just tie the controllers into the local air defence net to provide them the necessary threat cues.
by Austrasien » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:55 pm
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Question about 2nd Fallujah. According to what I've been reading, the city was besieged for several weeks and heavily bombarded from artillery and the air, at which point Coalition forces went in.
From what I've heard, this kind of bombardment on a city makes things worse, not better. The stereotypical example is Stalingrad; maybe I'm confusing those who defended Fallujah as being of the same determination and number as those who defended Stalingrad, but if the pre-attack bombardment horribly backfired for the Nazis in the end, why did it succeed for the Coalition in 2004?
by Austrasien » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:13 pm
Gallia- wrote:Is it fine to assume that fixed installations, like airbases, should have centrally controlled VSR/FCR for their air defense systems, like Skyshield? Or is local FCR for each gun a better option? But is there any reason why I shouldn't have a central VSR for an SPAA battery? Should each SPAA have a VSR and FCR, or just a FCR? I ask because I'm worried about the cost of VSRs over FCRs.
OTOH central VSR requires either wires or radio links to work I guess, which is kind of a bummer. Also can I press the FCR into VSR duty like Shilka or is it better to have a separate for both like Crotale NG?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, does an SRADS SPAA need to know about threats greater than 20-ish km, and should this be done on the vehicle itself or at a dedicated, towed or mobile, early warning radar? This applies to C-RAM as well, since I'd consider SRADS and C-RAM/C-UAS to be the same mission of low altitude air defense. Should a C-RAM/C-UAS vehicle have a counter-mortar radar on it, or should a counter-mortar radar cue it on things? I suspect the former actually is true for over SRADS against tactical aircraft, which might differentiate the two somewhat since C-RAM/C-UAS are attacking low RCS objects, but OTOH C-RAM systems are generally just AAA or naval CIWS.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Baltinica, Darussalam
Advertisement