Rockets, Artillery and Jets.

[SeaWolf_48]

Gentileman

It has come to my attention that not all countries had strategic rockets, or the means to make strategic rockets during WW2 (I don't think that the rocket units in the game are Katyusha's). It seems more realistic that all the countries did have or could have made Siege Artillery. In SC every country can make Strategic Rockets, only Germany made V-1's and V-2's. I would like to see all countries be able to make siege artillery like the railroad gun Anzio Annie, the 31.5" RR Gun Dora, and the 24" siege mortar called the Karl. Possible one unit per Armed Force. The US and Britain used Naval guns from battleships to destroy ports and units near the coast, and this is already portrade in the game. But England and America could have made big guns, they didn't make rockets like our game has until they captured german scientist after the war. The siege artillery could be used against forts and cities to break down their entrenchment.

Also, who had jets beside the germans during the war. The US and Britain started to have experimental jets before the war ended, the P-80 Shooting Star and the Gloster Meteor, but they weren't ready for war until 1947. Russia and Italy didn't have the means or the industry to ever produce jets. It seems that only the germans should have jet power! The US put its money and time into building the bomb, which was used in WW2, but who wants a nuke in this game. The P-51 and B-17s shot down more German planes; both airplanes (Me-109s, and Fw-190s) and Jets the Me-262s, than any other type of warplane. The Russians used their planes for ground attack. The IL-2 was their best plane. The English had the best Fighterbombers the Typhoon, and the Mosquito. These should be the goals for the Allies.

Maybe making Fighters, Fighterbomber which would include medium bombers (like B-25, A-26, Ju-88, and Mosquito), and Heavy Bombers would be a better portrail of airpower. Only fighterbomber/medium bombers could attack ships and subs. Fighters were not used for ground attack because they were vulnerable to ground fire, a bullet in the radiator and the plane was history. Well, what do you think?

Thanks

Comments gladly excepted.

SeaWolf

[General Billote]

Good points Sea Wolf... There was a lot of talk months ago of replacing the rockets with paratrooper units but alas it fell on deaf ears. We'll have to wait for SC2 I suppose.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Great thread. Rockets weren't really practical at the time. Germany did a great job researching them but it took too long and even they didn't have the industrial capability to make it work.

Plus, if you don't have a lot of air cover the rockets, even L-5, are pretty useless -- just big ignitables.

In 1939 the Germans and British both had early jet prototypes. Both countries abandoned their programs when the war started. German jets were a little more advanced but the head of aircraft development at the time, Ernst Udet, didn't think it was a promising area and Goering agreed with him -- both were WW I fighter aces and considered the early jet to be too unmaneuverable and, incredibly, too fast for an effective dogfight!

As the war went on Germany began researching it again and oddly enough the Italians, though they couldn't afford to produce them, were researching jet engines. Late in the war German jet engines expanded upon by Italian designers were considered the best, especially by the Japanese, who received some via U-Boat.

England resumed their jet research after the early German models were seen attacking Allied Bombers. The German program for jet intercepters had meanwhile been crippled by Hitler's insistence they also be able to fill a ground attack role. This probably cost them a year.

In 1945 the British also had jet fighters in the sky but they never ran into their German counterparts. Post war test pilots who flew both aircraft said the German models were much more advanced and would have come ahead. The United States was very far behind but closed the gap quickly after the war. Russia inherited most of Germany's designers and incorporated the captured technology and new research to develop the Mig series.

As far as Rockets go, I don't know what the answer is in game terms. I'd like to see them stay, but there should be a distinction between rocketry and tactical rockets like the multiple rocket launchers used extensively in different forms by Russia [the fabled Stalin Organ] Germany and the United States. The multiples also required research to be effectively developed.

Siege artillery also seems to have been a German specialty. They used it against Sevastopal (but not against Lenningrad) and had railroad guns in Italy. Generally, the railroad guns were considered a poor return on manpower and resources. Some of these big German guns were probably transferred orders begun for the navy in the scuttled Z-plan.

[ December 20, 2002, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[GravesRegistration]

Just some thoughts

The British used the Meteor to chase down v-1's

German jet losses were much higher because when they entered service the skies were allready under allied control. Most German Jets where killed while trying to land.

[Archibald]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

The US and Britain started to have experimental jets before the war ended, the P-80 Shooting Star and the Gloster Meteor, but they weren't ready for war until 1947.

The Meaty Whore entered RAF Squadron service in July 1944.

[pzgndr]

It seems that only the _____ should have _____!

Ah, but what-if? You're missing a key point to the game. Might as well hardwire historical tech advances into the game with maybe some random factors and take out variable research altogether. :confused:

Regarding rockets and artillery, I'll rehash an old suggestion I've made. How about L0 and L1 "rockets" represent self-propelled artillery with high movement (4) and short range (2), L2 and L3 represent mobile rocket launchers like Nebelwerfers and Katyushas with medium movement (3) and medium range (3), and L4 and L5 being the V-1 and V-2 series with low movement (2) and long range (4-5). That way, rockets would represent the full spectrum of indirect fire at this scale and be more useful, especially at the lower tech levels. The icons and sound effects could change like jets do now. :cool:

[SeaWolf_48]

Hi Bill

I like your comment. Call me old fashion but I like wargames to be close to history. Your suggestion of using the different types of rocketry is very good.

Thanks

SeaWolf

[SeaMonkey]

Hmmm I remember this and yes I agree and rockets/artillery should be transportable.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill,

Yes, I also remember your suggestion from at least one other forum. Agreed with SeaWolf and SeaMonkey -- Liked it then and like it now. It covers only part of this topic, but it covers that part very well. Also, I'm afraid I tend to agree with SeaWolf that research should be within historical bounds, though not slavishly so -- it's a difficult balance.

As for jet aircraft, I think it might almost be broken into two fields of research: prop and jet. The United States had, beyond any doubt, taken propellar planes to the limit by 1944, nobody, including Germany, had better propeller fighters. Yet, the U. S. only knew about jets from what the Brits told them and the accounts of their own bomber crews, who at first seemed to be hallucinating!

I think there should be two distinct types of research and two distinct aircraft types: the earliest would be prop and the more advanced would be jet and rocket powered aircraft -- post war the U. S. continued Germany's experiments in this area, the Japanese also had designs, but by then they were too infatuated with Kamakazee ideas and saw them only as flying bombs with a human sacrifice!

This would not only cause a further subdivision of research, but of manufacturing resources as well. If aviation were all one combined concept neither the Germans nor the British would have dropped their fledgeling jet research in 1939.

Archibald Great pic and terrific info.

GravesRegistration Great point about what the early meteors were used for late in the war. I think the designers were still fine tuning them and using the V1s as much as anything as a proving ground. England also hunted them down with Spitfires and probably Hurricanes and shot a lot of them out of the sky with AA batteries along the coast. Doing it with fighters was a dangerous mission and required a skilled pilot.

I think V1's would have been more effectively used against ground units in random locations as they needed the element of surprise -- at night they could be seen approaching from great distances and in daylight they were easy targets, so using them in fixed lanes was self-defeating. On the other hand they lacked the mobility to be shuffled along the front, or more accurately, that late in the war Germany lacked the means to provide the needed mobility.

Also, about the way Allied fighters could bag a German jet was to wait for it to land -- like the catcher's joke on the proper technique for catching a knuckleball wait till it stops rolling!

[ December 20, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Wait a minute JJ, wasn't there some kind of double prop/push pull concept that the Germans were working on? Maybe Arado 234 or something like that. I'll be awaitin the still at the "Still".

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Once more I yield to your wisdom and learn from it -- I'll be searching for the still at the still!

And after sampling this season's finest brew, I've found ....

"Wait a minute JJ, wasn't there some kind of double prop/push pull concept that the Germans were working on? Maybe Arado 234 or something like that. I'll be awaitin the still at the 'Still'. "

Yes SeaMonkey, as always your astute scholarship and thirst for knowledge has pointed the way.

Shown below is the long suppressed photo of post WW II U. S. scientists attempting to reverse engineer the captured German top secret Arado 234 .

[ December 20, 2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Wait a minute JJ, wasn't there some kind of double prop/push pull concept that the Germans were working on? Maybe Arado 234 or something like that. I'll be awaitin the still at the "Still".

That was the Dornier 335. A very intersting plane. Here is a link to some info for those interested:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335top.htm

Later campaigners!

-dave

[JerseyJohn]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

The advanced Arado 234 "push-pull" is not to be confused with the parrellel Dornier 335 pfeil! A more conventional aircraft that actually had wings and a tail and an engine!

It was hoped the Push-Pull would fill Germany's last aircraft requirements of being able to fly without fuel.

[ December 20, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

The advanced Arado 234 "push-pull" is not to be confused with the parrellel Dornier 335 pfeil! A more conventional aircraft that actually had wings and a tail and an engine!

It was hoped the Push-Pull would fill Germany's last aircraft requirements of being able to fly without fuel.

Naw, the Arado-234 Blitz was a jet engine bomber. I have never heard it referred to as push pull.

The Info on the Do-335 states this:

Dornier Do 335 Introduction - a detailed profile of the German Dornier Do 335 'Pfeil' push-pull twin-engined fighter of World War 2.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335top.htm

Here's some 234 info:

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/arado234.html

Unless there is another 234 out there.

-dave

[JerseyJohn]

I Yeild the point and shall return to SeaMonkey's still to conduct further research.

Perhaps we're confusing the 234 'Blitz' with the totally un-related, top secret and engineless 234 'Push Pull!'

[ December 20, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Perhaps we're confusing the 234 'Blitz' with the totally un-related, top secret and engineless 234 'Push Pull!'

That must be it exactly.

Let us be thankful we are not ME-163 test pilots. I think U-Boats going to sea in 1944 had a longer life expectancy. Maybe even untrained volksturm in the streets of Berlin, April 1945. Well maybe not them.

I prefer the classics anyways. I love the FW-190A series.

The luftwaffe had some fun planes.

-dave

[Jeff Gilbert]

Even thought I like the idea of splitting out the Air Fleets into types [Fighter, Tac, Bomber etc.] and also making different units for rocketry vice rocket artillery. Right now I would have to say, "Where the heck am I to put the units?"

Without stacking or a much bigger map, we don't have the room for every niche type unit. Maybe another item for Hubert's SC2 master wish list? I'll bet that list is huge by now.

Anyway, the game as is plays out pretty darn well against matched opponants.

[viper_ss]

I like the suggestions but I think it is a question of historical vs. hypothetical. The US didn't have rockets but what if?

I think maybe the research category could have an option like diplomacy where you could make it historical or the current method.

One note, is it me or can you not transport rockets? Basically the US cannot buy rockets because they cannot get them anywhere. I just want clarification that it's not me.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

The life expectancy of all test pilots as the jet age dawned was incredibly short. Especially the unfortunates who had to fly those German volksjets they supplied the Hitler Youth with in the waning days of the war -- held together by inferior glue of all things! Is this one of the aircraft you mention in your entry?

One of the first American jet testers in 1945 was flying a conventional U. S. prop aircraft fitted with an early jet engine. A nearby base trained fledgling pilots and of course they knew nothing at all about jet planes. The test pilot used to go up with a gorilla mask and pass their formations waving. It amused him to hear about the guys who had halucinated and reported gorillas flying flaming aircraft without propellars. I believe he crashed and died shortly afterwards.

[ December 20, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

viper_ss

All the German rocket scientists had studied the rocketry research of America's Rober Goddard and to a man they found it incredible that the U. S. didn't have a secret rocket program.

[SeaMonkey]

Even through blurred vision i think the top secret Arado 234 you(JJ) posted is the correct conclusion of German technological prop development(I can always count on JJ for clarity). But I must say, I believe this was a hovercraft(push/pull=hover) and used primarily for deception and diversion. Don't be disturbed KvK many people have have mistakenly gazed upon this wonder weapon before.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

Is this one of the aircraft you mention in your entry?

Very similiar, the ME-163 was the little rocket interceptor that dropped it's wheels after take off and landed on a skid.

It fuel was a very dangerous mixture and if any of it remained in the tanks upon landing it could cause the plane to explode.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me163.html

Another one of theose "peoples" planes was the HE-162.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he162.html

The FW-190 was a standard fighter and fighter/bomber plane.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190af.html

I like classic warbirds.

Later!

-dave

[Compassion]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Also, about the way Allied fighters could bag a German jet was to wait for it to land -- like the catcher's joke on the proper technique for catching a knuckleball wait till it stops rolling!

Well, if you can catch a 262 in a turn it was toast. Those Jumo jets were pigs and took forever to spool up (unless you wanted a flameout or an explosion, that is). The preferred method to engage them was to wait for them to have to cut throttles for some reason and then dive on them. Not the niblest plane, it relied on pure speed to survive so that if it did have to turn, anything in the sky would be able to turn inside it and get a high deflection shot off right into the top of the plane.

[ December 20, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[JerseyJohn]

Compassion

Good point -- what we tend to overlook, though, is even the German jets were still in the early stages of development. The whole program was rushed after being neglected for two years at war's start. Then it was hamperred by Hitler's interference.

[ December 20, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

All the German rocket scientists had studied the rocketry research of America's Rober Goddard...

Very true. From the whatever happened to? department: :eek:

Goddard's grandson used to own a wargamer's store not too far from where I live... don't know if he is still there since I haven't bought a wargame in awhile, but I'll probably check this weekend while I am out browsing around...

I still get mail from that store, announcing various gaming marathons for grogs, etc, so they must still be in business...

If anyone needs to know the aero-specs and combat modifiers for tiny cardboard jets, let me know and I will ask him...