Jet Aircraft & Propellar aircraft as Separate Units and Separate Research

[JerseyJohn]

In one of the forums I mentioned that I feel their should be two distinct types of aircraft, jets and props. I'd like to open that for discussion here. I think it should include two seperate research lines and two different sets of units.

As late as the Korean War the U. S. and all other major air forces were heavily stocked with propellar aircraft. The whole point of Mig Alley was the jump the Russians -- excuse me, Chinese -- had on the Americans by sending their jet fighters against American B-29s with their propellar fighter escorts.

In the game it would also have a stabalizing effect as a sudden rush in Jet research won't make one airforce the near automatic victor; it would still have hangars full of prop models doing it's everyday flying while it builds a new jet wing to phase out the older units.

I'll leave the floor open to the forum members and hope this will lead to much fruitful input.

[ December 19, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

mmmm... I dunno about that. I mean, yeah, with a jet you are looking at a radically different engine design, it's true. But the rest of plane design doens't change much, it seems to me. Engineering and aerodynamics pretty much stays the same. Yeah, you are dealing with more thrust, but still not really changing concepts, at least not until you start to threaten the sound barrier which is a few years outside the scope of the gmae.

[JerseyJohn]

True enough, but Germany didn't suddenly have all jets -- and the U. S., which by 1944 had the best propellar fighters didn't become obsolete overnight.

The two different types eclipsed each other.

Also, there was a huge divergence in aircraft design due to the jets, wings became swept and different stress, turn factors etc., had to be taken into account.

The design transformation took a decade to fully realize!

[ December 20, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

I feel the game does a decent job with it. The unmodified sound effects have Props for levels 1-3 and Jets for levels 4 and 5.

I always equated this to advancing first in the field of prop and then jet.

What I would like to see more is a split up of the air fleet into a fighter unit and a tactical unit.

Of course you could also do this with tanks and other units too. As for instance Heavy Tanks (like PZ-VI and JS-I) were in separate battalions while main battle tanks (PZ-IV & V and T34) fleshed out the divisions.

I suppose there is a point where you want to keep the game simple and fun, without bogging it down.

When I really feel the urge to micromanage I play War in Russia. Than I can change each units tank composition. LOL

Of course It really wouldn't be that hard to have two separate air units. Props and Jets. While the Jets would be more expensive they would be better in combat. Props are cheaper and less effective. Thus you could build more.

Pro's and Con's to each side.

Hmmmmm... Which to choose.

-dave

[SeaWolf_48]

I like your idea Jersey about the two different units. There best Pilots had to be retrained, airports had to be lenghtened, ground crews had to have new equipment and training and new fuel was used, all these items changed before the germans could use their jets; meanwhile prop planes were still in use. As new jet units come off the production line, old units should be updated with MPP costs.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin --

"Of course It really wouldn't be that hard to have two separate air units. Props and Jets. While the Jets would be more expensive they would be better in combat. Props are cheaper and less effective. Thus you could build more."

--

SeaWolfe_48 --

Right on the money, thanks for the good word.

--

I went back online to add a few things and was very glad to see that Dave and SeaWolfe anticipated several of the points i was about to present! As Dave says, the distinction wouldn't be that difficult to implement and Jets would be more expensive, etc. --

--

[JerseyJohn]

Additionally, I was thinking carriers would only carry propeller aircraft, thus encouraging caution and greater realism in their use along shorelines -- wouldn't risk a carrier within range of my enemy if I knew he had jet units!

At the start of the war three countries were doing research in this area. Germany was the most advanced with an actual prototype; England had it's own program but was farther behind, Italy , despite it's economic weakness, was researching jet engine technology -- in an overall view, at the time Mussolini kept saying Italy would be ready for war by 1941, possibly this was part of that.

To reflect this, I'd have jet development as follows: L=1 all 0s with a range of 1 hex, this is very crude research. L=2 , all 1s with a range of 3 hexes, slightly better but still very basic research. L=3 comparable to prop L=5 Jet L=4 30% better in all ways than prop L=5 and Jet L=5 50% better than prop L=5 , the undisputed king of the sky.

At the start, I'd give research levels as follows Germany Prop L=2 Jet L=2; Britain, Prop L=2, Jet L=1; Italy, prop L=1, Jet L=1. The rest would have Prop L= varies and Jet L=0. As stated earlier, even Jet L=2 is not a functional weapon. Jet L=3 is, and was historically attainable by Germany but, along with Britain, it completely dropped it's jet research in favor of more immediate conventional results!

[ December 20, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

True enough, but Germany didn't suddenly have all jets -- and the U. S., which by 1944 had the best propellar fighters didn't become obsolete overnight.

The two different types eclipsed each other.

THat's a game design flaw to automagically upgrade all units of a type. I would think that the smart thing to do would be to fix the flaw rather than open up a seperate, inherently flawed research line.

Also, there was a huge divergence in aircraft design due to the jets, wings became swept and different stress, turn factors etc., had to be taken into account.

That's all just engineering and it's not like those concepts weren't previously understood. The stresses are different becasue of how jets work, but not to all that great a degree. Also, the increased streamlining was understood before the war but until a powerplant was powerful enough to require it, it just wasn't done.

Radical revolutions came later, but like I said, not until the very late 40's. Until then, designers were still pretty much leveraging previously understood concepts and applying them.

I think that a game that extended past WWII into the 50's or beyond then new lines of advance for certain generally similar items would definately be needed (and make for a much richer variety)... It would be fun to look at building a doctraine and spending your R&D on making that doctraine work.

[ December 20, 2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[JerseyJohn]

Compassion --

"THat's a game design flaw to automagically upgrade all units of a type. I would think that the smar thing to do would be to fix the flaw rather than open up a seperate, inherently flawed research line."

If it could be fixed within the game structure that's fine. It isn't quite the same but if it works that's fine with me.

I think jets, in a WW II context are distinct from their prop counterparts. By extension, after the war, prop aircraft were the weapon of choice for ground support and jets were developed for air superiority. That went on till after the Korean War. Of course jets also attacked ground targets, but it was a long time before props were entirely phases out.

I think there's a real problem, however and it represents the abilities of U. S. planes late in the war vs. German aircraft. Both sides had advanced prop planes but even the German Ace and fighter commander Adolph Galland had to admit that at war's end it was the Mustang and other American designs that ruled the skies and German pilots, even veterans, in their best prop fighters couldn't make up for the difference. Obviously, in game terms, Germany had L=4 while the U. S. had L=5.

Yet, in aerial combat, those same Americans admitted they couldn't do much against the German jets. True, those jets lacked maneuverability and were easy targets when landing and all that. But they didn't need maneuverability for quick pass and shoot and if they missed the target didn't fall, but unlike a regular dogfight, the target had virtually no chance of shooting down it's attacker.

Jets would lack the range of the more advanced prop fighters and would lack the ground attack ability; at that stage they just didn't have it (yes, Hitler insisted bombs be attached to some of them, but the safest piece of reale state was the thing they were attempting to hit!).

My idea is that jets would be developed soley to attain air superiority. Period. There would be seperate and equally necessary uses for having prop planes and a country with just one Jet fleet fighting several conventional air fleets would find itself easily overwhelmed, which is exactly what happened late in the war.

[Compassion]

I see what you are saying... It does get confusing about what the right thing to do is when talking about such pie in the sky concepts as massed jet fighters since we never saw them enough to develop good counter measures to them as well as the fact that they never performed quite as well as they could have with a decent design cycle. I'm not sure that the game could ever be scoped that way without a major re-write from the ground up.

WOuld the game even be the same if we said that there was a product that was going to be crash researched that would gain significant advances but have serious drawbacks? IF lines were in relative stasis would we see those kinds of crash programs in the first place? I would love to play that kind of game, but I would also love to see Hubert build a world wide game with 1.06 type rule base (with some tweaks perhaps to current mechanics).

[JerseyJohn]

Compassion

It is confusing. I was still confused about it as the forum was being created, but it's starting to clarify a bit.

In a sense, what this would do would be to give players the opportunity to sacrifice a little of their immediate resources for the opportunity of developing a sane jet program for use further down the road. Germany was too caught up in it's quick victory delussion early on and neither Britain nor Italy could ever quite spare the resources.

Between the added expense of seperate research and seperate production jet planes would be something of a luxury product, or one of desperate necessity as the German's found out.

The whole thing is, of course, a V2.0 item and I wouldn't even want to see it as a patch. Aside from which I doubt it would be possible that way.

[ December 20, 2002, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[General Billote]

What I would like to see, and this goes for all units, is the ability to buy units at ANY tech level you have achieved. Just because you can buy tech level 5 Jets or Tanks doesn't mean you should not have the option of buying lower tech less expensive stuff. A country in a pinch could throw lower quality, less expensive troops onto the field and the high tech units would be truly special like they were in the war. With this system you would have to pay to upgrade units as well.

[Hueristic]

I don't like that idea and i'll tell u why. The introduction of jets did not imediately make proped aircraft obsolete but makeing them 2 distinctive unit types in this game would only make everyone race to jet then buy airfleets. Who would want to build fleets earlier if they knew they would become moot? Just my opinion and u guys know the definition of those

[JerseyJohn]

General Billote

Good idea. As the Soviets approached Berlin they saw a lot of Pnzr IIIs and IVs instead of Tigers and Panthers.

It's like the scene from the 1945 movie, A Walk in The Sun , after knocking out a Pz II in the Salerno battle, one American says to another, "Funny isn't it, the closer we get to Germany the more of their old stuff we're seeing."

Hueristic

That's one side of it.

The idea is that nobody would be racing to research jet aircraft due to the prohibitive cost of research and manufacture.

If done at all it would only be on a limited scale and props would still be more important as they'd be the ground attack instrument and also more versatile with longer range.

There would be no possibility of strategic jet bombers and the only function jets would have would be to help gain air superiority and at that principally over a homeland area because their range would be so limited compared with that of advanced prop'aircraft.

"Just my opinion and u guys know the definition of those . . .." Untrue, I for one value your opinion very highly; even more so when we agree!

[ December 20, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

There would be no possibility of strategic jet bombers and the only function jets would have would be to help gain air superiority and at that principally over a homeland area because their range would be so limited compared with that of advanced prop'aircraft.

Why no jet bombers? Given enough time, the Germans could have produced them, they did build a few tactical jet bombers. There are a lot of things that would have to go into this suggestion. Are you still going to seperate tactical bombers from fighters? (A good plan in my opinion) What I'd like to see is a bit of a branching research tree. Similar to HOI, but much more simplistic. Research jets to a certain level, then you split that off into jet bombers and fighters (and tactical bombers if you have the three seperated). I'd like more detail in the units in general, but I don't want it to get to HOI levels. I like this game for two reasons. It's easy to pick up and play, and in general, it works, unlike HOI.

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfpack

Originally I thought it would be two groups, tac and sac for props and jets. Then I realized how in the late forties America's top strategic bomber was the B-29 (and Russia had it's reverse-engineered version, renamed and with a red star, but a B-29 all the same). And it was our principal bomber even in Korea.

The main problems would be sighting targets and stability. At war's end, a number of promising designs, such as the Flying Wing (Germany had a similar plane, both were rear mounted propellar designs) were scrapped principally because they weren't adaptable to jet engines.

I'm sure there are aircraft specialists who know much more about this than I do. But it's my impression that jet bombers took much longer to develop and weren't actually put into production till the early fifties.

The bomb carrying German jets were a concession to Hitler. The aircraft designers themselves felt it was an idiotic idea and, given their choice, would have designed those early jet aircraft in a purely interception role.

I'd be very interested in any information anyone can share on this.

Personally I'd have nothing against developing jet bombers. I think it would be jumping the gun a bit historically, but I may be wrong; perhaps the idea was simply neglected due to the greater need for jet interceptors.

[ December 20, 2002, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfpack]

Well, they had quite a few in development (and since the game is what-if and can last longer they would appear) the most comprehensive list I've found is here That site has both fighters and bombers. For more in depth studies, there are a few books I've read on the late war studies by the Germans, unfortunately, it's been a while since I read them in college. I might be able to find one or two around here if you're interested though.

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfpack

Yes, once the Germans got going into jet development they were coming up with great designs. Perhaps you're right. The article you point to is a very good one. Pretty much the same thing was said in a documentary titled Luftwaffe 1946

Your point about it being a matter of what might have been possible, as opposed to limiting development to what was actually done is also very convincing and has convinced me!

Let's go at it!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Wolfpack:

What I'd like to see is a bit of a branching research tree.

So would I. And not just differentiating between props and jets, but in ALL areas - those already included and just enough more of them that will still keep the game from being too-too micro.

Say, 15-20 categories.

Varying costs for each, oh, 100-300 MPPs per.

Deliberate game design that would preclude covering everything, so that each game would depend on choices - not only for which category to research (... ASW, or Mobile Artillery, or Airborne, or late model U-boots, etc), but also on success ratios that take into account how successful your intelligence network has been.

I won't go on & on, since this is an area that will undoubtedly be much-discussed before SC2 prototype is assigned to the beta-testers (... hope none will wander on over from HoI :eek: ).

[Compassion]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

At war's end, a number of promising designs, such as the Flying Wing (Germany had a similar plane, both were rear mounted propellar designs) were scrapped principally because they weren't adaptable to jet engines.

IN the 40's the XB-35 flew:

The design was eventually scrapped not because of it's difficulty with the transition to jet propulsion.. indeed, it's biggest stability problem was due to the poor efficiancy gearboxes of the contra rotating props required to keep this plane flying straight with no tail section. Perhaps it's biggest problem was politics. Many of the then Air Corps generals had an eye towards breaking from the Army and creating their own branch of service... THey were looking for respect and appropraitons dollars in the upcoming post war drought years that were by then coming quickly and didn't want to fund such an advanced (which always reads expensive when talking about defense contracts) design (most of them didn't like the idea as it was such a departure from what had been seen before) of unproven worth... After all, the B-17 and B-29 was good enough to win the war, why monkey with proven success?

This broke the spirit of Jack Northrup... a successful aircraft builder during the war whose true passion was the flying wing. The Air FOrce went to the extent of not only cencelling the project, but had all designs, machining and tools destroyed along with the test planes.

Still, some coudln't let the idea die and a few short years later, the next flying wing took to the skies. THe jet powered YB-49:

This beaut nerly went into production when a tragic crash of one of the test models doomed the program. Again, many believed that this was also due to politics and a desire from many to procure the B-36. Many who worked on the plane including Air Force test pilots loaned for trials claim that the B-49 would have been the superior buy and that in fact it's great stength was it's stability in mos conditons and its very structural integrity.... though in extree conditions it was difficult to fly. Like many modern flying wing designs, it needed to fly on auto pilot much of the time and perhaps it was ahead of it's time....

The ultimate triumph of the concept would come many years later::

With the advances in fly by wire technology and modern avionics, the Flying Wing flys in today's Air FOrce... And it was built by Northrup. Old Jack Northrup was able to at least see the designs before he died.

This adds nothing to the discussion, but I love these things and any chance to drag the pics out...

Actually, it does add something... the differnece between a weapons system is often context and the time it's built in. The game currently had a big boost with the way the tech advances come in providing some context to tech advances.. But more could and should be done for SC 2 to model not only industrial advances, but also political and institutional intertia workign against radical designs (along with my own pet peeve about manpower levels).

[JerseyJohn]

Compassion

One of the best entries -- great, loved it !!!

Horrible use of backhanded politics -- there are even rumors that the crash was actually a sabotage job. A few years back, well, maybe twenty, I'd have thought not. Now, I'm disappointed to say, I really do believe it.

I wanted to write more about the flying wing and now I'm glad I didn't. I could never have done it the justice your posting gave it. Absolutely fantastic in every way!

Immers ---

Drives me nuts when you start saying something prfound but don't quite finish! I'm sure you have a good reason for doing so and I sincerely hope you elaborate further on those ideas very soon. If not here, then in another forum, either way I'm looking forward to reading it.

Wolfpack -- you had so many things for me to follow earlier that the branching tree idea slipped by. It shouldn't have. I was too wrapped up in the specifics of this subject and should have acknowledged the great idea you posted. Hopefully it's better said late than never.

[ December 21, 2002, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfe]

I like the idea of separating prop-driven and jet-powered air units, but I'm not sure I'm too keen on separating into individual abilities. I think this may make the units too small (or specialized) for SC's scale. When an air unit in SC attacks, it represents the main attack units along with their escort. If you separate them, you then have to manually coordinate the attack yourself. And I worry about having to choose which of my air units to use in a given situation. Sometimes too many choices can be a bad thing.

So how about having:

Advanced Air - These units would be essentially like they are in SC. They can attack naval and land targets and will automatically defend against enemy air raids. They're vulnerable to city-based and unit-based anti-air. Attacks against resources would be fairly ineffective. Serves as escorts for bombers and automatically assists land warfare for any units in range (this can represent both coordinated air-grounds attacks (which were rare in WW2, AFAIK) as well as initial air attacks at the beginning of an offensive, but is not necessarily the same as large-scale directed bombing attacks).

Jet Aircraft - Like Normal air units, they can attack all units and resources, but have limited effectiveness against resources. Slightly less vulnerable to AA than normal Air units, but much less vulnerable to air interceptors. Limited range at lower tech levels. Advanced Air Level 3 is required to begin building these.

Strategic Bombers - Similar to how they are currently in SC, but are invulnerable to unit-based AA (still vulnerable to resource-based AA, however). May only attack resources or naval units; no attacking enemy land units (on raids vs. resources, any enemy units on that resource are ignored). Each tech level increases range by 1 hex.

Jet Bombers - Less vulnerable to resource-based AA than Strategic and invulnerable to unit-based AA. Requires Strategic Bomber tech Level 4 (or maybe even 5) to begin building. Limited range initially (worse than Strategic), but each tech level increases range by 2 hexes.

As has been suggested before you can do something similar with tanks. Have Advanced Tanks similar to the current game and also have Heavy Tanks that can begin being built once you've achieved Tank tech level 3. The Heavies have good firepower and defense, but limited range and are expensive.

- Chris

[ December 21, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[JayJay_H]

Great Thread, interesting points from everyone here. Some previous thread proposed to make jet research somehow related to rocket technology - Would be very accurate, IMO

Messerschmitt Me262

There is no doubt that the Me262 jet fighter was an amazing and awesome aircraft, far beyond its years, and devastatingly destructive. The origins of the Messerschmitt Me262 were born out of Germanys need to evaluate other forms of propulsion other than the piston, when the Treaty Of Versailles forbade Germany from developing further aircraft technologies. Rocket and jet propulsion were not clauses in the treaty due to be thought of as folly; only past-times for the rich and eccentric, hell-bent on danger and publicity seeking. Indeed, many early developers of such powerplants became unfortunate victims of their own curiosity, as many were killed during their "experiments."

Me 262 in flight

Vergeltungswaffen , Hitler's personal wonderweapons , his last kick before the Reich crumbled .

This weapons were mainly used at the end of the war , as a form to try and give the allies a last blow .

The V-1 is probably the most known, then comes the rocket by von Braun or the V-2 and last but not least, Cönders weapon : the V-3.

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

Jet Bombers - Less vulnerable to resource-based AA than Strategic and invulnerable to unit-based AA. Requires Strategic Bomber tech Level 4 (or maybe even 5) to begin building. Limited range initially (worse than Strategic), but each tech level increases range by 2 hexes.

- Chris

Actually, I would say the biggest drawbacks to a jet bomber is the limited payload along with range. The early jet bombers weren't exactly heavyweights. To simulate this, you could make the low levels both short ranged and give them a relatively low attack value. Both would increase with increased levels of tech. That would do something to slow down the progression of tech, but allow a quick fix if someone was pretty desperate.

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfe -- JayJay_H and Wolfpack --

Without getting into what has now become a large number of specifics, I'd have to say the thread is getting right into the real issues and they're being explored very well.

As always, Great Pics JayJay_H !!

The point about rocket powered aircraft is also interesting. The Germans built at least one and after the war the U. S. was experimenting with one that looked like a small flying wing -- more on that further down. I don't think the rocket aircraft would have gone much beyond where they did, but then nobody seems to have done much research on them since the late forties.

I like the idea of breaking them into categories and agree fully with the observation that early jet bombers had small payloads. Additionally I think the prop-oriented crews would have had great difficulty hitting ground targets at such high speeds. To me all that was mainly to appease Hitler, the state of research at that time wasn't up to it, but as mentioned much earlier in this forum, we're back to the old issue of whether we want to stick with straight history or explore what easily might have been. My vote goes with the latter.

After the War the U. S. built a small flying wing that was rocket powered. The two elements were stored in the wings and mixed in the center firing out the aircrafts rear; to minimize the effect of G-forces the pilot didn't sit, he lay on his stomach viewing things through a plexiglass panel. The mixture activated itself exactly between his legs!

As far as I know it only made one test flight. It landed with the pilot's face six inches above the ground which rushed past with the craft going full speed -- which was also it's only speed. Upon getting out the test pilot (who was still alive to tell about this in a fairly new documentary) said landing was "a mind-expanding experience" and he didn't think they'd find more than two other people on planet earth who'd be willing to take it up for another flight!

Even more astounding, as this contraption was intended to serve exclusively in an interceptor role and had so little available space, it packed no weapons. The idea was to either nudge or ram enemy bombers, breaking off tails and wings, etc.. Imagine asking pilots to do that in battle -- or even in a test!

--

A few notes on that great Flying Wing posting by Compassion:

There's great footage of the plane maneuvering in the 1950 Science Fiction movie War of the Worlds starring Gene Barry.

The prop version was noted for it's ability to deflect radar and also for it's extreme range -- not sure if those things were mentioned, if they were a second time doesn't hurt.

A commercial version was also designed which would have featured passenger comfort and a many see-through sections to give the impression of floating through the sky. The concept was scrapped after the fatal crash and canellation of the bomber.

[ December 21, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]