A bunch of questions on aircraft

[gap]

Originally Posted by LesBaker

You might find this article interesting as it covers the development and use of guns used for both offence and defence by RAF aircraft leading up to and during WWII, also for the various bombs and air to ground rockets used and the type of aircraft that used them.


https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documen...al_weapons.pdf

Thank you very much Les

indeed your article looks interesting. I already saved it on my HD and I will read it carefully

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

Originally Posted by gap

• No. 6 Squadron was based in Edku when, between December '42 and February '43 it was appointed to the protection of Allied shipping (probably in-/out-bound to/from the near port of Alexandria) with its Hurricanes.

The Hurricane mark used by the squadron while in Edku was Mk IIC, a fighter-bomber variant armed with four 20 mm cannons and capable of carrying a 250 lb or 500 lb bomb.
According to Wikipedia: «By then [June 1941, when the Mark IIC entered service] performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder"».

Also interesting is the fact that, before and after its deployment in Idku, No 6 Squadron was flying another ground attack version of the Hurricane, the Mk IID:
«Mk IIs were used in ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the cannons did not have the performance needed, while bombing the tanks was almost impossible. The solution was to equip the aircraft with a 40 mm cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The Hurricanes No. 6 Squadron, the first squadron equipped with this armament, were so effective that the squadron was nicknamed the "Flying Can Openers". A winged can-opener became an unofficial squadron emblem, and is painted on present-day aircraft of 6 Squadron».

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.

Originally Posted by Gerald

Good work gap

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

Exactly my point

Originally Posted by kapuhy

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

I definitely agree with you. Imo the ahistorical usage of fighters in game comes from two factors: misinterpretation of the max radius setting and lack of aircraft in game. See my thoughts below for more.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

Nice graph!

In order to simulate in game fairly realistic aircraft ranges, we must take into account three important factors:

• Aircraft MaxRadius setting. To the best of my understanding, this is likely to translate in game the combat radius in kilometers, i.e. «the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves»*. This is a somehow aleatory variable though, because it might depend on the duration of the mission that must be accomplished, on the speed and altitude maintained during the mission itself, and on the weight of the armament carried (heavier ordnance implying lesser extra fuel reserves and increased fuels consumption). Interestingly, the aircraft range most commonly reported in warplanes' specs is either the combat range, i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance» (that should be roughly two times the combat radius) or the maximal total range i.e. the «maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft»*. The combat range of WWII fighters is not always declared. Inferring it - and thus the combat radius - from maximum range is a matter of speculation, but I believe that a 0.4 to 0.5 ratio would be a decent approximation.
  

  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
  

• Aircraft variant. Some long-lived WWII fighters, like the Hurricane, had many incarantions whose performances improved almost constantly. Having just one variant modelled in game which will spawn throughout the whole campaign, might lead to gross under/over estimations of aircraft range, speed and firepower.
  
  
• SH map projection. From my remarks above, we might get that MaxRadius = 1/2 Combat Range ≈ 1/4 to 1/5 Maximal Range. Unfortunately things are not that easy. In real world, one degree of latitude measures about 111 km. This is also the approximate length of one degree of longitude at the Equator but, due to the fact that meridians are converging, this distance decreases as we move from the Equator to the Poles where it is equal to 0. Coversely, in the SH world one degree of latitude/longitude will always measure exactly 120 km, no matter where we are on the map. This fact implies that, near the Equator, distances on the SH5 map are 108% bigger than real world ones, and the discrepancy gets much worser at higher latitudes where most of the campaign takes place.

All in all, I think that the best method for addressing the above shortcomings, would be having several proxy clones for each aircraft variant modelled in game, and setting their MaxRadius property according to the duties that, in real WWII warfare, those planes accomplished in each theater. In theory, we should have one aircraft clone with customized range (and armament) for each air group using it, but in practice several squadrons/air groups with similar deployment and missions would share the same aircraft "clone".

Talking more specifically about fighters, the plan I have in mind is as follows:

• Home defense interceptors / night fighters: only the fighter squadrons which are known to have been based near a port should be added to the game, and the radius of their aircraft should be just long enough to cover the air space above that port. No need to simulate inland squadrons, or squadrons whose base was located in areas of little interest for the game.
  
  
• Fighters and fighter-bombers defending coastal shipping: these are a bit trickier to be simulated; the circular range of action of airbase-spawned aircraft would involve that, rather than sticking to coastal areas, they would sweep in all the directions, also moving toward the open sea. Moreover, if the player is spotted within their range, there is a chance that they are called in for an ASW attack, decreasing the chance that better suited and more historically correct planes spawn instead. Maybe, if there are not too many of these "coastal patrol fighter squadrons", scripting them rather than adding them to airbases would be a better idea.
  
  
• Offensive long range fighters, either intruders or, later in the war, bomber escorts: my idea is definitely to script them where/when appropriate. In this category should also fall fighter squadrons that are known to have played a role in one-time historical events (like Dunkirk evacuation, D-day landings, etc.).

I hope I didn't forget anything. Probably yes, but we will discover it as I proceed with my analysis of RAF squadrons.

[gap]

Friends I need your help again. This time it is not a question about game settings, but rather a question relative to military history.

Based on information on RAF squadrons I have gathered so far, I am setting up some new airbases with their own air groups. My goal is to reproduce as closely as possible WWII RAF order of battle where it had an influence on naval warfare.

Real airbase locations and real aircraft types for each base, with realistic combat ranges and plausible armaments are in my mind, all of the above factors evolving over time according to historical records.
Attaining that level of accuracy requires an hard work, and some simplifications are going to be needed for accommodating it within the limited resources of our game and of our computers, but even so, I think that the result might be worth the effort.

Now I am looking for information on the typical composition of a RAF squadron (for different Commands and at various stages of the war) in terms of Flights and aircrews/aircraft. Do you have any numbers that you can offer me or can you point me to some source where I can get the said information?

[LesBaker]

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.


https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pa...446&ClubID=460




and Here's an index of all RAF squadrons and aircraft used during WWII.


http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units.html




Fighter Squdrons normaly comprised of 12 Aircraft, Bomber Squadrons varied in size a lot in the early years there were 6-8 aircraft per Flight with normaly 2 Flights per squadron giving 12-16 aircraft, from 1943 on there were normaly 12 aircraft per Flight and 3 Flights per squadron, as for Costal Command (the Cinderella Command) there were no fixed amount of aircraft per squadron just what was availble




Les

[gap]

Originally Posted by LesBaker

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.


https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pa...446&ClubID=460


Les

Wow, that's a nice map, thank you Les!

I am slowly building a similar map on Google Earth; hopefully I will manage making a good selection for our game, else we will have more airbases than ports lol