WW I has zeppelins, what should we have in WW II?
I'm a bit envious on the WW I part of our beloved game that they can incorporate those great and nice zeppelins in their game. If you put such a nice one that for example clipper makes, on a gaming table you surely have an eyecatcher. Is their something in WW II we can use?
I've been thinking on a large aircraft carrier but due to the large amount of AA-guns on them they would become unplayable in a game with so little aircraft.
Do you guys have any ideas?
The US Navy had blimps that they used to scout for U Boats in the Atlantic but they were so far from anywhere that planes could be launched to attack them. The Japanese had subs that could launch a plane and the did bomb part of LA with one that caused a panic and more damage by US AAA then the plane did. Anything with blimps would have to be a WHAT IF sceniro. Just my thoughts.
The British had Sperrballons in WW II.
Umm -- the L.A. raid was performed with gunfire; the airplane raid was over Oregon:Originally Posted by BobP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-17 (Note: The sub had an E14Y, but apparently it was not used.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_E14Y .
It is possible to buy 1/200 scale warship kits, mainly battleships, but you have the AA gun problem again. Otherwise, the largest flying planes were the four engined bombers and flying boats, though there were a few planes with more engines.
I've got a Bv 222 that I am working on a stand for at the moment for this purpose.
Some interesting stuff already!
@ Lucas: the Bv 222 I didn't know. Looks a very interesting plane as a large eyecatcher. What is the kit you have bought? Or is it a die-cast model you are transforming for WOG?
It's some diecast I found on ebay. The wingspan is over eight inches and it is "proper" 1/200 scale
One other big bird that would look impressive in model form is the Messerschmitt Gigant
It saw a fair bit of use to on the Russian Front and in the Mediterainian.
Last edited by Rabbit 3; 01-14-2013 at 13:41.
Orderd one via Nightbomber in Poland. Looking forward to place it on the table. Is there a lot of work to be done before it is useable? What stats do you use and do you have card for it?
I haven't really started on it yet as I also have a 1/200 Japanese Type B1 Submarine holding up my hobby table. The only issue I foresee with the Bv 222 is that it may need multiple peg points because of it's large size and balance
Maybe a bomberpeg will be enough?
Maybe I should give battleships a chance also. I've drawn this card this evening...
The card is meant to represent the Prinz Eugen and should be in scale 1/700. The card is 34cm long and 8,5 wide. A model of that would be an eye-catcher as well. It was a quick draft and I already thinking of making the AA somewhat more powerful (double D-tokens). It would be an ideal target for the Beaufighters...
A friend of mine suggested having the AA fire clumped together in different sections and have it start out very powerful but as it takes damage it loses guns so does less damage with each hit taken.Maybe a bomberpeg will be enough?
Maybe I should give battleships a chance also. I've drawn this card this evening...
The card is meant to represent the Prinz Eugen and should be in scale 1/700. The card is 34cm long and 8,5 wide. A model of that would be an eye-catcher as well. It was a quick draft and I already thinking of making the AA somewhat more powerful (double D-tokens). It would be an ideal target for the Beaufighters...
For some interesting 3-D visuals, how about a swarm/flock/bunch of Japanese Fu-Go wafting across the Pacific?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon
That is a golden hint and I will use it for this ship. Thank you very much for this!!!
The Polish fighter pilot kpt. Stanislaw Brzeski was credited with the destruction of a German observation balloon on 4 September 1939 whilst flying a P.11c with 152 Eskadra out of Szpandowo. He went on to fly with the RAF and by the time he was shot down and taken PW in May 1944 had been credited with a total of seven + three shared kills, two probables and one damaged.The British had Sperrballons in WW II.
Brzeski is likely the only WW2 ace to count an observation balloon in his list of confirmed victories.
Last edited by Carl_Brisgamer; 02-26-2013 at 12:50.
A giant is rising...
And a card...
More here
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...564#post202564
Last edited by Thomatchef; 02-26-2013 at 10:57.
That is almost exactly what I was planning to do with mine! Can't wait to print that out and use it!
For the most part, the blimps had a pretty boring war but most were based in the 'States for the entire war which wasn't too shabby.
A few served in the Azores and in the Mediterranean. No merchantman was sunk by U-boats while escorted by a blimp.
One blimp , the K-74, was shot down by the U-134 on the night of July 18,1943 in the Florida Straits. While trying to sneak up from behind the U-boat the K-74 was spotted at the altitude of 250 ft.
The U-boat opened up with all she had and destroyed the starboard engine and punctured the envelope
The K-74 managed to drop two depth charges next to the U-boat before crashing. The K-74's crew, except the bombadier who was taken by a shark, were rescued the next mornig.
The U-134 was damaged sufficiently to prevent her from submerging. She managed to return to her home base which was probably a tense trip in itself. At least the U-134's hunting expedition was cut short.
Hi chaps we have used the Bismarck from the file section and done the sword fish attacks using Max headrooms cards I have attached the turning circle for the battle ship we used you can print this out to help with the movement.
As for the anti aircraft fire we only used the A deck tokens and limited it to 2 per aircraft in a single pass this cut down the losses of aircraft and gave a reasonable amount of damage without wiping out the aircraft in one turn.
Hope this helps
Kev
May be I am terribly late, but what about Zeppelin? Hraf Zeppelin? Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier?
We tried play with small escort aircraft carrier some Pacific missions and they were cool. The only problem is the mission would be part of "alternative history" - Graf Zeppelin has never been completed...
It's a possibility -- just don't expect to be able to use any of the Me 109Ts more than once; between the narrow stance, and the general weakness of the landing gear, the -109 was about the worst-possible choice for conversion to CV work possible.
There were many planes on the list for Graf Zepellin. I think special Me 109 was one of them. Other were (for examle) Stukas or Avia B-534. I must read something about this project...
For fighters, the Me-109 was the only one considered -- 70 -Ts were made, from converted Bs, Cs, and Es; when _GZ_ was abandoned, they were sent to Norway, where their short-field capabilities could be best-utilized. I can't find a pic of the wing-fold arrangement.
Later on, when the -109's deficiencies became manifest, Blohm und Voss designed the BV 155 (also Me 155); when it became apparent _GZ_ would never enter service, the design was retasked as a fast bomber, and later as a high-altitude interceptor. It was never completed. The bits of two were apparently combined, and the unit is now in Silver Hill, Maryland, at the National Air and Space Museum's storage facility.
For dive-bombing/scouting, the Junkers 87 was the only unit considered (Ju-87C, or Ju-87Tr). Only two prototypes were built. The wing-fold bears a striking resemblance to that found on Grumman aircraft of WW2:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/ju87c-1.jpg
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/ju87c-2.jpg .
For torpedo-bombing/scouting, the Fieseler Fi-167 was the only unit considered for production (the Arado 195, a derivative of the Ar 95 which had already been rejected for German service, was also kicked to the curb early on). Two prototypes and twelve pre-production units were built; of those, nine were eventually fobbed off onto Croatia, for the same reason the -109Ts were sent to Norway (good short-field performance).
I can find no references to the Avia B-534 being considered for _GZ_ use.
One interesting "alternate history" notion: The Focke-Wulf FW-190 was built in fighter, dive-bomber, and torpedo-bomber versions; and it wasn't much bigger than an A6M -- one wonder what the KM could have accomplished with a carrier force which used *one* airplane type for all its tasks, thereby greatly simplifying supply and repair needs....
Very interesting post Chris, really.
I read about tests of Avia's in ABC magazine (technical magazine for teenagers) many years ago, but i googled and find some informations. Germans prepared 3 Avias for test for _GZ_. Some brief informations are on Aviastar.org and on Wikipedia (operators -> Germany). The important information is there were Avia Bk-534 (version with cannon), but the fuselage of plane was too fragile and landing hook often tear out. Avie was just a dead end of development aircraft carriers.
The picture of Avia with landing hook is under my post.
another alternate history idea
http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info..._Habbakkuk.htm
Looks like something for Clipper and his elvesInteresting, I must read more about the Habbakkuk Project.
There are those planes, that are not too big ( definitely not Big compared to BV222 or Me-323) but they are good...: PBM Mariner, PBY Catalyna, Short Sunderland Mk II, Short Singapore Mk III.
I hope helps
I don't know too much about ships...but what about the Z37 (german destroyer launched in 24 of february of 1941)
Hope help.
Nick
I'm not sure why you consider the Bf-109T unworkable as a carrier aircraft. (yes I know this has come up before). While the landing gear was an issue throughout it's service life, it has about the same distance between the wheels as the Spitfire. No one would put the Seafire at the top of the list of excellent carrier aircraft, but it did the job for much of the war, and after. Was the Bf-109's landing gear that much weaker? Nothing that I read indicates it.
While agree the choice of a navalized Fw-190 would be really cool, by the time the initial version got to service, and a navalized edition could have been made, any surface action group (to use a modern term) with the GZ would have been smothered in naval air assets. Also, how long was the Fw-190's takeoff length? it has a rather high wingloading, no?
I am working on a Alt-His senerio based on your idea on a modified liner aircraft carrier for the Germans, but it will have Bf-109s and Stukas.
Karl
Awesome idea! I definitely want to see the result. A big naval battle with mentioned planes, Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes and Seafires would be pretty cool
Last edited by Dan-Sam; 03-14-2013 at 04:37.
That last is what's confusing to me -- I know Tragergruppe 186 existed; but from all I can find, it was a *pilot-training* outfit, not a full-up carrier-service unit (the full-up units only used the -109s or -87s). Also, the Avias weren't used by Germany in front-line service -- only as glider-tugs, night-fighters (until something better came along), or trainers. So, as best I can figure: The Avias were being used to train pilots for CV ops; the rigors of training were found to be too much, and the Avias were shuttled off to German lackeys. The pic provided would be from the testing to see if it could be used as a CV-pilot trainer -- note that the plane bears a *civilian* registration on its side ("D-[four letters]", not the [two characters]+[two characters] of a military unit), and appears to be painted as a trainer rather than a fighter (that white-gray color, not green).
http://www.ww2.dk/air/seefl/trgr186.htm .
From what I've been able to find: The critical difference between the Spitfire's gear, and the -109's, is that the Spitfire's gear legs were at almost 90-degrees to the ground, while the -109's legs were splayed outward visibly (I forget the exact angle).
Try this experiment: Take your fingers, bent to simulate a pair of landing-gear legs ; then, push down on a hard surface. For the first attempt, have the fingers pointing as near straight down as possible; for the second, splay them outward about 15 degrees or so. The result should be this: The further outward the fingers are splayed, the more likely that, when pushed down, they will splay further outward (and would continue to do so until either the hand touches the surface or one or both fingers break off). That's where the -109's weakness lay; the gear was splayed to provide a wider stance, to avert ground-loops; but under a heavy landing, it was more likely to collapse. (At any rate, that's how General Galland illustrated it to me -- yup, that's where I got the info from first. :) ) The Spitfire's legs, being not splayed, took the impact straight up-and-down, so were less likely to break; however, the narrower stance made ground-loops more likely.
That's the practical problem. However, due to the usual failings of the Nazi procurement process (arrogance, and the constant infighting), the development of the -190 was delayed unnecessarily; it was possible the -190 could have been online as early as 1940, before the British could have properly inundated a lone German carrier.
Depends on the model -- the -190 came with two wings: a "short" 31-ft. span, and a "long" 35-ft span. The only data I can find on A-model wing-loading is Wikipedia, which says 49.4 lb/ft^2 (by contrast , the A6M has 22 lb./ft^2 -- but while the two are about the same size, the Zero weighs about half as much). I can't find any data about takeoff runs save for a reference to the D-models on grass, which is the absolute-worst-case-scenario (it's 600m), due to grass being about the highest-drag surface one can try to launch from.
That said: A navalized -190 had options open to it -- better flaps, and/or addition of leading-edge slats, to improve lift at takeoff (similar slats existed on the -109); catapult-launch could have been employed; the obvious solution, to lighten the unit overall, could have been used.
As to "HMS Habbakuk": That notion has been tested, and thoroughgoingly debunked. Hint: Put an ice cube in a glass of water being kept at a constant temperature equal to that of the North Atlantic -- what happens to the ice cube? It melts -- just the same way any ice melts when placed in water.
I know this fact, of courseThis idea is based on "what if" and Avia as carrier fighters were really science-fiction. This aircraft was not suitable for use on GZ or any other aircraft carrier (but the photo looks pretty action). I am just discreetly lobbying for greater awareness of Avia :embarass:
OK, that solves the issue of Bf-109 landing gear. Makes sense now.
In a number of publications, Kurt Tank has said that there was no official interference in the development of the Fw-190. The biggest avoidable delay I can see, was the switch from the BMW139 to the 801.
Tank says:Sounds like what happened with the P-39 and BuffaloQuite apart from the promise of an extra 50HP initially, rising to 200HP later, the new engine looked more reliable, and less prone to overheating than the BMW139. The resultant prototype, th Fw 190V5, flew for the first time early in April 1940. Although the extra 50HP was useful, we found that the extra 150kg (330lb) of engine weight, plus the weight of the armour and additional equipment which the Luftwaffe now wanted fitted, had increased the all up weight by about a quarter. At first, we had some cooling problems with the BMW 801, though they were not as serious as those with the BMW 139 and they were soon reduced to acceptable levels.
So I'm not sure how much the development process could have been speeded up.
I did find a couple of takeoff length figures:
For the Fw-190A-1: 300m (980')
For the Fw-190A-3: 300m (980')
For the Fw-190A-5: 340m (1115') (This was the tested torpedo carrier)
The GZ length is 262.5 m (861 ft 3 in) (Wiki); don't know how much is usable takeoff length. I also don't know how much you reduce the takeoff distance with 30+ knots of speed and wind.
Karl
Indeed -- I was even able to test it using snap-together model kits with appropriate landing gear; the frequency with which the splayed legs collapse is appalling. Straight-legs don't collapse so much; but *any* discrepancy between when the main wheels hit the ground will result in the model "waddling" for several second afterward -- and in a taildragger, that results in a groundloop, and possible gear failure. (And the harder the landing, the worse the "waddle".)
Tank was not exactly one for confrontation, at least not from what I've read of him; nor was he really politically-minded. I suspect if there was Official Intereference, he either didn't recognize it, or ignored it and "kept on keeping on". But that's opinion.
As best I can tell, the "interference" was the same as happened to all new German builds of the time: It was assumed the War would be over in six months, so new projects were given short shrift over developing what already existed; by the time the need for the new stuff became apparent, it was too late.
The BMW 139 was definitely a problem -- or rather, that overcomplicated cooling-fan/spinner arrangement it came with. The BMW 801 was essentially the same, but had a much-simpler arrangement, which was not bolted-on-after-the-fact. I don't know if Germany had access to NACA research; I do know that no one else thought their radials needed cooling fans.
"Some things never change." [Steve McCroskey, _Airplane! 2: The Sequel_]
To be honest: I'm not sure if the BMW engines really needed cooling fans; as noted, no other nation's radials had them. Being able to take their P&W Wasp clone (which the 139 and 801 were) and stick it on directly, instead of futzing with unnecessary equipment....
Yeah -- this would require getting hold of an actual FW 190, and seeing exactly how well it took off at various loads.
Oh, side-note: I see one major problem with that aux CV of yours using -109s and Stukas: The *appallingly* short ranges of both units -- about 300 miles, and 200 miles, round-trip, respectively. Contrast with the Japanese and US kit of the period... -- anyone for Zekes and Vals in German markings? :)
Well cooling was the major stumbling block on both the 139 and 801, at least from the couple of books I read. I wonder what they did with their Wasp clone that caused the problem that needed solving?
That said, if they could get a WP with the 1600hp the 801 delivered by just cloning it, that might have cut 6 months off, maybe.
Of course, then you need to navalize it
Well, they were designed as interceptors. The Spitfire and Hurricane of the same time weren't much better, maybe 50-75 miles (btw: every source I read on the Bf-109Es was 400-425 w/out drop tanks The Stuka is still a problem at 300-350 with a bombload). Really only the US and Japan designed really long-ranged fighters, for good reason. (We had a long way to go to shoot at someone.Oh, side-note: I see one major problem with that aux CV of yours using -109s and Stukas: The *appallingly* short ranges of both units -- about 300 miles, and 200 miles, round-trip, respectively. Contrast with the Japanese and US kit of the period... -- anyone for Zekes and Vals in German markings?
The Fw-190 is about the same as the Brits. Maybe they could navalize some Dewoitine D.520s; the French were working on that (the D.790), though they didn't seem to go anywhere with it.
The best senerio I can work up is as a convoy hunting commerce raider, so the aircraft are for searching and attacking merchies and escorts, probably in conjunction with a cruiser or battlecruiser. If it has to get involved in a CV vs CV duel, it's going to lose. It should have a chance against an CVE, which is what will happen. Still thinking a timeframe of pre-1942.
Karl
Not sure, either -- it could be most of their problems were self-inflicted; they thought the radial's cowl opening was too big to be aerodynamic, so they closed it up, which forced adding the fan... if they'd just accepted there was going to be a big cowl opening up front, and left the bloody thing alone....
Well, the development history is: BMW received a license to build Pratt & Whitney Hornet (9-cyl. single row) radials; they improved the design into the BMW 132 (which powered the Ju-52); then they made a double-row version, which was the BMW 139. It was that second row, and specifically how to get air to it, which led to the fan being added.
The comparable (in both specifications and usage) was the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp", which made less HP, but was also far more reliable.
The engines didn't need much navalizing; radials were preferred for naval use as they had far fewer parts to worry about breaking. The airplanes themselves -- so long as one remembers to remove stuff in order to counter the weight added from the naval gear (a lesson forgotten with the F2A)....
Yeah -- another reason why at the end of WW2, the Fleet Air Arm was equipped mostly with US designs.... >:)
An interesting idea, altho' between the ~700-mi. range one-way, the inline engine, and those dratted 7.5mm MGs, it had a long way to go to be an effective carrier fighter.
I'd had similar thought, myself -- a commerce-raiding CVE would have been a damned-sight more useful than those armored cruisers the Germans built. The problem I keep running into, tho', is the Germans' total lack of anything even remotely approximating a decent carrier-capable airplane, in any of the needed squadrons (fighter; dive-bomber; torpedo-bomber; scout). I keep coming back to either the FW-190 with a different (higher-lift) wing, or licensed version of Japan's acft.
Well, the Corsair had an intake much like the Wulf, but it had those wingroot intakes too. Cooling or just engine air?
There was that nifty "automatic transmission" doohickie the pilots liked, but mechanics hated. Getting that down probably cost them time. (Like designing a Mercedes tank (Panther) rather than just copying the T-34 with better engineering)
Sorry, mistyped. I meant navalizing the plane, not the engine. Yes, the radial was another plus for the Wulf.
Sure, that and the fact we were having a discount saleYeah -- another reason why at the end of WW2, the Fleet Air Arm was equipped mostly with US designs.... >. But agreed, from all accounts the FAA was quite happy to get Hellcats, Corsairs (happier than the US Navy), and Avengers.
And if I was in charge of the Luftwaffe program to integrate the D.520 into the German forces, the guns would be the first thing to go.
Basically, it comes down to a whole LOT of decision differences for any German CV of any size to hit the water. If it happens in '39-42, it's Bf-109Ts and Ju-87s. The only other way is for a peace with the UK in '40, and a deliberate buildup to a rematch in, say, '45 after a Russian defeat. Even then, I don't see the likelyhood of it; land-based leadership would be more likely to put their faith in subs and land-based air.
Karl
Well, one of them was for the supercharger only.
The *pilots* were happy, anyway; I rather suspect the "uniformed politicians" were tearing out what little hair they had over having to use "mere Colonial" designs. :)
True -- but replacing them means redesigning (and upgrading) the gun mounts, which adds weight; then there's the weight of the guns themselves....
Very true -- the Germans have never been a Naval Power; and all the folks who really understood naval power got broomed after WW1.
I'm amazed that so far nobody has mentioned train-busting: Although this may not be unique to World War 2 more trains were totalled across mainland Europe during WW2 than during WW1 ...
Whilst looking through the Downloads section of the Aerodrome I came across a number of excellent train / track files for use with WW2 / WGS. Tried printing one of the train files off and it came out fine. More recently for those into 3D scenery like myself www.irregularminiatures.co.uk have released some appropriately scaled train and track accessories which could now I come to think of it be used either for WW2 / WGS or WW1 / WGF too.
Also finding the discussion so far relating to ships fascinating as without torpedoes being useable in WW2 / WGS I had never really considered using any sort of ships as targets.
Project Habakkuk the pykrete aircraft carrier. for aircraft some of the giant tupelev bombers
We could definitely do with a Tupolev Tu-4 or two playing WW2 / WGS ... The reverse-engineered Soviet version of the Boeing B-29A Superfortress!
There is one in preservation and in 2006 Corgi Aviation Archive released a 1/144 Scale rendition of a Tu-4 in diecast metal: I have it upstairs in my collection. However would this version of the B-29A be too obscure or regarded as too post-war by Ares Games to be produced as an Official Miniature for WW2 / WGS ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks