Far easier to do than with Griffon that eventually got installed on Barracuda. Hercules was also shorter than Merlin, let alone Griffon.
Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Far easier to do than with Griffon that eventually got installed on Barracuda. Hercules was also shorter than Merlin, let alone Griffon.
Please, do tell about the drawings and campaign. Have you tried also the version with extended tail wheel strut?
- Thread starter
- #143
Admiral Beez
Captain
That doesn't seem an unreasonable change. It can't make the aircraft look any uglier.
- Thread starter
- #145
Admiral Beez
Captain
The spec for the Swordfish replacement need only state:
- Monoplane, width below 20ft when folded.
- >230 mph top speed (slower than a Kate, faster than a Devastator).
- Capable of taking off with a 2,000 lb. torpedo from a 550 ft flight deck traveling at 28 knot into reasonable wind.
- Also moderate, without dedicated airbrakes, dive bombing ability (not expected to Skua-like angle)
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Tomo Pauk,
re:"Please, do tell about the drawings and campaign. Have you tried also the version with extended tail wheel strut?"
I confess that I did not think of that, at least not seriously, but I probably should have. Looking back on it, I think the reason I did not was because we included rules for operational accidents - due to the basic designs used and/or due to the modifications implemented.
My Albacore TB Mk IIIE was fitted with a BP Mk II 4-gun turret and the Merlin 24M with a 4-blade prop. (This is not as radical as it might sound, the Albacore specification originally called for accommodating either an air-cooled radial or a modified Kestrel water-cooled type. And a turret was considered, but deemed not worth the weight trade-off. When I did the Loading & C.G. calculations, the BP turret balanced out the Merlin installation almost exactly. I was not 100% sure about the vertical component and its effect on flight, but we had a couple of aeronautical engineers and real life pilots in the game and they said it should be OK. My Albacore TB Mk IIIE weighed in at about 1000 lbs more than the real life model, so I had to trade off fuel for bomb load. (The real life Albacore was capable of landing on with the torpedo at near full TOGW.)
An example of one real life operational rule that was applied to my SeaHurricane LF Mk IIIE with folding 'C' type wings/Spit VB armament, additional 25 Impgal SSFT in each wing, and a navalized Merlin 24M (9.75" diameter impeller with 4-blade prop). When it was loaded to ~8750 lbs plus it was required to use hard surface/prepared runways or risk a 10% chance of accident (the reasons were randomly taken from a list of possibilities, not necessarily catastrophic, but resulting in anything from a crash on take-off to a collapsed landing gear/messed up propeller to a flat tire). Although this did not have any real effect while operating off my carriers, it meant that once we began to operate of off the island objectives, my TOGWmax was limited. (ROC of 3300 ft/min, Vmax of 330 mph).
My Fulmar FBR Mk IIIE (with Spit Mk VB armament, a Developed 'R' engine with Rotol 6-blade contra-rotating prop, ROC of 3000 ft/min, Vmax 330 mph at 15,000 ft) came in at almost 1000 lbs over the real life Mk II. I did not want to push the weight any farther and suffer increased accident rates, mainly during landings (I do not remember the specific weight it worked out to but I had to burn off nearly all of my fuel before it would have been safe to land on with the bomb still onboard, with out the 10% operational accident penalty.
I operated almost exclusively at night during fleet vs fleet operations, and anytime I did not know where the enemy flat tops were, so the reduction in max range with bomb load did not have too much effect. Basically I danced around a lot in order to stay out of range of the US-Japanese Alliance during the day (sound familiar?). I had one flight of Fulmars (3-6 airframes) with Mk II ASV per carrier, and they proved invaluable. We were required to operate pretty much within the more clearly defined capabilities of our 'sponsor' nations, so the US-Japan Alliance and my Italian allies were almost helpless at night. I used my Fulmars to find the enemy fleet with ASV radar after dark and shadow the enemy, vectoring my Albacores to their location (sound familiar?).
All this may sound kind of one sided, but it was not.
The main US player used a developed Grumman F5F-1 'Cougar' (4x .50 cal, 2-speed R-1830 engines, SSFT and armour, etc, 3500 ft/min ROC, with a Vmax of 355 mph at 18,000 ft) for their fighter.
Because the F5F-1 had such a large footprint he used a mildly modified SB2U-3 (2-speed R-1830 engine with 3-blade prop, increased SSFT and armour protection, Vmax of 250 mph) instead of the Dauntless.
He did not use TBs at all. If he had he would have to have accepted the high torpedo failure rate.
The Japanese player used the classic IJN aircraft, but detail modified, with armour and SSFT added.
His A6M2s had belt fed 20mm (I think they carried 90 rpg, enough for 3 effective attacks by the air combat rules) and used the higher power engine that was considered for the design originally (I do not remember specifically which engine) and he partially fixed the heavy aileron at high speed problem (ROC was ~3200 ft/min and Vmax was 335 mph).
His D3A2 Val model was modified with armour and SSFT.
His B5N1 Kate model was modified with armour and SSFT.
Incidentally, we agreed that his dive bombers would get an 85% chance of a hit (against maneuvering cruiser size warships) when no significant AA or air opposition was present. The best chance the other nations had was 35% everything else being equal.
The Italian Navy player adopted a very interesting strategy, he bought modified Sparviero size carriers, and filled them with a developed and navalized model of the Cr.42DB (DB601N engine with 3-blade prop, 2x 12.7mm HMG, armour plus partial SSFT, various bomb loads and DTs, ROC of 3700 ft/min, Vmax of 325 mph). It was almost impossible to dogfight with his Cr.42DBs, hit and run tactics were the rule of the day. Because he had used less tonnage to purchase the Sparviero carriers, he had more left over for more airframes. He would deploy about half of his carriers fighters on each trip to the island objectives, then head back to port at max sustainable speed for resupply. The Cr.42s were quite capable of operating from rough airfields.
He used modified SM.75 seaplanes (in conjunction with forward deployed seaplane tenders) for his primary air striking force at sea.
The Italian player also employed the fiendish Decima Flottiglia MAS to an extremely annoying effect against the US-Japanese Alliance (fortunately we were on the same side). After the first 2 or 3 "incidents", they had to use some of their resupply points to buy a large number of small cutters to use as an inspection service in and near their harbors.
There were many truly strange and wonderful events, and often very true to life outcomes.
re:"Please, do tell about the drawings and campaign. Have you tried also the version with extended tail wheel strut?"
I confess that I did not think of that, at least not seriously, but I probably should have. Looking back on it, I think the reason I did not was because we included rules for operational accidents - due to the basic designs used and/or due to the modifications implemented.
My Albacore TB Mk IIIE was fitted with a BP Mk II 4-gun turret and the Merlin 24M with a 4-blade prop. (This is not as radical as it might sound, the Albacore specification originally called for accommodating either an air-cooled radial or a modified Kestrel water-cooled type. And a turret was considered, but deemed not worth the weight trade-off. When I did the Loading & C.G. calculations, the BP turret balanced out the Merlin installation almost exactly. I was not 100% sure about the vertical component and its effect on flight, but we had a couple of aeronautical engineers and real life pilots in the game and they said it should be OK. My Albacore TB Mk IIIE weighed in at about 1000 lbs more than the real life model, so I had to trade off fuel for bomb load. (The real life Albacore was capable of landing on with the torpedo at near full TOGW.)
An example of one real life operational rule that was applied to my SeaHurricane LF Mk IIIE with folding 'C' type wings/Spit VB armament, additional 25 Impgal SSFT in each wing, and a navalized Merlin 24M (9.75" diameter impeller with 4-blade prop). When it was loaded to ~8750 lbs plus it was required to use hard surface/prepared runways or risk a 10% chance of accident (the reasons were randomly taken from a list of possibilities, not necessarily catastrophic, but resulting in anything from a crash on take-off to a collapsed landing gear/messed up propeller to a flat tire). Although this did not have any real effect while operating off my carriers, it meant that once we began to operate of off the island objectives, my TOGWmax was limited. (ROC of 3300 ft/min, Vmax of 330 mph).
My Fulmar FBR Mk IIIE (with Spit Mk VB armament, a Developed 'R' engine with Rotol 6-blade contra-rotating prop, ROC of 3000 ft/min, Vmax 330 mph at 15,000 ft) came in at almost 1000 lbs over the real life Mk II. I did not want to push the weight any farther and suffer increased accident rates, mainly during landings (I do not remember the specific weight it worked out to but I had to burn off nearly all of my fuel before it would have been safe to land on with the bomb still onboard, with out the 10% operational accident penalty.
I operated almost exclusively at night during fleet vs fleet operations, and anytime I did not know where the enemy flat tops were, so the reduction in max range with bomb load did not have too much effect. Basically I danced around a lot in order to stay out of range of the US-Japanese Alliance during the day (sound familiar?). I had one flight of Fulmars (3-6 airframes) with Mk II ASV per carrier, and they proved invaluable. We were required to operate pretty much within the more clearly defined capabilities of our 'sponsor' nations, so the US-Japan Alliance and my Italian allies were almost helpless at night. I used my Fulmars to find the enemy fleet with ASV radar after dark and shadow the enemy, vectoring my Albacores to their location (sound familiar?).
All this may sound kind of one sided, but it was not.
The main US player used a developed Grumman F5F-1 'Cougar' (4x .50 cal, 2-speed R-1830 engines, SSFT and armour, etc, 3500 ft/min ROC, with a Vmax of 355 mph at 18,000 ft) for their fighter.
Because the F5F-1 had such a large footprint he used a mildly modified SB2U-3 (2-speed R-1830 engine with 3-blade prop, increased SSFT and armour protection, Vmax of 250 mph) instead of the Dauntless.
He did not use TBs at all. If he had he would have to have accepted the high torpedo failure rate.
The Japanese player used the classic IJN aircraft, but detail modified, with armour and SSFT added.
His A6M2s had belt fed 20mm (I think they carried 90 rpg, enough for 3 effective attacks by the air combat rules) and used the higher power engine that was considered for the design originally (I do not remember specifically which engine) and he partially fixed the heavy aileron at high speed problem (ROC was ~3200 ft/min and Vmax was 335 mph).
His D3A2 Val model was modified with armour and SSFT.
His B5N1 Kate model was modified with armour and SSFT.
Incidentally, we agreed that his dive bombers would get an 85% chance of a hit (against maneuvering cruiser size warships) when no significant AA or air opposition was present. The best chance the other nations had was 35% everything else being equal.
The Italian Navy player adopted a very interesting strategy, he bought modified Sparviero size carriers, and filled them with a developed and navalized model of the Cr.42DB (DB601N engine with 3-blade prop, 2x 12.7mm HMG, armour plus partial SSFT, various bomb loads and DTs, ROC of 3700 ft/min, Vmax of 325 mph). It was almost impossible to dogfight with his Cr.42DBs, hit and run tactics were the rule of the day. Because he had used less tonnage to purchase the Sparviero carriers, he had more left over for more airframes. He would deploy about half of his carriers fighters on each trip to the island objectives, then head back to port at max sustainable speed for resupply. The Cr.42s were quite capable of operating from rough airfields.
He used modified SM.75 seaplanes (in conjunction with forward deployed seaplane tenders) for his primary air striking force at sea.
The Italian player also employed the fiendish Decima Flottiglia MAS to an extremely annoying effect against the US-Japanese Alliance (fortunately we were on the same side). After the first 2 or 3 "incidents", they had to use some of their resupply points to buy a large number of small cutters to use as an inspection service in and near their harbors.
There were many truly strange and wonderful events, and often very true to life outcomes.
Last edited:
Aww cute little piggy... The last surviving Albacore, a big, purposeful looking thing.
Yup, that's the 'Observer's Lounge' - there's a big table in there with radios and stuff required for the recon role.
This is Barracuda remains. It'd be an interesting thing to see in the flesh. It's a big aeroplane.
- Thread starter
- #148
Admiral Beez
Captain
I visited the FAA museum in 2002 with my wife. I truly enjoyed the tour, an amazing experience really. My wife kept lagging behind, and in combination with her growing appetite I asked her if she was pregnant.... and seven months later we had our twins. Anyway.... here's the museum's Barracuda Project.
Barracuda Project | DP872
What are your twins names, Barracuda and Swordfish?.
- Thread starter
- #150
Admiral Beez
Captain
Ripon and Scimitar might be better FAA aircraft choices. Sometimes Fury.
Thank you for this. What tool/app/simulation was used to achieve all this?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The Albacore fuselage was a fairly sleek design apart from the pilots windscreen., Stick a low mount wing, retractable undercarriage and a Hercules or Merlin on it and you probably have a decent bomber.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Tomo Pauk,
We did it the old fashioned way. In effect we used blind map movements for all the large strategic and grand-tactical movement, only allowing opponents to see the other side's movements (to a degree but not necessarily completely) when we moved to table top (for some battles) or floor (for the larger naval actions, or in some cases when larger areas were involved - like combined air/land/sea ops). We had 2 referees, who were responsible for plotting our movements on a couple of large maps (8' x 8' table areas) for strategic movements, set up in one of their basements, with each side having their own set of maps as well. There were many smaller and more detailed maps used for the blind grand tactical movement leading upto a battle, and sometimes during the battle for blind tactical movement where practical. (Incidentally, for anyone who is interested, we used the UPS store to print out the maps in 4' wide formats on their large printer/plotters- they were very pretty.)
The players would plot their naval and air movements on their maps and transcribe/give them to the referees, who would then plot them on the referee maps, using the movement timelines to see if there were any chances of finding the enemy forces (based on common sense, historically based probabilities, and die rolls). If the referees determined that there was a sighting they would contact the players and let them know what was appropriate. We tried to keep as much in terms of 'fog of war' phenomenon in the game as practical.
When it came time to react to intel, we would usually talk to the referee by phone if it was something like a scout plane coming across a naval unit at long distance. An all too often example was,"hey Tom, your long range patrol plane xxxx just sent a message that they were under attack by enemy aircraft . . . that is all" including the time of the message. Or it might be that the patrol plane had found ships that it identified as enemy at such a time and estimated location.
When it came time to do battle, we would usually plot the final movements before spotting/coming into contact with the enemy using blind movement, and then move to table top or floor using miniatures for the ships (1/2400 scale) with counters for the aircraft if it was a naval battle, just counters for aircraft if it was air-air (and/or a combination of some sort if it was appropriate). For ground combat we used a combination of generic board game type rules for the large scale actions (each nationality had the equivalent of a reenforced infantry division given them for free at the start of the campaign, with additional troops available for 'purchase' if the player wanted more) or miniatures (1/285-1/300). The largest of any of the individual national ground forces deployed, as far as I am aware, was the equivalent of about 1.5 infantry divisions (~15,000 forward troops).
Specialized units (like the Decima Flottiglia MAS mentioned up-thread) cost more by a significant amount. We tried to be somewhat proportional in cost, relating it to training costs and capabilities. One example is that generic paratroops cost 3x as much as generic light infantry. Another example is armoured units, deployed in very small numbers due to the difficulty/cost of transport. I had the largest armoured force and it was only the equivalent of a reinforced regiment (UK), ie 96 tanks. The cost of the LCTs necessary to land transport/land them, and the ressuply needed to keep them in fuel, ammo, and spares worked out to about 8x what it was for generic light infantry. (A real life example of what scale I am referring to is that back in the early 1980s, 1x US Army Ranger battalion had an annual training budget ~equal to a regular US Army tank brigade. yikes!)
The majority of the fighting on land was done using an attrition based boardgame style system, with a reduced number of battles fought in detail using map movement and/or miniatures - said number being decided/agreed upon by the players depending on whether they were considered important/pivotal or not.
Again, the individual national traits were worked into the abilities of their respective troops. One example being the Japanese light infantry was allowed to move faster over moderately rough terrain and through jungle. Another example being the British Commandos having a significantly higher morale factor that a British regular.
Operational ranges for aircraft were based on the individual nation's normal practice. If you went significantly outside the norm you were open to suffering appropriate operational losses.
Major resupply for the navies and air forces was entirely by ocean transport (ie bunker fuel, aviation fuel, ammunition larger than small arms, aircraft spares, etc) requiring protection of shipping. Grand tactical and tactical supply was based on historical values, an example being the requirement for ~15 lbs per man per day forward deployment and 'normal' combat levels. The 15 lbs includes 1 USgal of drinking water, the minimum amount of food, and an average amount of ammo needed per day (among other things), for an 'average' amount of combat. If you ran out of food you had three days before the unit's abilities started to became seriously degraded, if you ran out of water for three days you usually surrendered. You can imagine the difficulty in keeping your troops in supply. Some of the methods used by the players were quite inventive.
See:"Feasibility of airships in ww2?"
As you can tell I can go on about the campaign for a long time.
We did it the old fashioned way. In effect we used blind map movements for all the large strategic and grand-tactical movement, only allowing opponents to see the other side's movements (to a degree but not necessarily completely) when we moved to table top (for some battles) or floor (for the larger naval actions, or in some cases when larger areas were involved - like combined air/land/sea ops). We had 2 referees, who were responsible for plotting our movements on a couple of large maps (8' x 8' table areas) for strategic movements, set up in one of their basements, with each side having their own set of maps as well. There were many smaller and more detailed maps used for the blind grand tactical movement leading upto a battle, and sometimes during the battle for blind tactical movement where practical. (Incidentally, for anyone who is interested, we used the UPS store to print out the maps in 4' wide formats on their large printer/plotters- they were very pretty.)
The players would plot their naval and air movements on their maps and transcribe/give them to the referees, who would then plot them on the referee maps, using the movement timelines to see if there were any chances of finding the enemy forces (based on common sense, historically based probabilities, and die rolls). If the referees determined that there was a sighting they would contact the players and let them know what was appropriate. We tried to keep as much in terms of 'fog of war' phenomenon in the game as practical.
When it came time to react to intel, we would usually talk to the referee by phone if it was something like a scout plane coming across a naval unit at long distance. An all too often example was,"hey Tom, your long range patrol plane xxxx just sent a message that they were under attack by enemy aircraft . . . that is all" including the time of the message. Or it might be that the patrol plane had found ships that it identified as enemy at such a time and estimated location.
When it came time to do battle, we would usually plot the final movements before spotting/coming into contact with the enemy using blind movement, and then move to table top or floor using miniatures for the ships (1/2400 scale) with counters for the aircraft if it was a naval battle, just counters for aircraft if it was air-air (and/or a combination of some sort if it was appropriate). For ground combat we used a combination of generic board game type rules for the large scale actions (each nationality had the equivalent of a reenforced infantry division given them for free at the start of the campaign, with additional troops available for 'purchase' if the player wanted more) or miniatures (1/285-1/300). The largest of any of the individual national ground forces deployed, as far as I am aware, was the equivalent of about 1.5 infantry divisions (~15,000 forward troops).
Specialized units (like the Decima Flottiglia MAS mentioned up-thread) cost more by a significant amount. We tried to be somewhat proportional in cost, relating it to training costs and capabilities. One example is that generic paratroops cost 3x as much as generic light infantry. Another example is armoured units, deployed in very small numbers due to the difficulty/cost of transport. I had the largest armoured force and it was only the equivalent of a reinforced regiment (UK), ie 96 tanks. The cost of the LCTs necessary to land transport/land them, and the ressuply needed to keep them in fuel, ammo, and spares worked out to about 8x what it was for generic light infantry. (A real life example of what scale I am referring to is that back in the early 1980s, 1x US Army Ranger battalion had an annual training budget ~equal to a regular US Army tank brigade. yikes!)
The majority of the fighting on land was done using an attrition based boardgame style system, with a reduced number of battles fought in detail using map movement and/or miniatures - said number being decided/agreed upon by the players depending on whether they were considered important/pivotal or not.
Again, the individual national traits were worked into the abilities of their respective troops. One example being the Japanese light infantry was allowed to move faster over moderately rough terrain and through jungle. Another example being the British Commandos having a significantly higher morale factor that a British regular.
Operational ranges for aircraft were based on the individual nation's normal practice. If you went significantly outside the norm you were open to suffering appropriate operational losses.
Major resupply for the navies and air forces was entirely by ocean transport (ie bunker fuel, aviation fuel, ammunition larger than small arms, aircraft spares, etc) requiring protection of shipping. Grand tactical and tactical supply was based on historical values, an example being the requirement for ~15 lbs per man per day forward deployment and 'normal' combat levels. The 15 lbs includes 1 USgal of drinking water, the minimum amount of food, and an average amount of ammo needed per day (among other things), for an 'average' amount of combat. If you ran out of food you had three days before the unit's abilities started to became seriously degraded, if you ran out of water for three days you usually surrendered. You can imagine the difficulty in keeping your troops in supply. Some of the methods used by the players were quite inventive.
See:"Feasibility of airships in ww2?"
As you can tell I can go on about the campaign for a long time.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Did you ever play Avalon-Hill war games? I wonder if anyone ever actually played "Jutland".
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
I never played "Jutland", but yes, I played many Avalon Hill games back in the '80s & '90s.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As did I. I really liked Panzer Blitz.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
One of the classics.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Tomo Pauk,
You might find this of interest. During the planning stage for our campaign, we looked at using modern small boat navigation software for plotting the naval movements. Some of the software is quite capable, plotting large numbers of tracks simultaneously. At the time we decided not to, partly due to the cost and the fact that we would need multiple sets, and partly due to the fact that the referees did not feel it would reduce their work load enough to justify the expense.
You might find this of interest. During the planning stage for our campaign, we looked at using modern small boat navigation software for plotting the naval movements. Some of the software is quite capable, plotting large numbers of tracks simultaneously. At the time we decided not to, partly due to the cost and the fact that we would need multiple sets, and partly due to the fact that the referees did not feel it would reduce their work load enough to justify the expense.
The DB capability proved to be very useful and all the FAA TB/DBs were used extensively in the DB role.
- Thread starter
- #160
Admiral Beez
Captain
Oh yes, we're keeping the DB capability, but at Swordfish level, not SBD.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
