Author Topic: Conscripted Warriors  (Read 1776 times)

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Conscripted Warriors
« on: September 02, 2013, 09:33:51 AM »
 :airplane: During the early months of WW2, the Army Air Force had need of an "off the shelve" aircraft to press into service as a utility aircraft and coast line patrol aircraft. All the Lockheed model 18's which were in airline service at the time were "conscripted" into the military. This aircraft would lead to other designs by Lockheed, such as the Navy PV-1, B-34 and B-37, depending on which engine was installed, which was altogether a different aircraft than the model 18 and would see service though out the balance of the war. The PV-1 would go on to replace the Hudson bomber for the RAF, as a patrol aircraft because of faster speed and could carry more bombs for anti-submarine patrol duty.
As production lines were tooled up and started, the model 18 was modified for military use and started as the C-60 for the Army and R5-0 for the Navy. During the early months of 1942, the primary responsibility for anti-submarine warfare in the United States was shouldered by the Army Air Force. This irked the Navy, as it considered this region of battle its burden. To carry out such a task, the Navy was pursuing a long-range, land-based patrol and reconnaissance aircraft with a substantial bombload. This goal was always resisted by the Army Air Force, which carefully protected its monopoly on land-based bombing. This forced the navy to use long-range floatplanes for these roles. The Navy was unable to upgrade to more capable aircraft until the Army Air Force needed the Navy plant in Renton, Washington to manufacture its Boeing B-29 Superfortress. In exchange for use of the Renton plant, the Army Air Force would discontinue its objections to Naval land-based bombers, and provide aircraft to the Navy. One of the clauses of this agreement stated that production of the B-34 and B-37 by Lockheed would cease, and instead these resources would be directed at building a navalized version, the PV-1 Ventura.
The PV-1 Ventura, built by the Vega Aircraft Company division of Lockheed (hence the "V" Navy manufacturer's letter that later replaced the "O" for Lockheed), was a version of the Ventura built for the U.S. Navy (see Venturas in U.S. Navy service below). The main differences between the PV-1 and the B-34 were the inclusion of special equipment in the PV-1, adapting it to its patrol bombing role. The maximum fuel capacity of the PV-1 was increased from 1,345 gal (5,081 l) to 1,607 gal (6,082 l), to increase its range; the forward defensive armament was also reduced for this reason. The most important addition was of an ASD-1 search radar.

Early production PV-1s still carried a bombardier's station behind the nose radome, with four side windows and a flat bomb-aiming panel underneath the nose. Late production PV-1s dispensed with this bombardier position and replaced it with a pack with three 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns underneath the nose. These aircraft could also carry eight 5 in (127 mm) HVAR rockets on launchers underneath the wings.

The PV-1 began to be delivered in December 1942, and entered service in February 1943. The first squadron in combat was VP-135, deployed in the Aleutian Islands in April 1943. They were operated by three other squadrons in this theatre. From the Aleutians, they flew strikes against bases in Paramushiro and Shimushu, Japanese islands in the Kurile chain. Often, PV-1s would lead B-24 bomber formations, since they were equipped with radar. In late 1943, some PV-1s were deployed to the Solomon Islands as night fighters with VMF(N)-531, a Marine Corps fighter squadron.
The last of these great Lockheed aircraft was the "Harpoon" or PV-2. e PV-2 Harpoon was a major redesign of the Ventura with the wing area increased from 551 ft² (51.2 m²) to 686 ft² (63.7 m²) giving an increased load-carrying capability, and which first flew on 3 December 1943. The motivation for redesign was weaknesses in the PV-1, since it had shown to have poor-quality takeoffs when carrying a full load of fuel. On the PV-2, the armament became standardized at five forward-firing machine guns. Many early PV-1s had a bombardier's position, which was deleted in the PV-2. Some other significant developments included the increase of the bombload by 30% to 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), and the ability to carry eight 5-inch (127 mm) HVAR rockets under the wings.

While the PV-2 was expected to have increased range and better takeoff, the anticipated speed statistics were projected lower than those of the PV-1, due to the use of the same engines but an increase in weight. The Navy ordered 500 examples, designating them with the popular name Harpoon.

Early tests indicated a tendency for the wings to wrinkle dangerously. As this problem could not be solved by a 6 ft (1.8 m) reduction in wingspan (making the wing uniformly flexible), a complete redesign of the wing was necessitated. This hurdle delayed entry of the PV-2 into service. The PV-2s already delivered were used for training purposes under the designation PV-2C. By the end of 1944, only 69 PV-2s had been delivered. They finally resumed when the redesign was complete. The first aircraft shipped were the PV-2D, which had eight forward-firing machine guns and was used in ground attacks. When World War II ended, all of the order was cancelled.
With the wing problems fixed, the PV-2 proved reliable, and eventually popular. It was first used in the Aleutians by VP-139, one of the squadrons that originally used the PV-1. It was used by a number of countries after the war’s end, but the United States ceased ordering new PV-2s, and they were all soon retired from service
The PV-1 began to be delivered in December 1942, and entered service in February 1943. The first squadron in combat was VP-135, deployed in the Aleutian Islands in April 1943. They were operated by three other squadrons in this theatre. From the Aleutians, they flew strikes against Paramushiro, a Japanese island. Often, PV-1s would lead B-24 bomber formations, since they were equipped with radar. In late 1943, PV-1s were deployed to the Solomon Islands and to the newly captured field at Tarawa in the Gilbert Islands.

This a pic of the Navy R50-6, same as Army C-60.
This aircraft was also used by President Getulio Vargas of Brazil as personal transport, and after the war, many of these aircraft were converted into "executive" transports by serveral companies such as Dalls Aero, Bill Lear's Learstar, (Lear would go on later to design and develop the "Learjet" executive jet aircraft and Howard Aero's, Howard 250, a very popluar converson of this aircraft.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2013, 10:48:18 AM »
It should also be noted that in the inter-service Wars, post WW2, for the budgets for the strategic mission the PV-2 played a role. The USN developed a version of the Neptune that could deliver nukes off of a CV. Its rival, the newly constituted USAF, was fielding its B-36 Peacemaker for the very same role and it was a real cat fight with Curtis Lemay and USAF winning it.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2013, 10:51:58 AM »
I'd love to see the PV-1 and/or PV-2 added to the game some day. Their role may have been relatively minor, but it was still a fascinating one.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2013, 11:54:05 AM »
It should also be noted that in the inter-service Wars, post WW2, for the budgets for the strategic mission the PV-2 played a role. The USN developed a version of the Neptune that could deliver nukes off of a CV. Its rival, the newly constituted USAF, was fielding its B-36 Peacemaker for the very same role and it was a real cat fight with Curtis Lemay and USAF winning it.
:airplane: Good Point!
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2013, 11:59:04 AM »
I'd love to see the PV-1 and/or PV-2 added to the game some day. Their role may have been relatively minor, but it was still a fascinating one.
  :airplane: I actually would like to see the C-47, which we have in game now, replaced with the C-60 or the Navy version, R50-6. It is faster, can carry rockets as well as 16 paratroopers. I can just see it now, the troops get there and a few more buildings need to go down, so line up with the C-60 rockets and blast your way into a white flag, drop your troops and while they are floating down, attack a wieb otw to town, woohoo, this thing could be a hoot!
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2013, 01:22:56 PM »
  :airplane: I actually would like to see the C-47, which we have in game now, replaced with the C-60 or the Navy version, R50-6. It is faster, can carry rockets as well as 16 paratroopers. I can just see it now, the troops get there and a few more buildings need to go down, so line up with the C-60 rockets and blast your way into a white flag, drop your troops and while they are floating down, attack a wieb otw to town, woohoo, this thing could be a hoot!
Problem with troop count is if you want to carry 16 troops, the amount of troops needed to take a town will be increased.

C47 with rockets? Boo yah! :banana:
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2013, 02:05:26 PM »
Problem with troop count is if you want to carry 16 troops, the amount of troops needed to take a town will be increased.

C47 with rockets? Boo yah! :banana:

The C47 carried more than 10 troops.
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2013, 04:57:12 PM »
Problem with troop count is if you want to carry 16 troops, the amount of troops needed to take a town will be increased.

C47 with rockets? Boo yah! :banana:
:airplane: I did not say anything about increasing the number of troops it took to take a base. Along that line of reasoning, the C-47 would carry up to 26 paratroopers. It would be a more versatile aircraft for us to use than the C-47.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2013, 09:12:48 PM »
Earl, Hitech has said it for you. He said he COULD model accurate troop counts, but whatever one full load of troops was, THAT is what it would take to capture any 1 map room.

He said 10 is a gameplay concession, and if they ever change how many troops a plane carries, it will also equal how many are required.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2013, 09:42:06 PM »
Earl, Hitech has said it for you. He said he COULD model accurate troop counts, but whatever one full load of troops was, THAT is what it would take to capture any 1 map room.

He said 10 is a gameplay concession, and if they ever change how many troops a plane carries, it will also equal how many are required.

I'd love to see them do it, though for accuracy's sake. However the caveat I would have is in the event of a "perk" transport (IE the C-46 or C-54).

In fact upping the troop requirements could create more strategy, particularly in the case of the M3 or 251. Do you go for the harder to spot half-tracks but require more people bringing troops? Or take a chance on the easier to intercept C-47 to get them all at one go?
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2013, 10:13:02 PM »
No, the baseline was one trip, and this was before jeeps, so let's not count them. I imagine the same "10" troops in a halftrack are the same "10" troops in a goony bird. Regardless of what it is, it will be the same for all. You'd get 16 troops in a halftrack, for example, if the goony bird got uprated to carry 16 troops.

It changes the dynamic of gameplay. 10 is for gameplay consideration. It's for balance. Since no field was captured with a single load of paratroopers anywhere, ever, in the history of WW2, the entire base-take system is not based on historic accuracy. Rather, it's gameplay consideration pure and simple. It wouldn't change that in any way to simply increase the troop count per loadout.

What it would do, however, is increase frustration and griefing. It would take far far longer to take a maproom, and it would be far far easier to stop it (you have that many more available to just pop off 1 of them and stop the captures, you have that much more time to pick your 1 to pop, you have more loiter time to make more passes at strafing them, etc..).


Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2013, 10:50:53 PM »
OTOH, increasing the capacity for the M3 and 251 would also exceed the capabilities of the actual vehicles, so I definitely don't see them increasing along with any change to the Goon (particularly now that we have a precedent with the jeeps).

And keep in mind that this would also make it tougher for small-group base sneaks. Also, even with the current system it's not unusual to see more than one C-47 or half track carrying troops to provide a backup, anyway.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2013, 11:00:30 AM »
You're not getting the point, Saxman. The M3 and the Sdk could carry more than 10 people. That's not a historical loadout either. They are all set to "10 troops" because that is the amount HTC set to capture a field. Whatever is shifted on the goony bird will also shift on them.

A troop is equal to a troop. You can't have the troops from a halftrack equalling 2 troops from a goon. You can't have it require 30 troops from an airplane but only require 5 from a GV. It doesn't work that way. There's no sliding scale.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2013, 11:14:53 AM »
http://ww2db.com/vehicle_spec.php?q=335

M3 Half-Track, capacity of 10 in back, with a 3-man crew in the cab.

http://www.panzerworld.com/sd-kfz-251

Sd Kfz 251, capacity of 10 troops plus one operator.

Both agree with Wikipedia, incidentally. So that looks quite a bit like the historical loadout to me.

I don't think YOU'RE getting the point. I'm saying leave it as a troop is a troop is a troop. The difference is if you now need 25 to capture, you can either do it with one C-47 or run three M3s instead. The C-47 can do it in one trip but at higher risk of being sighted and shot down. The M3s and 251s are harder to see coming but you need more of them. It's now a much bigger tactical decision which method you decide to use.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Conscripted Warriors
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2013, 01:31:52 PM »
No, the baseline was one trip, and this was before jeeps, so let's not count them. I imagine the same "10" troops in a halftrack are the same "10" troops in a goony bird. Regardless of what it is, it will be the same for all. You'd get 16 troops in a halftrack, for example, if the goony bird got uprated to carry 16 troops.

It changes the dynamic of gameplay. 10 is for gameplay consideration. It's for balance. Since no field was captured with a single load of paratroopers anywhere, ever, in the history of WW2, the entire base-take system is not based on historic accuracy. Rather, it's gameplay consideration pure and simple. It wouldn't change that in any way to simply increase the troop count per loadout.

What it would do, however, is increase frustration and griefing. It would take far far longer to take a maproom, and it would be far far easier to stop it (you have that many more available to just pop off 1 of them and stop the captures, you have that much more time to pick your 1 to pop, you have more loiter time to make more passes at strafing them, etc..).


:airplane: I did not imply that the number of troops be changed! I only mentioned that the C-47 COULD carry up to 26 paratroopers, so I am not sure what you are getting at!
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!