Author Topic: Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two  (Read 692 times)

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« on: September 07, 2001, 03:18:00 PM »
One feature I loved about AW was the porking of an airfield's fuel tanks or destroying the enemies refineries thereby limiting a certain plane's performances and thier availablity from airfields.

Seems destroying refineries and fuel tanks lowered the octane value of the fuel, tho german planes didn't need the higher octane value, the British planes did.

This is historically accurate as a matter of fact, and a feature I'd like to see implemented.

To support my case I post this re-print;

FUEL FOR THE FEW
The Battle of Britain's narrow margin might just have been owed to the secret new
100-octane fuel which had been developed by British and American oil experts.

Sir Peter Masefield adds a significant new appendix to the history of the Battle.

One of the least recorded but most significant contributions to the performance of the Hurricane and Spitfire during the Battle of Britain was the introduction of a special 100-octane fuel for their Rolls-Royce Merlin engines.
 
That advance in fuel technology, which came into service with RAF Fighter Command from
March 1940, made possible the rich mixture use of up to 12-lb. boost (54 in mercury
manifold pressure), at 3,000 rpm in Merlin engines without encountering detonation.
 
The result, compared with the former limit of 6.25-lb. boost (41.5 in Hg) with 87-octane
fuel, was an increase of some 300 bhp-a "gift" which substantially improved both the rate of climb and the maximum speeds of the Hurricane and Spitfire.
 
The story has so far never been told in detail-nor with accuracy. It has, however, now been chronicled by my old friend Alexander Ogston, formerly technical supervisor of International Aviation Associates-a London-based unit of the Standard Oil Company, New Jersey, then Esso and now Exxon Alec Ogston, with Dr. William J. Sweeney of the Standard Oil Development Company and W.W.(Chic)White of International Aviation Associates, did much to instigate research to produce the special aromatic 100-octane fuel to achieve the
"rich-mixture response" from the Merlin and other British aero engines.
 
Earlier 100-octane fuel developed for the United States Army Air Corps in 1937 had no
such qualities because the aromatic content was less than two percent.

To achieve the required rich-mixture response from British Rolls-Royce Merlin and Bristol radial engines, the aromatic content had to be close to 20 percent.

Alex Ogston recalls that the fuel used by the Royal Air Force in the 1920s was termed
"80-20," a blend of 80 percent aviation spirit (i.e., petrol or gasoline) and 20 percent benzol (i.e., aromatics). Thus, unlike American engines, British engines had been "brought up and educated" on aromatic fuel.
 
Though all mention of 100-octane fuel was classified as secret when the war began, in
fact The Aeroplane had carried an article about it on 29 March 1939 (page 426).
The Germans, apparently, did not realize its significance.

As Alec Ogston relates, in 1938 the Air Ministry placed a contract with the AngloAmerican Oil Company (now Esso Petrolet, Company) for single-cylinder and full-scale engine tests of some relatively small initial shipments of Esso 100-octane fuel to the United Kingdom.

These tests were conducted for Rolls Royce largely by Dick Mallinson (on the staff of Cyril Lovesey) and for the Bristol Engine Company by Harvey Mansell. Both worked in
conjunction with Dr. John Drinkwater of RAE Farnborough and with Alec Ogston from the
oil company.
 
They showed that the cause of the lack of rich-mixture response in the American fuels
was their low aromatic content. They were, in fact, a blend of 100-octane (2-2-4 trimethyl pentane, produced by the alkylation process) with a paraffinic gasoline of less than two percent aromatic content.

This was designed specifically to meet the
requirement of the United States Army Air Corps and to avoid the solvent effect of
aromatics on United States aircraft fuel systems.

For the British engines and fuel systems the answer was to replace the paraffinic
gasoline component with a highly aromatic gasoline distilled from Venezuelan Quiri-quiri crude.
 
A first cargo of this "improved" 100octane fuel was shipped to the United Kingdom from
Aruba in the Netherlands West Indies in June 1939, on board the tanker Beaconbill.

A portion of it was set aside to act as a "reference fuel" -later code-named RDE/F/222.
Subsequently, in 1939 and 1940, some 70 percent of the 100-octane fuel stockpiled by
the Air Ministry for Royal Air Force Fighter Command-and used throughout the Battle of
Britain-was supplied from three Esso refineries, two in the USA and one in the Caribbean, where the alkylation process was used to manufacture the iso-octane components of the 100-octane blend.

The process had been discovered in 1935 by Dr. S.F. Birch, of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Thereafter, Esso pioneered its commercial use. Most of the remaining 30 percent of the UK supplies came from Shell, with a small quantity from the Trinidad refinery of Trinidad Leaseholds.
 
In addition to the innovators from Esso, Rolls-Royce, Bristol and the RAE, those who were most closely involved in this major endeavor of so much importance in the Battle of Britain included that great "fuel maestro," F.R. Rod Banks of the Ethyl Corporation, with Ernest Bass and Maxwell Smith of Shell.
 
As a matter of record, the Shell 100 octane was originally made up of a blend of a highly
aromatic gasoline from Borneo crude, blended with mixed octanes produced by a hydrogenation process together with 3.66 CM3 of tetraethyl lead per gallon.

On 6 July 1939 Dick Reynnell of Hawker Aircraft flew an early production Hurricane
(L ' 1856) in which the Merlin engine was run on 100-octane fuel.

There can be no doubt that from March 1940 onwards the use of the distinctly green
colored, 100-octane fuel by RAF Fighter Command (compared with the previous
blue-colored 87 octane) imparted a most effective additional boost to the performance of the Hurricane and the Spitfire flying against the Messerschmitt Bf- 109 fighters.

Their direct-injection Daimler Benz 601A engines operated on 87-octane fuel with no
rich-mixture response.
 
The increased rate of climb and maximum speed imparted to the Hurricane and Spitfire
by 100-octane fuel was, of course, limited to the heights at which the supercharger made
possible the attainment of better than 61/4 -lb. boost.

For the Merlin II and III in the Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiant of the Battle of Britain this meant extra performance up
to the rated height of 12,250 feet in standard atmosphere.
 
The contribution of the 100-octane backroom boys to the Battle of Britain must go down
in history alongside the aircraft, engines and radar as a valuable contribution to victory.

-Reprinted trom Aerospace Magazine-October 1990

[ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: milnko ]

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2001, 04:10:00 PM »
One feature I loved about AW was the porking of an airfield's fuel tanks or destroying the enemies refineries thereby limiting a certain plane's performances and thier availablity from airfields.

This is one of the features I hated the most in the AW strat system.

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2001, 04:14:00 PM »
I take that as a NO then HT?  :D

Offline BigGun

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2001, 05:00:00 PM »
Sounds like a big NO to me.

BgMAW

Offline duffus

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 65
      • http://explorer
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2001, 05:16:00 PM »
Jump in Mossie, pork fuel...Jump in mossie, pork fuel....Jump in mossie, pork fuel.

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2001, 05:44:00 PM »
Mil, I think you're swaying him!

 :D

Offline CavemanJ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2001, 04:11:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SwampRat:


....Why?  Can't say the strat system in AH is exactly..err Strat.  With the exception of Radar I've seen absolutely no reason to get a group of bombers together and take a long haul to this fac or that, in the MA anyway.  Degrading fuel (or even shuttin off one plane type or another for a few minutes by killing its "Mother" factory/hangar) makes a strat system worth having.  Not only is it worth having a decent strat system, you get more missions with it...leading to more interaction among players, dedicated Bomber groups etc etc.  I've often wondered why you can bomb out all the fuel/ammo at a field and still have volleys of spits and Niks jump up in defense with no side effects whatsoever....geez thats fully lacking in realism.  Perhaps this kind of stuff is meant for scenarios..I got no problem with that, cept for the SERIOUS lack of AH scenarios.

2cents
Swamprat

You must not have been around back in the early days when TWC, as rooks, started a campaign that kept both bish and nits down to 2-3 bases each for a good while.  Most of a night IIRC.

Constant bombardment of the city, followed by total destruction of the factories and then the supplies at the fields meant the "gutted" country could only fly with 25% fuel for point defense at bases (and those were some serious fights  :D ).  They had no bombs to pork bases with nor troops to capture them with.  Granted that kind of organization is rarely seen these days, and the new maps are so spread out with the strat targets as to make it virtually impossible, with the possible exception of the isles map (which would still require coordination on a level of a special event scenario).  That's the strategic side.

On the tactical, the way to take a base out of a fight is not to kill the hangers like most people do.  Kill the fuel, ammo, and troops.  Hangers only stay down for 15minutes.  Fuel tanks, ammo bunkers, and barracks stay down for 30minutes, longer if the factories have been reduced before the base supplies are destroyed.
all fuel tanks down = 25% fuel at that base.  You aren't flying anywhere except the pattern.
all ammo bunkers down = no bombs/rockets from that base so no way to quickly kill the 'hard' targets at a base
all barracks down = no troops from that field so there's no gooney birds nor M3s from there.

It's going to be interesting to see how the trains affect the strat system.

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2001, 09:25:00 AM »
I think HT is right... what is needed tho is a "realistic" porking of the fuel.    Any porking of fuel will affect the axis planes but in order to hurt allied planes one must hit every refinery in the U.S. section that is 5000 miles off the map and not accesable.   since most LW guys are sticlers for "realism" I'm sure that they would go for this and perhaps could get HT to implement it.
lazs

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2001, 10:49:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
but in order to hurt allied planes one must hit every refinery in the U.S. section that is 5000 miles off the map and not accesable.  lazs

OR
They give the AXIS U-Boats and the Allies Tankers.

Cmon Lazs ya know what I'm talking about, Factories and Refineries were MAJOR targets during the war. And removing them were of the utmost importance to the strategic effort in winning the conflict.

Such objects in the game should have much more value and importance in this game as well.

I don't fly BUFFS, but I'd love a reason to INTERCEPT 'em.

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2001, 02:39:00 PM »
milnko said:
 
Quote
One feature I loved about AW was the porking of an airfield's fuel tanks or destroying the enemies refineries thereby limiting a certain plane's performances and thier availablity from airfields.

I'm with HT on this one.  This was simply the most detestable feature of AW's so-called strat system.  Like Studley said, "jump in mossie, pork fuel", repeat.  The result:  huge areas of the map would be made uninhabitable by 1 or 2 non-flying dweeb constantly milk-running fuel tanks, ruining the fun for countless others.  There was no way to adequately defend against this--the mossie would almost always get through somewhere.

Granted, air combat games like AW and AH are all about ruining the other guys' fun by imposing your will on them.  But this should require organization of approximately equal assets on both sides.  Large battles where individual skill, planning, and leadership prevail.  This AW system put WAY too much leverage in the hands of 1 lone dweeb who 90% of the time at least lacked the skill to damage the enemy in any way except using a laser sight to hit an undefended, large, stationary object on the ground.

AH's strat system so far is a vast improvement on AW's.  By not degrading aircraft performance, the war can go on even if the defenders have limited capabilities in other ways--range, inability to retaliate, etc.  OTOH, if you degrade plane performance, field capturing becomes simply a matter of porking the fuel.  The defenders are forced to fly elsewhere to have any real chance of effectiveness, leaving the capture a walk-over.

It remains to be seen how trains and such will affect all this.  Personally, I hope an individual train has almost no effect on the overall or even local strat situation.  This is because I don't see how they can be defended at all.  They're not in a fixed place like an airfield or factory so there is no obvious defensive rally point.  They can also probably be taken out be a very small number of attackers.  So I see them as potentially a repeat of AW's abhorent mossie porking plague unless killing one of them is no great loss.

On the whole, I could do without any strat system at all.  Furballs and vulching are quite enough for me.  And this IS an air combat game, afterall, despite its fancy trimmings of tanks and ships.  It's not some damn RTS landgrab thing.  Strat systems always risk making MMP air combat games into RTS nightmares.  There are beaucoup RTS games out there to play, but damn few MMP air combat games.  I'd rather not take the risk of losing one of the latter.  Were it up to me, AH would be like DOS RT AW, with no strat system at all  :)

Offline LtHans

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2001, 01:10:00 AM »
This sounds more like something somebody would do just because they don't like the British planes and want to make their life unfairly harder.  I don't care if it is historical or not, you can't ever get 100% realism how hard you try.  Some things just have to be fudged to make the gameplay good, and more importantly fair (very non-historical).

Besides, we ALREADY have fuel refineries and fuel tanks.  This suggestion is moot.  You CAN bomb a refinery, and you CAN mess up the enemies fuel situation, but its quantity, not quality your attacking.  Same difference.

I vote no.  Mainly on the Anti-British angle.

Hans.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2001, 09:33:00 AM »
milenko... i know exactly what you are talking about.... you think that because LW planes were made to run ok on cat piss they should have some advantage in the arena that they never had in real life.   U boats would be fine... They were pretty useless when it mattered tho.  The axis were the only countries that were vulnerable to fuel so far as raw fuel and refineries were concerned.  

Perhaps you want to make a gamey kinda deal where lack of refinereies makes the performance drop say 10-25% in every plane in that country regardless of type?  Regardless of wep system or normal manifold pressure run in each type??  that is hoky and unrealistic simply phony strat for strats sake. Or maybe you want each type of plane to be affected differently by the octane drop?   That seems  much too open to interpretation since it was never a factor in allied planes.   Where would you get the data?   It has been said that G model and later 109s and most FW's would not take off if 100 octane fuel were not available... Is that what you want?
lazs

Offline tofri

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
      • http://www.tofri.de
Let's talk STRAT for a minute or two
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »
A bit more strategic momentum would be desirable.

I really miss some reward in destroying a hangar.
I would like to suggest a reduction of the plane set depending to the size of the airfield.
This should be done with random factor, eg.  splitting the plane set for small airfields into three parts. By destroying one hangar, one part would be chosen by the server to be disabled. In this way a hangar could not berelated to a plane set.