Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku  (Read 29223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #96 on: November 13, 2019, 09:27:49 AM »

200 100kg bombs dear god its like a B-52 loaded for Arclight raids, thats a scary amount of ordnance
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23868
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #97 on: November 13, 2019, 09:32:31 AM »

Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #98 on: November 13, 2019, 09:33:02 AM »

for reference a B-52 bomb load is maximum 35 tons or 70,000 pounds
Logged

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #99 on: November 13, 2019, 09:39:54 AM »

KT may not be far off with the torpedoes, though i do agree with you mike it would be suicide to torpedo run with a plane that size
i did find this interesting diagram of it and those sure look like torpedoes under the plane   

Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23868
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #100 on: November 13, 2019, 09:47:15 AM »

Yes I think we've discussed this before.
The plan to equip the plane with torpedoes is bound to the same plan to equip it with 400 guns to strafe the ship decks before the torpedo attackers run in.
One doesn't make sense without the other - on paper.
In reality, neither makes any sense.

It would be dead easy to add simple torpedoes to the loadouts, I just don't see the point.
Adding 400 guns in the bomb bay won't be impossible from a mod's point of view, however the game cannot handle it: AI is inept to use such strafing gun arrangements, and firing 400 machine guns at once will cause FPS to drop to zero.

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #101 on: November 13, 2019, 09:51:49 AM »

sorry i didnt realize it had been discussed before hand I just looked up the real plane and the engines as i had never heard of it and was interested to see what it was, i do agree with you tho iv had drops on my higher end rig as well during things like carpet bombing and i use your Config settings for the graphics so if I have issues it would prob totally not work on lower computers, those engines are seriously impressive for a piston engine  its almost a shame they were never built
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23868
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #102 on: November 13, 2019, 09:54:57 AM »

I just looked up the real plane
Well that's difficult.
All we have is guesstimations, the whole thing is a paperplane and even that stage it never finished.

We'll have one of many possible interpretations of it, somewhere along the lines of the "Ultimate" Fugaku model which you can find to the right of the table linked here:
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,61161.msg689686.html#msg689686

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

SAS~Bombsaway

  • Choose your battles wisely.
  • SAS Team
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9213
  • A day without laughter is a day wasted
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #103 on: November 13, 2019, 09:55:50 AM »

I agree with you Mike about the torpedoes. I'm curious though. I wonder how many torpedoes it could hold, what the range would be with the torpedoes once they were in the water and if they had a range long enough, would they have been able to stay far away from the enemy ships to somewhat safely drop to drop hieght and release them and escape back to cruising hieght?
Not asking for torpedoes, just wondering if it would have been fesible.
Logged
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #104 on: November 13, 2019, 09:58:22 AM »

the only way I personally think it could have been would be against unarmed merchants or perhaps a parachute retarded torpedo that could be dropped from a long way up but the chances of hitting something would be slim to none unless you dropped a pile of them
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23868
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2019, 10:07:32 AM »

a parachute retarded torpedo that could be dropped from a long way up
This was my initial idea, but I'd like to postpone that maybe for a future update.
Thing is: These torpedoes would either have to run in circles (like the "Motobomba" italian ones) or they'd have to be homing torpedoes.
And again, therein lies the issue: Neither of these hit shit.
For the circling ones you can try yourself. And imagine they'd drop from 10km+ altitude... endless time for the target group to turn into another direction before the torps hit water.
For the homing torpedoes, the germans tried that in WW2 with the G7e (T4/T5) torps. Doesn't work. It's just too easy to counter it and the "Foxer" noise maker consequently rendered these high tech torps completely useless.

Flat torpedo runs make no sense at all.
Either you get close enough to hit something, in which case you can be 100% sure that they will hit you back. The ship might get hit, you will be dead. Even Kamikaze is a better deal.
Or you drop at really, really long distance. Now... such aerial torps in WW2 didn't exist, we'd be talking about distances like 20km or more, that'd be a massively huge torp.
And even if they did, what would you expect to hit? The attacked ship simply cannot miss your approach with such a large aircraft and they'd have endless time to change course.

TL;DR: Whatever you do, for a torpedo attack you need a nimble plane to stay a chance to survive because you have to get within 5km distance to have a chance to hit. It's all contrary to the whole Fugaku concept.

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

Flanker27

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2019, 10:15:50 AM »

agreed a plane like this would be much more effective against ships with something like the Fritz X bomb, two sunk the Italian battleship Roma so imagine a plane with 8 of them, it would be devastating
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23868
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2019, 10:17:34 AM »

Exactly.
And it can stay high and fast while attacking, and these two factors are the only ones that give the Fugaku a chance to survive.

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 26 queries.