-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ottoman Empire
Single Seat Fighters
-Unarmed: Harlan Eindecker Monoplane/Blériot XI
-1915: Fokker E.III
-1916: Albatros D.II
Two Seat Fighters
-1915: Albatros C.I
Bulgaria
Single Seat Fighters
-Unarmed: Farman VII/Blériot XI
-1916: LFG Roland D.II (Pfal)
Light Bombers
-1915: Otto C.I?
Single Seat Fighters
-Unarmed: Harlan Eindecker Monoplane/Blériot XI
-1915: Fokker E.III
-1916: Albatros D.II
Two Seat Fighters
-1915: Albatros C.I
Bulgaria
Single Seat Fighters
-Unarmed: Farman VII/Blériot XI
-1916: LFG Roland D.II (Pfal)
Light Bombers
-1915: Otto C.I?
Last edited:
For the purpose of testing designs I am developing three battlescenarios. All three are refering to the Ottoman Empire:
1) Italo-Turkish War
2) Ottoman Empire during Palestine campaign on 31st October 1917 but including not only Palestine theater but also Arabian and Mesopotamian theater
3) Turkish Independence War
Whereas the Palestine camapign is well documented I have problems with the Mesopotamian theater from 31st October 1917 onwards. This is what I have so far:
Some units still lack their commander. Only for Marshall I could find a useable pic. I need datas and pics of all commanders that served in Mesopotamian theater form 31st October 1917 until the end of war.
@Kretoxian: thank you for your lists. That helps a lot.
I take your point on the Caproni - convincingly made. I think perhaps you're overestimating the hardiness of the R-planes though.
The Staaken R.VI was the dominant type deployed and of eighteen built at least eleven were destroyed during the war - with two (possibly three) of these being shot down. The later all-metal developments might well have fared better, but the runs on the board don't suggest that the 'R's were'unsinkable'.
The Mourumetz, on the other hand, seem to fully deserve your description.
The Staaken R.VI was the dominant type deployed and of eighteen built at least eleven were destroyed during the war - with two (possibly three) of these being shot down. The later all-metal developments might well have fared better, but the runs on the board don't suggest that the 'R's were'unsinkable'.
The Mourumetz, on the other hand, seem to fully deserve your description.
Last edited:
R-planes were used from 1916 onwards. From all R-planes - not only from the Staaken R.VI - were three shot down in total. Actually shot down were one Staaken.XIV on 10th August 1918 and two Staaken R.VI, one on 1st June 1918 and the other one on 15th September 1918. They all were shot down at Western Front in 1918 were the Allies had strengthen aerial defence immensely. The Muromets were only used at Eastern front of course were the conditions were completely different (and easier for bombers). Nevertheless 2 Muromets were shot down. There were at minimum (no complete list exists) 147 missions executed by R-planes. There were no losses at Eastern front missions and no losses on their raids on England.
So we have all in all 2 Muromets shootdowns at Eastern Front versus 3 R-plane shootdowns at Western Front. Still considering the aerial conditions of each theater I am still thinking both planes are comparable regarding toughness, also because of their technical similarities.
P.S.: I have excluded all losses by technical errors because it does not determine the toughness. With technical problems all big planes had to struggle with.
Last edited:
I think we're starting from different premises - and perhaps different sources. As far as premises go, I'm including losses due to technical issues (e.g. engine failures, environmental conditions, faulty landings) because I figure 'toughness' includes more than combat survivability. I reckon if you can't keep your aircraft in the air it's a bit of a stretch to call them 'tough'.
On that basis, of the 25 R-planes actually flying combat missions I have 17 of them going down. I have the same three combat losses as you, but have another on 21 April crashing 'after combat'. For the Mourumetz I have a total production figure of 73 with 'about half' used in combat. If we err on the conservative side and put that at 33, only 4 of those were lost - 2 to enemy action, 1 to sabotage, and 1 to control loss. Granted they were working in a less threat rich environment, but as the R-plane figures (pulled from Rohrbach) seem to show, it wasn't external threat that was the problem.
In any event, this is all grognard stuff and shouldn't divert you from your grand purpose. All kudos to the team for the progress you've made, it's looking really good.
On that basis, of the 25 R-planes actually flying combat missions I have 17 of them going down. I have the same three combat losses as you, but have another on 21 April crashing 'after combat'. For the Mourumetz I have a total production figure of 73 with 'about half' used in combat. If we err on the conservative side and put that at 33, only 4 of those were lost - 2 to enemy action, 1 to sabotage, and 1 to control loss. Granted they were working in a less threat rich environment, but as the R-plane figures (pulled from Rohrbach) seem to show, it wasn't external threat that was the problem.
In any event, this is all grognard stuff and shouldn't divert you from your grand purpose. All kudos to the team for the progress you've made, it's looking really good.
My source is 'The German Giants' by Haddow and Grosz. They are claiming that the statistics by Rohrbach are incomplete. They estimate that 55-65 R-planes were built from which around 30 reached the front. Indeed, how difficult it was to shoot them down is my definition of toughness. Actually R-planes were still considered to be in an experimental stage. In game those planes will be very expensive to represent their rate of attrition. Detailed books about Mouromets in English sources are not available. Nevertheless, Mouromets will be represented as heavy bomber. There will be country specific modifiers by which the Mouromets will get their toughness represented.
I appriciate every review especially about propositions about historical facts I've made. The techtree should represent proper historical development. Comments, discussions, notes cannot hurt in this regard.
I appriciate every review especially about propositions about historical facts I've made. The techtree should represent proper historical development. Comments, discussions, notes cannot hurt in this regard.
Fully support. (I'll have to personally look into changing country colors, but that's not your problem. I've got really bad OCD about country colors. :rofl
