Aircraft tech tree?

[f1nalstand17]

What's the problem with having a jet CAS exactly? Why not at least have it in the game and if people don't like it, then they can just stick to playing with an older prop version. If that does not suffice, then they can simply design their own variant.

 

[Porkman]

What's the problem with having a jet CAS exactly? Why not at least have it in the game and if people don't like it, then they can just stick to playing with an older prop version. If that does not suffice, then they can simply design their own variant.

The problem is the tech level of jets at the time make them really unsuited for CAS missions. Putting 1940's jet engines on a CAS plane makes it less able to do its job and less reliable. The Japanese tried to make half battleships - half carriers out of the Hyuga and Ise and those ships just ended up being terrible at both roles.

Jet engines of the 40's and early 50's were fast but very prone to breakdown and they didn't like being throttled up and down a lot with during flight. Similarly, they weren't as resilient in general to enemy fire.

The problem is that the way the tech tree is set out, jet CAS will be automatically better, when they really would have been a lot worse. As a 1950+ tech it would fit, just like air cavalry, but it makes no sense to stick fragile, expensive, highly classified jet engines on a plane who's job is to fly into the enemy field of fire and remain there for long periods.

To use another Japanese example, it would be like seeing the Japanese carrier tech tree and having the Shokaku be the ship in 1941 only to see that the 1943 model carrier was the 1-400 submarine.

Yes, the I-400 is a more advanced ship than the Shokaku, just as jet engines are more advanced than props... But putting the planes on a submarine didn't make the 1-400 a better aircraft carrier.

Similarly, putting 1940's era jet engines on a CAS plane would make it a worse CAS aircraft. Not because the jets wouldn't make it go faster or gain or lose speed more readily. Those are important but not that beneficial to the mission. However, the loss of flight time and lack of reliability and durability that comes from jets is a far bigger detriment.

(Actually, maybe we could just make it so all the jet aircraft have really bad starting reliability)

This is an article about how to replace the A-10 Warthog and what they want out of it.

The basic requirements for a “Warthog 2.0" are that it retains the Warthog’s current capabilities. “These are the things we hold as the minimum requirements going forward in kind of a follow-on CAS platform,” says one of the two A-10 pilots leading the group behind the prospective Warthog replacement project. “The slow speed and tight turn radius is what allows us to get below the weather and have a rapid rate of re-attack especially with the flexibility of the gun.”

As such, in a next-generation CAS aircraft, the pilot must have good visibility—which is why a round, expansive “bubble” canopy is crucial. “In an air-to-ground mode, being able to look out over your shoulder and behind you—not at threats, but the ground you just attacked or to keep an eye on the friendlies is a critical capability,” the A-10 pilot says.

Because CAS missions often take place at very low altitudes and low airspeeds—anywhere from 150 knots to 300 knots—the aircraft must be able to perform a two-G sustained turn at a rate of five degrees per second with a turn radius of no more than 2,000 feet.

The instantaneous turn rate—that is, how quickly a plane can wheel around in the first few seconds of a maneuver—would have to be better than 20 degrees per second while pulling six Gs. The aircraft must also be able to remain less than one mile from a target between attacks while pulling no more than two Gs—except for the roll-in to the attack and the time its leaving the area.

“The tight turn is important so that we can not only operate in a narrow valley if we need to, but lets says it’s reduced visibility, and we’re kinda poking our way through that visibility, the ability to do that slowly and being able to turn when you see a big hill coming is important,” the pilot says.

Now they do want to put more powerful engines on it, but not to get more speed, which is all you could get out of 1940's era jets.

A cruise speed of at least 360 knots is desirable, a pilot says. Initially, the group believed that it would be best for a next-gen aircraft to cruise at 480 knots with a dash speed of 540 knots. However, with Sprey’s input, the team came to the conclusion that such a requirement would be aerodynamically incompatible with a tight turn radius at low airspeed.

“What we need and don’t have is the capability to rapidly get airspeed back after an attack,” the pilot says. “Also, while airspeed can help response time, it’s loiter time that really makes response faster because it allows you to be at the battlefield, ready to attack.”

Thus, the prospective aircraft needs to have a minimum combat radius of 150 nautical miles with at least four hours on station time with internal fuel, the pilot explains.

1940's Jet engines on interceptors or fighters make sense. You know the bombers or fighters are coming and they give you a distinct combat advantage to have for a set period of time. The short shelf life of the engines is less worrying when you only have to make a 45 minute interception. But if you have a CAS with 20 hours of engine life, that's only 5 missions on station.

Also, if you make your CAS fast enough and maneuverable enough to fight off an interceptor, than it's no longer a CAS plane. To much armor and weaponry would have been stripped away do the CAS mission as well, the resulting plane would be better classified as a heavy fighter.

 

[parnis]

Porkman is entirely correct, IMO. Jet close air support planes make no sense with 1940's technology. It made no sense with 1950's technology either; that's why it was done with piston engine aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, the Corsair, and the Sea Fury in Korea.

 

[Chromos]

What's the problem with having a jet CAS exactly? Why not at least have it in the game and if people don't like it, then they can just stick to playing with an older prop version. If that does not suffice, then they can simply design their own variant.

Some people seem not be able to accept the possibility to field technology even if its not 100% irioned out.
By that means we would maybe also not like to have any heavy tanks in the game at all. Because that beasts would be also not very "cost effective/reliable enough/whatever" in their view.
It is also neglected that GER had a slight advantage in that jet areas and that allies were not that keen on spending more money on such development after(!) the war.
So imho they're mixing up the fact that GER at war and allies after War are somehow two different kind of stories.

In the end GER field already jet fighter and jet bombers(~300 iirc)! So I clearly fail to see why a GER player, or any country that has reached a certain tech lvl should not be allowed to do what was done historically. Develop and also use Jet CAS, Jet CAG...
If we loose payload and range with our jet bombers, but get in exchange uninterceptable(by piston fighters) ones. Why should I not go that route if I can and it was done(!) historically?
And that was achieved with first genartion of that jet bombers in '44. So some more research and jets would get better and better.


What I often personally and overall dislike in such discussions is this:
If you deny the possibility to do something in the game, nobody would even have the chance to go that route. So denying group is "denying" the other one some part of their fun in the game.
While if the possibilites are in the game, it is like f1nalstand17 wrote. You don't like it, just don't use it. Go on and roam the world with piston engine planes or ww1 like tanks if you like.

 

[Alwar]

...

Exactly. Couldnt say it better

 

[1alexey]

Some people seem not be able to accept the possibility to field technology even if its not 100% irioned out.
By that means we would maybe also not like to have any heavy tanks in the game at all. Because that beasts would be also not very "cost effective/reliable enough/whatever" in their view.
It is also neglected that GER had a slight advantage in that jet areas and that allies were not that keen on spending more money on such development after(!) the war.
So imho they're mixing up the fact that GER at war and allies after War are somehow two different kind of stories.

In the end GER field already jet fighter and jet bombers(~300 iirc)! So I clearly fail to see why a GER player, or any country that has reached a certain tech lvl should not be allowed to do what was done historically. Develop and also use Jet CAS, Jet CAG...
If we loose payload and range with our jet bombers, but get in exchange uninterceptable(by piston fighters) ones. Why should I not go that route if I can and it was done(!) historically?
And that was achieved with first genartion of that jet bombers in '44. So some more research and jets would get better and better.

Because bombers and CAS operate differently. CAS can`t be uninterceptable, it would have too little armor, and thus would operate, and in fact be some sort of fighter-bomber.

What I often personally and overall dislike in such discussions is this:
If you deny the possibility to do something in the game, nobody would even have the chance to go that route. So denying group is "denying" the other one some part of their fun in the game.
While if the possibilites are in the game, it is like f1nalstand17 wrote. You don't like it, just don't use it. Go on and roam the world with piston engine planes or ww1 like tanks if you like.

Because physics and logic. Even Germans were not idiots enough to build those.

There was good reason everybody used piston-driven CAS into 50s, and the game should reflect that. Every type of plane that relies on speed is fine as a possible Jet model. Every that doesn`t, doesn`t need a jet model in tech tree.

 

[Chromos]

Because bombers and CAS operate differently. CAS can`t be uninterceptable, it would have too little armor, and thus would operate, and in fact be some sort of fighter-bomber.

Because physics and logic. Even Germans were not idiots enough to build those.

There was good reason everybody used piston-driven CAS into 50s, and the game should reflect that. Every type of plane that relies on speed is fine as a possible Jet model. Every that doesn`t, doesn`t need a jet model in tech tree.

So I did a quick google for you and all "denier".. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_132
I forgot that it was also capable/desigend for dive attacks..
Thats what all could find easily and quick when doing a search. More research will get you likely more such positiv results..

The good reason why after the war nobody did field that much jet planes was alreday explained by me many times already. Try and deny the impact on non existant money for reseach..

 

[1alexey]

So I did a quick google for you and all "denier".. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_132
I forgot that it was also capable/desigend for dive attacks..
Thats what all could find easily and quick when doing a search. More research will get you likely more such positiv results..

The good reason why after the war nobody did field that much jet planes was alreday explained by me many times already. Try and deny the impact on non existant money for reseach..

An interceptor and dive bomber is not a CAS, it is a fighter-bomber.
Last time I checked, CAS were not intended to attack B-17s.

Based on this research, several late-war German designs followed the B9's lead and used a prone pilot. Better g-load performance was not the only reason, however, as this layout also reduced the frontal area of the aircraft. This was a serious concern for interceptors attacking the USAAF's B-17 Flying Fortress, as calculations showed that the chance of being hit by its defensive guns was largely a function of frontal area.

FW-190 was similar, it was used as a dive bomber. Is it a CAS? Not even close.

 

[Porkman]

So I did a quick google for you and all "denier".. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_132
I forgot that it was also capable/desigend for dive attacks..
Thats what all could find easily and quick when doing a search. More research will get you likely more such positiv results..

The good reason why after the war nobody did field that much jet planes was alreday explained by me many times already. Try and deny the impact on non existant money for reseach..

A Dive bomber is a dive bomber... that's not the same thing as a CAS craft like the Il-2. Though going back to look at the tech tree in the dev diary, it doesn't look like we'll get that distinction.

Heavy tanks and the like aren't as bad because they were built and they aren't that cost effective, but a King Tiger was a tougher and more powerful tank than anything else the Germans had.

A Jet CAS, would be a more vulnerable, but faster, plane than previous models, but speed is not helpful to the mission. To make it "uninterceptable", you'd have to reduce the ordinance and the armor to the point where it's just a jet fighter bomber.

 

[Chromos]

Guys, that palne was designed as a CAS that could also dive..
Do you really try to argument now that a plane that is intended as a CAS and can dive bomb is not a CAS? Seriously .. lol

And the initial planes variants were all dive bomber/AT ones. But it was planned to build also an Interceptors variant out of the basic design.. Thats not the same as the dive bomber should have been used to intercept B-17's..
Reading really can help by times.

Several other versions of the basic airframe were proposed as well. The Hs 132B used the Junkers Jumo 004 engine in place of the BMW 003, and added two 20 mm (0.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons. The HS 132C was a more extensively modified version intended for bomber interception, featuring the larger Heinkel HeS 011 engine, two 20 mm (0.79 in) 151/20s and two 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 103 or MK 108 cannons. The HeS 011, intended to power a wide variety of new and existing Luftwaffe aircraft (an example of the latter being the proposed D and P series of the Arado Ar 234 jet bomber), was still in the pre-production phase when the war ended. It was hoped that by the time the HS 132B became available, the Panzerblitz anti-tank missile would be in production and available for use. The Hs 132D included a new wing of increased span. A contract for six prototypes was approved in May 1944, and construction was begun in March 1945. Hs 132V1 was scheduled to have its first flight in June 1945, but the completed wings and fuselage were never mated, and Russian forces captured the intact fuselage in May 1945 while the wings were never moved from their factory in France.

Read that wiki link, that CAS plane was being developed and about to be tested to be used..
If you like, translate the german wiki page to see that the interesting pilot position was choosen to avoid the high g-forces impact on the pilot like in the Ju-87 on dive bombing in missions. The Hs132 was a replacemnet for the Ju87.
And that one was undeniable a dive bomber and one of the most famous CAS of the war..

 

[1alexey]

Guys, that palne was designed as a CAS that could also dive..
Do you really try to argument now that a plane that is intended as a CAS and can dive bomb is not a CAS? Seriously .. lol

Read that wiki link, that CAS plane was being developed and about to be tested to be used..
If you like, translate the german wiki page to see that the interesting pilot position was choosen to avoid the high g-forces impact on the pilot like in the Ju-87 on dive bombing in missions. The Hs132 was a replacemnet for the Ju87.
And that one was undeniable a dive bomber and one of the most famous CAS of the war..

By that logic, P-47, FW-190, BF-109 are all CAS.

Oh, and by the way, Ju-88, is also a CAS, let`s look at it`s wiki page:

Dive bomber
Three Ju 88s in flight over Astypalaia, Greece, 1943

In October 1937 Generalluftzeugmeister Ernst Udet had ordered the development of the Ju 88 as a heavy dive bomber. This decision was influenced by the success of the Ju 87 Stuka in this role. The Junkers development center at Dessau gave priority to the study of pull-out systems and dive brakes.[10] The first prototype to be tested as a dive bomber was the Ju 88 V4 followed by the V5 and V6. These models became the planned prototype for the A-1 series. The V5 made its maiden flight on 13 April 1938, and the V6 on 28 June 1938. Both the V5 and V6 were fitted with four-blade propellers, an extra bomb bay and a central "control system".[10] As a dive bomber, the Ju 88 was capable of pinpoint deliveries of heavy loads; however, despite all the modifications, dive bombing still proved too stressful for the airframe, and in 1943, tactics were changed so that bombs were delivered from a shallower, 45° diving angle. Aircraft and bomb sights were accordingly modified and dive brakes were removed. With an advanced Stuvi dive-bombsight, accuracy remained very good for its time. Maximum bomb load of the A-4 was 3,000 kg (6,600 lb), but in practice, standard bomb load was 1,500-2,000 kg (3,310-4,410 lb).[11] Junkers later used the A-4 airframe for the A-17 torpedo carrier. However, the variant lacked the undernose Bola gondola for a ventral gun position.

So, sorry, but just the fact that a plane dives to bomb, doesn`t make it a CAS.

To do it`s job, Ju-87, was for example fitted with an increase of armour, at least it`s D-3 and further variants. Isn`t it strange, that a plane that suffered a lot from air interception, got more armor? One wonders why.

But sure, please translate from German wiki, how much armor did the Hs 132 carried, compared to already mentioned J-87 D3 or Il-2.

 

[Porkman]

Guys, that palne was designed as a CAS that could also dive..
Do you really try to argument now that a plane that is intended as a CAS and can dive bomb is not a CAS? Seriously .. lol

And the initial planes variants were all dive bomber/AT ones. But it was planned to build also an Interceptors variant out of the basic design.. Thats not the same as the dive bomber should have been used to intercept B-17's..
Reading really can help by times.


Read that wiki link, that CAS plane was being developed and about to be tested to be used..
If you like, translate the german wiki page to see that the interesting pilot position was choosen to avoid the high g-forces impact on the pilot like in the Ju-87 on dive bombing in missions. The Hs132 was a replacemnet for the Ju87.
And that one was undeniable a dive bomber and one of the most famous CAS of the war..

The F-117 is a fighter right? There's an F in front! That equals fighter!

The Me - 262 was initially designed as a high altitude fast bomber, that doesn't make it one and it would have been terrible if ever employed in that role.

Lots of planes were designed as one thing before operational experience taught that they were bad at that thing and then they had to do something else.

Similarly, lots of planes could only do their intended job okay and that prompted governments to make dedicated aircraft who could do it better.

 

[1alexey]

The Me - 262 was initially designed as a high altitude fast bomber, that doesn't make it one and it would have been terrible if ever employed in that role.

It actually was used by several squadrons in that role(around 200 ME-262 bombers were built), and to a great effect.
Some historians say that ME-262 bomber did (almost) more to earn air superiority by bombing allied airfields, than ME-262 fighter did destroying planes in air, also several attacks on high-value targets such as Bridges in Netherlands, were quite successful.

But really the plane is shrouded by a huge amount of myths way too much. It never was designed as a bomber. It never was re-designed as a bomber. All that German leadership wanted from it, was to be a fighter capable of doing some bombings similar to BF-109 and FW-190. It`s development was never ceased as a fighter, and so forth.

 

[Axe99]

To do it`s job, Ju-87, was for example fitted with an increase of armour, at least it`s D-3 and further variants. Isn`t it strange, that a plane that suffered a lot from air interception, got more armor? One wonders why.

The Ju-87 was a bit of a turtle though - anything that slow without armour would have lasted seconds when the interceptors came rolling in (or AA opened up).

I've been following this discussion and been very interested by all the points (excellent posts by pretty much everyone imo ). Up until the info on the Hs-132, I was on the 'why would you worry about Jet CAS', but the Hs-132 is a fairly specific role where the jet engine make sense - presumably designed to be fast enough to avoid too much trouble from interceptors while carrying a payload to drop on an Allied invasion fleet.

Granted, it's not a 'CAS' in the A-10 sense, but in WW2 the role of a 'CAS' as we understand it hadn't fully 'coalesced', so a CAS in HoI terms is really an aircraft that delivers a payload to enemy ground units from relatively low heights - the idea that a CAS was loitering on station for hours was starting to be used (particularly later in the war), but it wasn't the only way to do it at that stage (or, indeed, in Korea/Vietnam, as per Porkmann's excellent posts above).

So if we define CAS more in a WW2 sense (where it covers everything from Ju-87 dive-bombers to Typhoons and P-47s with low level rocket attacks, to Mosquitoes, Hs-129s and so on), then an aircraft like the Hs-132, if it was adapted to a ground-attack rather than naval attack role (would the Hs-132 as originally designed be more a jet NAV than CAS?) could potentially qualify, and make sense - sense, in this case, that Germany wanted to deliver a payload, and bombers flying at prop speeds would never make it through Allied air patrols. In that context, even if it's a crazy, expensive thing to do, is it worth having in the game?

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

Doesn't the question of whether jet CAS makes sense for HoI4 also depend on how the tech tree is implemented? If the layout of the tech tree is the same for all countries, with the specific model names and pictures being only "skins", then it's hard to justify a jet CAS slot on the Hs-132 unless suitable counterparts can also be found for at least a few of the other majors.

 

[Chromos]

The Ju-87 was a bit of a turtle though - anything that slow without armour would have lasted seconds when the interceptors came rolling in (or AA opened up).

I've been following this discussion and been very interested by all the points (excellent posts by pretty much everyone imo ). Up until the info on the Hs-132, I was on the 'why would you worry about Jet CAS', but the Hs-132 is a fairly specific role where the jet engine make sense - presumably designed to be fast enough to avoid too much trouble from interceptors while carrying a payload to drop on an Allied invasion fleet.

Granted, it's not a 'CAS' in the A-10 sense, but in WW2 the role of a 'CAS' as we understand it hadn't fully 'coalesced', so a CAS in HoI terms is really an aircraft that delivers a payload to enemy ground units from relatively low heights - the idea that a CAS was loitering on station for hours was starting to be used (particularly later in the war), but it wasn't the only way to do it at that stage (or, indeed, in Korea/Vietnam, as per Porkmann's excellent posts above).

So if we define CAS more in a WW2 sense (where it covers everything from Ju-87 dive-bombers to Typhoons and P-47s with low level rocket attacks, to Mosquitoes, Hs-129s and so on), then an aircraft like the Hs-132, if it was adapted to a ground-attack rather than naval attack role (would the Hs-132 as originally designed be more a jet NAV than CAS?) could potentially qualify, and make sense - sense, in this case, that Germany wanted to deliver a payload, and bombers flying at prop speeds would never make it through Allied air patrols. In that context, even if it's a crazy, expensive thing to do, is it worth having in the game?

Well, I think anyone who read the at least the wiki entries can come to an understanding that the Hs-132 was a succesor fo the Ju-87 but just jet powered. The english wiki is listing only the "need to counter an invasion fleet", but the german one is more specific about that it was thought about a succesor of Ju-87 overall initially and the need to counter an invansion fleet might be added later to get more pressure on the responsible persons.

GER wiki:

Nachdem sich das Sturzkampfflugzeug Ju 87 mit zunehmender Dauer des Krieges als zu langsam und damit verwundbar gegenüber Jagdflugzeugeabwehr und Flak erwies, wurden im Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) Überlegungen für ein Nachfolgemodell angestellt. Ausschlaggebend für die Wiederaufnahme des Konzepts waren die guten vormaligen Bekämpfungserfolge der Ju 87 bei Punktzielen. Mit den damals modernsten Mitteln sollte ein neues Muster entwickelt werden. Dafür sollten auch die gerade in der Entwicklung befindlichen Strahltriebwerke zum Einsatz gelangen. Die Entwurfsabteilung von Henschel stellte sich die folgenden Aufgaben:

hohe Horizontalgeschwindigkeit
höchste Sturzgeschwindigkeit bis dicht über das Ziel
kleinste Abmessungen
möglichst großer Schutz für den Piloten

Nach diesen Vorgaben begannen ab Anfang 1944 die ersten Entwurfsarbeiten für ein kleines Sturzkampfflugzeug mit Strahlantrieb. Zusätzlich sollten auch Tiefangriffe im Bahnneigungsflug möglich sein. Nach Windkanalversuchen und wegen der guten Wartungsmöglichkeiten wählte man eine Auslegung, ähnlich der Heinkel He 162, bei der das Triebwerk auf dem Rumpfrücken angeordnet ist.

-> google translate with some adjustments to understand it better.

After the dive bomber Ju 87 with increasing duration of the war was seen too slow and thus proved vulnerable against fighters and anti-aircraft defense, (RLM) were given consideration for a successor to the Reich Aviation Ministry. The main reason for the resumption of the concept of (dive bombing) was the good former successes of the Ju 87 on point targets. With the then modern means a new model should be developed. This also should use the jet engines currently in development.
The design department of Henschel turned out the following tasks:

high horizontal velocity
highest dive speed up to close above the target
smallest dimensions
greatest possible protection for the pilot


Following these guidelines in early 1944 the first design work for a small dive bomber jet propulsion begun. In addition, low-level attacks should be possible. After wind tunnel tests and because of good maintenance practices an similar design to the Heinkel He 162 was choosen, in which the engine is mounted on top of the fuselage...

So Hs-132 is a direct succesor of Ju-87 while just using the tech/experience at hand by that time.
A FW-190, P-47, Harrier Hurricane and so on was for sure designed as a fighter. And also reused as a fighter bomber in a CAS role later.
So they developed around that existing frame to suit it better for CAS need. So I would rather like to have a subclass fo the initial fighter modell and be able to make a subclass out of it like fighter-bomber.

Then we have the so called CAS only developments like IL-2/Ju87/Hs129 or the jet powered Hs132/Junkers EF 126..
Having sub-class out of them like NAV duty ->also interesting for adopted to CAG role.

Ju-87 and IL-2 are both designed as a ground attack plane like A-10. So in that regard they're equal. I agree of course that technological difference and experience of the development time differed of course.

Doesn't the question of whether jet CAS makes sense for HoI4 also depend on how the tech tree is implemented? If the layout of the tech tree is the same for all countries, with the specific model names and pictures being only "skins", then it's hard to justify a jet CAS slot on the Hs-132 unless suitable counterparts can also be found for at least a few of the other majors.

I don't think so. I think that all shold have the possibilities to do historical choices if they go down that route that was taken historically.
So if you develop as allies the a-bomb and do that historically then all is fine.
If you as GER spent the same amount on research and can field "ahistorcial" the a-bomb, then all is fine in my view too.
Think about a player doing ahistorical good with ITA or JAP and go for the a-bomb. Should they not be able to research them?


The sidequestion of this thread was if jet-cas were about being fielded in the timeframe of this game and the simple answer is: YES!

And on side two of this thread Sacer posted two links to some GER projects, one is a destroyer plane(successor of Me-210 types) and the other is indeed a planned succesor of Ju-87, just take a look at this plane!:

Could be thought to be a fake but the designer Prof. Dr. -Ing. Karl Leist was indeed involved in ww2 in designing jet planes.
Also most info about that topic(jet planes projects of ww2) seems not to be in then net by now..


A pic from the projected Ju-EF126 wich looks similar to the Hs-132:

Again:
The continually flaw in this discussion is here imo that by some the after war development/need and in war development/need is mixed as also neglecting the fact that a jet cas was about to be build by at least one country, so it is historically like the Me262 is. In ww2 we also had just 2 countries use jet planes overall(GER/ENG) and that is in the game. Also the game is likely going up to '48. SO by then the jets would have been much better if research was done with the speed/need that war is giving.
Some people now insist nonetheless that it is not a good idea to field and have jet cas in the game.

We can of course have different opinions on things like if we want to be able to build superheavy armour or superheavy battleships in the game etc.. In the end SHBB were build and SHARM was projected and tested by FRA and GER but never saw combat usage. So scrap that too. Some say yes, others say no: give me the possibiity to go that route too if it was historically possible and a country was about to do it.
Same as for jet cas, projected historically, let me have the chance to use it in the game. You can research them, you can build them, when/if is up to you.


The question arose if also jet cas was possible around by that time, and they were.
So we as the player should have the possibilities to go down that route(wich was historically done) and research, build and use such.
If an allied player would go ahistorically down that route too and spam their not historically but historically possible(!) jet-cas instead of P-47, is up to them.
All other nations that weren't that far in reserach as GER will need maybe names based on what would have been likely given. But thats up to the devs.

Now, if people want to debate about the effectiveness of such planes, thats another story imo. And as we have no historical evidence it is all up our guess, only backed up by our thoughts of physics/logic etc..
But thats not that usefull to decide if such a plane should be in the game overall imo..

 

[Le_Carabinier]

Maybe a 1945 level CAS plane, not requiring Jet-engine technology, that could represent the A-1 Skyraider and, for example, the Ilyushin Il-20 ?

 

[Porkman]

Maybe a 1945 level CAS plane, not requiring Jet-engine technology, that could represent the A-1 Skyraider and, for example, the Ilyushin Il-20 ?

I'd be all for Jet CAS as a post war tech. Something like helicopters. The A-1 and planes like it should be the default for 44 - 45 not Jet powered CAS.

 

[Alwar]

Maybe a 1945 level CAS plane, not requiring Jet-engine technology, that could represent the A-1 Skyraider and, for example, the Ilyushin Il-20 ?

How about a direct road from prop CAS to jet CAS?. Despite people here think, Ju 87 is a CAS plane because you can give support to ground troops; or is dropping a 500 kg bomb not support? tell that to the french or british.

In the end, it doesnt matter what you think is cas or not, because the reality is beyond question. There were plans for CAS jet powered irl (Me 262 with bombs, Hs132...etc) and it should be open for develpment if you want. No, having big guns doesnt meant CAS aircraft, because then only 2-3 planes in whole ww2 could be classified as a close air support. Yes, any ANY plane with bombs or big guns can do the CAS role, and that means fw190, bf109, a6m, hurricane, ki 43.... also can be considered CAS if there are variants of it designed for it and used in that role.

There is no logical reason for not having CAS jet powered. None.

 

[Porkman]

How about a direct road from prop CAS to jet CAS?. Despite people here think, Ju 87 is a CAS plane because you can give support to ground troops; or is dropping a 500 kg bomb not support? tell that to the french or british.

In the end, it doesnt matter what you think is cas or not, because the reality is beyond question. There were plans for CAS jet powered irl (Me 262 with bombs, Hs132...etc) and it should be open for develpment if you want. No, having big guns doesnt meant CAS aircraft, because then only 2-3 planes in whole ww2 could be classified as a close air support. Yes, any ANY plane with bombs or big guns can do the CAS role, and that means fw190, bf109, a6m, hurricane, ki 43.... also can be considered CAS if there are variants of it designed for it and used in that role.

There is no logical reason for not having CAS jet powered. None.

But there's no reason it should be better at the CAS role than a dedicated plane like the A-1, which the US used because it was so much better at the job than the jets in the 1950's.

It might be a better deal to have "dedicated CAS" be an offshoot of the dive bomber tree to represent something like the A-1 or the Il-2.