US Aircraft

[pnt]

The US perhaps offers the most diverse set of strategies. And since it has begins with a slightly different set of givens every time (depending on how things develop until 1941), it offers the most replayable single-player experience (even despite the dramatic nerf of its industrial capacity).

However, the strange choices for the aircraft designations drive me nuts!

For instance, the P-40 was introduced in 1939, and the P-39 was a ground attack aircraft completely unsuited for air-to-air combat. Thus, the historic fighter sequence should be

36: P-36
40: P-40
44: P-51

The Merlin-engined P-40F was perhaps not great, but it was much more capable than the Bell fighters. Also, the Mustang was a very unique design. No other fighter in WW2 combined a low-drag wing, a turbocharger (many only had superchargers and most planes, like the P-39, had nothing), as well as a relatively large fuel capacity. It was much more advanced than the A6M, which reached its long range mostly by light weight and low power. Thus, since the Zero is a Japanese special, why could the Mustang not be a US one? Or maybe North American could be a manufacturer that boosts both fighter performance and range, as well as tac reliability (NA made the B-25 as well)?

The heavy fighters are also weird. With the 300% research boost for the 1944 heavy fighter (it makes no sense to use it for the earlier ones), a large fraction of the US heavy fighter production ends up being named after an experimental aircraft (which even retains the X in its designation). Shifting them by one slot

40: P-38
44: P-47

would be much more reasonable. And what should one do with the first slot? Well, since the 1944 model is easy to obtain, perhaps the US could start with the 1940 heavy fighter technology? This would create an incentive to build some 1940 heavy fighters before switching to the 1944 one. In this case, the 1936 model could be called XP-38.

 

[Lamartine]

These are great suggestions and to be completely honest, you'll only see them implemented in a mod or made redundant by an aircraft designer DLC.

During the La Résistance dev cycle I argued that the French tanks made no sense at all. Back then the SARL 42 was the French 1943 medium tank and it was no more than a design spec developed in secret during Vichy.

If the French player fought off Germany, there's no way in hell that the French would have landed on the SARL42's design. The tank was fundamentally flawed and an active, resisting France would have had the combat experience and design expertise to realise that. But no dice, the tank remained in the game until the tank designer made it a moot point.

 

[The Colonel]

I've always kind of wished for more variation in equipment quality between nations, even if it might be hard to balance for MP or lower some of the sandbox potential. I think it would just add nice flavor. I guess another potential issue is only having the (developer) resources or (historical) resources to make unique equips for majors, but again I'm fine with majors having a bit of extra buffing and other nations only getting it rolled out with DLC if at all. Kind of doubt they'd take this sort of direction so late in the development though.

I guess the other argument is that like focus tree bonuses to researching stuff is supposed to sorta simulate historically good designs since you get them earlier than other people, but that does feel a bit underwhelming (and is pretty different from say one nation having buffed heavy fighters that makes them actually viable lol).

 

[Fulmen]

the P-39 was a ground attack aircraft completely unsuited for air-to-air combat.

The P-39 was a fighter and saw most of its use as a fighter.

"The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict.[N 2]"

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Additionally, apparently Russian P-39s didn't even use AP shells on the 37 mm cannon, as they did not use it as a ground-attack aircraft.

 

[pnt]

The P-39 lacked a good supercharger, which meant that its engine power dropped dramatically as it gained altitude (there was no way of putting enough air into the cylinders to sustain combustion). As such, it could only operate at ground level, which is why it did not fulfil the requirements for a fighter in any allied air force - and wss not used by any of them in a fighter role. The P-39 was retired as soon as replacements were available, and the later P-63 saw no use at all.

The soviet aircraft engines were rather primitive by WW2 standards, and their fighters lacked superchargers, which is why even the later ones performed poorly against old Bf109 that could dive down on them and then pull up quickly to higher altitude - a maneuver that Soviet fighters could not follow. Given the lack of options, the USSR did use the P-39 also for air combat - but mostly as a fighter-bomber. The AP round was not very useful in this respect since it did not significantly improve effectiveness against German tanks, and it was inferior against other targets.

Thus, it is rather funny that while the P-39 was clearly inferior to (in particular the Merlin-powered) P-40's, it is portrayed in the game as a next-generation fighter.

The Mustang, on the other hand, has much more advanced aerodynamics than any of the "1944 tier" aircraft in the game, and its turbocharger, which was a holy grail of WW2 fighter aircraft, gave it a distinct edge, delivering a lot of power at all altitudes without increasing cylinder volume and fuel consumption. A turbocharger could not be incorporated into the Spitfire (which used a two-stage supercharger), and the only way too boost its performance was to witch to the larger Griffon engine, which made the plane uncontrollable and increased fuel consumption. The Germans tried and failed to incorporate working turbochargers info both the Bf109 and the Fw190.

EDIT: by the way, it may be worth mentioning that a turbocharger works much more smoothly in an aircraft engine than in a car since advanced aircraft like the Mustang had very good variable pitch propellers, which meant that you operated at a constant power setting, and the pitch was adjusted automatically so that the blades had the optimal angle with respect to the air flow that allowed you to transfer that power efficiently.

 

[Fulmen]

it could only operate at ground level

Given the lack of options, the USSR did use the P-39 also for air combat - but mostly as a fighter-bomber.

Both of the above statements are simply wrong.

Firstly, the P-39 performed poorly only at high altitudes, at about 5,200 m and above. I'd hardly call that "ground level". Most aerial engagements on the Eastern Front in WW2 took place at an altitude below 2,000 m.

Secondly, here's a few quotes from the article I linked in my previous post:

"Soviet pilots appreciated the cannon-armed P-39 primarily for its air-to-air capability. A common Western misconception is that the Bell fighters were used as ground attack aircraft. This is because the Soviet term for the mission of the P-39, prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk (coverage of ground forces) is commonly translated ground support, but is often taken to mean close air support. In Soviet usage, it has a broader meaning. Soviet-operated P-39s did make strafing attacks, but it was "never a primary mission or strong suit for this aircraft".[52]"

"The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat[56] against a variety of German aircraft, including Bf 109s, Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Ju 87s, and Ju 88s."

And here's a bit more detail on the shells for the 37 mm cannon that I talked about:

"The United States did not supply M80 armor-piercing rounds for the autocannons of Soviet P-39s—instead, the Soviets received 1,232,991 M54 high-explosive rounds, which they used primarily for air-to-air combat and against soft ground targets. The VVS did not use the P-39 for tank-busting duties.[61]"

 

[pnt]

Wikipedia is nice, but there is a reason the P-39 was deemed inadequate and withdrawn from combat on the Western front at first opportunity.

In terms of performance at different altitudes, you need to look at power vs altitude (pressure) curves with and without boost - and compare with the competitors.

As for combat on the Eastern Front, close support missions were typically flown at low altitude. But this was also because Soviet engines like the M-105 prevented effective operations at altitude. It is telling that the number of Bf109s lost in combat on the Eastern Front was negligibly small compared with the number lost in landing accidents (due to the narrow-track outward retracting landing gear). So yes, Soviet fighters and Soviet P-39s did sometimes engage German aircraft during CAS missions (flown by either side), but why would you want a P-39 for that if you could have a Typhoon or a Tempest? On the Western front the P-39 was superfluous.

 

[Ringwraith_JP]

Don't worry, this community's obsession with equipment designers will make this a moot point sometime in the near future.

 

[Archangel85]

It's an unfortunate effect of having a fixed tech tree with distinct equipment tiers that we have to sometimes try and fit the square peg of historical designs into the round hole of the tech tree.

While I personally like the historical flavor it adds, it does mean that it is often hard to make the historical introduction dates match up. France (and Italy in many ways) are their own headaches where there often are no good historical examples that really fit into particular slots in the tech tree (and having nation-specific tech trees have the drawback of effectively rewarding/punishing the player for choices made 80 years ago).

 

[King Of Heroes]

As far as I recall wartime P-51s were never Turbocharged, those were the P-47s and the P51H was the last war production version which focused on losing weight to achieve higher speeds which a Turbocharger would do the opposite towards.

The information provided being faulty aside, I've long believed that designers should be customizable in some way in-game, most technologies researched are implementing brand new concepts in which the experiences provided by pre-war reputation and research should be way more limited than the real practical testing and usage with less regard for budgets and plain necessity of war-time development should be making them grow.

In other words, Give some designers weaker starting bonuses but allow our equipment usage and production to influence them making the products that come from them afterwards actually different as opposed to simple "Fighter Hull 44" which you immediately dump your 495 saved air experience on in a cookie cut variant you use every game, such a thing extending into designers of all types of course.

Honestly I just kind of hate the idea that some brand-new thing that a nation has little real experience on would be naturally better than their contemporaries as opposed to something that was put effort on.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

Thanks Archangel85, that was what I wanna hear. The Refit from the Airforce- R & D get done. Now the real Equipment-Upgrade and the real Airforce-Buildup can beginn with biplanes, first modern Monoplanes, older Bombers and the development of new Bombers and so on.

 

[twillie96]

It's an unfortunate effect of having a fixed tech tree with distinct equipment tiers that we have to sometimes try and fit the square peg of historical designs into the round hole of the tech tree.

While I personally like the historical flavor it adds, it does mean that it is often hard to make the historical introduction dates match up. France (and Italy in many ways) are their own headaches where there often are no good historical examples that really fit into particular slots in the tech tree (and having nation-specific tech trees have the drawback of effectively rewarding/punishing the player for choices made 80 years ago).

Fully understand and support this decision making.

However, it would be nice to have some more specific types of designers, especially for some nations that give more specific boosts. We already got a litlle bit with Japan's two special designers and the Soviets who can merge plants, but having some more specific designers for specific nations would be great. After some time it gets boring to have essentially the same designers for every single nation.

 

[Krautkopf]

In my opinion, the P-47 should be the 1940 "light" fighter model for the US tech tree. Of course, it was far from "light" in terms of weight, that´s right. But it was a single engine, single seat fighter serving in that role (which is called "light fighter" in this game) with the USAAF in Europe until being partially replaced by the longer range P-51 Mustang.

 

[pnt]

It's an unfortunate effect of having a fixed tech tree with distinct equipment tiers that we have to sometimes try and fit the square peg of historical designs into the round hole of the tech tree.

While I personally like the historical flavor it adds, it does mean that it is often hard to make the historical introduction dates match up. France (and Italy in many ways) are their own headaches where there often are no good historical examples that really fit into particular slots in the tech tree (and having nation-specific tech trees have the drawback of effectively rewarding/punishing the player for choices made 80 years ago).

I did not try to suggest in my original post that fitting this square peg is simple and that your efforts are not appreciated!

However, when it comes to flavor, perhaps a metric for success would be that the models that were historically important also get produced in quantity in the game (and vice versa)?

As for nation specific aspects (tech trees, manufactures, etc), I agree that you would not want to limit player choice too much. But on the other hand, the historic choices were usually driven by different strategic and geographic requirements, as well as the underlying capabilities of the industry. For instance, airframes were much easier to design and produce than engines (most countries ended the war using only slightly modified versions of the engines that they started with) and engine production often limited the production of various airplanes). If you make all aircraft generic, either with fixed parameters or fully modifiable (in a designer), you may end up not including the historic constraints within which various nations had to operate - constraints that often went well beyond the choices made from 1936 onward.

 

[Anaraxes]

As far as I recall wartime P-51s were never Turbocharged

Both Allison- and Merlin-engined variants were supercharged, including the H, which along with an updated supercharger added a water injection system, good for short-term power boosts. The whole airframe was lightened by a few hundred pounds, and there were other changes, such as an improved propeller. They weren't tossing out turbochargers to save weight and make the H faster.

The only real difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the source of power to spin the compressor. Turbochargers use exhaust pressure to spin a turbine while spins the compressor (all of which on the Mustang, with that rearward radiator and tight cowl streamlining, was simply hard to fit). Superchargers power the compressor in other ways, often by taking it from the crankshaft with a belt or by using an electric motor. The net effect is the same -- the compressor rams more air into the cylinders so you can burn more fuel to produce more power. It's technically correct to say that the wartime P-51s weren't turbocharged, but it's bit of a misleading truth in the context (improving power at higher altitudes with thinner air).

 

[Lamartine]

It's an unfortunate effect of having a fixed tech tree with distinct equipment tiers that we have to sometimes try and fit the square peg of historical designs into the round hole of the tech tree.

While I personally like the historical flavor it adds, it does mean that it is often hard to make the historical introduction dates match up. France (and Italy in many ways) are their own headaches where there often are no good historical examples that really fit into particular slots in the tech tree (and having nation-specific tech trees have the drawback of effectively rewarding/punishing the player for choices made 80 years ago).

As much as I belly ache about French tanks, I know that it's a hard choice for Paradox and I appreciate the reply

 

[King Of Heroes]

Both Allison- and Merlin-engined variants were supercharged, including the H, which along with an updated supercharger added a water injection system, good for short-term power boosts. The whole airframe was lightened by a few hundred pounds, and there were other changes, such as an improved propeller. They weren't tossing out turbochargers to save weight and make the H faster.

The only real difference between a turbo and a supercharger is the source of power to spin the compressor. Turbochargers use exhaust pressure to spin a turbine while spins the compressor (all of which on the Mustang, with that rearward radiator and tight cowl streamlining, was simply hard to fit). Superchargers power the compressor in other ways, often by taking it from the crankshaft with a belt or by using an electric motor. The net effect is the same -- the compressor rams more air into the cylinders so you can burn more fuel to produce more power. It's technically correct to say that the wartime P-51s weren't turbocharged, but it's bit of a misleading truth in the context (improving power at higher altitudes with thinner air).

Pretty sure that at least in the context of the P-47 Turbocharger vs the P-51 Supercharger the actual real difference is that the P-47 starts losing power at a much higher altitude than the P-51 although I do suppose that might have been due to intricacies of the engines themselves and not a difference in general purpose of which brand of charger was used. but this was the information I was basing my post on anyway so if its wrong its wrong.

Spoiler: P-47 Altitude Performance note Turbo RPM and how BHP only starts dropping once it can't go any higher

Spoiler: P-51 Altitude Performance Note the Blower setting and the variance in power at all altitudes until I assume the 2 stage-setting just isn't enough

 

[pnt]

As I mentioned earlier, aircraft development and manufacture was all about the engines, the development of which was very demanding and took a long time. The US lacked a good inline engine, and relied on the Merlin built under license by Packard for the Mustang.

However, even when you look at a country like Italy, the picture was dramatically different. Italy only had one reasonably modern domestic aircraft engine available to it during WW2 (the Fiat A74 series, which included the A.80, etc). it was used to build
137 Breda Ba.65, 512 Fiat BR.20, 1818 Fiat CR.42, 683 Fiat G.50, 186 Fiat RS.14, and 1151 Macchi C.200
The F.S.14 was a very nice sea plane and the C.200 was a faiar early fighter (introduced in 1939, but more like the 1936 P-36), but it was not sufficient to fight Spitfires, so a license for the DB601 was obtained from Germany, resulting in 1150 C202 and 237 Re.2001.
However, the DB601 also soon became obsolete, and a license was obtained for the DB605, which had bored out cylinders giving a little more power (although the emergency conversion produced a worse engine overall). 274 Fiat G55, 262 Macchi 205V, and 48 Reggiane Re.2005 were built with this engine. In the big scheme of things, though, they were all very much alike and would for game purposes be treated as one type.

But Italy also needed other planes, for which it mostly relied on pre-war British and French pre-war licenses. The former (Bristol Jupiter and Pegasus) powered, for instance, 345 CANT Z.506, 1240 Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, and 726 Savoia-Marchetti SM.82, while the latter (French Gnome-Rhône 14K) were used for 660 CANT Z.1007 and 186 Reggiane Re.2000. Still, neither engine was very competitive, and even a fairly large country like Italy would not be able to build modern medium- and heavy aircraft on its own. Certainly there would be no B-29 by 1944 without US aid.

But even Germany struggled with its engine supplies and never managed to transition to more modern types. The main engines in use by 1943 were
Argus As 10/410/411: Bf 108, Fi 156, Ar 96, Fw 189, Si 204
BMW 801: Do 217K, Fw 190, Ju 88R, Ju 188E
BMW 132 (derived from the P&W R-1690 built on a US license) : Ar 196, He 115, Ju 52/3m
Bramo 323: Do 24T, Fw 200C
DB605A: Bf 109G
DB603A: Do 217M, Me 410A
Gnome-Rhône 14M: Hs 129B
Jumo 213: Ju 188A
Jumo 211: Ju 87D/G, Ju 88A/D, He 111H

Of these only the DB 603 (intended for fighters) and Jumo 213 (intended for bombers) were modern engines. The BMW 801 was still decent, but proved difficult to develop further. But DB, Junkers, and BMW struggled to build the newer engines in quantity. So while it may seem curious why the outdated Ju88A and obsolete He 111 were still being built, it was because there were no Jumo 213, or even BMW 801 available, while there was a decent supply of the old Jumo 211.

Thus, if you think of aircraft production more along the lines of how you best match suitable airframes to the available engines, it does makes some sense that the HOI4 factories are fairly generic, and you can switch from building one type or another (just like the Fw190 nad Ju88 were competing for the limited supply of BMW 801s). But at the same time, aircraft (engine) production was a rather exclusive club, so making nation-specific manufacturers, etc, makes a lot of sense. And perhaps more generally, one could even develop this to a system so that minor nations would need support in developing their own aircraft, and performance would depend on which engines were supplied to them.