Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Zaarin]

That can happen with some game writer's idea of English as well. The old Wargames Research Group miniatures rules were notorious for having sentences that you entered with a linguistic machete to hack your way through thickets of verbiage and, hopefully, come out at the end of the sentence with some bit of meaning clutched in your teeth.

Yes, the aforementioned Chinese games often have very dubious subtitles. I'm grateful that they make an otherwise unplayable game playable, but I don't think they convey what the original writers meant.

 

[Wohlauf]

Copy of my comment from the Mexico Civ Reveal Thread

Mexico's bomber model is the Heinkel 177 Greif. Definitely expect an American counterpart model. B29 maybe?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Copy of my comment from the Mexico Civ Reveal Thread
View attachment 711832
Mexico's bomber model is the Heinkel 177 Greif. Definitely expect an American counterpart model. B29 maybe?

Dear God. The Luftwaffe's Ronson: because, like the Ronson brand cigarette lighter, "It lights every time" - was known to have its engines catch fire while still on the runway!

The American counterpart would probably be the B-17 or, if they want to be contrary, the B-24 heavy bomber. They've used the British Lancaster bomber for a universal heavy bomber also. In the past, Civ has generally used the B-29 to represent early Atomic weapons' delivery rather than 'regular' heavy bombers.

Would be interesting to speculate: IF heavy bombers go the same route as other modern units - three types of infantry, three types of tanks, etc. What would be the 'third' heavy bomber? Assuming the German example and an American/British counterpart, there simply are not a lot of third parties: only the USA and Britain actually produced fleets of 4-engined heavy bombers. The possibilities I know of:

Soviet Pe-8 - only produced enough for a single air regiment, but one of the few Non Western Allied 4-engined bombers to go into service.

British Halifax or Stirling - earlier 4-engined bombers phased out when the Lancaster became available

US B-32 - an alternative to the B-29, but they look so much alike there's not much point in a separate unit graphic.

Bloch MB.162 - the only French 4-engined bomber contemporary with the B-17, but only a single prototype completed before France collapsed in 1940.

Mitsubishi Ki-20 (Type 92) - an earlier Japanese 4-engined bomber, but at least it saw service. The Japanese had a lot of heavy bomber prototypes proposed in the last year of the war, but few got off the drawing board and none went into production.

Piaggio P-108 - the only Italian 4-engined bomber in service, but an interesting possibility: it was planned to be built in 4 distinct versions, as a heavy bomber, an anti-shipping torpedo-cannon attack aircraft, a military and a civilian transport. Only the bomber got built, but there are some nice possibilities for a 'multi-purpose' Unit.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Dear God. The Luftwaffe's Ronson: because, like the Ronson brand cigarette lighter, "It lights every time" - was known to have its engines catch fire while still on the runway!

The American counterpart would probably be the B-17 or, if they want to be contrary, the B-24 heavy bomber. They've used the British Lancaster bomber for a universal heavy bomber also. In the past, Civ has generally used the B-29 to represent early Atomic weapons' delivery rather than 'regular' heavy bombers.

Would be interesting to speculate: IF heavy bombers go the same route as other modern units - three types of infantry, three types of tanks, etc. What would be the 'third' heavy bomber? Assuming the German example and an American/British counterpart, there simply are not a lot of third parties: only the USA and Britain actually produced fleets of 4-engined heavy bombers. The possibilities I know of:

Soviet Pe-8 - only produced enough for a single air regiment, but one of the few Non Western Allied 4-engined bombers to go into service.

British Halifax or Stirling - earlier 4-engined bombers phased out when the Lancaster became available

US B-32 - an alternative to the B-29, but they look so much alike there's not much point in a separate unit graphic.

Bloch MB.162 - the only French 4-engined bomber contemporary with the B-17, but only a single prototype completed before France collapsed in 1940.

Mitsubishi Ki-20 (Type 92) - an earlier Japanese 4-engined bomber, but at least it saw service. The Japanese had a lot of heavy bomber prototypes proposed in the last year of the war, but few got off the drawing board and none went into production.

Piaggio P-108 - the only Italian 4-engined bomber in service, but an interesting possibility: it was planned to be built in 4 distinct versions, as a heavy bomber, an anti-shipping torpedo-cannon attack aircraft, a military and a civilian transport. Only the bomber got built, but there are some nice possibilities for a 'multi-purpose' Unit.

To be fair, if an aircraft engine is going to overheat anywhere, it's on the tarmac. Aircraft engines require high airflow either through the radiator (if liquid cooled) or over the cylinders (if air cooled) or both (in some cases). They aren't going to get that sitting on the ground with the propeller idling.

 

[Wohlauf]

Dear God. The Luftwaffe's Ronson: because, like the Ronson brand cigarette lighter, "It lights every time" - was known to have its engines catch fire while still on the runway!

The American counterpart would probably be the B-17 or, if they want to be contrary, the B-24 heavy bomber. They've used the British Lancaster bomber for a universal heavy bomber also. In the past, Civ has generally used the B-29 to represent early Atomic weapons' delivery rather than 'regular' heavy bombers.

Would be interesting to speculate: IF heavy bombers go the same route as other modern units - three types of infantry, three types of tanks, etc. What would be the 'third' heavy bomber? Assuming the German example and an American/British counterpart, there simply are not a lot of third parties: only the USA and Britain actually produced fleets of 4-engined heavy bombers. The possibilities I know of:

Soviet Pe-8 - only produced enough for a single air regiment, but one of the few Non Western Allied 4-engined bombers to go into service.

British Halifax or Stirling - earlier 4-engined bombers phased out when the Lancaster became available

US B-32 - an alternative to the B-29, but they look so much alike there's not much point in a separate unit graphic.

Bloch MB.162 - the only French 4-engined bomber contemporary with the B-17, but only a single prototype completed before France collapsed in 1940.

Mitsubishi Ki-20 (Type 92) - an earlier Japanese 4-engined bomber, but at least it saw service. The Japanese had a lot of heavy bomber prototypes proposed in the last year of the war, but few got off the drawing board and none went into production.

Piaggio P-108 - the only Italian 4-engined bomber in service, but an interesting possibility: it was planned to be built in 4 distinct versions, as a heavy bomber, an anti-shipping torpedo-cannon attack aircraft, a military and a civilian transport. Only the bomber got built, but there are some nice possibilities for a 'multi-purpose' Unit.

I was thinking on the choice of the He 177, and came to the conlcusion that Firaxis likely intends on bombers being one of, if not the system of nuclear weapon deployment. I don't see nuclear armed submarines or missile silos fitting in with the tech we've seen.

All that is to say, I strongly believe that whatever other ww2 bomber models are included would at least look nuclear capable. B-29 is an obvious pick, so I'll default to that. If we do see a third, my money would be on the Pe-8

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I was thinking on the choice of the He 177, and came to the conlcusion that Firaxis likely intends on bombers being one of, if not the system of nuclear weapon deployment. I don't see nuclear armed submarines or missile silos fitting in with the tech we've seen.

All that is to say, I strongly believe that whatever other ww2 bomber models are included would at least look nuclear capable. B-29 is an obvious pick, so I'll default to that. If we do see a third, my money would be on the Pe-8

There's no reason that the "communist" heavy bomber variant needs to be constrained to WW2 designs. They could do a TU-95.

 

[AriochIV]

Since the Russkies cloned the B-29 as the Tu-4, that would be a cheap option to repurpose.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since the Russkies cloned the B-29 as the Tu-4, that would be a cheap option to repurpose.

Although definitely Off Topic, I can't resist:

Tupolev and his design team were ordered by Stalin directly to precisely copy every element of a B-29 that crash-landed in Siberia while returning from a run over Japan. That meant, among other things, they had to build an entire production line to produce screws and fasteners in US inch measurements instead of the metric system. Tupolev, a highly skilled aeronautical designer and engineer, was extremely angry at this (and not a little insulted, I suspect).

Finally, the initial model was finished, and Tupolev sent a message to Stalin, which read something like this:

"The original aircraft carried white stars as insignia. Should we, as ordered, reproduce these precisely or change them to Soviet red stars? Please advise."

So, the Tu-4 could be shown in-game with either red or white star insignia depending on which answer you presume they got from Iosif Vissarinovich . . .

 

[Zaarin]

Finally, the initial model was finished, and Tupolev sent a message to Stalin, which read something like this:

"The original aircraft carried white stars as insignia. Should we, as ordered, reproduce these precisely or change them to Soviet red stars? Please advise."

Jotting this down next to Lincoln's, "My dear McClellan, if you are not using the army I'd like to borrow it" on my list of favorite instances of historical sass...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To be fair, if an aircraft engine is going to overheat anywhere, it's on the tarmac. Aircraft engines require high airflow either through the radiator (if liquid cooled) or over the cylinders (if air cooled) or both (in some cases). They aren't going to get that sitting on the ground with the propeller idling.

Unfortunately, if they cannot get to the end of the runway without the engines bursting into flame, they aren't going to get to any altitude, either.

The tandem design of the He-177's engines was a ghastly engineering mistake that they only managed to remedy by separating the 4 engines and their mounts in the He-277, which never got beyond prototype stage. Ironically, the original 1938 design of the He-177 was intended for 4 engines in separate nacelles, which would have largely solved the overheating problem from the beginning.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I believe these are the Portals de Mercaderes:

Based loosely on the appearance of the OG Portal from Mexico City sometime in the late 1800s

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Jotting this down next to Lincoln's, "My dear McClellan, if you are not using the army I'd like to borrow it" on my list of favorite instances of historical sass...

What makes it even better is that Andrei Tupolev had already been arrested in the Purge back in 1937, and in 1945 was still under a 10-year Gulag sentence which had been suspended while he worked on new aircraft designs in an NKVD-run 'designer's prison' in Moscow. His sentence was not overturned until 1955 - two years after Stalin's death.

His little query to Stalin, therefore, may be one of the greatest examples of Iron Gonads in the 20th century . . .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Although definitely Off Topic, I can't resist:

Tupolev and his design team were ordered by Stalin directly to precisely copy every element of a B-29 that crash-landed in Siberia while returning from a run over Japan. That meant, among other things, they had to build an entire production line to produce screws and fasteners in US inch measurements instead of the metric system. Tupolev, a highly skilled aeronautical designer and engineer, was extremely angry at this (and not a little insulted, I suspect).

Finally, the initial model was finished, and Tupolev sent a message to Stalin, which read something like this:

"The original aircraft carried white stars as insignia. Should we, as ordered, reproduce these precisely or change them to Soviet red stars? Please advise."

So, the Tu-4 could be shown in-game with either red or white star insignia depending on which answer you presume they got from Iosif Vissarinovich . . .

If I recall correctly, the didn't manage to replicate the American sheet aluminum thicknesses, using whatever Soviet standard sheet instead, and it threw off some of their numbers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If I recall correctly, the didn't manage to replicate the American sheet aluminum thicknesses, using whatever Soviet standard sheet instead, and it threw off some of their numbers.

Actually they ended up with a combination of American inch and Soviet metric aluminum sheeting, because the major Soviet aluminum/bauxite industry was centered on Tikhvin, which had been occupied (briefly) by the Germans in late 1941 and heavily damaged. Consequently, among the raw materials supplied under Lend Lease were thousands of tons of sheet aluminum, all in American sizes. Since it was largely used to manufacture Soviet aircraft like the La-7, Yak-9 and Tupolev's own Tu-2, Tupolev and other Soviet aeronautical engineers had developed considerable experience in 'fudging' the measurements to use different sized metal products in mass-production.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Although definitely Off Topic, I can't resist:

Tupolev and his design team were ordered by Stalin directly to precisely copy every element of a B-29 that crash-landed in Siberia while returning from a run over Japan. That meant, among other things, they had to build an entire production line to produce screws and fasteners in US inch measurements instead of the metric system. Tupolev, a highly skilled aeronautical designer and engineer, was extremely angry at this (and not a little insulted, I suspect).

Finally, the initial model was finished, and Tupolev sent a message to Stalin, which read something like this:

"The original aircraft carried white stars as insignia. Should we, as ordered, reproduce these precisely or change them to Soviet red stars? Please advise."

So, the Tu-4 could be shown in-game with either red or white star insignia depending on which answer you presume they got from Iosif Vissarinovich . . .

Another story I've heard about it is that Tupolev also copied ashtrays even though smoking was prohibited for soviet pilots

 

[AriochIV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1866573668907680020

Oops, wrong thread, sorry.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I don't think that shade of Olive Green has been accounted for... unless it's an off-colour Tecumseh?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Another story I've heard about it is that Tupolev also copied ashtrays even though smoking was prohibited for soviet pilots

Last Off-Topic post, I promise:

Tupolev's team found half-filled ashtrays and sent the contents to the NKVD for analysis, because they weren't sure whether they contained some kind of special drug to help the crews stay alert on long missions - the B-29 could fly over twice as far and far longer in time than any ordinary Soviet military aircraft and they knew that the German forces had issued amphetamines to their tank and aircraft crews regularly from 1941 on. When the residue all turned out to be ordinary tobacco, they went ahead and copied the ashtrays and included them, since they had strict orders and, as posted, Tupolev and his staff had first-hand knowledge of what even a hint of disobeying orders could mean - Tupolev himself had spent from 1937 to 1939 in various NKVD facilities and had a further 10-year sentence still hangin over him in 1945.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Copy of my comment from the Mexico Civ Reveal Thread
View attachment 711832
Mexico's bomber model is the Heinkel 177 Greif. Definitely expect an American counterpart model. B29 maybe?

Mexico doesn't have domestically available aircraft manufacturing facilities in 1940s. all aircrafts were imported, and since AFAIK. WW2 era Mexican Army doesn't have heavy bombers, ANY model of Light or Medium Strategic Bombers will do.

The American counterpart would probably be the B-17 or, if they want to be contrary, the B-24 heavy bomber. They've used the British Lancaster bomber for a universal heavy bomber also. In the past, Civ has generally used the B-29 to represent early Atomic weapons' delivery rather than 'regular' heavy bombers.

Would be interesting to speculate: IF heavy bombers go the same route as other modern units - three types of infantry, three types of tanks, etc. What would be the 'third' heavy bomber? Assuming the German example and an American/British counterpart, there simply are not a lot of third parties: only the USA and Britain actually produced fleets of 4-engined heavy bombers. The possibilities I know of:

Soviet Pe-8 - only produced enough for a single air regiment, but one of the few Non Western Allied 4-engined bombers to go into service.

British Halifax or Stirling - earlier 4-engined bombers phased out when the Lancaster became available

US B-32 - an alternative to the B-29, but they look so much alike there's not much point in a separate unit graphic.

Bloch MB.162 - the only French 4-engined bomber contemporary with the B-17, but only a single prototype completed before France collapsed in 1940.

Mitsubishi Ki-20 (Type 92) - an earlier Japanese 4-engined bomber, but at least it saw service. The Japanese had a lot of heavy bomber prototypes proposed in the last year of the war, but few got off the drawing board and none went into production.

Piaggio P-108 - the only Italian 4-engined bomber in service, but an interesting possibility: it was planned to be built in 4 distinct versions, as a heavy bomber, an anti-shipping torpedo-cannon attack aircraft, a military and a civilian transport. Only the bomber got built, but there are some nice possibilities for a 'multi-purpose' Unit.

Siamese counterparts might be Mitsubishi Ki-30 'Nagoya'. (Nagoya is a name of a city that Mitsubishi Aviations facility was located, and made this warplane), though single engine plane could be more confusing to fighters (Siam can have some prewar American monoplane I can't remember the name much, but 'RTAF' in 1941 operated BOTH American and Japanese planes, even before Japanese Invasions few days after Pearl Harbor). BUT Can also be Heinkel 117 OR Nakajima Ki-49 as well.
or Maybe either Piaggio P-108 OR Mitsubishi Ki-20

So far Royal Thai Airforce only operates 'heavy' bombers very late. The only known was a fleet of Douglas AC-47 (Not really a bomber, actually an attack plane converted from transport planes). which is postwar RTAF rosters.

RTAF WW2 rosters is quite a baffle to me. given a small country with a big ambitions in 1940. anything like Ki-20, Ki-49, or Heinkel 117 or B-32 are more of 'What If' scenario. Siam could share the same variety of imported hardwares, similiar scenario as Mexico having He 117.

 

[Wohlauf]

*Correction* US bomber model is based on the B-24 with a turret slapped on top.