lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004 
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 26, 2016 15:39:38 GMT
So he is halve the crazy man that he was in OTL. Yes, unfortantly for the Allies this makes him more Dangerous then he was IOTL. Fortunantly for the Allies this not do Wonders for his survival, because now he has the sensibility to recognize a lost cause when he sees one and Will try to quit while he is Ahead. If i remember corecht Italy was on the wrong side and Germany on the good side, does Italy control South Tyrol in this timeline, because if so it would be a nice thing for the German to free. |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 26, 2016 19:49:25 GMT
Yes, unfortantly for the Allies this makes him more Dangerous then he was IOTL. Fortunantly for the Allies this not do Wonders for his survival, because now he has the sensibility to recognize a lost cause when he sees one and Will try to quit while he is Ahead. If i remember corecht Italy was on the wrong side and Germany on the good side, does Italy control South Tyrol in this timeline, because if so it would be a nice thing for the German to free. Yes. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 3:16:00 GMT
If i remember corecht Italy was on the wrong side and Germany on the good side, does Italy control South Tyrol in this timeline, because if so it would be a nice thing for the German to free. Yes. So did Germany send in bomber raids to level Italian cities. |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 5:42:12 GMT
So did Germany send in bomber raids to level Italian cities. No. But the Royal Airforce is planning to do so as part of operation Kruisboog. They just need to secure the necaserry airbases first. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 13:43:38 GMT
So did Germany send in bomber raids to level Italian cities. No. But the Royal Airforce is planning to do so as part of operation Kruisboog. They just need to secure the necaserry airbases first. They could use bases in Germany or are the Germans not so happy if the Dutch use their air bases for bombing missions. |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 13:50:20 GMT
No. But the Royal Airforce is planning to do so as part of operation Kruisboog. They just need to secure the necaserry airbases first. They could use bases in Germany or are the Germans not so happy if the Dutch use their air bases for bombing missions. Germany is also at war with Italy but their homeland is currently occupied so their access to airbases is a bit reduced. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 16:52:28 GMT
They could use bases in Germany or are the Germans not so happy if the Dutch use their air bases for bombing missions. Germany is also at war with Italy but their homeland is currently occupied so their access to airbases is a bit reduced. Does the dutch have their own B-17 and B-29 bomber types. |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 17:20:20 GMT
Germany is also at war with Italy but their homeland is currently occupied so their access to airbases is a bit reduced. Does the dutch have their own B-17 and B-29 bomber types. Yes, they are the F-35 "Geus", which entered Production in 1938 and the F-46 "Vliegende Hollander", which entered Production in 1942. Several F-35s have unfortantly fallen into Axis hands and they have since been busy producing their own Version. There is also the F-50 "Erasmus", which is basicly a F-46 cranked up to eleven, but that one never left the prototype stage because it was to exspensive and not necassery. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 17:22:45 GMT
Does the dutch have their own B-17 and B-29 bomber types. Yes, they are the F-35 "Geus", which entered Production in 1938 and the F-46 "Vliegende Hollander", which entered Production in 1942. Several F-35s have unfortantly fallen into Axis hands and they have since been busy producing their own Version. Wait if they are bomber should they not be named B for Bmbers and J for Fighters, also it would be cool to use the year they are introduced so you got the B-38 "Geus" and the B-42 "Vliegende Hollander". |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 17:24:45 GMT
Yes, they are the F-35 "Geus", which entered Production in 1938 and the F-46 "Vliegende Hollander", which entered Production in 1942. Several F-35s have unfortantly fallen into Axis hands and they have since been busy producing their own Version. Wait if they are bomber should they not be named B for Bmbers and J for Fighters, also it would be cool to use the year they are introduced so you got the B-38 "Geus" and the B-42 "Vliegende Hollander". The initial is from Fokker, the company that produced them. And shouldn't it be BW (for BommenWerper) instead of just B? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 17:40:14 GMT
Wait if they are bomber should they not be named B for Bmbers and J for Fighters, also it would be cool to use the year they are introduced so you got the B-38 "Geus" and the B-42 "Vliegende Hollander". The initial is from Fokker, the company that produced them. And shouldn't it be BW (for BommenWerper) instead of just B? You are right, it is as follows , type letters for Fokker military aircraft originated in the German system for designating military aircraft, but further letters were added as required. The letters were used in combination with a sequential design number (initially expressed in Roman numerals) in each type letter series. Several of the designs were exclusively used by the Fokker subsidiary in the USA. Fokker type letters were:B Amphibian C General purpose D Doppeldecker (Biplane Fighter), later Fighter Dr Dreidecker (Triplane Fighter) E Eindecker (Monoplane Fighter) F Transport aircraft G Twin-engine fighter/bomber K Kampfflugzeug (Fighter) S Trainer T Bomber V Versuchflugzeug (Experimental) W Wasserflugzeug (Flying Boat) |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 18:04:59 GMT
The initial is from Fokker, the company that produced them. And shouldn't it be BW (for BommenWerper) instead of just B? You are right, it is as follows , type letters for Fokker military aircraft originated in the German system for designating military aircraft, but further letters were added as required. The letters were used in combination with a sequential design number (initially expressed in Roman numerals) in each type letter series. Several of the designs were exclusively used by the Fokker subsidiary in the USA. Fokker type letters were:B Amphibian C General purpose D Doppeldecker (Biplane Fighter), later Fighter Dr Dreidecker (Triplane Fighter) E Eindecker (Monoplane Fighter) F Transport aircraft G Twin-engine fighter/bomber K Kampfflugzeug (Fighter) S Trainer T Bomber V Versuchflugzeug (Experimental) W Wasserflugzeug (Flying Boat) Well, a revising of the designation would then be: A Amphibian AD General Purpose D Biplane Dr Triplane E Monoplane Tr Transport O Intercepter J Fighter JB Fighter-Bomber BW Bomber T Trainer X Experimental VB Flying boat V Recon |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 18:08:34 GMT
You are right, it is as follows , type letters for Fokker military aircraft originated in the German system for designating military aircraft, but further letters were added as required. The letters were used in combination with a sequential design number (initially expressed in Roman numerals) in each type letter series. Several of the designs were exclusively used by the Fokker subsidiary in the USA. Fokker type letters were:B Amphibian C General purpose D Doppeldecker (Biplane Fighter), later Fighter Dr Dreidecker (Triplane Fighter) E Eindecker (Monoplane Fighter) F Transport aircraft G Twin-engine fighter/bomber K Kampfflugzeug (Fighter) S Trainer T Bomber V Versuchflugzeug (Experimental) W Wasserflugzeug (Flying Boat) Well, a revising of the designation would then be: A Amphibian AD General Purpose D Biplane Dr Triplane E Monoplane Tr Transport O Intercepter J Fighter JB Fighter-Bomber BW Bomber T Trainer X Experimental VB Flying boat V Recon That sounds good, does the Royal Air Force use roman numbering or the year that they are introduced. |
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Sept 27, 2016 18:26:34 GMT
Well, a revising of the designation would then be: A Amphibian AD General Purpose D Biplane Dr Triplane E Monoplane Tr Transport O Intercepter J Fighter JB Fighter-Bomber BW Bomber T Trainer X Experimental VB Flying boat V Recon That sounds good, does the Royal Air Force use roman numbering or the year that they are introduced. I am a bit uncomfortable using the year-they-are-introduced way of numbering again since I am already using it for the army. And using Roman numerals would get a bit impractical in the long run so I think I Will just make up numbers. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2016 18:33:10 GMT
That sounds good, does the Royal Air Force use roman numbering or the year that they are introduced. I am a bit uncomfortable using the year-they-are-introduced way of numbering again since I am already using it for the army. And using Roman numerals would get a bit impractical in the long run so I think I Will just make up numbers. You could use the same designation of the US, bombers that are not build but only prototypes and so one. 1924 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system
So the first bomber would be the B-1 and then onward. |
|
