WesWorld

Interesting. Australia and Mexico seem to have done pretty good. It was the perfect swansong for the Snipe, which Ill replace soon.

For myself I try to stay within 3 years of historical. One thing to keep in mind is that small countries tend to have more advanced aircrafts. And as too the P-29 Australia already stole it.

Quoted

One thing to keep in mind is that small countries tend to have more advanced aircrafts.

?

I can't think of any Dutch, Polish or Czech aircraft that was particularly more advanced than its contemporaries.

I think he means that the small countries tend to buy the more advanced aircraft verses the more average craft the parent nations buy in bulk.

Quoted

I can't think of any Dutch, Polish or Czech aircraft that was particularly more advanced than its contemporaries.

The PZL 7 when it came out was quite advanced. Another example is the Lascurian Sonora of 1923, it was simply too advanced for its time.

Large countries arent known for advances. The USAAC was practiclly obsolet in WWII, the RAF was stilll flying Gladiators. Of course once war becomes a factor small countries cant compete.

Theres a difference between "advanced" and "looking advanced". The monoplane Pzl.7 might look advanced, but it still has similar performance - actually worse than Hawker Fury, Gloster Gauntlet et al. Most of the time the advanced concepts don't work with the technology of the time - have helicopters been around since Leonardo da Vinci, no because they were only made workable in the late 1930s. Theres also a difference between a small country buying about 10 examples of a private venture aircraft to a larger country buying 100+ aircraft made to spec.

Quoted

The USAAC was practiclly obsolete in WWII, the RAF was stilll flying Gladiators.

Obsolete compared to what? The Gladiators were being replaced from 1938 onwards, don't forget at this point the LW is flying Bf109s with 690hp engines and 4xmg, not the later E through K models. Advances are generally brought on by wars anyway.

I may be being a little presumptuous here, but I think we should all decide on a range of years that we can pick our designs from, and just how ahead of the times we are as compared to real life.

It doesn't really matter now, which is I suppose why there aren't any rules, but we need some sort of general agreement or things will naturally get unrealistic.

Personally I don't think we should be using designs more than 2 years early.

Quoted

Theres also a difference between a small country buying about 10 examples of a private venture aircraft to a larger country buying 100+ aircraft made to spec.

Very true. My point is simply that small countries tend to experiemnt with more advanced planes. Wile larger countries tend to be more dormant. The RN pre WWI is an excellent example. They didnt want to build any revolutionary ships that would make their existing fleet obsolete.

Unlike Fisher's fleet would made everything obsolete.

Quoted

The RN pre WWI is an excellent example. They didnt want to build any revolutionary ships that would make their existing fleet obsolete.

?

Maybe my memory is going but didn't the RN build Dreadnaught? Theres a large advantage in leading from the front instead of playing catch-up all the time. Its interesting that the RN went from Dreadnaught to Invincible to a true fast battleship i.e. Dreadnaught armour+armament+Invincible speed, in a matter of 3 years. Then they shelved the fast battleship idea because funds were tight in 1908 and numbers matter also.

Dreadnought wasnt only a revolution in warship design but also a revolution in RN thinking, before her the RN was content to play catch up.

In addition the RN was late with the concept, as South Carolina was concieved a year earlier than dreadnought, but British industry more than made up for the delay, building her in a year.

South Carolina wasn't laid down till 2 months after Dreadnought was completed

Quoted

In addition the RN was late with the concept, as South Carolina was concieved a year earlier than dreadnought, but British industry more than made up for the delay, building her in a year.

Thats a common myth that floats around. Designs for all-big gun warships started in about 1900 in the RN but didn't particularly progress because of the lack of turbines and the 6xKE under construction at the time. More detailed design work began in 1903 with the committee on designs meeting 1904-1906. Really they should have just built the Narbeth design with SC-layout and just acepted some restriction on end-on fire. Saves weight and money in the long run as well as requiring shorter docks.

Quoted

Dreadnought wasnt only a revolution in warship design but also a revolution in RN thinking, before her the RN was content to play catch up.

New strategic threat to the RN and much increased price of battleships lead to this. I still fail to see how the RN is playing catch up beforehand. No pre-dread compares to KE or LN at the time, their ACRs are larger, faster and mount larger guns, they have more light cruisers than most navies have ships. Sure there was some conservative thinking but its not as if anyone else was making leaps and bounds.

I think the All-Big Gun concept came out of Italy first. Fisher was hot for it, but wasn't it the fighting of the Russo-Japanese War that finalized the plans of several nations to actually try to build one.

The credit for first is actually a three way deal. First ordered and designed was South Carolina. This also seems to be the one that showed the rough pattern that later battleships would follow for the next 40 years. First laid down was Satsuma, as she was planned to have 12 x 12 inch guns at that time. Laid down about five months before Dreadnought. However her guns were on order from Britian....rocket science is not needed to see one of several reasons why she ended up with only 4 x 12 inch and many 10 inch guns. The final first is first finished, which goes to Dreadnought herself...finished in a year. Rumor has it she was finished too quickly and suffered because of it, though I've nothing to substansiate that claim.

However I don't understand your statement Desertfox. The Royal Navy was by far ahead in numbers compared with any two world navies. Dreadnought in some respects was a mistake as it rendered the RN as obsolete and leaved the playing field for Germany and the United States to catch up. But I don't understand the "The RN pre WWI is an excellent example. They didnt want to build any revolutionary ships that would make their existing fleet obsolete." line.

Had the U.S. felt the need to match Germany and Britain in the battleship building race the North Corolina may very well have been the first dreadnought.

Teddy was all for keeping up with Germany, but keeping up with Britain was a no go at the time. There was just no way to get that kind of funding out of Congress. The two battleships per year was about the best he could manage. Now if he had already have been President for eight years and about to run for his third term when South Carolina was presented, maybe he could have pressed for it to be finished quicker. But as it was he was only really able to get Congress to provide enough funds to get the Great White Fleet half-way around the world (and then sent then there), then told them they would need to come up with the funds if they wanted their navy back.

Quoted

Had the U.S. felt the need to match Germany and Britain in the battleship building race the South Carolina may very well have been the first dreadnought.

1900 is Pax Britannia, not the Pax Americana of 1945. Really you've got to wonder why the US bothered to build any battleships at all, they had no real use for them, or a navy come to think of things.

Cuniberti's design in 1903 was of a battleship with 12x12" guns, 12pdr secondaries and reciprocating engines.

There are two large leaps in technology, all-big-guns and turbines. The RN had both, others did not. The turbines were the real revolution rather than all-big guns. They allowed much faster ships to run at high speed for longer without breaking down or massive vibration. Perfect for the RN on the strategic defensive against France and Germany.

Quoted

Really you've got to wonder why the US bothered to build any battleships at all, they had no real use for them, or a navy come to think of things.

Three words, Spanish American war.

Spanish-American war... also, the US does have huge coastlines, so it needs a fair-sized navy to at least cover itself. But beyond that I agree with you.

Spanish American War, American Civil War, and War of 1812 all come to mind as very good reasons for the US to have a navy. Though it may seem odd now, the US and Great Britain were not that close during the 19th century.