WesWorld

I wanted to touch on something a few people have commented on a lot of late, both publicly and privately. We all know that war spurs design developments; since we are now in the 1940s, we're comparing our designs via the +3 rule to designs developed entirely within World War II. I think this is a major faux pas (and I know many other people think this way as well). I'd like to propose a more gradual pace of technological development for the remainder of the 1940s:

Quoted

WWTL / OTL
1940 / 1943
1941 / 1943
1942 / 1943
1943 / 1944
1944 / 1944
1945 / 1944
1946 / 1945
1947 / 1945
1948 / 1945
1949 / 1946
1950 / 1946
1951 / 1946
1952 / 1947
1953 / 1948
1954 / 1949
1955 / 1950

I think this would smooth over the presumable lack of WWII and the effect it had as an OTL technological driver.

As we've noted before, exceptions could be made based on the approval of a majority of the players.

I'd agree in some specific areas, but not across the board. We're pretty much in a massive cold war scenario. Whilst diplomatically everyone seems friendly, that isn't happening on the ground, with large investments being made in arms and technology in general. This is going to spur development along as it did in the lead up to WWII. It's only in specific areas where wartime experiences highlights failings where we aren't going to see improvements. Broader investment across the baseline from many more countries is going to give different results. There's also a big disparity with OTL with no superpowers. The UK and US are weaker, Russia is nowhere near the USSR, then there's Atlantis, SA, a resurgent Germany. It's much more of a melting pot with no one to set the pace or set in order.

It's not particularly useful, but just some ramblings.

I more detailed research approach might give rather different effects. Jet engines - can't realistically do much to speed up German development due to technical issues and simply having unlimited resources in OTL. The British program, initially still technical problems, but come 1941 and the diversion of resources other more urgent projects simply isn't there. Still take a while to get the Meteor into a useful machine. What happens with the US without the massive influx of UK technology and resources from 1940? Lots of interesting things could happen.

I can live with it. Anyway my construction up to end of 1942 is already in the encyclopedia.

Also, could anyone post the refit table IIRC Shinra produced: the one that stated that after 15 years ships will start losing percentages of their current status? I think that table is also a good tool to force the players to make some budget decisions.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
What happens with the US without the massive influx of UK technology and resources from 1940? Lots of interesting things could happen.

Well, I can answer that. Per one of my books, the US had a lot of R&D invested in turbosuperchargers, and that research would have likely developed into an eventual turbojet engine; there was just no real visionary like Ohain or Whittle to drive the R&D towards the combustion side of the design work. If the US doesn't get the W.1, then General Electric would still be able to develop its own (just later than Germany/UK/Atlantis would do).

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Well, I can answer that. Per one of my books, the US had a lot of R&D invested in turbosuperchargers, and that research would have likely developed into an eventual turbojet engine; there was just no real visionary like Ohain or Whittle to drive the R&D towards the combustion side of the design work.

The US did do that with the Westinghouse J30, J34 series. They were just rather late and not particularly great. It's rather different than being given working engines, designs, and knowledge part and parcel. The US is going to lag behind for a lot longer than historically.

...as will the Russions without German engineering to pick up after OTL WW2.

What gives me headaches is how to deal with completely new powers like Atlantis or my own SAE. How realistic is it for the SAE to develop a jet? And when? Is it unrealistic to assume there is some kind of garage engine running in the SAE too? I simply don´t know.... And how long until there is something like a Jumo 004 axial jet ready for series production? The aicraft industry in the SAE is big enough but do they have the brains?

What about high speed aerodynamics in this context?

What could be expected from second rate powers like India, Argentina etc.?

I think Gavin has a point in general but due to the complexity of this issue I´d like to go with an easy rule. A proposed time table as above is fine for me but I think it is not realistic to assume in 1955 WWTL will lack behind OTL by five years. Probably we can expect time lines to be on par then?

What will also help is to be not too picky if somebody "borrows" OTL stuff from other countries, probably just giving it a different name. OTL there were only few examples to chose from, actually, so for all of us without enough skill to design and draw their own planes, some leeway should be given.

Hey Hoo, what about this version of the table? Closer to historical but I only went to 1950. Also the Korean War have an effect in the development of technology.

WWTL / OTL
1940 / 1943
1941 / 1943
1942 / 1944
1943 / 1944
1944 / 1945
1945 / 1945
1946 / 1946
1947 / 1946
1948 / 1947
1949 / 1947
1950 / 1948

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Hey Hoo, what about this version of the table? Closer to historical but I only went to 1950. Also the Korean War have an effect in the development of technology.

WWTL / OTL
1940 / 1943
1941 / 1943
1942 / 1944
1943 / 1944
1944 / 1945
1945 / 1945
1946 / 1946
1947 / 1946
1948 / 1947
1949 / 1947
1950 / 1948

I could accept that.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What gives me headaches is how to deal with completely new powers like Atlantis or my own SAE. How realistic is it for the SAE to develop a jet? And when? Is it unrealistic to assume there is some kind of garage engine running in the SAE too? I simply don´t know.... And how long until there is something like a Jumo 004 axial jet ready for series production? The aicraft industry in the SAE is big enough but do they have the brains?

A few months ago I wrote up an Atlantean jet development timeline for Wes. The first Atlantean jet will fly in March 1942, if Wes adopts the timeline I proposed; the first Atlantean jet to enter service will be a mixed-power fighter in late 1944.

If you're interested, I could write up a jet development timeline for the SAE and base it off historical timelines. I'd think the SAE would probably be able to field a viable jet aircraft by 1946 or 1947. Argentina historically flew their first jet in 1947, and could field a viable indiginous jet fighter by 1950; and I'd presume the SAE would be pushing hard not to be left behind. It would probably be best for the SAE to buy engine technology off an established leader, and then have a local firm clone the engine (like Volvo cloned the DH Ghost to power the Saab Tunnan). Of course, that requires a partner, and I can't immediately determine a "natural fit" for an SAE jet program.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What could be expected from second rate powers like India, Argentina etc.?.

Based on my reading, and my analysis of their news, India would probably fall in the 1946-1948 range for first jet flight. I suspect that one of Perdy's secret projects is likely a jet engine, but I doubt they'll be able to field anything faster than the Russians did in OTL. I'd guess around the same time-period for the Chinese and Japanese (the Japanese in Wesworld don't have a German technology transfer, so they're probably going to develop a motorjet rather than a turbojet).

Nordmark could probably follow the historical development line; the Saab 21R first flies in March 1947, and the Saab Tunnan flies in 1948 (and goes operational in 1950). So Nordmark's probably on par with Argentina.

I have a few points on this subject.

What is the three-year rule or these proposed dates based on?
When the design came out of the designers head onto the drawing board, when the first prototype was built, first flight or service entry?
There is a huge difference between fielding a 1943 design in 1940 that actually saw combat from a design just thought of in 1943 popping up in WW in 1940 or even a design flown in 1943 but not in service until 1945.

We already have 1,500hp V-12 engines in service, I can't see these rules touching 90% of fictional WW aircraft. Anyone can argue their design isn't a 1947 hot-rod fighter in disguise and the falseness of attributing fictional designs real-world specs (like the Chinese bomber) on the basis of a photograph has been well proven.

The Gloster Javelin came out of an offical specification and design work undertaken in 1946, yet it didn't see service until the mid 50s. Maybe the future directon should be longer lead-times for development rather than rather wooly dates? That would stop some future planes popping up from nowhere.

Also what do these dates cover, entire aircraft, radars, aerodynamics, engines, electronics, systems, armaments etc? This is a complicated field.
Under these rules the DHC Chipmunk couldn't exist in WW until 1948 even though its engine and overall design are firmly traditional from the 30s. Brabazon in 1950? Hmmm, again rather odd given it is mainly mid 40s bomber technology on a massive scale.
Still can have fleets of Vampires and Meteors and P-80s at the same time.

In short I felt the +0 year rule for jets was the better idea. It stops any one-upmanship with jets and allows greater life and use for piston engine types.
I can't see any reason why technical development would slow down, it might take less diverese paths with fewer overall types but it wouldn't begin to lag. A lag in radar tech would affect naval radars too yet I can't see that being simmed out.

I vote to keep the simple 3+ rule for pistons, +0 for jets and perhaps a move to reduce to -1 year for jets after 1950. That would overall keep the swept-wing fighters a little further away and allow the first generation jets a little more life.
We need to trust players on this issue, if a player breaks that trust then the mods should step in but I don't see reason to muddy the pool in this way.

@Brock,

feel invited to send me a PM with your proposed timeline for an in-service jet for the SAE in 1946...

Thanks,

HoOmAn


@All,

Hood made some valid points. Opinions?

Overall, I find myself more in agreement with Hood on this issue than with Brockpaine. There are many aspects of ‘when’ something happened, and the simpler we keep matters the better, I think. I would side with Hood on a +3 year rule for piston aircraft and +0 year rule for jet aircraft; as for the -1 for jets after 1950, I am uncertain – I’d appreciate an example of how he would apply such a rule.

There are some historical aircraft which could easily be introduced with the technology of WW 1940 – Hood’s choice of the DHC Chipmunk is but one example. Within the +3 year rule I think there could be leeway for such.

Hoo raises a good point about “borrowing” OTL stuff from another country. It is my belief that if a player wishes to do this he owes the other player the courtesy of a request beforehand, and should the owning player object – that objection ought to be recognized. But it is also incumbent on the ‘owning’ player to use his rights carefully; where there is a dispute on this point, perhaps, the mods can suggest a compromise. And where a historical aircraft is shown to illustrate a similar, indigenous design, it should be noted in the post that the illustration is approximate only. Flashing a picture of another nation’s OTL aircraft as ‘your new design’ without explanation can cause confusion and consternation.

Well another point that needs to be examined is the number of prototypes per yer for a country. Smaller nations really don't have the capacity for dozens of prototypes each year like the larger nations nor the production levels.

That said the more variables we throw into the rules the more complex they get. Perhaps a ranking chart to see what nations are on top and which are not?

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Overall, I find myself more in agreement with Hood on this issue than with Brockpaine. There are many aspects of ‘when’ something happened, and the simpler we keep matters the better, I think. I would side with Hood on a +3 year rule for piston aircraft and +0 year rule for jet aircraft; as for the -1 for jets after 1950, I am uncertain – I’d appreciate an example of how he would apply such a rule.

There are some historical aircraft which could easily be introduced with the technology of WW 1940 – Hood’s choice of the DHC Chipmunk is but one example. Within the +3 year rule I think there could be leeway for such.

Hoo raises a good point about “borrowing” OTL stuff from another country. It is my belief that if a player wishes to do this he owes the other player the courtesy of a request beforehand, and should the owning player object – that objection ought to be recognized. But it is also incumbent on the ‘owning’ player to use his rights carefully; where there is a dispute on this point, perhaps, the mods can suggest a compromise. And where a historical aircraft is shown to illustrate a similar, indigenous design, it should be noted in the post that the illustration is approximate only. Flashing a picture of another nation’s OTL aircraft as ‘your new design’ without explanation can cause confusion and consternation.

Very good points.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
That said the more variables we throw into the rules the more complex they get. Perhaps a ranking chart to see what nations are on top and which are not?

That would be potentially very useful.

Also a potential argument waiting to happen, if the player doesn't agree with where their country is ranked.

[SIZE=1]Mexico: "Nooooo I'm behind East Pumpernicklestan! How could this happen!"[/SIZE]

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Also a potential argument waiting to happen, if the player doesn't agree with where their country is ranked.

That is probably the most true statement I have encountered since joining the sim.

I don't think anyone wants to be last instead of first, but every sports team, military, economy and schooling system in the world is subject to a ranking system and it would go a long way towards (IMO) settling disputes.

I think given all the crap thats been flung around wesworld in the last year I think its time to adopt a few things that will set things straight and settle people down and there are different fields that this ranking system can be used with so not every nation is going to be a jack of all trades. Some will be stronger in aircraft while weak in electronics tech ect.

Well my +3 year rule would cover most of the trainers of this period and smaller aircraft. I don't think that is the issue, mainly its jets and fighters causing the headaches.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Mainly its jets and fighters causing the headaches.

Exactly.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I don't think anyone wants to be last instead of first, but every sports team, military, economy and schooling system in the world is subject to a ranking system and it would go a long way towards (IMO) settling disputes.

I think given all the crap thats been flung around wesworld in the last year I think its time to adopt a few things that will set things straight and settle people down and there are different fields that this ranking system can be used with so not every nation is going to be a jack of all trades. Some will be stronger in aircraft while weak in electronics tech ect.

I can agree with you in principle, but I can see establishing such a ranking system would require a lot of diplomatic effort on the part of the mods to cajole people into agreeing. And there might be some who refuse to agree. What then?

The game needs something like that, but bringing it into force at this stage will be quite an undertaking.

Quoted

I can agree with you in principle, but I can see establishing such a ranking system would require a lot of diplomatic effort on the part of the mods to cajole people into agreeing. And there might be some who refuse to agree. What then? The game needs something like that, but bringing it into force at this stage will be quite an undertaking.

Bruce has a very valid point. I think that if something like this were to be done, it would have to be done from the very beginning. By this point, so much stuff has happened that for better or worse has influenced what the different nations are capable of in all fields of R&D. Doing it now is likely to create both IC and OOC conflicts and have the potential to force players to recreate developments based on were those ranks fall if they are not based of off what those nations have accomplished so far. For what my opinion is worth, it is a bit late in the sim to do this, but the idea is a good one.