WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, "retcon" is not a word known to me or my dic. I guess it is some kind of slang?

Yes, "retcon" is a form of slang. It means to modify something that has already occured in the past of this sim, with all the changes that that would imply. For example, retconning Australia out of the Cleito Treaty at the beginning of this sim, retconning a sort of aircraft out of existance, etc.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, "retcon" is not a word known to me or my dic. I guess it is some kind of slang?

Yes, "retcon" is a form of slang. It means to modify something that has already occured in the past of this sim, with all the changes that that would imply. For example, retconning Australia out of the Cleito Treaty at the beginning of this sim, retconning a sort of aircraft out of existance, etc.

To elaborate, "Retcon" is a contraction of "Retroactive Continuity", and gained prevalance from various Comic Book companies, and their reboots and occasional tweaks to the backstory and history of their brands and universes.

As Brock says, in the common vernacular it means to alter the details or substance of an established event in the lore or fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

Gentlemen.

I refrained from commenting further on this thread until I'd had the chance to talk privately with Hoo, and I believe he and I have had a serious misunderstanding about each others' intentions. I was concerned that we would set a precedent for a mod to mandate changes in a nation's air (or army) forces based on what they felt was appropriate, regardless of any player input to the contrary. In retrospect, I should have privately contacted Hoo before electing to stage a public fight over it. Hoo has reassured me that he did not intend to make peremptory demands as I presumed he was making, nor was he attempting to establish the bad precedent I feared would result.

Once Hoo and I have discussed things more to sort out our differences, I will address his concerns in a future post.

RFP #1106 / KB-309 Replacement

AIRCO offers the De Havilland D.H.95A Hertforshire transport with space for eighteen troops. Dimensions; 70/ 51.7/ 15.3/ 651 sq ft; 2x 930hp Bristol Perseus XVI; max speed 243mph; range 1,345 miles and service ceiling 20,900ft. Delivery times pose no problems at all for swift delivery.

de Havilland has now begun detailed work on the Flamingo Mk II. This is a major redesign with a single tail, longer cabin, improved wing, stronger fuselage and new engines. The rear fuselage is lengthened 2ft with a stronger floor and new loading hatch but better use of internal space means the cabin is 2ft 10ins longer and the baggage compartment 1ft longer, the nose is longer to give the radio operator an extra 6ins of room, new nacelles are fitted for easier engine access and new engine controls along with a high-pressure hydraulic system and redesigned ailerons. The whole structure is stronger to give a new all-up weight of 19,500lbs. In freighter mode it can carry 2,700lbs. Troop capacty would rise to 24.
Delivery of a DH.95D trasnport variant of the Hertfordshire be as early as Q3 1942.
Dimensions; 70/ 52/ 18.7/ 651 sq ft; 2x 950hp Bristol Perseus XVII; max speed 254mph at 7,000ft; range 1,564 miles (1,780 miles at most economical speed of 169mph) and service ceiling 20,900ft.


RFP #1107 / Sp21A / Sp21M Replacement

Bristol offers their new bomber, the Type 163 Buckingham. A crew of four is carried and the self-defence armament consists of a dorsal turret with four .303in Browning MGs, four more fixed in the nose and two more on a ventral cupola. Cameras can be fitted ventrally both in the fuselage and the bomb bay. Bombload is 4,000lbs. Deliveries could begin in early 1942.
Dimensions; 71.10/ 46.10/ 17.6/ 708 sq ft; 2x 2,520hp Bristol Centaurus II; max speed 330mph at 12,000ft; range 3,180 miles and service ceiling 25,000ft.

Blackburn offers its B.28 recently purchased in large numbers by Brazil. It is a twin-engined bomber with twin fins, powered by two RR Griffon inline engines for a maximum speed of 400mph at 18,000ft; armament comprises 1,000lbs of bombs in a bomb bay. A quad MG dorsal turret can be fitted but maximum speed would drop although Blackburn has proposed a new streamlined twin .50in turret (yet to be developed). Cameras can be fitted in the rear fuselage and deliveries can begin in late 1941 building up to maximum rate of production in early 1942.
Dimensions; 54.9/ 39/ 15.6 ft; 2x 2,035hp RR Griffon I; max speed 396mph at 18,000ft; range 2,180 miles and service ceiling 35,000ft.

AIRCO offers the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito; developed to B.1/38 as a “Speed Bomber” with no defensive armament. The DH.98 can be built in both bomber and recon versions. The maximum bombload is 2,000lbs internally; a crew of two is carried sitting side-by-side. Cameras can be fitted in the bomb bay in the recon variant. The type is unarmed for self-defence and is seen by DH as the ultimate "speed bomber". Deliveries can begin in late 1941 as RAF orders are still in low quantities.
B.Mk.I Dimensions; 54.2/ 40.10/ 15.3/ 454 sq ft; 2x 1,280hp Rolls-Royce Merlin VI; max speed 386mph; cruising speed 300mph; range 1,700 miles full bombload and service ceiling 33,000ft

If Bulgaria can wait until late 1942 for deliveries then DH can offer newer variants equal to the RAF's proposed PR.Mk.II and B.Mk.III.
Dimensions; 54.2/ 40.10/ 15.3/ 454 sq ft; 2x 1,650hp Rolls-Royce Merlin VII; max speed 415mph; cruising speed 325mph; range 1,795 miles full load and service ceiling 37,000ft. The bomber has provision for two 500lb bombs underwing over the standard Mk I bombload.


RFP #1108 / Accrisius DB-1/DB-1N Replacement

Various British firms have such designs as rejected by the RAF to Spec B.6/39. All design work has either stopped or continues at low levels. If Bulgaria is interested then the companies can be contacted but in the light of poor export prospects to other nations and no offical home requirements Bulgaria would be expected to contribute to development costs and the end product may be more expensive than Bulgaria wishes.

The only other designs are the Fairey Balmoral bomber as used by Greece which is capable of dive-bombing but not armoured. Fairey is working on a replacement naval dive-bomber but production isn't likely until 1945.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Gentlemen.

I refrained from commenting further on this thread until I'd had the chance to talk privately with Hoo, and I believe he and I have had a serious misunderstanding about each others' intentions. I was concerned that we would set a precedent for a mod to mandate changes in a nation's air (or army) forces based on what they felt was appropriate, regardless of any player input to the contrary. In retrospect, I should have privately contacted Hoo before electing to stage a public fight over it. Hoo has reassured me that he did not intend to make peremptory demands as I presumed he was making, nor was he attempting to establish the bad precedent I feared would result.

Once Hoo and I have discussed things more to sort out our differences, I will address his concerns in a future post.

Brock is right. We are discussing things privately now to avoid further irritations. Brock will give you more informations later on.

So at this point in time I just want to let you know:

1.) I was not posting with an admin hat on.
2.) It was not my intention to demand any change or set a precedent, although my last sentance sounded that way.

Gentlemen!

After discussing this situation further with Hoo, I believe he and I have amicably resolved our little difference of opinion.

In my initial posts, I posted this as the total Bulgarian OOB:

Quoted

Aggregate VNVV Order of Battle, 1941:
- 1x Strike Aviation Brigade
- 4x Fighter Orlyaks
- 1x Maritime Fighter Orlyak
- 2x Tactical Bomber Orlyaks
- 1x Bomber Orlyak
- 4x Army Cooperation Orlyaks
- 1x Transport Orlyak
- 6x Military Flying Schools

Total Strength: 1,027 aircraft (procured strength) plus trainers (456 fighters, 198 bombers, 372 other types)

I noted that I felt this force was over-strength for what Bulgaria could probably field, and addressed the reasons it had become so. I also noted that I had some thoughts at how to fix this issue, but as I was not then firmly decided on which of my alternatives to use, I never posted publicly what those thoughts were. That was unfortunate, as it was at the heart of the issue we had our argument about. When corresponding with Hoo over the past month, I addressed what I felt was a more appropriate size for the VNVV and noted my to trim the force back down to the size I'd set. I'll quote from my PM on the subject, since it addresses all the salient points.

Quoted

I'd intended to keep the frontline strength at approximately 700-800 aircraft plus trainers; I feel that is justifiable based on the historical figures and the restrictions Bulgaria's historically operating under in the 1930s. For instance, in 1939, despite theoretically treaty-bound not to possess an air force at all, Bulgaria operated over six hundred planes. There are several caveats I need to offer, here. Historically, Bulgaria tried to buy Czech and Polish aircraft in the 1938-39 period, and a lot of the records I've found are contradictory regarding what was delivered, what was ordered, etc. Wikipedia's article on the Bulgarian Air Force changes every time I check it. The Bulgarians tried to design and build their own dive bombers, as well - a project which got sidelined when the Germans "suggested" they buy Stukas. The same thing happened when Bulgaria tried to design and build Czech-designed fighters - the Germans "suggested" that they order Bf-109s instead. And finally, when the Germans took over Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France, significant numbers of captured aircraft were delivered to the VNVV. The second caveat is that Bulgaria was still under the post-WWI weapons acquisition treaties until 1938 or 1939 (IIRC); and the fact that they had an air force at all was in violation of those treaties.

As Wesworld Bulgaria is not bound by the end-of-WWI treaties (per our timeline, she ended the war as an Entente power and managed to evade the neutering treaties) and has had almost twenty years to build their force, I feel I can reasonably justify 700-800 active aircraft plus trainers. I'll additionally note that before I tallied up the numbers, that's about the place I thought Bulgaria was at.

Next, I feel Bulgaria's major limiting factor on air force strength is not merely how many planes they can build, buy, or stockpile, but rather how many trained pilots they can reasonably field. It is primarily from that standpoint that I feel the numbers are excessive. I've got the calculations somewhere, but the rough idea is that to maintain enough active pilots, I need approximately 30-50% of my numbers as training aircraft. (I calculated this by determining how many pilots were needed for each combat plane, how long he was likely to remain in the air force, how many hours training he needed to become operational, how many instructors were necessary to provide those hours of training, and how many training aircraft were needed to provide enough student-instructor time.)

The "fix" to the issue is actually very simple, and based in the points I addressed in that final paragraph. While I know the quantities of aircraft Bulgaria currently possesses and do not wish to retroactively modify my orders, it is the human component of the Air Force - the pilots - which are lacking. My compromise position is to state that one fighter orlyak (wing), one tactical bomber orlyak, and one army cooperation orlyak are merely paper units which have some equipment provided, and through which occasional reservist pilots pass to maintain their training, but are not active military units with regularly assigned personnel. This reduces the effective combat strength of the Air Force very neatly back into the place I want it to be.

Quoted

Final VNVV Order of Battle, 1941:
- 1x Strike Aviation Brigade
- 3x Fighter Orlyaks
- 1x Fighter Orlyak (paper/reserve unit with stored equipment)
- 1x Maritime Fighter Orlyak
- 1x Tactical Bomber Orlyak (paper/reserve unit with stored equipment)
- 1x Tactical Bomber Orlyak
- 1x Bomber Orlyak
- 3x Army Cooperation Orlyaks
- 1x Army Cooperation Orlyak (paper/reserve unit with stored equipment)
- 1x Transport Orlyak
- 6x Military Flying Schools

This brings the numbers down to a total of 384 fighters, 90 attack aircraft, 54 twin-engine bombers, 200 spotting-reconnaissance aircraft, 50 utility aircraft, 12 flying boats, and trainers.

I have an extensive post regarding my calculations about training aircraft, which I will post separately.