You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

21

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 11:42pm

Sorry got annoyed with the "Do as I say not as I do" but since Roo doesnt seem to have an problem with it neither should I.

22

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 11:50pm

Quoted

That FIAT was neglected is clearly rubbish, now if it was only a political problem why was for example Alfa Romeo so tardy in putting the licence produced DB 601(Alfa Romeo RA 1000 RC 41) Monsone into production or FIAT with the Tifone? Why did a G.50/MC.200 take rougly 20,000 manhours to build whent the Bf-109 took only around 7,000? These engineering wizards seem to have relied heavily on licence produced engines for mass production why?


It takes months to redraw construction drawings to a different national standard and put in an entirely new assembly line. Italy was rather reticent to forego her own indigenous engines as well, namely the A.38 that would have powered the G.55. The Bf 109 was especially good in number of manhours requiring for construction. In other areas, like price it doesn't compare as well. A lot of countries relied heavily on licence produced engines and developed lines. The BMW801 was created from licencing the P&W Hornet in the late 20s. BMW just did it earlier than Fiat and were able to create something better with time.

Quoted

Sorry got annoyed with the "Do as I say not as I do" but since Roo doesnt seem to have an problem with it neither should I.


This is the conservative development line as well. I'm sure I could justify much more given historical precedent. A lot of it is my personnel favour and preferences. There are some things I'm not a great fan of.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Aug 31st 2008, 11:53pm)


howard

Unregistered

23

Monday, September 1st 2008, 3:06am

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Since they were experts on Italian interwar aircraft industry I assumed they had been published on that subject.


They are published experts in the stuff they build now. Their hobbies are Italian military history. I have few doubts as to their expertise. I have plenty of doubts about your objections.

Quoted


That FIAT was neglected is clearly rubbish, now if it was only a political problem why was for example Alfa Romeo so tardy in putting the licence produced DB 601(Alfa Romeo RA 1000 RC 41) Monsone into production or FIAT with the Tifone? Why did a G.50/MC.200 take rougly 20,000 manhours to build whent the Bf-109 took only around 7,000? These engineering wizards seem to have relied heavily on licence produced engines for mass production why?


I will just say this about assembly lines and tech trees.

First the DB 601 is not a simple engine.
Second the DB 601 is not a cheap engine.
Third the Germans were very difficult when it came to licensing.
Fourth I never wrote[ Fiat was neglected.
Fifth, you deliberately chose the one Italian fighter that had the most production problems? Been hitting that Wiki? Try the Reggiane 2000 line instead, Better comparison to the BF 190, as it was more common in Italian service.
Sixth:
a. The Italians were denied magnesium, chrome, manganese, aluminum, vanadium, tungsten, etc. I wonder why? They had to design around that choke point in their tech tree. So DB601s, the Alfa Romeo RC 41s, had to be redesigned to take care of that little detail. More steels and less specialty metal alloy parts.
b. The Italians aircraft industry still used a lot of craftsmen instead of semi-skilled labor. You have more men working on a plane, you get more manhours. Simple concept that. Why? Milling machines were scarce and expensive. Was Italy a rich country like Germany or Russia? Did they have access to American milling machines or American industrial technology? READ about who supplied Willie Messerschmidt with machine tools that made design fabrication and joining of his little simple fighter so easy. You might be surprised. Italy had to make virtues of her necessities. I am reluctant to criticize nations when I know the true reasons for why they had the difficulties they faced.
d. You want to know why Italy stuck with radials? They were very reliable engines.
e. You want to know why Italy took an average of 17,000 manhours to build an aircraft with underpowered engines?
f. lack of machine tools, lack of fully developed inline engines, lack of specialist metals for exotic alloys.
g. a cadre of engineers who had to design around (f.).
h. and you forgot the Mussolini Factor? After Ethiopia, Italy was embargoed.

Now there were the British who hand-built the Spitfire for many of the same machine tool reasons the Italians handbuilt the Falcos.

Can you explain the man-hours that went into the P-38 Lightning?

Cheap and quick to build do not equal effective in the air-especially if the device is not capable of further evolution-as the Reggiane line was and the BF109 wasn't.

H.

PS. that above simple tech and history lesson is not from my friends. That is all ME.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Sep 1st 2008, 3:13am)


24

Monday, September 1st 2008, 3:20am

Yeah I can see that, so the Re-2000 was more common than the G.50....

You not only show lack of technical history knowledge but of common history knowledge.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Sep 1st 2008, 3:22am)


howard

Unregistered

25

Monday, September 1st 2008, 4:18am

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Yeah I can see that, so the Re-2000 was more common than the G.50....

You not only show lack of technical history knowledge but of common history knowledge.


I did not say that either. Reread carefully. I said the Reggiane 2000 line of development [2001 -2004, 2005 is a new plane altogether] or did you miss that?[intense sarcasm]

And as for my technical knowledge on this topic? Show the specific errors, if you can.

I await your formal apology, V.

H.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Sep 1st 2008, 4:28am)


26

Monday, September 1st 2008, 11:26am

The Re-2000, 2001,2002 and 2005 combined were built in fewer number than the G.50, it should also be noted that most Re-2000 were exported. Since you are so fond of numbers how can you make that mistake? Read up on the embargo on Italy , what was embargoed and for how long.

You will notice that facts are more effective than sarcasm and name dropping in a discussion. I will not discuss this further.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

27

Monday, September 1st 2008, 6:18pm

RE: New Kanzaki aircraft

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Where's Kanzaki getting the in-line engines from? Historically, those were not exactly a Japanese specialty.....


For My 2 Cents : I don't think we should bind Japan to OTL history in this matter, more if it is reasonable. France had both radials and inlines OTL, the two nations are pegged about the same here. Atlantis and South Afrika both support radial and inline- engines.

Japan is similar sized factory wise, and had a big domestic industry, I don't see why they could not have reasonable inline engines. Even if it just means they did what the Russians did with the HS-12Y and build off a foreign design.



Off topic-
Players can't call out players. Mods do that. Players can attempt to tell long stories to bore other players into passivity.

Once upon a time, I was playing a PBM war game with a friend and his brother. My friend had to depart as he was assigned to run a training base in Costa Rica. So that left his brother and I to coordinate. I devised an elaborate attack scheme that needed coordination and timing to set up for the hammer blow. Partway into the setup, the brother started to deviate. The email devolved into a flame war. I was in large part at fault - why?

Since I was sending messages out in the ether, I could not tell how they were being received. No body language or verbal cues. I had won multiple games of this and his reticence in executing my concepts were regarded as ill-founded, muleheaded and slow.

I tried to show him the error of his ways by stepping him through the plan, by explaining in detail, I stooped to belittling and sarcasm, which he returned.

The exchange did neither of us good. It placed his brother in an bad situation.

I was "right" in a tactical and strategic sense in that his modifications to resources and failures to move his fleets to the right spots meant the plan came up just short. We came so very close.

I was "wrong" overall, because dammit that was his position and he was here to have fun too, not to be browbeaten and told what to do.

I was "wrong" as well because the barbs and sarcasm we exchanged added nothing, convinced no one- indeed they tend to shut down the exchange of ideas- and hurt our ability to work together to come to a good conclusion.

Months later we wound up on the same side in another team version of the game. We discussed things like adults with the presumption that the other had valid views and something to say- i.e. if it didn't sound like it, that didn't mean the other was a moron, just that something was not being understood. Ultimately we could agree to disagree and each was responsible for their section of front. There was another teammate that ignored advice and got his force destroyed, the two of us recovered, and we won that game.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Sep 1st 2008, 6:20pm)


howard

Unregistered

28

Monday, September 1st 2008, 6:35pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The Re-2000, 2001,2002 and 2005 combined were built in fewer number than the G.50, it should also be noted that most Re-2000 were exported. Since you are so fond of numbers how can you make that mistake? Read up on the embargo on Italy , what was embargoed and for how long.

You will notice that facts are more effective than sarcasm and name dropping in a discussion. I will not discuss this further.


I am reminded of the student who gets hold of one fact and stubbornly clings to it in the face of the entire proof set that negates the one fact.

Reggiane 2000-180 built.
Reggiane 2001-250 built
Reggiane 2002-220 built
Reggiane 2005-..48 built*
total..................620 built without the 2005
total..................668 built with the 2005
Fiat G-50...........750 built

*considered a different plane from the Re 2000 by many including me.

Yes I like numbers. I use them, properly. Like this:

I don't care about your "Wiki" fact. Production run numbers are less than 10% variant from each other so are within magnitude of reporting error equivalence. [YOU LOOK IT UP, I WON"T EXPLAIN THIS.TO YOU] I care about the effects of the embargo I described on those numbers. It was called the 1937 Neutrality Act and effectively cut off US machine tools to active belligerents. The US was the ultimate source for industrial production mill grade machinery at that time.

Brown & Sharpe and the Cincinnati Milling Machine Company supplied many of the the machines that produced the BF109 for example. Germany was not embargoed. Italy was embargoed.

I therefore suggest that you READ, V.

Failed your proof.

Your apology is accepted.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Sep 1st 2008, 6:37pm)


29

Monday, September 1st 2008, 9:00pm

Attention.

Please do not demand apology's, thats the mod's responcibility. This is supposed to be a place to discuss things politely, not throw ones weight around.

howard

Unregistered

30

Monday, September 1st 2008, 9:05pm

RE: Attention.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Please do not demand apology's, thats the mod's responcibility. This is supposed to be a place to discuss things politely, not throw ones weight around.


Agreed. And I apologize for overstepping the limit.

When I'm wrong in decorum, I'm wrong.

H.

31

Monday, September 1st 2008, 9:15pm

I'd also like to remind everyone to keep the critisism's polite, no sarcasm, no caustic accusations that someone has their facts wrong and no name dropping. Give a link to this persons site if its relevant to the discussion or invite them to the discussion themselves.

I'd also suggest reading the rules and admin forums from time to time, particularily the post on PM's.

I'd like to keep this civil, because if players don't make the effort, the mod's have the ability to "enforce" it through various actions.