History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
Voisin III 22.17
Morane L 16.08
Morane N 18.02
Nieuport 11 20.06
Bre 4BUC 27.74
Nieuport 17 25.94
Nieuport 24 23.73
Hanriot HD.1 31.50
Spad VII 28.15
Nieuport 27 22.91
Nieuport 28 25.58
Spad XIII 34.55
Spad S.20 34.64
Nieuport NiD-29 38.91
Gordou GL.2 33.51
Gordou GL.3 35.34
Villiers II* 29.18
Spad S.61** 35.22
Potez 25 28.65
Dewoitine D.1* 26.85
Nieuport NiD-52 32.70
Dewoitine D.9** 39.21
Dewoitine D.27** 44.72
Nieuport NiD-62 36.24
Loire 46 53.94
Dewoitine D.371** 59.31
Spad S.510 57.38
Dewoitine D.510 58.73
MB-151 59.38
Morane MS.406 66.79
MB-152 73.37
Arsenal VG-33 73.65
Caudron C.714 52.24
Dewoitine D.520 74.09
Potez 631 65.51
Potez 671 80.97
MB-155 79.28
MB-157 99.91
Ouragon 162.69
Mystere IIC 229.26
Mystere IVA 235.33
Super Mystere B.2 273.71
Etendard IVM 274.74
Vautour IIN 347.19
Mirage IIIC 512.23
Mirage IIIE 555.38
Mirage V 500.32
Mirage F.1A 593.89
Mirage F.1C 628.57
Mirage F.1E 657.79
Mirage 2000C 756.82
Mirage 2000-5 811.82
Mirage 2000N 744.53
Rafale 1066.41
Super Etendard 334.90


* Pre WW2 French Navy
** Fighters for export only

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
Current Holder of the Cement Bicycle

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:51 pm
Posts: 8136
Location: Coventry
The Super Etendard as a fighter??

_________________
If Jefferson provided the essential poetry of American political discourse, Hamilton established the prose of American statecraft.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:19 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Winston Smith wrote:
The Super Etendard as a fighter??

It actually did serve as the French Navy's air defense aircraft between the withdrawal of the Crusaders and the IOC of the Rafales. So, yes, it was a fighter albeit a very limited one.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14349
Location: PCE(R)-857
Is the Bre 4BUC meant to be the fighter version (often tagged as the Breguet Bre.5/6/9/12)?

This raises a key question - should two seat reconnaissance/light bombers that were used or adapted as escorts or for the bomb-carrying ones or other fighters have two ratings - one as a fighter, one as a bomber? IIRC, German practice was to use two-seat aircraft as escorts, and some Frnehc practice is that way as well.

If so, should the Breguet 17, Caudron R.11, Nieuport 12, Hanriot HD.3, SEA IVC2, and SPAD A.2 be added, for the same rationale as the Bristol Fighter?

Can you also add the Hanriot HD.2 (floatplane fighter), Morane-Saulnier AI, Nieuport 16, Ponnier M.1, Spad XII (which was a Spad XIII with a single MG and a 37mm), SPAD XIV (Floatplane Biplane Fighter),

I'm especially interested to see how the Vickers and 37mm compares with the twin Vickers. I suspect very badly, but do not know.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:08 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Is the Bre 4BUC meant to be the fighter version (often tagged as the Breguet Bre.5/6/9/12)?


No, its the fighter version of the pre-war Bre.4 bomber that was intended to be purely a fighter. There weren't many of them (the RNAS got a few)

Quote:
This raises a key question - should two seat reconnaissance/light bombers that were used or adapted as escorts or for the bomb-carrying ones or other fighters have two ratings - one as a fighter, one as a bomber? IIRC, German practice was to use two-seat aircraft as escorts, and some Frnehc practice is that way as well.


I was going to put them in the light bomber sections (which will be huge). The problem is that up to the late 1930s, everybody claimed that such aircraft were fighters even though they were painfully obviously weren't. I decided not to include them as fighters unless they had been specially modified for the role.

Quote:
Can you also add the Hanriot HD.2 (floatplane fighter), Morane-Saulnier AI, Nieuport 16, Ponnier M.1, Spad XII (which was a Spad XIII with a single MG and a 37mm), SPAD XIV (Floatplane Biplane Fighter), I'm especially interested to see how the Vickers and 37mm compares with the twin Vickers. I suspect very badly, but do not know.


The Hotchkiss 37mm rated just about equal to the Vickers .303. It was one of those things; it probably wouldn't hit you but if it did, you were gone. The Bre.4BUC had one as well.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14349
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
I was going to put them in the light bomber sections (which will be huge). The problem is that up to the late 1930s, everybody claimed that such aircraft were fighters even though they were painfully obviously weren't. I decided not to include them as fighters unless they had been specially modified for the role.


But, if they're being used in the escort role, shouldn't they also have a fighter equivalent rating? Especially if they were explicitly gunbusses, and not just additional bomb carriers?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
But, if they're being used in the escort role, shouldn't they also have a fighter equivalent rating? Especially if they were explicitly gunbusses, and not just additional bomb carriers?


I don't think they were gunbusses, I think they just didn't carry bombs that day. It's really the reverse argument of fighter-bombers. Should we include them as fighters or give them a separate section? Since the two roles are so different, I'm inclined not to mix them in the same table. There's another case of course - the converted B-17 and B-24 escort bombers. I'm trying not to think about them.

Then we have modern bombers armed with air-to-air missiles. That was actually proposed for the B-1 and may have been implemented.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14349
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
But, if they're being used in the escort role, shouldn't they also have a fighter equivalent rating? Especially if they were explicitly gunbusses, and not just additional bomb carriers?


I don't think they were gunbusses, I think they just didn't carry bombs that day. It's really the reverse argument of fighter-bombers. Should we include them as fighters or give them a separate section? Since the two roles are so different, I'm inclined not to mix them in the same table. There's another case of course - the converted B-17 and B-24 escort bombers. I'm trying not to think about them.

Then we have modern bombers armed with air-to-air missiles. That was actually proposed for the B-1 and may have been implemented.


I agree on giving them a separate section. My understanding is that we have them rated using the bomber model, which emphasizes bombload features, and not gunpower and maneuverability. That doesn't really allow for comparison with fighter/fighters, especially when the poor things were stuck on recon, artillery direction, or escorting other aircraft, as oft happened, especially in WWI.

Could we run possible "fighters" and escorts through the fighter model, and adding that as an additional column on the table - ie, rated as fighter equivalent. It would allow comparisons of two-seat 'escort' and light bombers to actual fighters, presumably to their detriment.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:38 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Could we run possible "fighters" and escorts through the fighter model, and adding that as an additional column on the table - ie, rated as fighter equivalent. It would allow comparisons of two-seat 'escort' and light bombers to actual fighters, presumably to their detriment.


That should be possible. I'll look into it; what it really means is consolidating the two master spreadsheets. Be an interesting project. We can certainly produce three columns (or more) in the tables now; we couldn't really do it before but the new chart system installed by Commander Bear works so well we can doa world of thing.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14349
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
Could we run possible "fighters" and escorts through the fighter model, and adding that as an additional column on the table - ie, rated as fighter equivalent. It would allow comparisons of two-seat 'escort' and light bombers to actual fighters, presumably to their detriment.


That should be possible. I'll look into it; what it really means is consolidating the two master spreadsheets. Be an interesting project. We can certainly produce three columns (or more) in the tables now; we couldn't really do it before but the new chart system installed by Commander Bear works so well we can doa world of thing.


Consolidating spreadsheets is pretty easy. It would also be pretty easy to take the various subfactors, calculate the % of total score given to each subfactor, and thus explicitly quantify which pieces drive a given score for contemporaries, highlighting advantages or disadvantages.

The real difficulty will be trying to post plots, such as aircraft rating by engine horsepower, or gunpower, or whatnot.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7562
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
There's another case of course - the converted B-17 and B-24 escort bombers. I'm trying not to think about them.

Image

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
Also, with the multiple columns, I'd like to see timeline slices. Something like

WWII planes
Nation l US l Germany l UK l Japan
4Q 1940 l Plane Rating l Plane Rating l Plane Rating l Plane Rating
1Q 1941......

So that we have a timeline slice of what planes were introduced when and can directly compare how well each country's development worked.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:08 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
KDahm wrote:
Also, with the multiple columns, I'd like to see timeline slices. Something like

WWII planes
Nation l US l Germany l UK l Japan
4Q 1940 l Plane Rating l Plane Rating l Plane Rating l Plane Rating
1Q 1941......

So that we have a timeline slice of what planes were introduced when and can directly compare how well each country's development worked.


I will be doing that. Also, I'll revise the data to include a year of introduction date and then chart value against year for each country. There's a lot we can do with this information.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1127
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
Could you include the production count, and then multiple it by the score to get total fighting power. This could help quantify "Quantity vs Quality" type discussions.

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 544
JPaulMartin wrote:
Could you include the production count, and then multiple it by the score to get total fighting power. This could help quantify "Quantity vs Quality" type discussions.

Jeff

I don't think that works. For one thing, production totals are strongly affected by the resources and requirements of the country of origin (and possibly said country's client states). A ratio of score to unit cost would be a better way to get at QvsQ, IF it were possible to get apples-to-apples cost figures - but AFAIK, that's not really possible. The other problem is that simple comparisons break down as the entries get farther away from each other. For a ridiculously extreme example, consider the SPAD S.XIII vs the F-22: the simple multiplication method proposed would tell us that 48 SPADs should more than equal the "fighting power" of a single F-22, which just does not sound reasonable to me. So I think you'd need some pretty strict restrictions on technology and/or timeframe as a starting point to make that even potentially workable.

_________________
"Gotta say, doctor, your talent for alienatin' folk is near miraculous."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7562
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Also "production count" doesn't necessarily mean "in service" - slow production, combat losses, foreign sales, all throw that off - the USAF doesn't operate all the produced F-16s for instance!

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: French Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:24 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7250
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
For that matter, economies of scale are going to strongly skew the numbers as well (which doesn't even get into the issues of inflation and purchasing power). For instance, the cost of a given aircraft generally dropped during WWII, even as score rose. I'd guess the best Cost/Score figures would come out of late-WWII aircraft, purely because of how many of them were built.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group