CNRP'40 OOC Thread

[Peter Ilyich]

Done!a

And hey, thanks for the support TBM!

From what I hear in the upper of this thread, you do seem like the kind of RPer that I would want to be around, however right now it just seems unlikely that a nation such as mine would ally with yours. However, let's see how it works. I will open a diplomatic meeting thread(In Boston), either shortly after this post of later today.

[Greywall]

Join up folks.

[Peter Ilyich]

Thanks for bumping this back up, Greywall :)

[Centurius]

The channel wasn't registered so I registered #cnrp40

[Peter Ilyich]

alright.

 

Centurius- Could you make a relations thread?

 

Greywall- Please respond to the Massachusetts & Spain thread.

[Peter Ilyich]

Centurius- Please give Peter_Ilyich high authority on the IRC, this would be greatly appreciated.

 

at the current moment it seems mibbit will not connect to Coldfront.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Peter Ilyich

[Greywall]

Jacksonville = Stalingrad

[supercheese]

Hey Greywall, their are no troops at Pondre. Everything has retreated over the Tolomato River or been killed. I'm also shelling Fort George, and my troops to the north are outside the range of your naval guns im pretty sure.

[Peter Ilyich]

Would it be appropriate for a OOC thread dedicated to this war to be posted?

[Greywall]

Changed it 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Greywall

[Markus Wilding]

Wait, what the hell? How can the annexation of Cuba continue when there's an entire hostile fleet right off the coast? I would think their presence alone would constitute a contest.

 

Also, Greywall, what exactly is your fleet made up of? Both ships and ship names in their native military names, if possible.

[Greywall]

I'll edit the fleet information in today when I can, as for annexation I have 10,000 troops that have been in Cuba rping out th annexation unopposed for the majority of the annexation period. I mean argue all you want but I'm standing my ground on it, otherwise shorten the annexation period because this did frustrate me. Last day and you can contest? whatever.

[Peter Ilyich]

I do agree the move in which Markus pulled is definitely a move I will frown upon, however not quite sure is a shortened annexation period would be accepted in the community. Anyone have any thoughts on a shortened annexation?

[Markus Wilding]

My move is perfectly fine. Just because you don't like the way your own rules read isn't my problem - perhaps our next GMs will be willing to implement a change in the rules.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I'll edit the fleet information in today when I can, as for annexation I have 10,000 troops that have been in Cuba rping out th annexation unopposed for the majority of the annexation period. I mean argue all you want but I'm standing my ground on it, otherwise shorten the annexation period because this did frustrate me. Last day and you can contest? whatever.

Well, there'll always be a possibility of contesting last-minute, be it wth a period of three days or thirty days. So shortening isn't really that sensible.

 

If it frustrates you, well, don't let it get to you. It's an RP and while it can be frustrating, just prepare a decent strategy and wipe the other fleet out. Ends the contest, gives prestige, even helps with frustration.

[Peter Ilyich]

My move is perfectly fine. Just because you don't like the way your own rules read isn't my problem - perhaps our next GMs will be willing to implement a change in the rules.

Speaking of elections, The plan was originally to put the thread upon wednesday, but i decided the thread will go up on Friday and run till Sunday. If I get re-elected for a full term, I will see what we can do about such rules.

 

Post-script- The next update is just going through some finishing touches.

[Greywall]

My move is perfectly fine. Just because you don't like the way your own rules read isn't my problem - perhaps our next GMs will be willing to implement a change in the rules.

Whatever man, I'll edit it later.

[Markus Wilding]

The reason I didn't respond to your air movements Greywall, is that there is no record of the Messerschmidt Bf. 109 ever having a combat-ready carrier variant. There's references to it, yes, but most were converted to test carrier equipment and by the time the Graf Spee was completed, the 109 was outdated and not considered for use by the Kriegsmarine. I'd ask you find another naval fighter, then I'll edit my response to include that.

[Greywall]

Seriously?

 

I don't think so. We'll let the rp community decide if I can use it or not since you'll just cry abuse of power if I decide to let the GM's handle it. Ie me. 

[Markus Wilding]

I knew this was going to come.
 
From Wikipedia:
 

The first major redesign came with the E series, including the naval variant, the Bf 109T (T standing for Träger, or carrier).

 
This is from the main Messerschmidt Bf 109 page, under the "Variants" section.
 
Heading to this link, which explores specifically the Bf 109T, gives me this information:

 

 

Despite references to a Bf 109 T-0 version, this version never existed. Seven earlier versions (Bf 109 B, Bf 109 C, Bf 109 E) were converted to test carrier equipment.

 

Emphasis mine. Further below:

 

 

Following flight tests, especially the catapult tests, 70 T-1 with DB601Ns were to be produced at Fieseler in Kassel, but after seven T-1s were built, the carrier project was cancelled. The remaining 63 of 70 T-1s were built as T-2s without carrier equipment and some of the T-1s may have been "upgraded" to T-2 standard. It was found that the performance of the T-2 was closely comparable to the E-4/N and, because of its ability to take off and land in shorter distances, these fighters were assigned to I/JG.77, deployed in Norway on landing strips which were both short and subject to frequent, powerful cross-winds.[29] At the end of 1941 the unit was ordered to return their aircraft to Germany and received E-3s as replacements.[30] The armament of the Bf 109T consisted of two 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17s above the engine and one 20 mm MG FF/M cannon in each wing.[25]

 

Interest in Graf Zeppelin revived when the value of aircraft carriers became obvious, and in 1942 the ship was back in the yards for completion. By this time the Bf 109T was hopelessly outdated and a new fighter would be needed. Messerschmitt responded with the updated Me 155A series, but work on the ship was again canceled and the Me 155 was later re-purposed as a high-altitude interceptor. Design work was transferred to Blohm & Voss and the aircraft was then known as the BV 155. The Bf 109Ts were issued to several training units in 1943. Then, in April 1943 the Jagdstaffel Helgoland was formed[31] and operated from Düne until late 1943 when the unit transferred to Lista in south Norway. The unit was renamed as 11./JG 11 as of 30 November 1943[32] and the Bf 109Ts remained in operations until the summer of 1944, after which some were used in training units in Germany.

 

The version simply doesn't exist, and as none of Germany's aircraft carriers were ever completed or saw action, there's simply no combat record of a carrier version of the Messerschmidt Bf 109.

 

[Evangeline Anovilis]

If I may interject...

 

The link provided pretty much states 7 were built in serial production, before the project was halted and these were later used (though with the tailhook removed). You can read that out of your own quote. The portion highlighted further states, it was outdated by 1942, which isn't an issue for an RP that goes to 1940. The aircraft itself is thus working, was used by troops, was in production (albeit only in limited number) and was actually competitive (the T-2 version was used up to 1944).

 

However, there are two issues that do exist, which make fielding the Bf 109T an issue for the rules.

 

Firstly, you need to use the Graf Zeppelin-class carrier for it, a ship that never was fully completed. As can be read in above-mentioned link, the Bf 109T lacks foldable wings and thus is hard to be used on any other carrier, which normally had smaller elevators for aircraft with foldable wings.

 

Second, and this would come from this link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109#Bf_109_T

 

Verständlicherweise war die weitere Entwicklung der Bf 109 T eng verbunden mit den Baufortschritten ihres potentiell ersten Trägerschiffes Graf Zeppelin. Am 8. Dezember 1938 vom Stapel gelaufen, wurden die Ausbauarbeiten an der Zeppelin am 29. April 1940 ausgesetzt. Von den 70, durchwegs bei Fieseler in Kassel zwischen dem 8. April und dem 29. Juni 1941 gebauten Bf 109 T wurden aus diesem Grunde auch nur die ersten sieben Maschinen (Werk-Nr. 7728 bis 7734, bzw. Stammkennzeichen RB+OA bis RB+OG) im trägertauglichen T-1-Standard ausgerüstet. Die restlichen 63 Maschinen wurden ohne Trägerausstattung für den küstengestützten Einsatz als Bf 109 T-2 fertiggestellt. Von den sieben T-1 ging eine bei Flugversuchen bei Messerschmitt in Augsburg durch Absturz verloren und die restlichen sechs blieben für Erprobungen erhalten oder wurden eingelagert.

I don't blame anyone for not understanding the German source, though I can tell you that it says the aircraft were constructed between April 8th and June 29th 1941, which kind of is outside the technological timeframe of the RP. you can ask people who understand German to confirm it. Most likely Google translate would do even.

 

So, overall, it is not that the aircraft is impractical, it just lacks a carrier and it is not fieldable within techscale limitations.

[Markus Wilding]

I don't contest that the plane works - if Greywall were launching these from Cuba or some other land-based airfield, I would have no problem. The problem, which you rightly pointed out, is twofold; the Graf Zeppelin carrier was not completed (which the Bf 109T was specifically built for) and the aircraft is unfieldable. Even if Greywall was fielding the Graf Zeppelin (which I don't know, I have no specifics on what kind of ships he is using) then another plane would still have to be found that was both fieldable in 1940 and working with existing aircraft carriers.

[Peter Ilyich]

please read the below post. Sorry for the double.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Peter Ilyich

[Peter Ilyich]

I will moderate said conflict considering I am not in it. This will apply throughout the war, regardless of GM election results, however new GM's may also moderate if they are not involved militarily.

 

A craft above the 1940 tech year may not be used. A craft that does not exist may not be used. Clear everything up? Any questions?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

That's citing rules. Not an actual ruling on the case in question.