Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Cold War Tech Tree Extension Project

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The only thing I'm against is giving a model number to something that didn't even exist on paper. There's no basis for that. The scheme for planes is:
1) If a model was on the drawing board use it.
2) If a model was not on the drawing board but West Germany made it or used it, use the West German model and rename the manufacturer as needed.

If neither applies then there is no agreed upon scheme for naming. That only affects 5 aircraft models:
1) Mach 2 and Mach 3 strategic bombers. The only plans I've uncovered for these were a proposed nuclear powered Mach 2 model and the Silbervogel. The US actually tried to build a nuclear powered airplane but could not overcome the shielding problems. So the Mach 2 model is out. The Silbervogel is actually out because it is a different technology than the B-70 Valkyrie. Now the US name 'Valkyrie' sounds so Germanic that I have a feeling the Third Reich would have come up with the name and it was probably a creation of one of the Operation Paperclip scientists anyway. Alexander Lippisch was involved postwar with the US manufacturer Convair, and influenced the several US models including the B-58 Hustler. So perhaps the German Mach 3 should simply be called the 'Valkyrie' with the manufacturer to be determined. Anybody care to suggest what to call the German Mach 2 strategic bomber?
2) The fixed wing gunships represented for the USA by the Vietnam era AC-47 and AC-130, and for the Soviet Union by the Sukhoi Frogfoot prototypes. Maybe Messerschmitt Zerstörer III and Messerschmitt Zerstörer IV?
3) The last strike fighter, represented by the F-111 for the USA and by the Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer for the Soviets. I've no ideas for that right now. The suggested Horten XVIIIb was a subsonic intercontinental strategic bomber, hence the wrong plane. The stats are Mach 1.5 and 2100 km range. The plane needs to be supersonic, and capable of flying low to avoid enemy radar.
 
3 questions:
1) Where does the 474 come from?
2) Don't you think Walküre is better for the Mach 3 bomber?
3) Any links to sites with descriptions and pictures? If not I'll just use a Convair B-58 Hustler picture minus the USAF markings.

Edit: the models could be
Mach 2 Lippisch Walküre
Mach 3 Lippisch Walküre II
 
Last edited:
nomonhan said:
3 questions:
1) Where does the 474 come from?
2) Don't you think Walküre is better for the Mach 3 bomber?
3) Any links to sites with descriptions and pictures? If not I'll just use a Convair B-58 Hustler picture minus the USAF markings.

Edit: the models could be
Mach 2 Lippisch Walküre
Mach 3 Lippisch Walküre II
Click to expand...


474 is just some random number which should had fit a post WWII bomber model. There was a 374 and it was not uncommon to take an existing number and just put another hundred on it. f.e. Junkers 388 and 488.

@2) Jup, my fault.
But your idea regarding "Walküre" and "Walküre II" should do it.
I would also go with pictures of the Hustler. Shouldn't be difficult to remove the USAF insignias.
 
It sounds like 474 is just a shot in the dark. First of all according to the Wiki there was no model 374. Secondly when numbers were jumped by 100 the manufacturer stayed the same. There was no Lippisch plane suitable for adding 100 to. Lippisch is by far the most suitable designer, as he and the Hortens were the only ones with any documentation of supersonic plane design ability. So the names will be
14_7;Lippisch Walküre
14_8;Lippisch Walküre II
unless you'd care to submit another name for the German Hustler.
There's no basis for a model number.

I had a thought for the last tactical bomber--if anyone can document that the German flying saucer experiments worked then the saucers could be used as the last tactical bomber. Otherwise it can be the one blank model or named something like 'Armageddon Flugzeug' (but maybe that should go to the Mach 3 bomber).
 
As a note, since you're made the Xinjiang situation more accurate, how about Vilnius?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vilnius#Elections_in_Central_Lithiania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania

From Devils in Amber: The Baltics (from a pro-Lithuanian viewpoint, evidently):
The Polish government decided the iron was hot and they should strike. They began to make fresh demands on the Lithuanian Smetona group, organizing demonstrations with planted agents carrying signs and chanting slogans, "On to Kaunas!" Poland now wanted all of Lithuania and moved three Polish divisions to the Lithuanian border to emphasize her demands.

Nazi Germany supported (if indeed it did not inspire) the Polish moves. In fact, if it came to war with Lithuania, Germany expected to take over that part of Lithuania west of the Nemunas up to Dubysa and the Klaipeda territory.

It was at this point that the Soviet Union (March 16, 1938) advised Poland in sharp terms that any invasion of Lithuania would mean the abrogation of the Non-Aggression Pact that Poland had signed with the Soviet Union in 1932. It was this threat that made Poland pull back its forces. But nevertheless it raised the demand—issued as an ultimatum—that Lithuania establish full diplomatic relations with Poland, which would have meant de facto recognition that Vilnius and environs legally belonged to Poland.

In view of the great hubbub made by the Allies over Lithuanian "independence" since, and especially since 1940, it is instructive to note that the Allies then (1938) advised the Lithuanian government to accept Poland's demands. The British government made it clear where it stood, informing the Lithuanians that unless it accepted Poland's demands "it (England) could bear no responsibility in case the ultimatum was rejected." (Lietuvos Aidas, March 22, 1938.)

Again (March 18, 1938), the Soviet government warned the Poles against taking action against Lithuania. Meanwhile, word of the secret negotiations had gotten out to the people and they reacted with consternation. They understood that giving in to Poland's ultimatum meant not only losing Vilnius but surrendering Lithuania's fragile independence as well. Nevertheless, on March 19, 1938, the government capitulated. The Lithuanian Communist Party issued an appeal: "Lithuania's independence is in danger!" Demonstrations broke out all over the country....

Indeed, so unpopular was the capitulation of the Smetona government to Poland that in addition to the Communist Party, which was the first to react, now other parties joined in, including the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. The demand was for Smetona and his clique to resign, to be replaced by a coalition government. It is important to note also that even out-and-out nationalist organizations and parties, caught by surprise, also reacted—at least their ordinary membership reacted—with confusion and consternation, some of them backing the demand for Smetona's resignation, to be replaced by a coalition government of various parties...

In fact, social tension rose to such a pitch that some action on the part of Smetona became obligatory. On March 24, 1938, the sitting government with Juozas Tubelis as premier resigned, only to be replaced by a new nationalist government led by the Catholic priest, the Reverend Vladas Mironas. To gain acceptance, this "new" government called itself a "labor government," which seemed sufficient to calm the opposition of most.. parties, since with a priest at the head of the government, it seemed that the Vatican was now backing Smetona, who remained president.... To drive the point home, on November 29, 1938, the police shut down the Union for the Liberation of Vilnius and stopped the publication of its magazine, Musu Vilnius. In fact, even to mention the word "Vilnius" made one suspect.

Surrendering Vilnius meant—although it was not put so directly then—also surrendering Klaipeda. [Memel]
Click to expand...

And from a bit earlier in the book, Polish and Weimar Germany vis-à-vis Lithuania:
Part of Poland's efforts to magnify her role in European affairs always involved in one way or another acquiring hegemony over Lithuania. In these intrigues, more often than not, she had the backing of England. Polish ruling circles approached Germany with a promise to grant Germany access to the corridor and to Danzig in return for her support of Poland's proposed invasion of Lithuania, which was set for the summer of 1926... It was to forestall this threat of Polish invasion that the Soviet Union now proposed concluding non-aggression pacts with the Baltic countries, which, after many delays and pretexts for postponing the signing, were finally signed in Moscow in September, 1926. The terms of the Pact... reaffirmed the integrity of Vilnius as part of Lithuania at a time when this fact was denied not only by Poland, which actually held the territory of Vilnius, but also by the Allies—England, France and the USA, which had supported Poland's annexation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nomonhan said:
It sounds like 474 is just a shot in the dark. First of all according to the Wiki there was no model 374.
Click to expand...

Jup, typed the wrong number. Of course I was referring to the He 274 and not any 374. But anyways, it's your mod, so I guess you can call the models whatever you like...

Of course any number we could give that plane would be pure speculation. To be honest, I didn't come up with a pattern how the RLM was used to assign numbers to the German aircraft designs and I highly doubt that there has ever been some kind of a strict pattern.
 
Mrdie,
There's a lot of alternate history possible regarding Poland, including a possible Polish-German alliance. It's enough to make a mod out of. I'd say Poland should have the option of signing an alliance with Germany in 1938. (maybe 15 dissent) I believe the Germans actually offered them one but they turned it down. I read about the Polish-Lithuanian crisis but read that Poland wanted more but decided to tone down its demands to demanding Lithuania establish diplomatic relations in order to appear not too aggressive. I read that this was what led to Germany's demand for Memel, which could very well have set the stage for a Danzig-Memel trade (after Poland takes Lithuania). I read that Britain advised Lithuania to give in to Polish demands. A lot of information suggests that the British actually goaded Hitler for a while and only reversed its position due to public clamor after Germany failed to honor the Munich agreement. I believe the British actually wanted Germany along with Eastern European allies to launch a war against the Soviet Union and Britain's condition was that Germany respect the countries' nominal independence, in order to preserve Britain's international image. Would you care to suggest specific Polish events?

I'd say if the Polish German alliance is signed then Germany just takes all of Czechoslovakia (no Slovakia or Hungarian claims) for the sake of the AI having a corridor. At this point there would of course be no Ribbentrop-Molotov deal and I'd say that Britain should have the option of either giving the Germans a green light or signing a defensive alliance with the Soviets.

Stahlwolf
Sorry, no "shot in the dark" model numbers. There were some known models for which no RLM model number was given so I think purely hypothetical (undocumented) models should fit this pattern.
Also check out this site and see if you'd care to make any recommendations:
http://www.nexusboard.net/forumdisplay.php?siteid=6365&forumid=54658
 
Last edited:
Thats also a site I used to word out the models for germany.

@nomonhan

If you are confused about my work, I have a suggestion. You can make a seperate folder in the mod archive with my version of the hypothetical models. I would find it good from you because then I have the guarantee, that my work was not for nothing. :(
 
Having a little problem figuring out what the Horten Ae48 and Lippisch DM4 should look like, There are some drawings of each but they are not very good quality and/or not very convincing. I think it likely that the Lippisch plane would look like one of several American planes (Xf-92, f-102, F4D Skyray, F5D Skylancer) and that the Horten would end up looking like a Mirage III. So I'd like to use those model pictures if no objection. One of the issues is that the planes in question need to be designed to accommodate missiles which means no wing mounted engines but rather dual air intakes closely mated with the body of the plane (like the Mirage 3 or F-102).

@Stahlwolf
Your input was not for naught. You succeeded in modifying my naming system and contributed a couple of names.

@Mexbuild,
checked out the uboat.net site. Type XXVI was a valid class (not XXVIB--that was a coastal research sub not a combat sub) of combat sub and will go in as the successor to type XXI. XXIII was a small coastal version of XXI, so not a valid combat sub type. No information on the other types. Did you just add an extra X to the name?
 
Last edited:
Horten Ae 48? Oo
Never heard of that one before. Care to share your sources?

But I highly doubt ANY design of the Horten brothers would had looked like one of those "conventional" aircrafts... and the Mirage III is in fact a rather conventional looking design.


edit: Ah, ok... one of those Argentine designs...
 
yes, and I have a picture of the Argentine model and the only reason for not using the picture is that it would have been incompatible with wing mounted missiles--something that Juan Peron might not have noticed but the Germans surely would have. Ae-37 was a research glider, so my earlier use of that model was a mistake. So I'll use Ae 48 as the model number and a Mirage 3 picture. However it could be the the next lower model for Argentina as it could support cannons and maybe one missile directly under the fuselage but certainly not the 4-6 missiles customarily seen on 12_6 fighters.

If I had enough graphics skill I'd morph the known Ae-48 picture so that the air intakes were on the fuselage and change the engines into missiles. That's probably what it would look like. IMO the only difference between the Horten and the Mirage would have been that the Horten would have had a thicker wing section, more unified with the body. The actual Ae-48 would not have met operational requirements. The top view and tail would have been almost identical.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it should be Horten XLVIII. Good point.
 
I definitely would prefer that choice. But you do realize, that you would use a hypothetical designation, if you decide to go with Horten H XLVIII?


(If you go with the roman numbers, don't forget to call it H XLVIII instead of Ho XLVIII)
 
Stahlwolf said:
I definitely would prefer that choice. But you do realize, that you would use a hypothetical designation, if you decide to go with Horten H XLVIII?


(If you go with the roman numbers, don't forget to call it H XLVIII instead of Ho XLVIII)
Click to expand...

Hypothetical yes but actually just a change of the style of a real number. Why Horten Ho.XIIIb yet Horten H XLVIII?
Actually I found a good picture of the Ae 48 and except for the location of the engines it looks pretty much like a Mirage
001JRIA48M.jpg


And here's a Mirage 3
mirage3_3.jpg

If you raise the wing of a Mirage 3 a bit that would be about what a properly redesigned Horten Mach 2 fighter with missiles would look like

@Mexbuild
Do you have any documentation for the main battle tank model numbers? I see nothing wrong with E-50 Standardpanzer followed by the Leopards. Certainly Leopard is an animal reminiscent of the Tiger and Panther. However if you can show documentation of the proposed models I'll change one or more of them.
 
Last edited:
nomonhan said:
Hypothetical yes but actually just a change of the style of a real number. Why Horten Ho.XIIIb yet Horten H XLVIII?
Click to expand...

Jup, actually they did it wrong in the game in the first place. I was also wondering why they put dots between the part with the two letters and the part with the numbers.
If you go with the designation given by the designers, one should actually call it Horten H XVIIIb, Horten H IX and so on. If you prefer the final designation, one should go with Horten Ho 229/Gotha Go 229 etcetera.

U don't believe me? ;)
Check this out.
klick

Although I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure about this. Maybe we should just call it Horten Ho [insert any arabic numbers]. Problem solved :D
 
Ok Vanilla game went to 1940 fine...Germany's build seems fine but I'm gonna have to run it again with a different country as the events went wonky ;) aka everyone gave Germany what they wanted LOL although I did manage to start the ball rolling by declaring war on Romania which absorbed the Balkans and then had to manually declare war on France which kicked it off but I figure it's best to just try it as a different country...I think I'll go with Rep Spain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back