Technology Changes.

[Nuclear]

I think that Jet Power should be changed. Hitler went against his top air advisers who highly stressed that the Me262 be used as an offensive weapon. I therefore think that Jet Power should require that in order for the plane to be shot down, it should require 2 hits. This would make it more historic due to fact that pilots had a hard time shoting down jet planes due to their speeds. Please feel free to give your insights on the subject.

[DaimlerBenz]

2 hits is overdoing it, but I see your point.

What's wrong with the conventional idea, that AA guns can't hit jets?

[Nuclear]

I am not sure if just changing it to that AA guns can't hit jets, since most of the time, fighters are not used in Axis and Allies when attacking a terriority. Maybe it should avoid AA guns and have a longer range, like of 5 instead of a 4.

[Lt M Cotten]

2 hits is overdoing it, but I see your point.

What's wrong with the conventional idea, that AA guns can't hit jets?

I agree. I have a hard time with the two-hit rule, it just doesn't seem to feel right (except on BS where it does seem appropriate).

Maybe you could look at treating jets more like subs in that not everything can get to them, like making some units unable to hit jets. That could accomplish your goal without that funny feeling I get from the 2-hit rule...

[Nuclear]

I will have to try some of these ideas out. Thanks all for your input. If you also have anyother ideas, please share them.

[Drax Kramer]

Jet planes had notoriously short range in WW2.


Drax

[TomJag3]

Right, Drax. You'd have to reduce the range of a jet to 2.

[Lobo]

WWII Jets

Pros:
-High speed, difficult to intercept with prop fighters
-Cheaper fuel than piston engined a/c

Cons:
-Short range
-Poor throttle response making them vulnerable (sitting ducks) when taking
off or landing.
-Extremely dangerous for novice pilots because of #2; required highly skilled
pilots to make use of their advantages.
-Extremely short engine life (10-20 hrs) required frequent overhauls.
-Engines required expensive alloys.
-Required long, debris free runways.

I would leave Jet fighters as they are--3/5. While jet aircraft certainly got a lot of publicity in WWII, they were just not that effective. I think it would be more realistic to not have jet fighters as a tech at all, as the additional costs canceled out the benefits*. Although WWII jets were very difficult to counter if flown by expert pilots, they were vulnerable if flown by anything less. While fast, jets had poor turning qualities and their short endurance made them vulnerable to piston engined fighters. When they broke off an engagement to return to base they became vulnerable. They were also easy targets on take-off/landing due to poor acceleration characteristics. I think 3/5 is appropriate for jet fighters and could represent the refinement to jets that took place immediately after WWII.


*It's the same reason why A&A doesn't distinguish between Shermans and Tiger/Panther tanks--the superior quality of the Panthers is offset by their expense, meaning fewer tanks for a given IPC expenditure.

[luke swensen]

I would have to agree with lobo on this one. Jet fighters were thought by both sides as the way to go, but in the long run they saw little real action until the korean war.