返回列表 回复 发帖

[AE] 关于飞机扩展航程的问题

本帖最后由 redpeacock168 于 2012-2-17 11:35 编辑 % m( q8 p: z$ ?/ E- ?2 x

3 `9 k+ l& V/ d( K, {/ o7.2.1.6.1 EXTENDED RANGE
* O% g! L9 E# L# @The term takes on new meaning in AE. Less forgiving rules are in place to make Extended
& n) K4 e1 P0 frange operations, both Clean and Drop Tank equipped, unsustainable. WWII is abound with
% ]3 Q2 X6 q0 N& Dinstances of extreme operations such as the Doolittle raid and the Battles over the skies of
" T9 [2 i5 w8 K: `! ^/ ?Guadalcanal. These operations were possible and had an effect of one kind or another, but+ q: B4 r' u6 c6 R1 m) I
could not be considered normal or sustainable. As such, combat effectiveness as a whole will' M$ u, K" o$ M* ^/ |2 v3 ^2 x
suffer at these ranges. The smallest scratch could mean the difference between a warm meal2 m5 z, D2 [$ R# {
and a rack, and a survival situation. If you value your Air Forces you will use discretion when( t+ V* D% l: ?" [( ^+ S  t
planning operations that require such high risk.
. y4 i9 \/ n' x: u) W( e谁能分析下这句话,我粘贴的,不知怎么中间有空格了,麻烦高手给翻译下,好像是说AE的扩展航程概念与原版不同了。
求翻译
看懂一点点,意思是扩展航程战斗会有风险?
本帖最后由 jay102 于 2012-2-17 11:45 编辑 $ s; \: y9 Y3 p: X# P, }! ?
! J: o2 Z; \8 Z& ?) \
中心意思就是AE里使用扩展航程所致的风险比WitP时代更高了。
意思就是 用扩展航程就像杜立特空袭那样 并不应该被看作常态 除非你觉得有必要用
AE里日本是架0战就可以从拉包尔sweep瓜岛,还可以把盟军的CAP扫的生活不能自理6 w7 u6 r0 i; Q
扩展航程仍然做的不够好,当然损失率是大大提高了的,作战效能也会下降
"I have nothing to offer but supplies, fuel and women."
扩展航程的概念在AE里具有了新的内涵,更苛刻的规则使得扩展航程任务(包括普通的和增挂副油箱的)无法持久。尽管二战里存在着大量极端型的行动,如杜利特轰炸和瓜岛空战,确有可行性且产生了某种特定影响,但其不应被视为常规的和可持续的。在扩展航程上作战,综合作战效率必然下降,机身最轻微的擦挂都有可能决定飞行员的存亡。一个珍惜空军的人在计划此类高风险行动时将会谨慎从事。
返回列表