no bombers

[Easyscor]

You're right Lt., the Betty had MUCH BETTER GUNS.

No Arlo, the squad will be practicing this week so next week we can find you and pork your field for twice as long, and if we happen to be on the same side, we’ll pork the field your flying against.

[LtMagee]

Easyscore ever hear the allied term "one shot lighter"?
This was the name given to the G4M1..also had the SINGLE 20mm in the tail ONLY. single 7.7 mm guns in the dorsal, waist and nose. This bomber was phased out because it "proved to be more vulnerable the MOST Japanese aircraft" due to its none protected fuel tanks and no crew armor.

The Ki-67 had a much better protection (fuel crew), one 20mm tail cannon but had four 12.7 mm guns and had a speed of 334 compared to the much slower Betty at 265mph.

The later model G4M2a had 4 20mm guns but was not for early war Darwin as we are discussing and still lacked the much needed protection:rolleyes:

The Ki-67 did not see a squadron untill the summer of 44' and was initualy used as a torpedo bomber at the Battle of the Philippine Sea by the IJA under direction of the IJAF.

They (Betty) were so bad that by the time the war ended, many were modified to 20-seat troop transport planes

[Squire]

Your missing the point. The setup should have had Betties and P-40Es to start with. The P-40B was never used in Australia.

So use the Ju-88 "Betty" thats what its skinned for, and the A6M5 as a A6M3 stand in, land based, have the A6M2, Val, Kate on CVs, and the USAAF and RAAF in SpitVs and P-40Es.

Ki-67? you dont need it.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Easyscor
No Arlo, the squad will be practicing this week so next week we can find you and pork your field for twice as long, and if we happen to be on the same side, we’ll pork the field your flying against.

The deal is you're not porking "my" fields .... you're porking the arena.

[Arlo]

Vote Reschke!

Oh wait ....

[Easyscor]

I vote  Sabre, and Reschke.

I can do that even without my bombers.

[LtMagee]

and the A6M5 as a A6M3

no no no no, you are missing the other point. There was very little performace gain with the A6M3. The cliped wing actually reeduced the agility vs the A6M2...the -2 turned better. There was little to no other improvements. The higher horsepower engine gave it better climb etc and a cruise speed at 20k of 341mph, but the A6M2 in AH is ubber which makes up for that. The only thing that AH A6M2 does not have is the extra ammo that the -3 would have.

Yes, give the P-40E only if the Ju-88 is allowed, but no A6M5. The A6M5 is way to much for the P-40E....the A6M5 even hold its own with the F6F...it will eat P-40E for breakfest.......gggeeshhh!

For those of you that dont understand; take a 1946 Piper J-3 cub with a 65hp cont. engine. Get a cruise speed of about 70mph. Replace that engine with a 180hp engine. Your cruise speed will not improve that much but you will get one hell-of-a climber...because I flew one. You still have the high lift wing which still creats a lot of drag. You must reduce the lift along with the bigger engine to get more speed...but with the reduction you may loose a tight turn radius....juast an example. The A6M3 did nothing much other than replace the 940hp engine with the 1130 hp engine. This actually drasticly reduced the flight range.

With the removal of the wing tips, this decreased the turn radius by only a fraction but it increased the roll rate at higher speeds and also increased the top speed and agility in higher speed dives.

Overall, the A6M2 in AH makes up for that. If it were modeled correctly, no one would fly it.

The A6M5 should only have a max dive speed of 410mph. I have A6M2s that do faster than that. Only the A6M5 can recover from that speed, the wings on the A6M2 should rip right off...especialy with wing damage.

Also last but not least; "American pilots knew that virtually any BURST of gunfire into a Zero was likely to distroy it". re: Zero A6M by H P Willmott

[Squire]

"The only thing that AH A6M2 does not have is the extra ammo that the -3 would have."

Yes thats my point. Thats why it would be used, its flying against Spitfire Vs with hispanos and P-40Es with 6 x 50s.

"If it were modeled correctly, no one would fly it."

Yes they would, but that  debate is for another thread.

"The A6M5 is way to much for the P-40E"

It didnt turn out that way last CT setup we ran? P-40E did well when used in teams, its a moot point anyways when teamed with the Spit V. Im not advocating having just the P-40E.

A6M5 and A6M2 vs Spit V and P-40E would be a fine match. Then add the Betty (Ju88), the IJN CV planes and there you go. There is no reason not to have a decent Darwin setup other than the refusal to include the Spit V in the CT and the endless 1942 PAC setups that are the only thing we get outside Okinawa 1945.

[Squire]

The Spitfire saw service in the China/Burma/India (RAF) theater as well as New Guinea and Australia (RAAF).

[scJazz]

Originally posted by storch
We need to get with HTC and cause them to include more axis types especially for the japs.

AHII may eventually be released but in the mean time there is nothing wrong with this version of AH.  add the dang planes.

Storch,
Modeling the aircraft and vehicles is an extremely tedious time consuming task. In addition very little, if any at all, of the modeling transfers from one version to the other. The have 2 staff doing modeling and something like 70 aircraft to model already. It isn't even feasible to ask them to create new models for AH1.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Squire
Your missing the point. The setup should have had Betties and P-40Es to start with. The P-40B was never used in Australia.

So use the Ju-88 "Betty" thats what its skinned for, and the A6M5 as a A6M3 stand in, land based, have the A6M2, Val, Kate on CVs, and the USAAF and RAAF in SpitVs and P-40Es.

Ki-67? you dont need it.

I researched the "A6M3 model 32"  (the early one) and it was not adopted as a standard type until April 1942.  Given a couple of months for the supply chain, they should not have been seen before June or July 1942.  That's using the same criteria so often thrown at the allies, btw.  Interestingly, Lynch reported a "new type zero with clipped wings" (the early type A6M3 model 32) he shot down in January 1943 in New Guinea.  There were only about 350 of this model produced, according to my sources.

So the entire "P40B because the japs don't have an A6M3" argument goes away.  The spits are restricted to two fields, already, thus destroying the "reliability" question.  In any case, a check of the climate for that area shows a remarkable similarity to the southern US during the late spring and summer months.  Hot and sticky, yes, but hardly debilitating for aircraft operations--after all most WW2 pilots were trained in the South.

The map doesn't look anything like Australia, the plane set is bogus, and this is another axis fantasy week.  I will sit it out, again.

sigh.