Which aircraft would you use?

[KD303]

Yup, I know the Hornet wasn't used in WWII. Just thought it might attract your attention!
Speaking as a relative newcomer, I'd be interested to read peoples' views on the suitability of different aircraft for different purposes. It'd be interesting to hear what different people would use for the following situations. This has probably been asked many times but I'm sure a lot of the people using this forum are fairly new too so it might be of use.

OK here we go...

Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think?

Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with?

Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why?

What's your least favourite fighter? Why?

What's your favourite fighter? Why?

If you can be arsed answering any or some of these questions, I'd appreciate your thoughts. If certain people just want to make spazzy pompous comments about how superior they are and that they wouldn't lower themselves to answer my stupid questions, they can go write them on their own thread, I'm sure they'll be really interesting, only not to anyone other than themselves.
To the rest of you - Thanks -  it's useful for us newbers to get info of this sort on aircraft. I've put it here rather than the newbie forum because it's more specifically about aircraft.
Thanks again,

KD

[Furball]

Originally posted by KD303

Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think? Lancstukas!

Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with? Lancstukas!

Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why? P/B-26B Deathstar!

What's your least favourite fighter? Why? dont really have one, i dont know

What's your favourite fighter? Why?Hurricane IIC!
 

[Raptor]

- High alt bomber

- A20

Define General use
Bombing strategic targets: B26
Tactical Targets: A20

Ki84, it's a fricken helicopter with fricken lazers attached to it's fricken head

P38L, challenge to fly and can hang in there with the best

[indy007]

Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think?

In 1 1/2 years I've never seen anything sunk with air dropped torpedos. High alt bomber is the way to go. Low alt bombers are just fodder for 5" gunners.

Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with? Lancstukas!

P-38L Dumptruck... but people will hate you and call you a lemming. A-20s work pretty good too.

Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why?

B-24. Good bombload, lots of guns, big & beefy.

What's your least favourite fighter? Why?

Spit1. Because you can merge on anything.. but never catch up to fill them full of .303 shells. It's frustrating.

What's your favourite fighter? Why?

P-47, any model. Wicked gun package, lots of ammo, lots of gas, hefty bombload, lots of rockets, 3 droptank options... and nothing dives like a Jug.

[KD303]

Originally posted by Raptor01
Define General use

A bomber that you feel gives you the best payload/defence (I'm a Brit so I use a "c") package and can be used on a wide variety of targets. Really what I mean, is which bomber do you prefer to use? Payload-wise, the Ju88 is very useful but it is armed with gat guns whereas the Boston's seems a bit more hefty but only carries a few bombs. The Lanc carries loads of stuff (including strangely accurate 4000lb  cookies which historically tended to land at least within five miles of the aiming point) but is more vulnerable than a B24 or a B17... I know it's all a bit academic, but getting the views of others is useful.
Thanks for the info so far.

[Tony Williams]

Do you mean historically or in the sim?

Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons. Dive-bombing was more effective (and kamikaze attacks even more so), but the real ship-killer was the torpedo.  Casualties were high among the torpedo planes, but they got the job done better than anything else.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by KD303
Yup, I know the Hornet wasn't used in WWII.

The Hornet(s) were used extensively in WWII (CVs 8, 12)

[Angus]

Hey Tony:
"Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons."

Well also remember the Tirpitz being bombed from high alt.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Angus
Hey Tony:
"Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons."

Well also remember the Tirpitz being bombed from high alt.

Yep, but that was a stationary target. A ship moving (and manouvring) at sea makes a much harder target.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Angus]

Now, THAT is true.
Best to bomb'em at the docks. Didn't some capital German ships get bombed at Brest as well?

[LLv34_Snefens]

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were at Brest for about a year, before they made the their famous "Channel Rush".
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/scharnhorst_menu.html

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
Do you mean historically or in the sim?

Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons. Dive-bombing was more effective (and kamikaze attacks even more so), but the real ship-killer was the torpedo.  Casualties were high among the torpedo planes, but they got the job done better than anything else.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Agreed.   There is an old navy saying, "You don't sink ships by making holes in them that let air in--you sink them by making holes that let water in."  Aerial bombing could and did start fires, damage equipment, and render the ship useless, but very seldom actually sank one.  Torpedos did damage all out of proportion to the warhead strength, due to the underwater damage they cause.

(edit for punctuation)

[Angus]

Well, The Tirpitz certainly got holed well, and many others. The thing with the really big ships was that they'd need big bombs, and even BIG torps.
Did torps or bombs sink the POW and Repulse? What about the Mushasi & Yamato? So many basically. Bombs or torps? Who's the winner?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Angus
Did torps or bombs sink the POW and Repulse? What about the Mushasi & Yamato? So many basically. Bombs or torps? Who's the winner?

Torps in all four cases.  Musashi was hit with 20+ bombs as I recall and about 20 torps, but we hit her in both sides counterflooding her and making it harder to sink her.  I think it took about 10 torps to sink Yamato.  Lots of bomb hits too.

Prince of Wales was hit by seven torps and Repulse by fourteen in one massive overkill salvo after she'd dodged two prior salvos.

This is all off of memory so I may have the numbers off a bit.

[Krusty]

Well, in the case of the Bismark, I think, there was a double hull and oil and gas and water tanks were between the two hulls. When they went down to check it out every single torp had penetrated the first hull but not done any damage to the inner hull (thus not helping to sink the ship at all).

This from memory from that James Cameron show/documentary.