FSO: Pacific Pinsalamanders

[Krusty]

It's good to discuss things before they happen. Sometimes things are changed because something is brought to light.


IMO the speed is noticably faster than the Betty, and even if they're low the US planes will have a tough time because only the P40E has 6x50cal (and limited ammo for those 6x), the F4F-4 has the option for 6x but when it's slower than the zero it'll never catch the Ki, and the pilots will probably want to lighten it as much as possible (meaning they'll take 4x loadout).

On something that fast, even diving means you end up behind it very quickly, and the upper 6 position is exactly where that 20mm gun is aimed.

[daddog]

Sorry for the controversy.
I'll try Private Messaging or Email next time

I don't think CM's view this as a controversy. You asked a good question. I've never seen a CM in Squad Ops who was unwilling or unwanting to answer questions about their setup and their reasons for it. No need to PM questions about a setup. Others may have the same question.

[RATTFINK]

PTO...



Excellent


I look forward to it.

[Kurt]

I never received the side request reminder this week...  I'm getting the guys opinions put together, I hope we're not too late to make our requests...

[Krusty]

Any word from the CMs on just removing all twin-engined planes from the setup?

[APDrone]

Originally posted by Krusty
Any word from the CMs on just removing all twin-engined planes from the setup?

Not my admin design but my answer would be

"No."

[Hornet33]

Too bad the B-25 isn't here yet, then it would be easy.

[Krusty]

Depends on the version...

[Dantoo]

No Australian unit was issued with, flew, sighted, wrote home to their mother about, posed beside, walked around, or kicked the tires of a P40B .....ever.
The RAAF used the P40E and the P40N.

USAAC/F used the P40B however.  Time for a correction in the order of battle.

[Dantoo]

Just back to the substitution thing, the main difference between Betty and Peggy that is hard to resolve is purely speed.  They have similar armament, (Betty has an extra 20mm cannon but one less .50cal) and similar bomb loads , (Peggy slightly better).

It is TRADITION that Ju88 shall substitute for something in every FSO and scenario.  I look forward to the day when we can have a pure Ju88 vs Ju88 FSO where they substitute for everything.  

I always have a quiet giggle btw when I read how bomber pilots never travelled at full speed during operations.  Hands up if you really think fighter pilots bored around the sky at full power?  

Wiki mismash of specs below for the Betty and Peggy and Ju88.  I haven't cross referenced them with AH specs but I figure we can just use this thread as an ersatz FSO battle this week instead of the real thing.    


Specifications (Mitsubishi G4M Type 22)
    * Crew: 7: pilot, co-pilot, navigator/bombardier, radio operator/gunner, three gunners
    * Length: 19.6 m (64 ft 4 in)
    * Wingspan: 24.9 m (81 ft 8 in)
    * Height: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
    * Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Kasei 25 radial engines, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 437 km/h (270 mph)
    * Range: 4,725 km (one way) (2,935 mi)
    * Service ceiling: 8,950 m (29,350 ft)

Armament

    * Guns: 2x 20 mm cannons, 4x 7.7 mm machine guns
    * Bombs: 800 kg (1,765 lb) of bombs or torpedoes


Specifications (Ki-67-Ib)
    * Crew: 6-8
    * Length: 18.7 m (61 ft 4 in)
    * Wingspan: 22.50 m (73 ft 9 in)
    * Height: 7.70 m (25 ft 3 in)
    * Wing area: 66 m² (709 ft²)
    * Empty weight: 8,649 kg (19,068 lb)
    * Max takeoff weight: 13,765 kg (30,347 lb)
    * Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Ha-104 (army type 4) 18-cylinder radials, 1,417 kW (1,900 hp) each

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 537 km/h (334 mph)
    * Range: 3800 km (2,361 miles)
    * Service ceiling: 9,470 m (31,070 ft)
    * Rate of climb: 450 m/min (1,476 ft/min)
    * Wing loading: 208 kg/m² (43 lb/ft²)
    * Power/mass: 0.21 kW/kg (0.13 hp/lb)

Armament

    * 1 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in dorsal turret
    * 5 × 12.7 mm Type 1 machine gun, one in nose, 2 in the tail, and 1 in each beam position
    * 2,359 lb of bombs in internal bay, some Kamikaze versions carried 6,000 lb of bombs

Specifications (Junkers Ju 88)
General characteristics

    * Crew: 4
    * Length: 14.2 m (46 ft 6 in)
    * Wingspan: 18 m (59 ft 0 in)
    * Height: 4.7 m (15 ft 5 in)
    * Wing area: 47.8 m² (515 ft²)
    * Empty weight: 3,900 kg (8,600 lb)
    * Loaded weight: 7,700 kg (16,980 lb)
    * Max takeoff weight: kg (lb)
    * Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 211A (or a BMW 801 in some cases) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 900 kW (1,200 hp) each

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 510 km/h at 4,750 m (317 mph at 15,600 ft)
    * Range: 2,108 km (1,310 mi)
    * Service ceiling: 9,080 m (29,800 ft)
    * Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)

Armament

    * 7x 7.92 mm machine guns
    * 2,500 kg (5511 lb) of bombs

[Krusty]

Dantoo, fighters would fly at miltary power (i.e. full throttle) for quite a while, and would use emergency power or boost (i.e. WEP in this game) on top of that... Bombers never used full throttle except on takeoff, after which they throttled back even while climbing.

Can't compare the two, they are apples and oranges.



A couple of comments about the wiki stats:

-Didn't betty only have 1 20mm cannon?
- Ki67 has 7mms not 12.7mms, I believe.
- Bomb load listed is too high. In AH you get ONE 1k bomb, or multiple smaller bombs equalling just over 1k in weight (can't recall exact weight).
- Ju88 carries 1000kg internally (2.2k) not counting the 4x 5000kg external bombs, which bring it up to 3000kg (6600lbs). Quite a bit more than 1x1000lb bomb on the ki67, and about as much as a B17G.


P.S. your idea would be even better if we got Ju88Cs or Ju88Gs!!! Then we could sub Ju88s for the fighters as well!!

[ghostdancer]

Okay been having issue in real life. The first two CiC are from CM squads and I apologize before hand for giving Nefarious and Dux a shorter planning period. Objectives will go out today.

Now as for the questions:

[list=1]

• The Australians having the P40B was a typo. They also have the P40E.
• Boston IIIs are of this time period. Although in this theater you saw much more extensive use of the Beaufighter and Beaufort .. neither which we have. I know during the battle of the Bismark Sea you had A20s active and B25s (which we don't have). So I wanted to give the allies a Bomber since some targets will be in New Britain but I didn't want to give the allies B17s (since they are a pain for the A6M2 to stop and it is not an earlier model).
• The Ki67 is not an early war bomber. Plus, the thing is incredibly deadly. It is fast and the 20mm sting it has can shred the P40E and F4F. The JU88 is a better sub.

[Dantoo]

Thanks GD.  

Rats....now all speculation and disussion can cease

Dantoo, fighters would fly at miltary power (i.e. full throttle) for quite a while

Citation please!!!!

Can't compare the two, they are apples and oranges.

Nope it's apples and apples.  Aero engines are aero engines. It matters not a zot what airframe they are mounted in.  Prolonged running at full power causes over heating, low oil pressure, excessive wear and extra maintenance.  It also chews up all your fuel.

Generally speaking, world war 2 aircraft engines were at the bleeding edge of the tech and overheating was an engineering problem than ran through all front line types from all manufacturers.  Time at full power is typically time limited, something like 10 minutes would be fairly normal.  Full power could also be altitude limited, both high and low.  Go outside the limits and the engine has to be stripped down on return.

[Krusty]

Dantoo, you're forgetting the PURPOSE of those engines. Fighters had high-performance engines that could and did run at high temperatures without failing (spitfire pilot that broke the wire and ran it for over half an hour to get home, when he landed they took the engine apart and put it back together - no damage no wear and tear).

Bomber engines usually had less power than fighters. Why, then, doesn't the B-17 have 4x Allison engines running at 1600hp? They still had single-row radials.

An engine is NOT an engine is NOT an engine...

Bombers needed range, not speed, not performance. They throttled back immediately after takeoff not because they were damaging the engines, but because they couldn't spare the precious fuel that was being consumed by them.

It is totally not the same at all.

Fighters would attack at their peak performance, almost always. Bombers would cruise at max fuel consumption, always.

[Dantoo]

Citations