Author Topic: Thunder Bolts  (Read 1489 times)

Offline Geary420

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2007, 03:51:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by WPmega
http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/p47.htm

here is one page. hehe told yea i would find one :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s

here is anther one YAY im on a roll now lol :D :D


That first page says nothing about use off of CVs, and as was stated further up carriers were used for delivery.  I'm googling for more atm but not coming up with much.

Offline WPmega

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2007, 10:53:31 AM »
rgr i just reread the first one i put yea i did missread but the second one is strong in that they did take off. and yea i understand that more than anything they didnt do it alot so yea. anyway like u said i put it in here because it is the Wish list fourm.

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18376
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2007, 11:20:34 AM »
The second one also show them taking off with drop tanks, not bombs, especially the load out was use in AH2, and it also shows a catapult, which none of our CV's have.

It is a long standing policy that anything in the game has to be historic. Look at how tightly skins are looked at. All submissions MUST have documentation proving that the skin was used in the war, and not a "add-on" think that just happened at the end of the war.

Might as well ask for an F-18

Offline WPmega

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2007, 11:38:39 AM »
well if we want to bring up jets i would ask for a Phantom. LOL.
i understand that it has to be historical. but what about the B 25 taking off of a CV i mean if it can take off of a CV why would a P47 not be able to ???????

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18376
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2007, 11:45:08 AM »
The B25 taking off a CV was a one time only special mission. It was a "quick response" to Japan after they bombed Pearl. It did very little damage, and most of the planes and men were lost. All it really was was a quick slap in the face to Japan. I don't think they ever did it again, because all in all it wasn't a good mission.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2007, 03:54:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by WPmega
reading yalls post again i have seen yall are like missing the key points i put in the CV's had a lauch system and the P47's had no tail hook. now that it has been put in a way were its not so big can u read?

srry to be rude about this but when a post is long no one reads it like the person wanted it to be read.

The Jugs shown had drop tank only.  No bombs.  No rockets.  Did not see anything on the first link of note.  What the film does show looks like the typical delivery of P-47's to an island airfield being operated by the United States Army Air Force.  Not an attack.  Just a ferry mission.  

And you see to have missed the part where the P-47's could not land on a carrier.  Their landing gear and frame were not reinforced to sustain a carrier deck landing..... they would have folded up on the deck.  Those Jugs, which had standard gear, were put onto that carrier by a heavy overhead crane.  Jugs did not operate from carriers for combat operations.  
We can get away with carrier landings in the game.....but IRL, the gear would collapse more often than not, even if they did add a tail hook.

The Manila Bay was a CASABLANCA class escort carrier - CVE-61. Which explains the catapults (short deck) and further points to this being a ferry or shuttle mission of USAAF planes to an island base in the Pacific.  

And, actually, it was all kind of hard to read in the first place.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2007, 03:57:07 PM by tedrbr »

Offline WPmega

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2007, 06:25:21 PM »
rgr but i did put that they could not land on the CV because of the landing gear.

Offline nirvana

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5640
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2007, 10:28:44 PM »
Ted,
He just wants to be able to launch off a CV so he is theoretically closer, thus enabling quick bomb/suicide missions.  I guess?
Who are you to wave your finger?

Offline WPmega

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2007, 01:07:09 AM »
well that was part of the plan a better CV plane means better missions off of CV. ty for ur comment.

Offline Geary420

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2007, 01:38:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by WPmega
well that was part of the plan a better CV plane means better missions off of CV. ty for ur comment.


Just rock the F4U-1D/C.

Offline WPmega

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2007, 02:46:49 AM »
yes put jug carries more Ord which means more distruction. also the jug has 8 50cals which equal more distruction. this is why i want it on the CV lol.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2007, 05:28:15 AM »
Hehe no i dont want any p47s, b25s or other non-cv planes to be selected in the cv hangar. I am 99% sure it will never happen either. I would even take it a step further and somehow prevent non-cv planes from landing on them.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2007, 09:42:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would even take it a step further and somehow prevent non-cv planes from landing on them.

Now that's just mean.   Even I've done emergency CV landings with Ki-67's, B-17's, and non-CV fighters.   You will probably see a few B-25 CV landings and (fewer successful) take offs in the first month of it's release.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2007, 09:46:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by tedrbr
Now that's just mean.   Even I've done emergency CV landings with Ki-67's, B-17's, and non-CV fighters.   You will probably see a few B-25 CV landings and (fewer successful) take offs in the first month of it's release.


I fully expect they will for the first few weeks atleast. Ill be hovering around cv groups in my G14 waiting for them to slow down for landings or get them when they get off :D

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Thunder Bolts
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2007, 09:47:50 AM »
I don't think heavy bombers should be allowed to land on CVs. The CV deck probably couldn't hold up to the sheer weight of 80,000lbs slamming into the deck in a very small area. It would see-saw the ship and probably damage the deck beyond repair.


I think heavy bombers should blow up on impact if they try landing on a CV deck, no matter how gently they do it.


Fighters, however, should be able to. To land hurricanes (non-sea-hurricanes) on a CV all they did was strap sandbags on the tail to keep the tail down during landing. Probably hell on the flight of the plane, but still..


If you do it right you can land normal fighters on a CV.

But not bombers.