2 planes that we actually need

[Raubvogel]

2 planes we really need:

Me410
Tu2

There are more, but those would be the first 2 I'd like to see. I would have said a bomber for Japan, but we are already getting one.

[Sachs]

Originally posted by Raubvogel:
2 planes we really need:

Me410
Tu2

There are more, but those would be the first 2 I'd like to see. I would have said a bomber for Japan, but we are already getting one.

Isnt teh TU-2 coming as well?  410 yes we need it, I have had visions of the He-219 as well, and i am abotu to write a proposition as to how and why it should be in here and how to be implemented as well.  FI you all read my version of how to increase usage of the low end buffs or other variants then you missed the point and really do not care about adding variety, Rob this last comment was not directed to you but to all those that do not care  

[Buzzbait]

S! Ra

Dive Bombers aren`t gonna win any contests for air to air, top speed or carrying the most ordanance.  But there is one thing they do well:

Put bombs right on the money.

Dive bombing is more accurate than any other method of delivering ordanance.

From my reading of people like Eric Brown, the British Test pilot who flew the Dauntlas, Helldiver, Stuka, etc., the Stuka was the most accurate of the bunch.  This was because a good set of air brakes, plus the fixed undercarriage, made it accelerate very slowly in a vertical dive, thus the pilot had the time to adjust his aim carefully before releasing.  Plus the ailerons and other control surfaces allowed fine adjustments at the dive speeds.

And its track record as far as hitting small, fast maneuvering seaborne targets like destroyers, or placing bombs very close to individual tanks backs that up.

I saw a film clip once of a Stuka attack on a column of Soviet tanks.  The Stukas were dropping 500kg bombs.  They placed them close enough that the tanks were actually thrown into the air from the force of the blast.  That`s 25 tons going for a ride so the bomb impact had to be close.

Don`t get me wrong, the Dauntlas was an excellent plane, and the Helldiver, (once its problems were ironed out) was capable, but I think the Stuka was just a little better.

Of course all of them were toast when intercepted by a half decent Fighter.

[fdiron]

The SB2C had some early problems, but so did every single plane in history.  The reason the SB2C was phased out of service was due to Kamikaze attacks (carriers needed room for more fighters) and due to the lack of suitable japanese ground targets.  SB2C cruised at the same speed as the F6f, carried the same amount of ordinance as F4U, and had much more range.  

As for LVTs, I think they put the carrier in too much risk.  A suitable carrier based transport (I'm sure there has to be one) is needed.

[R4M]

Fdiron, from the SB2C protoype to the first operational plane, about 18000 changes had to be made. I dont know about any other plane as bogus, in the whole story of aviation. Even the He177 needed less number of modifications.

The plane was a squeak to fly from start to end. That some of the worse bugs were squashed doesnt make the plane a good one. Right to the last day of war pilots said it was a terrible thing to fly. The most "optimistic" defenders of the plane said it was "capable".

In short: that thing was a nightmare. Add to that, that a divebomber will be used on Scenarios only and you'll find that the Dauntless is the american divebomber to model (was the divebomber used in all the aeronaval pacific battles, xcept the Marianas battle).

A divebomber has no place in MA, because it's a sitting duck vs enemy planes, and anyway almost any fighter will do good divebombing and straffing. Maybe not as good divebombing, but the straffe part is unbeatable.

 

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! Ra

Dive Bombers aren`t gonna win any contests for air to air, top speed or carrying the most ordanance.  But there is one thing they do well:

Put bombs right on the money.

Dive bombing is more accurate than any other method of delivering ordanance.

Say what?. The most accurate way to delivering ordnance is with a fully laden, 25K lancaster using the mega-laser-guidance Hitonspotfromstratosphere Mk.I bombsite.  . No divebomber will ever beat that (another reason I hate that gameplay concession, btw  )

 In real life, of course, you are right...but we are talking about MA here, and none in his sense would take a divebomber from a carrier in the MA, having the option to spawn a Dhog with 2000lbs of bombs and 8 HVAR rockets (not to mention the 3000 rounds of 50 cals...). And if he was not to get a fighterbomber he'd fly a TBM (Wich also loads rockets and has a magic-bombsite to hit exactly on the aim).

Even in real life, anyway, in the latter part of the war the divebomber role was overtaken by fighter-bombers wich could do the job almost as well.

Divebombers will be only seen in scenarios. So if we are to see one modelled, I'd love to see one wich can be used in the most, the better. A dauntless, a Val, and a Stuka, get my vote (not on that order, btw  )

[Buzzbait]

S! Grunherz

You haven`t been reading all the new poop re. 1.09....  

Those who are used to the level bombers being able to hit within inches from 20,000 ft are going to get a rude surprise.

I think you will find that vertical bombing approaches will be the best way to take out small hardened targets.

I`m hoping they will also do something as far as the accuracy of ordanance dropped by aircraft without proper dive bombing sights, ie. Fighterbombers.  Most Fighterbombers did not use a vertical dive, but rather used either a variation on skip bombing or they `lobbed` the bomb by executing a dive, then pulling up and releasing the bomb at the top of their arc.  (Can`t remember the name of the maneuver, but it was a Spanish word)

[Sachs]

We do not need dive bombers, and the question is who would fly them?  How many times do you see an Il-2 atacking a base?  Not very many, and it is faster then the Stuka.  The point is we need 2 new planes, and those planes would be multi engine IMO.  

ME-410, any version
KI-67 which we are getting
Tu-2, any version(aren't we getting this in 1.09 as well?)
Russian P-63 sorry single engine needs to be in here.
Ju-188 any version
He-177 A5
Ki-102 GODDDD YES PLEAASEE
KI-46
A-26 I know it is US but I love this plane.


This list is small but they are all very valuable additions and would help out with some of the countries limited in representation.

Of the Fiat G-55 or 56
or RE 2005 sorry single engine fighters but they are nice.

[fdiron]

I believe some of you are missing the point.  These 2 planes (navy transport and SB2C) would greatly enhance the carrier.  It would make base captures from the CV far more frequent.  As it is right now, you have to get the CV dangerously close to the base you want to capture in order to launch LVTs.  I'm sure there had to be some rare carrier based transport in service somewhere.  I only know of one- it was a single engine divebomber capable of carrying 8 passengers.  May have been the Sky Raider.  It was built right after the end of the war though.

[magic2n]

Originally posted by Montezuma:
They should add lots of early-mid war Pacific carrier planes.

A6M2, Val, Kate, Wildcat, SBD...

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Montezuma ]

I agree with Montezuma.  Some will say that these are poor performers and will wind up being hanger queens but they would be GREAT for scenarios!  Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadalcanal and Coral Sea come to mind.

While I think of it, how about a Spit I, Hurri I and Bf-109E for early war Europenan scenarios like Battle of Britian?

- MAG1C