Author Topic: Grumman F6F-6  (Read 2348 times)

Offline HighTone

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1299
      • Squad Site
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2010, 08:36:46 PM »
There weren't enough Ki-44s or J2Ms built to really considered a core combat type, in my opinion.  It would be nice to have, but....


I'm the same way on the J2M, but at least the Ki-44 hit over the 1,000 production mark. But I see your point as we are missing planes that had more produced than the Ki-44.

LCA Special Events CO     LCA ~Tainan Kokutai~       
www.lcasquadron.org      Thanks for the Oscar HTC

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #61 on: May 14, 2010, 04:54:05 AM »
Saxman the F8F was IN Theater, but not at the front lines. I also would say they where flying
patrols otw.

Offline Gunhawg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #62 on: May 14, 2010, 11:36:27 AM »
As there are so many aircraft that individuals would like to see in game.  You can not expect everyone to agree on which should be next. 

Personally, discounting aircraft from a potential future lineup in AH based upon combat use or historically not being present is irrelevant.  Scenarios and events do not need the F8, but that not to say that the MA would not benefit from its use.  Adding should be based upon the community as a whole.  We pay for it and the a few nay sayers should not dictate the line up.

I would like to see a poll from HTC with potential of aircraft to be designed next and let the AH community decide on how their dollars are spent.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #63 on: May 14, 2010, 11:48:07 AM »
Saxman the F8F was IN Theater...


Where? Everything I've ever seen puts her on a boat several hundred miles away from the theater at the time of the surrender, if not further.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #64 on: May 14, 2010, 12:50:41 PM »
Where? Everything I've ever seen puts her on a boat several hundred miles away from the theater at the time of the surrender, if not further.

Its PTO - Pacific Theater of Operation not just 1 part. Id bet the CV was between Hawaii and Japan.

be like saying England wasnt in theater when running missions over Berlin.

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #65 on: May 14, 2010, 12:52:24 PM »
I not saying it should be here soon, but it should be in AH at some point. It was a WW2 production fighter.

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #66 on: May 14, 2010, 01:53:16 PM »

Saxman the F8F was IN Theater, but not at the front lines. I also would say they where flying
patrols otw.

Where? Everything I've ever seen puts her on a boat several hundred miles away from the theater at the time of the surrender, if not further.

Quote
Two squadrons, VF-18 and VF-19 were equipped with F8F-1s, and training was expedited in order to get the new fighter into service against Japanese suicide attack planes in the Pacific. VF-19 was on board the carrier USS Langley, en route across the Pacific, when the war ended on August 16, 1945.


From:From: DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS, Vol. IV (1969), p. 47-48. found at http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cvl27.htm:

Quote
After touching Ulithi and Pearl Harbor, she steamed to San Francisco, arriving 3 June for repairs and modernization. She departed 1 August for the forward area, and reached Pearl Harbor 8 August. While there, word arrived that hostilities had ended.

So, from August 8, 1945 until the end of hostilities, the closest F8F to combat was sitting at Pearl Harbor. 

That's 3,943 miles from Japan.
New York City is 3975 miles from Berlin.....

Don't worry, we'll make the facts fit how we want them to.



wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #67 on: May 14, 2010, 02:15:36 PM »
So your saying Pearl wasnt in PTO?  You gona tell those men who died Dec 7th, they werent, since they were at Pearl.


From:From: DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS, Vol. IV (1969), p. 47-48. found at http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cvl27.htm:

So, from August 8, 1945 until the end of hostilities, the closest F8F to combat was sitting at Pearl Harbor. 

That's 3,943 miles from Japan.
New York City is 3975 miles from Berlin.....

Don't worry, we'll make the facts fit how we want them to.



wrongway

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #68 on: May 14, 2010, 02:43:57 PM »
So your saying Pearl wasnt in PTO?  You gona tell those men who died Dec 7th, they werent, since they were at Pearl.


There were no Bearcats at Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.  And your saying Pearl was in a war zone in August, 1945? 

What if the U.S.S. Langley happend to be transiting the Panama Canal at the time?  Is that in a war zone regarding the generally accepted criteria for adding aircraft to the game?  I mean, the Japanese had a plan to attack the Panama Canal in 1945.

The Japanese shelled the west coast more than once in 1942.  Is the west coast a war zone? 

Germany operated U-Boats off the east coast from 1942 to 1945.  Is the east coast a war zone?

Like I said, keep stretching history to fit your requirements.


wrongway

71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #69 on: May 14, 2010, 04:04:06 PM »
Yes they all were part of the war zone, otherwise we wouldnt have had blackouts @ night and such. We ran patrols off both coasts for subs and other
things.  The people killed in the US by the japan ballon bombs were considered war casualties.  Warzone wasnt confined to front lines, you where just less likely to be attacked way behind the lines.


Between November 1944 and April 1945, Japan launched over 9000 fire balloons. About 300 balloon bombs were found or observed in North America, killing six people.

There were no Bearcats at Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.  And your saying Pearl was in a war zone in August, 1945? 

What if the U.S.S. Langley happend to be transiting the Panama Canal at the time?  Is that in a war zone regarding the generally accepted criteria for adding aircraft to the game?  I mean, the Japanese had a plan to attack the Panama Canal in 1945.

The Japanese shelled the west coast more than once in 1942.  Is the west coast a war zone? 

Germany operated U-Boats off the east coast from 1942 to 1945.  Is the east coast a war zone?

Like I said, keep stretching history to fit your requirements.


wrongway


Offline whipster22

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #70 on: May 14, 2010, 04:06:17 PM »
killing six people.

[/quote]

cause they screwed with bombs
just dewbing up the bbs
baby seal

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #71 on: May 14, 2010, 04:14:55 PM »
Yes, awgryyy
all war zones.
That is why the bear cat is a production ww2 aircraft. You will keep trying to redefine ww2 until it suites your needs I suppose.
But you can be sure, the guys that flew the bear cat on its first war cruise were WW2 pilots. It is a WW2 plane.

I guess the navy guys deciding to deploy them didn't know a nuke or two was going to end the war. Or they might have been sure air ferry some to the front.
The other plane so many Nancie's do not want in the game,  the B29, kept the Bearcat and Tigercat from shooting down a few untrained japanese pilots so that everyone could  come up with another excuse why the planes cant be in the game.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #72 on: May 14, 2010, 04:33:34 PM »
I'd like to see the B-29 added, I just don't like how much developer time it would take to make it happen.  It is the ultimate WWII bomber and for AH the ultimate perk bomber.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #73 on: May 14, 2010, 04:38:38 PM »
I'd like to see the B-29 added, I just don't like how much developer time it would take to make it happen.  It is the ultimate WWII bomber and for AH the ultimate perk bomber.

hehe 1000 perks for plane and bomb. kills entire field and town 1 drop.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Grumman F6F-6
« Reply #74 on: May 14, 2010, 04:40:40 PM »
hehe 1000 perks for plane and bomb. kills entire field and town 1 drop.
The B-29 would not include the nuke.  I don't want the nuke added, which it will not be.   The B-29's 20,000lb conventional load is more than adequate.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-