'Might have' beens or 'real life' arguments...

[Tank-Ace]

Well, an argument in the Wishlist brought this up. Its not the first time such an issue has been brought up, and I've never seen it argued out very far, so I'm curious what the general BBS population thinks.

Background:
1) the C.205 could carry 2 small bombs on the wings, but rarely did.
 
2) Butcher said they were rarely used, and so shouldn't be added.

3) I raised the point that the P-51 rarely carried both bombs and rockets at the same time (as far as photo evidence shows).

4) Butcher said that since the focus was on long-ranged escort when the P-51 was brought into action, and that it had potential as a ground-attack plane, the fact that both bombs AND rockets were rarely carried at the same time is irrelevent.

Do you think he's right? Do you think I'm right? Does it not mater if combinations of loadouts were rare, as long as the individual loadout options were in wide-spread use? Are the situations completly different? Is it a bit sketchy? Is he full of crap? Am I? Are we both so full of it, that our eyes are brown?

[Karnak]

My personal opinion is that loadouts that were rare should probably be perked and loadouts that were extremely rarely used should not be included in the game.

I would prefer to see the single engined fighters limited to 500lb bombs unless they are paying perks for the 1000lbers.  Give the heavy fighters a distinct role (perhaps include the single engined P-47 in the heavy fighter category with the Bf110s, P-38s, Mosquito and upcoming Me410) rather than have P-51Ds, Typhoons and F4Us be so common for both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.  You want 2000lbs+ of bombs?  Take a heavy fighter or pay perks.

[Baumer]

My personal opinion is that if a load out has documentation that it was used in combat it should be allowed in game. Additionally (again this is just my opinion) I think factory documented field modifications or kits should also be allowed. I find HTC's current position on field mods a bit unusual given what we currently have in game. 

I think that a perked ordinance system like what Karnak mentioned would be a necessary addition.


 

[Guppy35]

Had the Mustang been operating closer to the target and not needed DTs to have the range I think you'd have seen more loadouts of bombs and rockets.  Fast forward to Korea and they were lugging bombs and rockets or napalm and rockets all the time as they were based much closer to the action.

Obviously Mustangs operated with bombs in the ETO.  Also with bombs, and rockets with the RAF in the MTO.  And with rockets on the Iwo based 51Ds going to Japan. 

[Infidelz]

It was extremely rare during the war (kind of strange argument) for allied planes to attach allied bombers, aircraft, or ground vehicles. sure it happened but it wasn't deliberate. Deliberate and malicious attacks of "same side" platforms on other same side platforms should be prohibited since it rarely occurred during actual combat. It immediately stopped once the attacker understood he was attacking an ally. We have the best IFF system ever here. When you attack an enemy (red aircraft) you know the type as well as the range. So by the logic of historical accuracy, any allied plane attacking another is in fact abomination and should not be allowed. neh?

Its a game.

Infidelz.

[guncrasher]

I have read books that mention how spitfires were sent to the north atlantic to shoot down lancasters who were not as committed to bombing germany as the rest.


semp

[RealDeal]

My opinion is let all possible loadouts be available and let your mission determine which one you use. The fact that one loadout was used more then another is simply a result of the mission requirements for that aircraft during any particular engagment, not due to any inability in the aircraft itself. Here in AH our mission requirments are far different then in real life WW2.

[hotard]

I have read books that mention how spitfires were sent to the north atlantic to shoot down lancasters who were not as committed to bombing germany as the rest.


semp

Seriously??? You think a spit pilot would shoot down lancs who were "Not as committed" even if orderd to do so? That is what a court marshal is for. You my friend have bought into a myth, and reading it in a story doesn't make it any more so.

T

[guncrasher]

Seriously??? You think a spit pilot would shoot down lancs who were "Not as committed" even if orderd to do so? That is what a court marshal is for. You my friend have bought into a myth, and reading it in a story doesn't make it any more so.

T

you mean to tell me that every single lanc that went up actually follow orders?  that's naive.


semp

[hotard]

you mean to tell me that every single lanc that went up actually follow orders?  that's naive.


semp

And they were orderd shot down for it?  Not to mention they were flying at night.. sent up spitfires at night to find lancs somewhere over the north sea/ western europe?? sure semp... You wouldn't be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn would you?

[RedBull1]

uh oh....sounds like another "NU UH! IM RIGHT!" show down, nrshida, get the popcorn! 

[DMGOD]

And they were orderd shot down for it?  Not to mention they were flying at night.. sent up spitfires at night to find lancs somewhere over the north sea/ western europe?? sure semp... You wouldn't be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn would you?

Pffft they wouldn't let you in Brooklyn.  If you ever go go hang out in east new York

[EagleDNY]

My opinion is let all possible loadouts be available and let your mission determine which one you use. The fact that one loadout was used more then another is simply a result of the mission requirements for that aircraft during any particular engagment, not due to any inability in the aircraft itself. Here in AH our mission requirments are far different then in real life WW2.

+1 to this.  If you can find documentation that an aircraft carried ord, or had drop tanks, or even field mod kits that were available, I would be in favor of allowing it.  

[hotard]

Perhaps I should have not been so dismissive in my original post.. I called semp out.. what was he going to do but respond.

[Karnak]

I am aware of one Mosquito VI crew in 418 squadron that was caught flying in circles over the north sea instead of intruding over occupied Europe at night.  Nobody tried to shoot them down, but they were immediately removed from ops and from the squadron.

Think rationally, if a Lanc crew was dodging participation in ops would it be better for a night fighter to track them so they could be removed from ops and the squadron and assign a new crew to that Lancaster or to blow the very expensive Lancaster out of the sky?