Sea Planes

[Wmaker]

The N1K1 Kyufu 'Rex' would also be an option as it had some bits in common with the N1K2-J, though far less than the A6M2-N had with the A6M2.  The N1K1's advantage is that it would be far more capable than the A6M2-N.

Yeh, the fuselage shape might be recyclable. Stabs have a different shape and it has a mid wing config and the instrument panel has a different layout. Personally, I'd certainly fly the Kyofu but mentioned the A6M2-N over it due to larger amount of use it saw and bigger production and the mentioned fact that only thing really needed is to model the floats and disable the gear animations.

Kyofu is a really cool looking aircraft but only bit over 80 were produced.

[Babalonian]

Bombers like B-17s, B-24s, B-26s, B-25s and other bombers were routinely used as dedicated patrol planes to scout for maritime (shipping) targets.  The PBY held no advantages over the bombers when it came to spotting maritime targets.

ack-ack

*cough* B-25J *cough* is not represented  (our B-25H has no glass-nose/bombadier option, and the B-25C is an earlier, less defenses, less ordnance - version).

[Butcher]

Bombers were USED as -second choice- Scouts and Patrol craft when SEA PLANES WERE NOT AVAILABLE ... generally they lacked the special equipment (like RDF) and TRAINED OBSERVATION CREWS the catalinas had ... Aside from THAT their use was as ASW & Convoy Escorts ... Just because it has WINGS your 109 is NOT going to get the Storch's Observation advantages and your B-24 doesn't qualify as an OBSERVATION plane. DUH ?

Where are you getting this information from? wikipedia?
Bombers were one of the VERY few with the range to do scouting and patrol. Some excelled in the role like the b-24 which maritime version flew almost twice as far due to more gas and no bombs. Here's a hint - nobody that entered WW2 on the american side had experience, it was gained through war. It wasn't until late 1943 that american's started spitting out experienced pilots due to Aces and veterans coming home to train. And if you want to look at it more closely, Americans produced twice the number of pilots then the Japanese did in 1942 - and neither had any training setup period. Everything was trial and error, eventually pilots got experienced and so did crews. If you want to look at it from a broad point of view - the Japanese never understood ingenuity as the american's did, one reason American B-24s were used by the navy for naval scouting and recon work, where Japanese Betty's were classified as "bombers" and other types were for recon.

Look at the F-5 Lightning, it was an unarmed version of the P-38, and it did wonders in the pacific and ETO, and the pilots were not exactly "observation" specialist either.

Even if they were experienced think about this: The japanese were the most advanced naval aviators in the outbreak of WW2, far more skilled then the Americans or probably every country combined.

During the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese launched an attack on what it thought was a carrier and her escort (which happens to be an AO or fleet oiler and a destroyer). How could the most experienced pilots in the world mistake an oil tanker for a carrier and a destroyer for her escorts? They were trained far rigerously on identification - and proven once again when Japanese planes attempted to land on american carriers!

[Ack-Ack]

*cough* B-25J *cough* is not represented  (our B-25H has no glass-nose/bombadier option, and the B-25C is an earlier, less defenses, less ordnance - version).

What point are you trying to make other than you can tell the differences between the various B-25s we have in game?  In case you were wondering, the B-25s that were in the USAAF anti-submarine squadrons were mostly C models.

ack-ack

[DrSlugger]

I would like to see a carrier launched B-25 in the future. For the sake of having an actual decent carrier based bomber.

[Karnak]

I would like to see a carrier launched B-25 in the future. For the sake of having an actual decent carrier based bomber.

The TBM-3 is superior to such a thing, unless you like a light bomb load and broomsticks for guns.

[Brownien]

I doubt the ability to launch b25s in the game will ever be implemented as the Doolittle raid only happened once and did little actual damage. Plus the group never went any further than its first mission due to the diminishing need for a launch point for land based bombers. The TBM or Kate could get the use of formations though. If anything, the air power of Ports need to be adressed with the implementation of seaplanes because when the cv isn't at port, its very difficult to defend.

The CV in itself, is its own airbase, and the Port is only a means of respawn and the capture of the CV itself. My wish was for the use of seaplanes as a means of Defensive, and Offensive power of a port without its cv, NOT as a means of playing peekaboo with some enemy cv!
I think i have made my point. 

[Ack-Ack]

I would like to see a carrier launched B-25 in the future. For the sake of having an actual decent carrier based bomber.

The B-25 was never a "carrier based bomber".  It was a one off affair with specially modified B-25Bs.

ack-ack

[EVZ]

I bet you didn't know that we already have the primary patrol plane used by the USN/USMC for anti-shipping/submarine patrols in Aces High and *hint* it's a bomber.

Yep ... "PRIMARILY" Coastal Patrol & Convoy Escort, RARELY used for front line scouting for Offensive Enemy Task Groups. Tho I think the Australians and the Dutch were forced to use them as they lacked amphibians and b25s. They PBY heavys were ALSO very popular for rear area VIP transport (lots of room for steaks and booze). They proved themselves particularly ineffective when attempting High Alt. Attacks on Task Forces and Convoys -AT SEA-. Great for hitting ships at anchor and harbor facilities.

You are partially correct in that for the USAAF, the use of bombers for patrol missions became a secondary role because in 1943, by agreement with the USN, the USN took over all anti-shipping/submarine patrol duties and USAAF Anti-Submarine Command (responsible for anti-shipping/submarine and maritime patrolling) was disbanded.

Secondary Role ... ? Disbanded isn't a secondary anything ... The AAF got the hell out of a business they weren't equipped or trained for ... Joint Chiefs and FDR thru em a bone to keep em quiet and they got a MUCH NEEDED B-29 factory.

Catalinas were the FRONT LINE SEARCH/ATTACK AIRCRAFT of choice thruout the entire war ... SO adaptable and good at what they did there was NO NEED to improve them.

 

[Ack-Ack]

Secondary Role ... ? Disbanded isn't a secondary anything ... The AAF got the hell out of a business they weren't equipped or trained for ... Joint Chiefs and FDR thru em a bone to keep em quiet and they got a MUCH NEEDED B-29 factory.

The USAAF wasn't equipped or trained for?  The USAAF was the primary force for anti-maritime bomber operations until the agreement in 1943 that saw the USAAF Anti-Submarine Command disbanded and their planes given to the USN.  As I noted, the B-24Ds the USAAF turned over to the USN were equipped with ASV radar, as well as some of the other bomber types given.

Again, as I pointed out, the PB4Y-1 (USN/USMC version of the B-24) was the primary anti-maritime/patrol aircraft for the USN and USMC and not the PBY.

Catalinas were the FRONT LINE SEARCH/ATTACK AIRCRAFT of choice thruout the entire war ... SO adaptable and good at what they did there was NO NEED to improve them.

Yes, it served on the front lines throughout the war but that doesn't make it the primary patrol or anti-maritime attack plane used by the USN. 

As you told someone else in another thread to educate themselves, I would suggest you do the same thing because you come off as very ignorant of the facts in each of your posts.

ack-ack

[HighTone]

A PBY-4 as any other flying boat, would be a fairly easy target, but so are the Ju-88 and both current Japanese bombers.

The Ki-67 is hardly an easy target 

[Brownien]

Well the Ju 88 and Japanese bombers have no belly guns (except one measly 30 cal under the ju88), 30 cal tail guns (on the ki67), along with 30 cal dorsal guns, and very little firepower towards the front! I remember dumping half my defensive ammo in my Ju88 on a mid model spitfire and finally took a wing off, all while he was flying straight and level off my 6 co alt! Although these bombers have weak defensive guns compared to a B17 or B24, or even the B26, they can still carry a payload that rivals their American counterparts! This is the same for the PBY which could carry 4000lbs of bombs and or depth charges. The PBY is in the same 'boat' as these other bombers, with the exception of the use of a fuselage float annnnd landing gear.

[F77]

Whys and wherefores regardless, I think it would be great to see flyingboats added.  The Short Sunderland certainly makes my shortlist (although the PBY will probably be the one if any added), the heavy bomber of the flying boat world, heavily armed, long range ASW and antishipping.  If they add the option I would certainly enjoy the challenges of taking off, landing and combat.  I would just wish that marine craft could make use of the lake in the DA.

[Karnak]

Ki-67 does not have a .30 cal on it.  It has a 12.7mm in the nose and each waist position, two 12.7mm in the tail and a 20mm in the dorsal.  It is vulnerable from below, but it is fast enough to make many fighters have trouble getting a good position.  Obviously speed demons treat it like any other bomber.

[Brownien]

I stand corrected, but as any Japanese plane, it was not highly armored, making it a very soft target for any fighter aircraft. If flown correctly, any aircraft can provide a difficult opponent.