Boulton Paul Defiant

[Baggy]

Beaufighter, Whirlwind, Firefly.

The RAF Museum Defiant was restored over a number of years and was rolled out last year by MAPS at Rochester and very nice it looks too:

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2012-10-01/defiant-restored/

A Catalina flow over my house last year - I heard it coming for 5 minutes, watched it go over for 10 and listened to it going for another 5. Lovely looking aircraft and flipping slow. As has been stated before, it doesn't do anything that another A/C here can't do better except it's amphibious and we haven't got that facility... yet!

[bozon]

There is a strong case for Beaufighter, it was multi-role, nightfighter and anti-shipping.

There are nearly 6000 strong cases for adding the Beaufighter.
Then multiply by the number of theaters it participated in.
Then multiply by the number of roles it was used in.
Then multiply by the number of airforces it served in.
and your calculator will explode.

OK it will not, but my abacus fell apart.

[No9Squadron]

You make me almost want to give up on Halifax, Wellington and Catalina and crusade entirely for Beaufighter.

The fact I live in Bristol too, is a clincher.

Don't get me wrong, would love to see Defiants, but I can see it's a very long queue. I like this sort of request though, it's better than the requests which would turn this into the Korean War.

[Karnak]

Wellington is needed. Boston is too fast to really use as the main British bomber in early war settings, actually being faster than the Bf109E-4 down low. Wellington was also used in CBI.

Halifax is so similar in capability to the Lanc, perhaps a bit less durable, that it is hard to justify its addition any time soon.  Catalina doesn't have a role in the game right now, and there are better flying boats for the game if one was to be added.

In short, yes to the Beaufighter and Wellington and no to the Defiant,  Catalina and Halifax at this time.

[No9Squadron]

I said Catalina because it was like the Beau, used by everyone and different roles, I can't think of a more ubiquitous flying boat which was used both sides of the Atlantic, The Pacific, the Med and the Arctic.

[Karnak]

I said Catalina because it was like the Beau, used by everyone and different roles, I can't think of a more ubiquitous flying boat which was used both sides of the Atlantic, The Pacific, the Med and the Arctic.

Understood,  but that doesn't help it if it has no role in scenarios (it doesn't and nobody has suggested a viable one) and is too weak and slow to get MA use.

[Saxman]

Understood,  but that doesn't help it if it has no role in scenarios (it doesn't and nobody has suggested a viable one) and is too weak and slow to get MA use.

FSO often had "recon" missions in the past, which would be exactly the sort of thing for the PBY. I once proposed a spin on the Midway FSO where one side didn't get to attack the enemy's fleets unless a recon mission successfully spotted them. It was something like:

Frame 1 - No CVs are targets. IJN attacks Midway, US defends. IJN and US send patrols to locate enemy fleets (PBYs and solo B-17s for the US, B6Ns in lieu of cruiser/battleship-launched float planes for the IJN).
Frame 2 - Any TGs spotted in Frame 1 are added to list of targets. Otherwise frame proceeds as Frame 1.
Frame 3 - As in Frame 2, only no more patrol flights.

Oh, and even if they're comparatively weak, Black Cat PBYs would still be a hoot in the Mains. I've also suggested that the PBY could also make enemy TGs appear on the map in the mains for X amount of time after contact is made. The longer the PBY is able to shadow the boat, the longer the map icon is visible.

[Skyguns MKII]

  It's like the TB-3.  I would like to see it added as well, but FAR down the line.  Another plane that also was in squadron strength with enough built.

didnt that thing carry fighters under its wings that could be dropped to enter battle?

[Ack-Ack]

didnt that thing carry fighters under its wings that could be dropped to enter battle?

It was one of the configurations for the TB-3.


The TB-3 could also carry them on top of the wings.


Or both under and on top of the wings and under the fuselage.


It could even carry a tank into battle.


ack-ack

[Volron]

didnt that thing carry fighters under its wings that could be dropped to enter battle?

Yes it did, but I don't want to add it for that option, which was used how many times???  TB-3 has the numbers and operational status to be added however, despite the fact that they were no longer in production.  But there are far more planes WELL ahead of her that SHOULD be added.  The Defiant is in the same boat, though we'll likely see the Defiant before the TB-3.

FSO often had "recon" missions in the past, which would be exactly the sort of thing for the PBY. I once proposed a spin on the Midway FSO where one side didn't get to attack the enemy's fleets unless a recon mission successfully spotted them. It was something like:

Frame 1 - No CVs are targets. IJN attacks Midway, US defends. IJN and US send patrols to locate enemy fleets (PBYs and solo B-17s for the US, B6Ns in lieu of cruiser/battleship-launched float planes for the IJN).
Frame 2 - Any TGs spotted in Frame 1 are added to list of targets. Otherwise frame proceeds as Frame 1.
Frame 3 - As in Frame 2, only no more patrol flights.

Oh, and even if they're comparatively weak, Black Cat PBYs would still be a hoot in the Mains. I've also suggested that the PBY could also make enemy TGs appear on the map in the mains for X amount of time after contact is made. The longer the PBY is able to shadow the boat, the longer the map icon is visible.

Oh how I would LOVE to be one of those scouts.

[Skyguns MKII]

It was one of the configurations for the TB-3.
(Image removed from quote.)

The TB-3 could also carry them on top of the wings.
(Image removed from quote.)

Or both under and on top of the wings and under the fuselage.
(Image removed from quote.)

It could even carry a tank into battle.
(Image removed from quote.)

ack-ack

want...

[Krusty]

Karnak, you say the Halifax is too similar to the Lancaster, but I disagree... one one point. It was a much earlier and more obsolete design. Should we get the earlier version that was in service when the war broke out, it would have wooden fixed-pitch props as well as very under-powered engines. The B.II would plug a few holes in the early planeset, IMO. The B.III was much more comparable to the Lancaster, and flew at the same time with roughly the same payload and performance, but the B.II would be useful for early setups.

Though, the Wellington would also do this and do it better for AH's purposes.

[Karnak]

I think you have the Halifax confused with something else.  The Halifax was not in service when the war started.  It predates the Lancaster, but in general I think the Lancaster can sub for it if desired.  That said, the Wellington would be much more representative of the early Bomber Command efforts.

[Krusty]

As far as I recall it was in service in numbers in 1940. And by in-service I'm pretty sure it was running bombing raids (not just training, testing, etc). The most numerous being the B.III in 1943, the B.I and B.II (second most numerous) were serving long before that. These versions had the triangular fin and had some fin-stall issues because of it.

1900 B.IIs were made and almost 2100 B.IIIs, so it was quite numerous.

[matt]

It was one of the configurations for the TB-3.
(Image removed from quote.)

The TB-3 could also carry them on top of the wings.
(Image removed from quote.)

Or both under and on top of the wings and under the fuselage.
(Image removed from quote.)

It could even carry a tank into battle.
(Image removed from quote.)

ack-ack

Wow kill that bomber with 5 planes attached u get 6 kill