Using the TBM-3 in Coral Sea setups

[perdue3]

For years, we have used the TBM-3 in Early War Pacific, Mid War Pacific, and Late War Pacific setups. Every Early War setup, the Axis finds itself struggling to kill juicy, low torpedo bombers. Until recently, I have just accepted the fact. Reading the tail end of another thread this forum, convinced me to finally make this post.

In Coral Sea setups specifically, we use the following plane set:

Allied = F4F, SBD, TBM-3

Axis = A6M2, D3A, B5N2

The Axis plane set is fantastic in my opinion. The F4F with the 4 gun pack and SBD-3 is fine also. However, the TBM-3 is way over powered for the opposing Japanese plane set. Not only is it over powered but it is very inaccurate. I understand that we do not have every plane in WW2 at our disposal and the CM's do the best they can to replicate the historical aerial campaign. Sometimes adjustments have to be made for playability. I.E. Frame 2's SBD's flying defense and Frame 3's D3A's doing the same. These are adjustments that the CiC made for strategic reasons while reluctantly scrapping accuracy. Using level bombers to destroy CV groups is another example. This happens, sadly.

I am not screaming conspiracy nor am I complaining about fairness. I am screaming for accuracy. With accuracy, the fairness falls into place. As it is now, the Early War Pacific setup that I posted above heavily favors the Allies in plane vs. plane situation. It is quite hard to kill TBM-3's in an A6M2. It is very very easy to kill a Kate in an F4F.

In this particular situation we simulated the Battle of the Coral Sea. The USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown had the following aircraft aboard (NOTICE: I did not include the Port Moresby Forces considering they were not included in this setup):

Yorktown: VF-42 (F4F Wildcat), VB-5 (SBD Dauntless), VS-5 (SBD Dauntless), VT-5 (TBD Devastator)

Lexington: VF-2 (F4F Wildcat), VB-2 (SBD Dauntless), VS-2 (SBD Dauntless), VT-2 (TBD Devastator)

So, in the Battle of the Coral Sea the USN used TBD Devastators. We do not have this aircraft in AH2. The designers always choose to substitute the TBD with the TBM-3. I would think that the substitution protocol would be to choose the closest aircraft (performance) to the one you are substituting for. The B5N's performance and payload is much more similar to the TBD-1 than the TBM-3 is. I have gathered a bit of information on the B5N2, the TBD, and the TBM-3 (NOTICE: I did not include the optional bombs for all 3 torpedo bombers due to this specific case).

                                      TBD-1                           TBM-3                                    B5N
                                           
Max Speed:                     206mph                          262mph                                 235mph
Climb Rate:                     720ft/min                       1,540ft/min                            1,283ft/min
Range:                             435mi                             985mi                                 1,237mi
Armament:                .030 nose, .030 tail        2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral             7.7mm tail
Ordnance:                       2,000lb torp                   2,000lb torp                          1,706lb torp


As you can clearly see, the TBM-3 is a world ahead of the TBD Devastator. It is quite an impressive upgrade from the TBD. The B5N is still a bit superior considering performance. The TBD is what the Allies should have, instead they have the TBM-3. Now that you have seen the performance differences allow me to add more vegetables to the soup.

The TBM-3 is a product of Grumman's TBF design. The original TBF-1 Avenger was shipped to the Pacific in June of 1942 to VT-8. Only six made it to Midway in time to participate in the Battle of Midway. The rest were at Pearl. So one could make an argument that even in Midway setups there should be a VERY small number of them in the set up. Keep in mind we use the TBM-3 NOT the TBF-1.

The kicker: The TBM-3 was not in production until mid-1944 and the first TBM-3's shipped were sent in August, 1944 to the Atlantic Fleets (Escort Carriers). The first TBM-3 did not see action in the Pacific until November, 1944. So why are they in the Coral Sea in May, 1942?

So, not only do we have a case where a far superior plane is being used as a substitution, this plane also happens to be a very late war design as well.

We would gain a lot of accuracy if we substituted the TBD-1 Devastator with the B5N2 "Kate." The aircraft performance is much more similar than the TBD-1 is to the TBM-3. Not to mention, the B5N is an upgrade from the TBD-1 anyway. Obviously the ideal situation would be a TBD-1. That is not what I am after. What I am after is accuracy. The balance falls into place in this case if accuracy is given. The Axis would be able to adequately hunt the Kate as the F4F's do now and the event as a whole would be more balanced.

In conclusion, why is the TBM-3 the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 Devastator? Especially since we have a torpedo bomber that is abundantly closer in performance to the TBD-1 Devastator in the B5N "Kate."

Thank you for reading and your opinions. <S>


Sources:

Lundstrom, John B. (2005 (New edition)). The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Drendel, Lou. U.S. Navy Carrier Bombers of World War II. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc., 1987.

Jackson, B.R. and Thomas E. Doll. Supplement to Grumman TBF/TBM "Avenger". Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1970.

Francillon, René J. Imperial Japanese Navy Bombers of World War Two. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Hylton Lacy Publishers Ltd., 1969.

[Butcher]

TBD Devastator had armor, the Kate didn't - while I agree adding the Devastator would be a much factor, it ultimately won't decide any future FSOs or Midway - again we are playing a simulation based on actual events.
If you want accuracy, maybe the Axis should get the top 30 handpicked pilots before every FSO while the Americans have an average bunch of pilots - Then again you being a Luftwaffe pilot - would not like the events around 1944+ and beyond while the allies get all the aces.

Problem with this is everyone will not be happy with fairness. What if we stuck you with the "newbies" of the FSO event? Why not? its historically accurate!

FSO is about playability and fun - its no easy task to balance fairness with historical accuracy, however I have not seen one mention anywhere that FSO is based entire on realism or historical accuracy. Its based on an event in which using data from PREVIOUS fso events, makes balancing easier each time except when numbers different then things get screwy. For example one of the previous Scenarios I flew in, only had 5 Bomber pilots for the allies, in which they faced 4 Me-262s - even with two lives - they were no match for the 262s in which salute to them, nobody whined since once the 262 was shot down, it was gone.
And it was a blood bath, I don't recall many Bombers making it home - problem was Lack of attendance caused a few of the bomber pilots not to show up, leading to shortage of numbers.

I remember while back someone showing the winners of FSO and it seemed it was almost split in half when I thought luftwaffe lost just about every one of them. Clearly I was wrong.

Comparing the TBM to the Devastator and Devastator to the Kate is apples to oranges, while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign, half the scenarios are not setup 100% historically period.

[perdue3]

TBD Devastator had armor, the Kate didn't - while I agree adding the Devastator would be a much factor, it ultimately won't decide any future FSOs or Midway - again we are playing a simulation based on actual events.
If you want accuracy, maybe the Axis should get the top 30 handpicked pilots before every FSO while the Americans have an average bunch of pilots - Then again you being a Luftwaffe pilot - would not like the events around 1944+ and beyond while the allies get all the aces.

Problem with this is everyone will not be happy with fairness. What if we stuck you with the "newbies" of the FSO event? Why not? its historically accurate!

FSO is about playability and fun - its no easy task to balance fairness with historical accuracy, however I have not seen one mention anywhere that FSO is based entire on realism or historical accuracy. Its based on an event in which using data from PREVIOUS fso events, makes balancing easier each time except when numbers different then things get screwy. For example one of the previous Scenarios I flew in, only had 5 Bomber pilots for the allies, in which they faced 4 Me-262s - even with two lives - they were no match for the 262s in which salute to them, nobody whined since once the 262 was shot down, it was gone.
And it was a blood bath, I don't recall many Bombers making it home - problem was Lack of attendance caused a few of the bomber pilots not to show up, leading to shortage of numbers.

I remember while back someone showing the winners of FSO and it seemed it was almost split in half when I thought luftwaffe lost just about every one of them. Clearly I was wrong.

Comparing the TBM to the Devastator and Devastator to the Kate is apples to oranges, while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign, half the scenarios are not setup 100% historically period.

It is like substituting the 109F-2 with a 109K-4. It shouldn't happen, that is my point. I agree with 96% of what you just said. The "aces" thing is stretching but I see your point. I dont want 100% accuracy for it is impossible to play. Fun is thrown away, however this seems like a pretty easy fix and I dont really see a good defense for it. Yours is interesting, but not good enough to counter my argument.

"while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign"

[gyrene81]

sounds more like a lack of proper cic resource implementation (flashbacks of inept military officers) than specs on included aircraft. the a6m2 is more than fast enough to catch the tbm3, if someone was dumb enough to put d3a's in as cap over cv groups, then the axis got screwed by ineptitude.

[perdue3]

the a6m2 is more than fast enough to catch the tbm3

According to the Aces High performance charts, at sea level (most likely altitude to find TBM-3's) the A6M2 is able to reach a speed of 270mph. The TBM-3 at seal level has the ability to reach 265 mph. The A6M2 is faster, agreed. However, in the Battle of the Coral Sea, A6M2's had no problem killing the TBD Devastator. We have a very hard time killing the TBM-3 on the deck. We can catch them but it takes a long time to catch them due to the similarities in top speed at sea level. By the time the TBM-3 becomes able to be in a Pacific Set up, the Axis have Ki-84's and Ki-61's which are more than capable of catching/killing TBM-3's.

But let us say that we can easily catch TBM-3's in A6M2's. How about killing them? All of that armor with very little to work with on our end.

Again, decent attempt a counter but not quite there yet. It was a valiant effort nonetheless and you bring out a good point that the A6M2 is faster. However, the speed gap is not wide enough to make it relatively conceivable to adequately kill TBM-3's.

[Triton28]

On paper this looks horrible.  In actual practice Fester and kappa had little issue chasing down and shredding our flight of 5 TBM's in Frame 1.  In other words, I think this is much ado about nothing.  I realize Fester and kappa are outstanding pilots, but I really don't think they are they only guys who could have done this.  The difference in speed only meant they had to travel half a sector farther to catch us.  

This is just my opinion, but I'd rather not see Allied birds flying as Axis or vice versa for the sole purpose of making some numbers match up better.  If the difference is truly that great, just don't run that setup.      

[perdue3]

If I dive on you I will be faster than you for 8 miles until I burn up my energy raking you with ammo and watching you fly through it. Once we even up the energy, the TBM-3 becomes a very tricky fish to catch. Keep in mind, the A6M is maneuvering for shots whilst the TBM-3 remains level with very little movement.

Fester and kappa are great shots and were able to make quick work of you. Most people are not as good as those two. So the TBM-3 will eventually begin to walk away and force the A6M to fly straight and level to get up to the TBM-3's speed.

Axis being flown as Allies. It is is paint job away from being Allied. I find that counter to be the poorest I have read thus far. I find that having a more similar aircraft to that which flew in the historical campaign we are simulating to be more important than what nationality it is (color).

Another good attempt at a valid excuse for the TBM-3 to be the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 but just not quite good enough. I certainly appreciate everyone's input.

[Arlo]

According to the Aces High performance charts, at sea level (most likely altitude to find TBM-3's) the A6M2 is able to reach a speed of 270mph. The TBM-3 at seal level has the ability to reach 265 mph. The A6M2 is faster, agreed. However, in the Battle of the Coral Sea, A6M2's had no problem killing the TBD Devastator. We have a very hard time killing the TBM-3 on the deck. We can catch them but it takes a long time to catch them due to the similarities in top speed at sea level. By the time the TBM-3 becomes able to be in a Pacific Set up, the Axis have Ki-84's and Ki-61's which are more than capable of catching/killing TBM-3's.

But let us say that we can easily catch TBM-3's in A6M2's. How about killing them? All of that armor with very little to work with on our end.

Again, decent attempt a counter but not quite there yet. It was a valiant effort nonetheless and you bring out a good point that the A6M2 is faster. However, the speed gap is not wide enough to make it relatively conceivable to adequately kill TBM-3's.

Since you weren't there, let me refer you to the logs:

Frame 1

Brownien
00:53:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by ZE.

Shadow
00:50:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by PCHute.
00:53:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Willis.

Tazz69
00:53:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.

Fester
00:30:34 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by mbailey.
00:31:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Triton28.
00:31:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cobra89.
00:40:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cactus.

kappa
00:22:19 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by FiLtH.
00:35:21 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Trap78.

10 TBMs splashed frame 1

Frame 2

FBKack
00:38:31 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.

Gremlin
00:30:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by goalie72.

PROJOEe
00:40:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RynoRush.

49Baller
00:33:05 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by LoedeCH.

49Boob
00:31:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Drill.
00:32:11 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68JR.

49Carl10
00:33:14 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Falcon.

49Dingo
00:32:30 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RedBrd.
00:33:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Raptor.

jarbo
00:27:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68hobo.
00:28:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68boxcar.

vSixO
00:28:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68RacrX.
00:29:32 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by luckie.

CRAZYiVN
00:37:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Pollux.

Hamhawk
00:39:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by south52.

JW
00:40:49 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.

Ra
00:37:37 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Striker1.

rayace1
00:40:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie.

SDpops57
00:37:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by hyzer.

waystin2
00:37:57 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Taser.

Sukov
01:02:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.

neodad
00:29:55 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Wooley.
00:33:24 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by JazzCH.

22 TBMs splashed frame 2

Frame 3

Dantoo
23:04:16 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DrDigr1.
23:08:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
23:12:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Vlkyrie1.

skewer
23:12:59 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by EagleCH.
23:13:06 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by TracerX.

Ordy
23:04:35 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKTSgt.

JETSOM
22:59:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie.
23:00:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.

BudGray
23:12:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Golfer.

qbert
23:05:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by zzZERO.

BigD
23:13:18 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by LoedeCH.

Fish42
23:12:22 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Nefari.
23:13:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bern1.

LawnDart
23:03:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wulf149.

cuda
23:04:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKGreyga.

Devil5O5 (D3A1)
23:00:13 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by south52.

DAKone
23:04:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKBunk.
23:04:17 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKSofty.

HighTone
23:00:01 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Mason.

shifty
23:00:31 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by hyzer.

TxCoyote
23:00:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.
23:00:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Branch37.

442w30
23:12:27 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DamnName.

wmills
23:12:13 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bigcat.

24 TBMs splashed frame 3

You can check my numbers here:

http://www.ahevents.org/event-logs.html

You're welcome.

[USAFCAPcTSgt]

Any future Coral Sea setup for FSO should be strictly dive bomber and torpedo plane only.  No fighters.

Given that the players have become so expert in the the Wildcats and Zekes, they in fact recreate any Turkey Shoot against the the other aircraft.  This becomes a demoralizing situation to any player in the dive bomber or torpedo plane.  Resulting in low turnouts for those aircraft further increasing lopsided results.

The setup should have 3 CV groups as a single target within a 4 sector grid.  Equal to both sides.  40/60 split between Allied and Axis.  Close proximity to each other to encourage rearm and second strikes.  CM Objectives state Offense Only.  The true Objective is to see which side sinks the most and the fastest.

This forces a shift in tactical planning and strategic maneuvering.  There will be dogfights between SBD and TBM vs D3A1 and B5N2 with Axis having more numbers.

[Arlo]

Any future Coral Sea setup for FSO should be strictly dive bomber and torpedo plane only.  No fighters.

Given that the players have become so expert in the the Wildcats and Zekes, they in fact recreate any Turkey Shoot against the the other aircraft.  This becomes a demoralizing situation to any player in the dive bomber or torpedo plane.  Resulting in low turnouts for those aircraft further increasing lopsided results.

The setup should have 3 CV groups as a single target within a 4 sector grid.  Equal to both sides.  40/60 split between Allied and Axis.  Close proximity to each other to encourage rearm and second strikes.  CM Objectives state Offense Only.  The true Objective is to see which side sinks the most and the fastest.

This forces a shift in tactical planning and strategic maneuvering.  There will be dogfights between SBD and TBM vs D3A1 and B5N2 with Axis having more numbers.

Mmmmmnot thinking this is a good idea - especially if you're concerned about turnout.

[Shifty]

Mmmmmnot thinking this is a good idea - especially if you're concerned about turnout.

Or we could have the Battle of Coral Sea with no bombers. Then everybody's happy!       

[CAP1]

For years, we have used the TBM-3 in Early War Pacific, Mid War Pacific, and Late War Pacific setups. Every Early War setup, the Axis finds itself struggling to kill juicy, low torpedo bombers. Until recently, I have just accepted the fact. Reading the tail end of another thread this forum, convinced me to finally make this post.

In Coral Sea setups specifically, we use the following plane set:

Allied = F4F, SBD, TBM-3

Axis = A6M2, D3A, B5N2

The Axis plane set is fantastic in my opinion. The F4F with the 4 gun pack and SBD-3 is fine also. However, the TBM-3 is way over powered for the opposing Japanese plane set. Not only is it over powered but it is very inaccurate. I understand that we do not have every plane in WW2 at our disposal and the CM's do the best they can to replicate the historical aerial campaign. Sometimes adjustments have to be made for playability. I.E. Frame 2's SBD's flying defense and Frame 3's D3A's doing the same. These are adjustments that the CiC made for strategic reasons while reluctantly scrapping accuracy. Using level bombers to destroy CV groups is another example. This happens, sadly.

I am not screaming conspiracy nor am I complaining about fairness. I am screaming for accuracy. With accuracy, the fairness falls into place. As it is now, the Early War Pacific setup that I posted above heavily favors the Allies in plane vs. plane situation. It is quite hard to kill TBM-3's in an A6M2. It is very very easy to kill a Kate in an F4F.

In this particular situation we simulated the Battle of the Coral Sea. The USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown had the following aircraft aboard (NOTICE: I did not include the Port Moresby Forces considering they were not included in this setup):

Yorktown: VF-42 (F4F Wildcat), VB-5 (SBD Dauntless), VS-5 (SBD Dauntless), VT-5 (TBD Devastator)

Lexington: VF-2 (F4F Wildcat), VB-2 (SBD Dauntless), VS-2 (SBD Dauntless), VT-2 (TBD Devastator)

So, in the Battle of the Coral Sea the USN used TBD Devastators. We do not have this aircraft in AH2. The designers always choose to substitute the TBD with the TBM-3. I would think that the substitution protocol would be to choose the closest aircraft (performance) to the one you are substituting for. The B5N's performance and payload is much more similar to the TBD-1 than the TBM-3 is. I have gathered a bit of information on the B5N2, the TBD, and the TBM-3 (NOTICE: I did not include the optional bombs for all 3 torpedo bombers due to this specific case).

                                      TBD-1                           TBM-3                                    B5N
                                           
Max Speed:                     206mph                          262mph                                 235mph
Climb Rate:                     720ft/min                       1,540ft/min                            1,283ft/min
Range:                             435mi                             985mi                                 1,237mi
Armament:                .030 nose, .030 tail        2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral             7.7mm tail
Ordnance:                       2,000lb torp                   2,000lb torp                          1,706lb torp


As you can clearly see, the TBM-3 is a world ahead of the TBD Devastator. It is quite an impressive upgrade from the TBD. The B5N is still a bit superior considering performance. The TBD is what the Allies should have, instead they have the TBM-3. Now that you have seen the performance differences allow me to add more vegetables to the soup.

The TBM-3 is a product of Grumman's TBF design. The original TBF-1 Avenger was shipped to the Pacific in June of 1942 to VT-8. Only six made it to Midway in time to participate in the Battle of Midway. The rest were at Pearl. So one could make an argument that even in Midway setups there should be a VERY small number of them in the set up. Keep in mind we use the TBM-3 NOT the TBF-1.

The kicker: The TBM-3 was not in production until mid-1944 and the first TBM-3's shipped were sent in August, 1944 to the Atlantic Fleets (Escort Carriers). The first TBM-3 did not see action in the Pacific until November, 1944. So why are they in the Coral Sea in May, 1942?

So, not only do we have a case where a far superior plane is being used as a substitution, this plane also happens to be a very late war design as well.

We would gain a lot of accuracy if we substituted the TBD-1 Devastator with the B5N2 "Kate." The aircraft performance is much more similar than the TBD-1 is to the TBM-3. Not to mention, the B5N is an upgrade from the TBD-1 anyway. Obviously the ideal situation would be a TBD-1. That is not what I am after. What I am after is accuracy. The balance falls into place in this case if accuracy is given. The Axis would be able to adequately hunt the Kate as the F4F's do now and the event as a whole would be more balanced.

In conclusion, why is the TBM-3 the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 Devastator? Especially since we have a torpedo bomber that is abundantly closer in performance to the TBD-1 Devastator in the B5N "Kate."

Thank you for reading and your opinions. <S>


Sources:

Lundstrom, John B. (2005 (New edition)). The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Drendel, Lou. U.S. Navy Carrier Bombers of World War II. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc., 1987.

Jackson, B.R. and Thomas E. Doll. Supplement to Grumman TBF/TBM "Avenger". Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1970.

Francillon, René J. Imperial Japanese Navy Bombers of World War Two. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Hylton Lacy Publishers Ltd., 1969.

 i'm reading this as i finish my end of day paperwork(what little i have to do today). i'll read it along with the replies closer when i get home tonight.

 i had thought of using the b5n, but that in my geeky mind would destroy the entire event for those flying it on the allied side. i mean......you're supposed to be flying a USN torpedo bomber, you do a scan, looking for enemies, and virtually every time you look out, you see that meatball on your wings. that in my mind cannot happen.

 if i had a way i could "nerf" the performance of the tbm-3 a little, i'd have done that.

 anyway.....i'll re-read tonight.

[perdue3]

i'm reading this as i finish my end of day paperwork(what little i have to do today). i'll read it along with the replies closer when i get home tonight.

 i had thought of using the b5n, but that in my geeky mind would destroy the entire event for those flying it on the allied side. i mean......you're supposed to be flying a USN torpedo bomber, you do a scan, looking for enemies, and virtually every time you look out, you see that meatball on your wings. that in my mind cannot happen.

 if i had a way i could "nerf" the performance of the tbm-3 a little, i'd have done that.

 anyway.....i'll re-read tonight.

That's all I wanted to know. I wanted to know why the TBM-3 was chosen. The answer is: Because it is American. We have no Yak-1 so you'd sub with a Yak-9 before you would a P-40N only because it has red stars. Thank you CAP. Discussion over.

[Arlo]

Or we could have the Battle of Coral Sea with no bombers. Then everybody's happy!       

 

[Butcher]

That's all I wanted to know. I wanted to know why the TBM-3 was chosen. The answer is: Because it is American. We have no Yak-1 so you'd sub with a Yak-9 before you would a P-40N only because it has red stars. Thank you CAP. Discussion over.

I think its more along the lines of its the closest plane we have that carries a torpedo in the pacific theater that resembles the Devastator, I'd like to see what CAP says on this.

The BF-110C gets to replace the Ki-45 (in which I think is overkill in terms of performance and gun package)
The Ki-61 also replaces something else, oh and the Ki-43 was always flown as the A6m5 until we finally got the Ki-43 which is a nice trade since the A6m5 was overkill vs early war rides.
Ki-67 replaces.... G3m? Ki-48 sally? Not sure on this one since the Ki-67 was a late war only plane.

From the Logs, it seems the TBMs got chewed up pretty good, don't sound like much of a performance difference being its a late war ride, compared to some other aircrafts that get subbed in for like above.
If anything, have the TBM's fly at cruise speed and all you got is a beefed up Devastator with 50 cals replacing the 30 cals- they are still dead meat to a zero.