Using the TBM-3 in Coral Sea setups

[gyrene81]

anyone consider asking for the TBF-1 - slower than tbm-3 at 257mph max, slightly less armor??? frames are very close and the TBF-1 was put into action just before the TBD was pulled from the front line. would be a better sub than the TBM-3 for early war pto setups.

[Arlo]

Hey, yaknow, if it'll just cease the whine-age then yeah, make a USN skin for the Kate and be done with it.

Specifications (TBD-1)

Performance

    Maximum speed: 206 mph (179 knots, 331 km/h) at 8,000 ft (2,400 m)
    Cruise speed: 128 mph (111 knots, 206 km/h)
    Range: 435 mi (700 km) (378 nmi, 700 km) with Mk XIII Torpedo, 716 mi (623 nmi, 1,152 km) with 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
    Service ceiling: 19,500 ft (5,945 m)
    Rate of climb: 720 ft/min (3.7 m/s)

Armament

    Guns:
        1 × forward-firing 0.30 in (7.62 mm) or 0.50 (12.7 mm) machine gun
        1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine gun in rear cockpit (later increased to two)
    Bombs:
        1 × Mark XIII torpedo or
        1 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb or
        2 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
        12 × 100 lb (45 kg) bombs

Specifications (Nakajima B5N2)

Performance

    Maximum speed: 378 km/h (204 kn, 235 mph)
    Range: 1,992 km (1,075 NM, 1,237 mi)
    Service ceiling: 8,260 m (27,100 ft)
    Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1,283 ft/min)
    Wing loading: 101 kg/m² (21 lb/ft²)
    Power/mass: 0.20 kW/kg (0.12 hp/lb)

Armament

    Guns: 1 × 7.7 mm Type 92 machine gun 'Ru' (Lewis) in rear dorsal position, fed by hand loaded drum magazines of 97 rounds. A number of B5N1s were equipped with 2 × 7.7 Type 97 machine guns in the wings.
    Bombs: 1 × 800 kg (1,760 lb) type 91 torpedo or 1x 800kg (1,760lb) bomb or 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 6 × 132 kg (293 lb) bombs[4]

Specifications (TBF Avenger)

Performance

    Maximum speed: 275 mph[24] (442 km/h)
    Range: 1,000 mi (1,610 km)
    Service ceiling: 30,100 ft (9,170 m)
    Rate of climb: 2,060 ft/min (10.5 m/s)
    Wing loading: 36.5 ft·lbf² (178 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.11 hp/lb (0.17 kW/kg)

Armament

    Guns:
        1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) nose-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun(on early models)
        2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
        1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) dorsal-mounted M2 Browning machine gun
        1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) ventral-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun
    Rockets:
        up to eight 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets, 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets or High Velocity Aerial Rockets
    Bombs:
        Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs or
        1 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) Mark 13 torpedo

And hopefully this will put to rest all future early PTO 'unfairness' debates.  

(p.s. I made this same request years ago   )

[gyrene81]

uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.

[perdue3]

Whatever you want to call it Arlo. It should be done regardless what anyone thinks about me or why I want it. The facts are here and on page 1. There is no good reason why it shouldn't be done. But the buck stops with the designers. So it is up to them and I patiently await CAP's response to my previous post.

[Arlo]

uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.

Not a mistake as much as that's what Wiki has when requesting the other.

[perdue3]

uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.

Whoa whoa. The TBM-1 and TBF-1 have very little difference (3 mph at sea level). The TBM-3 is in a class of its own.

You should know better than to not use wiki when looking for aircraft specs. So many variants, charts, altitudes, etc. Doesnt matter though, specs still favor my argument :/

[Arlo]

Whatever you want to call it Arlo. It should be done regardless what anyone thinks about me or why I want it. The facts are here and on page 1. There is no good reason why it shouldn't be done. But the buck stops with the designers. So it is up to them and I patiently await CAP's response to my previous post.

And, honestly (given the 'impact' the Avengers had on this event), there's no good reason
it should be done. I'm just saying that this particular protest is rather tiresome and
dated. I don't think what you're suggesting will end up causing the typical Aces High allied
player to hike skirt and make demands in turn. I throw my vote in alongside. Just do it
already.

[CAP1]

The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.

P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.

 devil....to be fair....if you're still doing runs, turn the ack down. we had it set to .1 for this setup/

[Arlo]

devil....to be fair....if you're still doing runs, turn the ack down. we had it set to .1 for this setup/

Anything above 500 ias isn't gonna be an efficient run, anyhow. 

[CAP1]

If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.

 it was turned way down.

[CAP1]

OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:

A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.

 show me the armor on a b17 please? there wasn't much.

[gyrene81]

Not a mistake as much as that's what Wiki has when requesting the other.

that's why wiki suxx as a good reference...

Whoa whoa. The TBM-1 and TBF-1 have very little difference (3 mph at sea level). The TBM-3 is in a class of its own.

You should know better than to not use wiki when looking for aircraft specs. So many variants, charts, altitudes, etc. Doesnt matter though, specs still favor my argument :/

where did you get TBM-1? i mentioned the TBF-1, which wasn't much faster than the B5N1 and would be a much easier/better substitute for several early pto setups. the TBF-1 was the successor to the TBD.

the only other thing that could be done (easily) is seriously limit the TBM-3 usage and increase the number of sbd's allowed.

[Arlo]

that's why wiki suxx as a good reference...

It's a quick reference and quite oft, good enough. I suppose I can dig out my Encyclopedia
of WWII Aircraft but, quite frankly, this thread really doesn't rate it. 

[perdue3]

Although most agree that the B5N has a more similar performance sheet, the TBM-3 will remain the substitution for the TBD-1 Devastator because it is United States Navy. CAP, am I correct in this statement?

[Arlo]

Cap, he's gonna hound you until you answer. He claims once he gets one, he'll be done. Give him one.
I don't care which way this fish flops anymore, myself.