SM-82 CANGARO AXIS TRANSPORT/BOMBER its time....again

[Arlo]

To the best of my knowledge no scenario has ever used transports in AH.  Transports are pretty much just an MA and AvA convention.

But they could ... and that adds an element to battle. 

[R 105]

Unlike all of those the SM.82 would require 100% original artwork for a multi-engine, multi-station aircraft. 

I don't see anybody here saying the SM.82 is inappropriate to add, simply that there are much better choices for the time investment from HTC.

I'd love to see the SM.79-II show up on the front page of the site.

Yes on the SM.79 

[Arlo]

[alpini13]

  as a matter of fact transports have been used in aces high scenario's or special events...the recent 4 frame BOB(battle of britain) scenario used pt boats and c-47 for BOTH sides as a means of air sea rescue..the sm-82 could be used as a transport and a bomber for main arena and scenario's........but most likely would be used primarily as a transport in the main arena and a bomber in scenarios....NOT both.....but it could................and with recent events(BOB) it shows it would be useful at both roles in scenario's

[gyrene81]

  as a matter of fact transports have been used in aces high scenario's or special events...the recent 4 frame BOB(battle of britain) scenario used pt boats and c-47 for BOTH sides as a means of air sea rescue..the sm-82 could be used as a transport and a bomber for main arena and scenario's........but most likely would be used primarily as a transport in the main arena and a bomber in scenarios....NOT both.....but it could................and with recent events(BOB) it shows it would be useful at both roles in scenario's

you forgot the storch. but the rescue idea in special events is something very new and the bob scenario was the first time it was tried. the use of the c47 for rescue was over the top but, understandable due to the lack of an allied equal to the storch. the possibility of the rescue idea being used in snapshots, this day in ww2, or fso is slim to none due to the amount of time involved.

as much as the sm-82 would be cool to have, the sm.79 would be the far better addition. nice try though...

would have been nice if htc had added the L2 or L3 grasshopper when they added the storch...

[Karnak]

would have been nice if htc had added the L2 or L3 grasshopper when they added the storch...

Or Lysander.

[alpini13]

how would the sm-79 be MORE useful than the sm-82...several have stated it would,but never state why.....any fso,scenario,or special event that could use the sm-79......could also use the storch. some events that incorporate air sea rescue,can use the sm-82..but not the sm-79. and in the BOB event,everybody loved the idea of airsea rescue to save your life and continue flying your first aircraft of choice,it was a success.  then we have the main arena,  the sm-82 would primarily be used as a transport there. in that arena,the map and winning depend on taking bases.and so opportunities would be everyday on every map for use of a transport...troops,vehicle supply or field supply. however, how would the sm-79 be in the main arena?  i think when it comes up against p-51's.p-47's,p-38.fw-190's,late bf-109's.yaks;la's.ki-84's.nik1's,c-205, and other aircraft.....it would be toast......and in many ways just BURNT toast.    its main asset of torpedoes can not be used on every map,and on the ones that it would...i believe due to its armament,speed,and size,would just be a flaming funeral pyre.  it would not perform well due to one giant factor. in real life it flew against light armed to unarmed ships and aircraft,and that is not the case in the main arena where it would run into many heavily armed aircraft.our cv would tear it appart.  but i am open minded. any new additions to the game will be welcomed.i was just hoping to combine multiroles in one aircraft that would perform better in game than it did in real life due to our game play.

[gyrene81]

if you're going to use the rescue angle for your argument, the only plane that actually makes sense is the storch and whatever the allied counterpart would be...other than a couple of flying boats, ever other plane used is a poor substitute.

theoretically we could use fighters for air rescue as well...if some pilot accounts are to be believed.

[alpini13]

not true...what makes sense is what we actually have used and works. we have used the c-47.we need a european axis  counterpart that will be comparable...the sm-82.  the storch will not carry troops to capture a base. we do not ned a dedicated air sea rescue aircraft....but i agree the storch should have this capability as well...and an allied counterpart should be added.  that brings back to the original post. the sm-82 will perform multi roles and is a historical accurate aircraft for both the luftwaffe and the regia aeronautica

[Karnak]

SM.82 would mean that the Italians never get a remotely usable bomber.

Is that sacrifice worth it for a transport, something where performance differences aren't all that important?

I maintain that it would be far, far better for the Axis to keep using the C-47 as their transport and to get the SM.79-II than it would be to get the SM.82 and lose out on getting an actual Italian bomber.


Also, the rescue ideas are dumb and a waste of time for both the MA and scenarios.  Not that the SM.82 could even perform that role.

[gyrene81]

Also, the rescue ideas are dumb and a waste of time for both the MA and scenarios. 

that i would disagree with in scenarios. i flew the last frame of the bob scenario and with the appropriate variations in the rules, it was very cool. staying stuck in the "good ole days" mentality is silly and makes things stale...

[alpini13]

the sm-82 has similiar performance to the c-47. the c-47 has performed the role of rescue in events,and has performed as transport in arenas, the sm-82 would do the same thing...for the axis side.  saying that since an aircraft already is in use that does a specific role and  so we should therefore NOT add another aircraft,isnt too smart. with that idea in place, there would not be the rivalry between say....bf-109 and spitfire, or a6m and f4u, etc etc etc, in other words, there should be a counterpart as there was in real life assumming there was one in real life..exceptions noted would be things like the AR-234, the allies didnt have a similiar aircraft in use.  in this case, there was an aircraft in use in real life and is comparable to the allied version that is in game. the added benefit of the aircraft as a bomber is just that...an added benefit.  as for the argument that...if we get a transport that does its job well and it also bombs...but not well..and therefore we wont get another italian bomber...well look at it this way, we  dont have an italian bomber in game....and if we dont get one...ever..... the game still goes on because there are OTHER axis bombers, remember the italians used many GERMAN aircraft in real life,this is reflected in the fact that in game many german aircraft have italain skins available.  and so if someone want to do an all axis mission...having a mixture of italian and german aircraft would be ok from a historical standpoint......for a fun standpoint,most mission are based on a good aircraft to fit the mission objectives and so we see many aircraft from several sides flying together and from a game standpoint thats ok too.  so in my wish.we get a troop transport with many other benefits...but they are not required extras,just extras to the transport role. in your idea, we get a lightly armed,light bomb load aircraft,that will have limited use that can have torpedoes...although the ju-88,he-111 and japanese aircraft already have this for the axis side already..so nothing added there,just another light bomber and still no axis transport.

[Karnak]

C-47 can do the same thing for the Axis side.  As you note, it has similar performance.  What cannot be done is for the SM.82 to simulate an SM.79.  Or are you suggesting that the He111 or Ju88 be subbed in for the SM.79-II so that Italy isn't stuck with a complete dog of a bomber?  Speaking from experience with the Spitfire that won't happen.  Every scenario involving Italian bombers would end up using the SM.82.


As to the idea of rescue, if you want to do it, fine, but asking for things added just for it is even sillier than sitting on a polygonal hill for an hour waiting for rescue.

In the MA pilot rescue would be either never used or, if there were rewards that encouraged it, bad for the game as a guy sitting on a hill isn't really participating anymore than a guy sitting in the tower.  Worse, the guy doing the rescue flight also isn't really participating and he has been pulled out of participation to go play taxi.  Beyond that, the C-47, SM.82 and Ju52 would never be used for such rescues as those would fall to the Storch, Grasshopper, Lysander or Po-2 on land or various flying boats like the Walrus at sea.

[alpini13]

first,nobody said anything about air sea rescue in the main arena...except YOU, second the c-47 could and does the job now when a mission is axis planes, and the fw-190d-9 performs similiar to the p-51d in some aspects....why would you want to get rid of the p-51d....i mean..that is YOUR argument...that since there is an allied plane that can do the job for the allies....then an axis plane that really did the job in real life shouldnt be added...that works both ways. either way..the axis still need a transport.......show me a unit in the luftwaffe or the italian airforces(1940-43 or 1943-45 on axis side) that the unit used and flew the c-47 as  a transport.....which you cant because this is your fantasy.  and third. the italians cant get stuck with a bomber unless  a bomber is added for them......with a 2200lb bomb load the sm-79 is no great italian bomber....and remember the sm-79 is YOUR sugestion...which by the way...lol...does not solve the lack of a transport for the axis.  mine does

[Karnak]

Don't put words in my mouth.

The subtle performance differences between fighters are very important to fights between each other.

The different capabilities of bombers are important to their likelihood of success and to their overall utility.

The different capabilities of transports are notable but not that significant to their role.


Due to how fighters are used the differences between their capabilities and performances are maximized hence it is much more important to the game to model the different fighters.  Subbing fighters is very undesirable. A bit less important, but still important, the differences between bombers.  Some bombers can sub for other bombers pretty well, but in general subbing is not good.  Due to how transports are used their performance and capability differences are minimized rather than maximized.  Subbing transports can be done with minimal negative effect.

Due to this is it much more important to get the SM.79-II or Z.1007 as a bomber than it is to get the SM.82 as a transport as it is much more the bomber role in which performance and capabilities affect the game.

If you want to talk about the SM.82 in addition to the SM.79-II/Z.1007, fine, but it is certainly not a replacement for a true bomber and should not come first.  The SM.82's true competition is the Ju52.