PBY

[Vraciu]

Picking up downed pilots would be so awesome. 

Also having observers to call out locations of enemy task forces at long range. 

[tuba515]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShWtHJDVCb0

[bozon]

PBY is on of those planes whose actual contribution to (winning) the war far  exceeds the credit they got for it.

However, I doubt it would contribute much to arena gameplay and its use in scenarios is limited - both in the number of scenarios (naval action is not common), and the number of PBYs that will participate.

I'd love to have it, but it is not the best choice for the next plane to add.

[pangea]

PBY is on of those planes whose actual contribution to (winning) the war far  exceeds the credit they got for it.

However, I doubt it would contribute much to arena gameplay and its use in scenarios is limited - both in the number of scenarios (naval action is not common), and the number of PBYs that will participate.

I'd love to have it, but it is not the best choice for the next plane to add.

This...

[mutha]

OK, here's a totally nuts, half-baked idea, so it should fit in perfectly on these boards :-)

What if the PBY were indeed flyable, but it also flew as a bots?  The bots would do two things: reveal enemy location in a sector (like dar), and automatically land to rescue downed flyers.

The bot PBYs can be shot down, which causes loss of enemy location (like taking out dar). People would fly cover for the bot PBYs.

Mutha

[BowHTR]

OK, here's a totally nuts, half-baked idea, so it should fit in perfectly on these boards :-)

What if the PBY were indeed flyable, but it also flew as a bots?  The bots would do two things: reveal enemy location in a sector (like dar), and automatically land to rescue downed flyers.

The bot PBYs can be shot down, which causes loss of enemy location (like taking out dar). People would fly cover for the bot PBYs.

Mutha

-1. Making this more complicated than what it is.

[mutha]

-1. Making this more complicated than what it is.

Nobody resists change better than you, bow! 

-Mutha

[Vraciu]

OK, here's a totally nuts, half-baked idea, so it should fit in perfectly on these boards :-)

What if the PBY were indeed flyable, but it also flew as a bots?  The bots would do two things: reveal enemy location in a sector (like dar), and automatically land to rescue downed flyers.

The bot PBYs can be shot down, which causes loss of enemy location (like taking out dar). People would fly cover for the bot PBYs.

Mutha

That would be fun!

I think PBYs would be good for finding CVs.   Give them extended range "eyes" so we can find the enemy fleet and sink them like we did at MIDWAY!   

[BowHTR]

Nobody resists change better than you, bow! 

-Mutha

I'm all for change. However, I'm not for something that will make it more complicated for new people, and I'm not for AI in the Main Arena.

[mutha]

That would be fun!

I think PBYs would be good for finding CVs.   Give them extended range "eyes" so we can find the enemy fleet and sink them like we did at MIDWAY!   

STRAWBERRY 5!

-Mutha

[Bruv119]

+1  whilst there is an urgent need for an RAF jet fighter i would like to see the pby in and around ports.   

special ability to mark nme cv on map when in  visual range of the ship.

[Greebo]

Why do we need to make CVs easier to spot? Its not as though they last long after they begin to get used. TBH I can't see that many players would sit bobbing around in the ocean waiting for someone to pick them up and then wait yet more time while their rescuer's plane returns to base before getting to fly again. Its the sort of thing that would get used a few times for its novelty and then forgotten about.

The only real advantage a flying boat would have over a land plane in the MA would be if it were given the ability to launch from ports, coastal V bases, or for the A6M2-N from fleets after the CV is down. Given the constricted airspace of the MA though, its still hard to see why anyone would choose one over a better performing land or carrier-based alternative. The exception might be the H8K Emily which had both respectable performance and a good defensive armament compared to many land based bombers.

[Vraciu]

STRAWBERRY 5!

-Mutha

Dee dee dee dot dot dee dee dee dot dee!

"Lt. Addy!  They're behind us. I can see twoooooo carriers and a battleship."

"SEND IT!"

[mutha]

Why do we need to make CVs easier to spot? Its not as though they last long after they begin to get used. TBH I can't see that many players would sit bobbing around in the ocean waiting for someone to pick them up and then wait yet more time while their rescuer's plane returns to base before getting to fly again. Its the sort of thing that would get used a few times for its novelty and then forgotten about.

The only real advantage a flying boat would have over a land plane in the MA would be if it were given the ability to launch from ports, coastal V bases, or for the A6M2-N from fleets after the CV is down. Given the constricted airspace of the MA though, its still hard to see why anyone would choose one over a better performing land or carrier-based alternative. The exception might be the H8K Emily which had both respectable performance and a good defensive armament compared to many land based bombers.

Very good point. The PBY's role was recon, dumbos and anti-sub warfare. It's huge advantage was it could stay airborne for long periods of time. We don't have subs, and flying recon for hours sounds pretty dull. The tension of picking up a downed pilot would be fun, but, yeah, only a few folks would do it.

So if it's not fun to simulate what it does best, what would it be fun to do?  Tuba's idea of carrying troops is intriguing!

Mutha

[Ack-Ack]

special ability to mark nme cv on map when in  visual range of the ship.

USAAF bombers like the B-17, B-26 and B-24 should get the same ability then since they were used extensively in the anti-maritime/scout role.  Up until 1943, the anti-maritime role was primarily a USAAF responsibility.