Author Topic: Let's turn back to Summer 1942! (Read 631 times)

Mitsu · « **on:** May 13, 2002, 12:18:46 AM »

http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~tochy/etc/zero21c.mpg
(http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~tochy/index_1.htm Top Page)

Very impressive CG movie, F4F-3 vs A6M2...

We would be able to play like this in Special Events of v1.10!

ZeroPing · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2002, 01:57:02 AM »

Nice man

Citabria · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2002, 03:19:16 AM »

nice film!

now I cant wait to fly the wildcats and zekes next version

devious · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2002, 03:29:33 AM »

Way cool. Almost makes me forget the morons that constantly turn the CV when I want to take off in my Imperial Japanese allies' provided Zero (all but one of my dang Zero deaths

)

Hristo · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2002, 04:13:10 AM »

Fantastic, even better when I try to imagine all the work behind it !

One thing is interesting though. While these Wildacts and Zeros were flying over the Pacific, Europe already had Fw190As and Spit IXs. Quite a disparity, don't you think ?

Steven · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2002, 10:13:50 AM »

Hristo: <>

Yeah, but see how well the FWs and Spit IX's do in blue-water operations, CV vs CV.

It's my understanding the Spitfire didn't do as well outside of Europe and specifically were hard-pressed against the Zeke when a few veteran British pilots were sent to the Pacific. And I believe the Seafire didn't do as well in the naval role as Martletts and later Hellcats used by the British. (IMO, it wasn't until the F8U Crusader that USN aircraft obtained parity with land-based aircraft, due to all the extra weight/penalty necessary for CV operations on an aircraft.)

Mathman · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2002, 11:04:52 AM »

The thing is, you have to take role into account instead of only performance. Europe and the Pacific were two completely different types of war. It really is like comparing apples and oranges. It is also why I don't consider USN and USAAF planes to be from the same "country" when I count the planes available here in AH (only thing that connects them is the national insignia on the wings and fuselage IMO).

The carrier war in the Pacific was a unique type of war that the world had never seen before, and most likely will never see again.

Anyways, I would take a PTO plane from 1942 over any contemporary RAF or LW plane any day of the week (but then again, I already take a 1944 PTO plane over 1944 Brit and LW planes almost all the time).

Back to the topic: I am really looking forward to 1942 PTO battles. I want to see what it was like for the 1942 USN pilots to face "superior" IJN planes and come out on top.

-math

Widewing · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2002, 11:51:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steven
Hristo: <>

Yeah, but see how well the FWs and Spit IX's do in blue-water operations, CV vs CV.

It's my understanding the Spitfire didn't do as well outside of Europe and specifically were hard-pressed against the Zeke when a few veteran British pilots were sent to the Pacific. And I believe the Seafire didn't do as well in the naval role as Martletts and later Hellcats used by the British. (IMO, it wasn't until the F8U Crusader that USN aircraft obtained parity with land-based aircraft, due to all the extra weight/penalty necessary for CV operations on an aircraft.)

What about the F4U-4 (and later versions) and the F8F Bearcat?
Both were a match for any land based fighters. How about later Seafires too? Yeah, there was a brief gap in terms of early jet fighters, but that gap was closed rather quickly as more powerful engines became available and the Navy's belated acceptance of swept-wings for carrier aircraft (their primary concerns being takeoff and landing speeds and handling, plus the rather slow spool-up speed of early turbojets, even worse for centrifigal flow designs, being a factor) allowed for greater performance beginning with the Grumman F9F-6 Cougar and North American FJ-2 Fury. Oddly enough, the F9F-6 proved to have better low speed handling qualities than the straight-wing F9F-5 Panther.

My regards,

Widewing

Yippee38 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2002, 11:57:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman
Anyways, I would take a PTO plane from 1942 over any contemporary RAF or LW plane any day of the week

Ok. You take a 1942 PTO plane and I'll take a Panvia Tornado. I know you're a better pilot than I, but I think I'll win.

Widewing · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2002, 12:04:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by devious
Way cool. Almost makes me forget the morons that constantly turn the CV when I want to take off in my Imperial Japanese allies' provided Zero (all but one of my dang Zero deaths )

Except that the guys turning the CVs are not morons. Furthermore, it is likely that had you consulted the map prior to launching, you could determine if the carrier is approching a waypoint (where it will turn). Secondly, the CV must be turned when enemy bombers are overhead, or you'll be flying your Zeke from a land base in short order. Waiting a few moments to launch is the price we pay to keep the CV from being sunk. While waiting, man a gun and help defend the carrier or cruiser. You can get a lot of kills in those 5" dual gun mounts. These kills may not improve your ranking, but they do adversely effect the ranking of the victims.

My regards,

Widewing

Mathman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2002, 12:26:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yippee38

Ok. You take a 1942 PTO plane and I'll take a Panvia Tornado. I know you're a better pilot than I, but I think I'll win.

No doubt, that is why i said contemporary to a 1942 PTO plane.

Angus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2002, 12:35:17 PM »

Well, I take off the turning cv's all the time, just don't try to auto-takeoff, that's all.

Steven · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2002, 12:55:18 PM »

What about the F4U-4 (and later versions) and the F8F Bearcat?
Both were a match for any land based fighters. How about later Seafires too? Yeah, there was a brief gap in terms of early jet fighters, but that gap was closed rather quickly as more powerful engines became available and the Navy's belated acceptance of swept-wings for carrier aircraft (their primary concerns being takeoff and landing speeds and handling, plus the rather slow spool-up speed of early turbojets, even worse for centrifigal flow designs, being a factor) allowed for greater performance beginning with the Grumman F9F-6 Cougar and North American FJ-2 Fury. Oddly enough, the F9F-6 proved to have better low speed handling qualities than the straight-wing F9F-5 Panther. -Widewing
=======================================

You are absolutely right and it's certainly open to debate. What I stated about parity not being achieved until the F8U Crusader was just my opinion. I'd have to look into what are true contemporaries of the F4U-4 and F8F (which I would guess include everything, prop or not.) I'd love to have access to a Bearcat in the MA!

Hristo · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2002, 01:16:30 PM »

Guys, plane debate aside, I am amazed by your inability to be amazed.

This guy created a WW2 furball scenes all by himself and you keep blabbing Hellcat this Tornado that. Watch the film again instead

.

Yippee38 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2002, 02:19:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman

No doubt, that is why i said contemporary to a 1942 PTO plane.

Actually, you just said contemporary. (My wife calls me "semantics man" ) When I read it, I immediately thought of the meaning of contemporary that refers to modern as opposed to the one that refers to "of the same time period."

Just messin' witcha.