CT Set-Up July 4th - 10th

[Jester]

Guys, this argument is basicly a waste of time. We see this every damn time.

I also would much rather have a SALLY or BETTY to use instead of the PEGGY for this set-up. We have many holes in the plane set so we do with what we have.

It is a Japanese vs Allied set-up so I use the "JAPANESE PLANES." I could sub it with the JU 88 or the BF-110C as has been suggested but the guys that like to fly IJN/IJAAF iron don't get to fly their birds much so I decided not to substitute.

Come on - just how much damage DOES the KI-67 do? Most of the pilots I have seen killed by the PEGGY wasn't mainly due to it's "Ubberness" but mainly due to the fact that they did something STUPID like flying straight into attack it from the "Dead 6" position. (They don't call it that for nothing.)  

The bomb load of both the BOSTON III & PEGGY are pretty close as Brady said and IMO the Boston has the edge due to it's forward mounted MG's that can be used in the attack mode. Add to that the superiority of the SBD to both the KATE & VAL in this set-up and the Allies have almost all the Aces in the deck.

Guys, I sympathize with you about the holes in the plane set and what we are forced to use in the CT set-up's. We try to do the best we can. But your "Hate Mail" would better be directed to HTC - then maybe they would get the idea that "Those of us that pay the bills" are still out here and would like some new aircraft.

[Karnak]

Because as we all know having the Betty or Sally is going to make things so much better.

B5N2: 1938
D3A1: 1937
G4M1: 1941 (Betty) 265mph, no armor
Ki-21: 1937 (Sally) 268mph, no armor
Ki-67: 1944

Boston Mk III: 1941 ~340mph, armored
SBD-5: 1943
TMB-3: 1943


A6M2: ~325mph, no armor

F4F-4:~315mph, armored
Hurricane Mk I: 316mph, armored
Hurricane Mk IIc: 334mph, armored
P-40B: ~340mph, armor?
P-40E: `360mph, armored


As can be seen, if the Sally or Betty were added the balance would be that Japanese bombers are easy to catch and easy kills and the Allied bombers would be practically invulnerable.

[brady]

Karnak raises an interesting pont, one that I have often poundered, if by some freakish chance we did get a Betty, Sally, Helen or a Nell, we would nead a Hudson, or preferably a Blenhim to off set it.

[Squire]

Or you could add the Ki-49 Dinah (1942)  instead, 306mph.

Armament:

Dorsal Mount:
1 x 20 mm Ho-1 flexible cannon
Nose Mount:
1 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 flexible machine gun
Ventral Mount:
1 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 flexible machine gun
Tail Mount :
1 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 flexible machine gun
Side Mount:
2 x .3 (7.7 mm) type 89 flexible  machine gun
   
bomb / rocket  load Max Bomb Load of 2,205 lbs (1000 kg)

[Karnak]

I think that a Helen, Sally, Nell or Betty and a B-25B or B-25C would go together reasonably well.

The Allies would still have a solid boost over the Japanese from this, but at least the Japanese could catch the Allied bomber.

B-25B: 300mph, armor?
B-25C: 284mph, armor?


Squire,

The Ki-49 was the Helen.

The Ki-46 recon aircraft was the Dinah.

[brady]

Ya on the B25 Karnak, but with a Blenhim we get many early war theaters we could use it in, and your half way to a beaufigheter:) or better yet a beaufort, Another Problem with the B25 is it's defensive firepower, compared to the Blenhim, the Blenhim would work better balance wise overall than the B25 if set aganst an Early War Japanese Buff.

 It should be noted that the Ho-1 20mm was a serious pos, it was adopted from an AT gun and had a very slow rate of fire and was found to be inaduacate as an aircraft weapon.

  I would rather see an Early B26 Varient than have new work done on a B25.

  Blenhim:
 
 Spead (depending on model): 245-288mph
 
 Defensive guns, varied but typicaly two 303's in Dorsal, another pair in the chin turet, some had various fixed 303's in nose.

 Bombload Typical: 1,000 pounds.


 Beaufort:

 Spead, around 260mph

 Defensive guns similar to the Blenhim except later vershions had Beam guns (303's) and twin 50 cal's in the dorsal turet.

 Bombload was 2000 pounds and they were torpedo capable.

[Karnak]

I just can't agree that any time should be wasted on the Blenheim until many, many other aircraft have been added.  It would be so vulnerable and carry such a light bombload that it would be nigh useless in any scenario.  It can't be balanced against the Ju88A-4 and it can't even be balanced against the theoretical Helen, Betty or Sally.

If the B-25 is too much, then I would suggest the Wellington Mk III.

Wellington Mk III: 1941

Speed: 247mph
Durability: Excellent
Armament: two .303s in the nose turret, four .303s in the tail turret, one .303 in each beam position
Payload: 4,500lbs

I think the Wellington would be far better balanced across the scenario spectrum.  The Wellington would be a decent opposite for the Helen or G4M2 and an excellent opposite for the Ju88A-4.

[brady]

Well the Blenhim would work well in the PTO aganst an early Japanes buff, and the Beaufort would be best imo, for any ETO set up we could still use the Boston III and the Beaufort was used in both theaters (as was the Blenhim).

 Welingtons were great planes though, I just think more could be done with the Blenhim, since you can get a Beaufort (beter choice imo) and the Beaufighter. Also the Welington would not be a balanced choice to set aganst the Betty or Helen, it caries over twice the bombload, is way more survibable and as a very deadly defensive gun package aganst the A6M2 Zero.

 I too an not realy advocating time be spent on any of these at present, this is realy just for the sake of argument.

 When considering the Balance equation one neads to consider the bombers not only in terms of comparison between themselvs but how they are going to fair aganst the Fighter's that will hunt them, a Pair of 303's can kill a Zero prety quick.

 The Beaufort realy looks to be the best choice for a new mount to set aganst a posable new early War Japanese Buff, prety much the same bombload, comperable surviabality to the Japanese Types, efective defensive guns that are on a par with the Japanese guns in their Machines (althought the allies have an advantge in killing the Japanese Buff's), they were used in the SWPA, and the CBI in the early war perioud, comperable preformance.

 Austrailian Beaufort:

[Squire]

Ki-49 Helen, yes.

I have oft wondered, about the "75 percent solution" to a lot of CT setups, Snaps, Squad Ops ect, concerning the Ki-67 Peggy, in 1941-43 designs.

Truth be told, I very much doubt we will see another IJ medium bomber in AH. I wish I was wrong, but I dont think I am.

In any case...there are precedents for using a faster bomber and having an "understanding" that said bomber is to be flown at 75 throttle (or call it manifold XX), to make it more usable.

I know that Brady, was it you? that asked for the Ki-67 in Guadalcanal 1942 Scenario, with an idea of a limit on its throttle, to make it a Ki-49, or G4M2 type, rather than use the Ju88 sub.

Warbirds did a "Battle of Britain" Scenario in Aug 2000. The Ju88s in WB (Ju88A4 with wep too) were a bit too fast for the Hurricane, so the rule was "75 throttle" for the Ju88. Guess what? most of the players obliged.

I wonder if we asked in event setups and the CT, If we asked, would most abide by it? Its a simple solution that works, if enough fair minded players understand the reason for it. I would kind of like it better than the Ju88, and in return, the IJ get a better a/c, certainly better guns.

Also, I see a need for the Bostons to be flown under the same restrictions, for some setups (esp PAC 1941) to better represent slower allied types where appropriate.

Just a thought I had. Certainly more realistic engine management will also help, in AH2, so that bombers and fighters are not flown "to the wall" for the entire mission. I hope that will be a change.

Btw Man 35 for the Ki-67 gives it 250 on the deck, for the Boston, its about Man 25 to get @250, slow enough to be caught at least.

[brady]

I too would be very suprised to see another Japanease buff in the near future.

 Yes I was battling hard to get them to agree to a lower man seting for the crews flying the Peggy in Guadacanal but they dident beleave they (the players) would do this, so we were stuck with the JU 88.

 The funny thing is in the BoB event whear Wotan was in chagre they flew the JU 88's at a reduced man seting to represent the slightly slower JU 88's that were their and everyone ablidged, In fact Wotan sugested this to me as a means to be able to use the Peggy in the slot.

 But that is all well (and maby not so) Good for an event, in an open areana we cant expect people to slow it down.

[Jester]

We going to ask the Allies to please not "Dogfight" with the Boston at the same time?

[brady]

lol.

[Skyfoxx]

"Hate mail" ??

Sounded like a reasonable discussion to me.  Whatever.

[hazed-]

I'll add my voice to the Ki67 debate.

Its too fast for any allied aircraft in the present setup, if the pilot flies straight its uncatchable. Its guns are far too powerful for the allies 1941 pea shooting planes .

Its a late war aircraft and i just cant understand why you always put one aircraft in these setups which is historically incorrect. We can use the D3a1 and Bn5!!

THE CT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MORE REALISTIC ARENA.


PLEASE  PLEASE PLEASE CT STAFF  DONT USE LATE WAR PLANES TO SUBSTITUTE EARLY ONES.

The major problem is this:

If you have a choice between a D3A1 or a BN5 or a 1944 ki67 with 20mm and huge bombload which will you choose?
the ki67 obviously.
result is we see no other types used
In 4 hours of playing this setup I have to say it was FANTASTIC jester. EXCEPT when the ki67s arrived at the battles.It was the only time it got annoying as an allied pilot.Did i see a d3a1 or BN5? nope

One thing i must commend you on is having the Axis having an advantage for a change. Far too offten they seem to be at a disadvantage.

For instance the Libiya setup: 109E's vs P40E's? thats not fair or realistic.
109F4's were around when P40E's arrived in africa.

INTERESTING FACT: 190A3's were in africa on 8th November 1942: II./JG2 saw action in africa at this time flying 190s.

As we dont have 190A3's im happy as an axis type to not use the 190A5 as a substitute.

P40F of the 57th FG were to be sent to Africa on rosevelts orders by the 1st of september 1942. There were 72 brand new p40F's that were given to the 56th FG when they were in New England and they gave a clue as to where the group would be heading because they were painted in desert camo .However the Ranger aircraft carrier had delivered a shipment of 68 P40E-1's to Accra, on the gold coast of Africa, in late may 1942.However the FIRST encounter with enemy aircraft the 57th FG had came on the 14th of august 1942 after some training with the british DAF, 6 P40F's defending bostons were attacked by 14 Bf109s.
lt. William O'Neill claimed two 109s but they were not officially recognised. The first official P40 kill came on the 4th of september 1942. a 109 shot down by 2lt. Thomas Williams of the 66th FS.
The 57th FG got their first officially recognised kill in the MTO on 7th of October 1942. (six P40F's escorting 18 Bostons) attacked by bf109s and 202s. Maj Clermont Wheeler bagged a 109.

109F-4 was first built in 1941. By 1942 the 109s began to be produced in the 109G-1 format and even the 109G-6 was built in late 1942. The 109E's were being totally phased out by 1941 let alone 1942.Please dont use them where they werent used

So as you can see when i say i think the set ups are wrong it isnt just so i can gain some advantage over allied flyers.Its just that i want it to TRUELLY represent the theatre.
If you want proof that im not out for an advantage you should note that the present setup has Axis powers with an advantage.They have the zero which is far superior to the p40B and is a better fighter than the hurricane I, they have the ki-67 which i dont agree should be in the setup but well its there now and yet i decided to fly allied for the entire time.

I dont seek advantage by any unfair means yet ive been accused of it every time i ask for axis to have a later model introduced.It really sucks, especially when HT himself accused me of it

anyhow thats my view:

Libiya needs the 109F4 added.
Burma needs the Ki-67 removed.

if the 109F4 is perked thats fine, im ok with that.It can even be very expensive, but it has to be added.
The ki-67 i realise is the only IJA medium bomber we have but it is far too unballancing to be a fair substitute for a 1941/42 arena.
we have the skins for ju88 in IJN and thats a far better substitute in my veiw.Although the bomb load is a little excessive for a 'betty' replacement. I can live with that though.

jester on the burma setup though. Truelly enjoying it.you resisted the temptation to add a later allied fighter aircraft as a substitute! Well done.....the zekes are really appearing as a Dangerous aircraf the way its set now and i think thats a feather in your cap for this setup jester. Its good that the axis types get a chance to dominate a setup for a change. I was all but ready to quit when i flew in a syria 1942 setup and a p38J was used to substitute the P38E/F. I hope it doesnt happen again. I loved the CT but this sort of thing made me leave the CT alone for well over 4 tours! Im creeping back in there now and im enjoying it again.

[Eagler]

what hazed said..

my vote:

take both big bombers out

they'll only ruin the a2a for the fighters as they cruise around porking the fuel and/or fh's -  making one travel farther and farther to find a ftr

or..

leave them in so I can rack up some bmbr/attack points