Author Topic: You Make the Call (Read 798 times)

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **on:** July 09, 2003, 02:24:08 AM »

Current CT Scores

Air-to-Air Fighter

A6M2..............1039 Kills
P-40B...............427 Kills
Hurri MkI...........329 Kills

Axis.................1039 Kills
Allied.................756 Kills

Air-to-Air Bomber

Ki-67................112 Kills
Boston...............31 Kills
SBD-5................32 Kills
D3A1...................3 Kills
B5N2...................2 Kills

Axis..................117 Kills
Allied..................63 Kills

Total Air-to-Air

Axis...................1156 Kills
Allied..................819 Kills
Axis by..............337 Kills

Air-to-Air

A6M2...............476 Kills
P-40B..............340 Kills
A6M2 by..........136 Kills

A6M2...............344 Kills
Hurrican MkI......309 Kills
A6M2 by............35 Kills

Ki-67.................65 Kills
P-40B................77 Kills

Ki-67.................47 Kills
Hurricane............20 Kills

Ki-67...................3 Kills
Boston.................0 Kills

Ki-67...................0 Kills
SBD-5..................1 Kills

Ki-67 by 15 Kills vs Allied Fighters
A6M2 by 131 Kills vs Boston

A6M2...............162 Kills
Boston III..........31 Kills

A6M2.................57 Kills
SBD-5................31 Kills

D3A1...................3 Kills
P-40B..................8 Kills

B5N2...................2 Kills
P-40B..................2 Kills

D3A1...................0 Kills
SBD-5..................1 Kills

*******************************
Includes ground GV and PT Boat Kills

A6M2........1080 Kills, 785 Deaths
Hurri MkI....608 Kills, 702 Deaths
P-40B.........458 Kills, 630 Deaths

Ki-67..........131 Kills, 140 Deaths
Boston III....89 Kills, 450 Deaths

SBD-5...........68 Kills, 99 Deaths
D3A1..............9 Kills, 16 Deaths
B5N2..............8 Kills, 7 Deaths
C-47...............3 Kills, 41 Deaths

Troop Transports

C-47 IJA/N......2 Kills, 24 Deaths
C-47 Allied......1 Kills, 17 Deaths
M-3 IJA/N....23 Kills, 36 Deaths
M-3 Allied....22 Kills, 43 Deaths

*******************************

There ya have it, the A6M2 rules the roost.
The Ki-61 does not belong.
The D3A1 and B5N2 bombers are not being used.

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2003, 02:41:18 AM »

The B5N2 is useless. I know. I was using it.

If the B5N2 had the formation option it would be usable, but as it doesn't the idea that the B5N2 is an adequate counter to the Boston Mk III is laughable.

I agree, have always agreed, that the Ki-67 is too much for these setups, but the only solution is to remove both the Ki-67 and Boston Mk III and that leaves the Allies without any level bomber and both sides without the ability to even destroy a hangar.

Sakai · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2003, 07:15:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The B5N2 is useless. I know. I was using it.

Well, it has no offensive and only slight defensive power, but it is not useless and in fact, if you are talking about ordinance placed on target it is a superb aircraft.

I land over half of my Kate missions in the MA and the CT both because I don't use it to bludgeon through enemy forces. But if you want to destroy a target, it is devastatingly accurate.

When you look at how even the Boston was shot down aptly by the zero in Hawk's nice stats review, then you have to say that the Boston--which rarely if ever hits a target level bombing--is not that superior to the Kathryn. It is far more deadly switiching to "fighter: tactics as it has a superior armament suite, but as a bomber, 1 on 1, I take the Kate when I want the pickles in the barrel. If I am allied and using a boston, I take a single plane and divebomb.

Sakai

oboe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2003, 07:24:41 AM »

I don't understand how one level bomber can be more accurate than another? The bombsite and calibrations routines are the same ones, shared throughout the planes with bombsites, aren't they?

Flying straight and level on autopilot should also be the same regardless of the bomber you're in, should it not?

Or are you talking about glide bombing?

~~, thanks!~~

Sakai · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2003, 07:41:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
I don't understand how one level bomber can be more accurate than another? The bombsite and calibrations routines are the same ones, shared throughout the planes with bombsites, aren't they?

Flying straight and level on autopilot should also be the same regardless of the bomber you're in, should it not?

Or are you talking about glide bombing?

~~, thanks!~~

Glide and divebombing, the Kate will fly with flaps down at serioulsy low speeds, you can chop throttle, dive in and hit flaps and with it or the Val have a nice long presentation of the target. I don't think I have ever missed a target divebombing in the Kate. It handles so sweetly at low speeds that you can correct a tad you know? The Boston and A-20s--in my opinion--require a bit more speed and don't handle so well (although hitting a target diving is no big deal with those either, simply the Kate does not miss).

Sakai

keyapaha · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:14:48 AM »

I agree the B5n is a very good dive bomber,but you better have protection or be very very sneaky.

Sakai · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:39:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by keyapaha
I agree the B5n is a very good dive bomber,but you better have protection or be very very sneaky.

Roger, Kate is not made for fistfights.

Sakai

ergRTC · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:43:59 AM »

Although I think the ki and the boston should be tossed. I think this shows us that they have little to no impact on this scenario besides the lack of use in the other planes.

Nobody is going to fly the val more if the ki is gone. They will just fly zeros. I flew the kate and val yesterday. Kate was fun but it is very frustrating that there is no forward weopon.

Sakai · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:48:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ergRTC
Although I think the ki and the boston should be tossed. I think this shows us that they have little to no impact on this scenario besides the lack of use in the other planes.

Nobody is going to fly the val more if the ki is gone. They will just fly zeros. I flew the kate and val yesterday. Kate was fun but it is very frustrating that there is no forward weopon.

Good observations.

It is frustrating to not be able to turn fight in the Kate, she would make grown men weep in flat turns and loops.

The Twins cancel each other out, toss them. The Kate forces guys who want to bomb to be smart or go in groups and take escort--that was kind of what the war was like and for that reason I love this setup.

Sakai

Slash27 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:04:48 AM »

Good points by all, but Im getting the feeling input isnt wanted.

Sakai · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:30:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Slash27
Good points by all, but Im getting the feeling input isnt wanted.

Well, since it's factually documented that virtually all axis aircraft, anti-aircraft, and secret weapons development programs went into confonting the dire threat posed by the SBD (reports of HItlers fuming about the dastardly weapon are too well known to be discounted and it is now thought that Yamamoto relayed the data for his trip to the US thus committing suicide rather than have to face another battle against them), it's hardly an option to not have the Ki-67.

;-)

Hey. it is nice to have twin buffs for those who fly them (as I often do--I like ALL kinds of WWII propellor driven craft), but when they are used as gun platforms rather than buffs . . . well, you know, the CT is supposed to be the closest thing to the real war.

We need some Anns, Sm79s, Sallys, Helens, Blenheims, early B-25s, Marylands, He-111s, etc. That would provide the buff without providing the "laser death ray" defensive armament that late war bombers had.

Alternatively, if they would just take the Ju88 and reduce its payload and speed a tad and call it something else we could skin it variously and use it as an early war bomber surrogate.

In terms of modeling, would that be so tough to pull off? In one swoop you'd have a good surrogate for most of the Mediums from 1939-1941.

Sakai

ergRTC · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:33:14 AM »

I cant imagine it would be that hard, but I suppose with ah2 they dont even want to waste the time doing that. Just an early war he111 would fill the gap fine.

Eagler · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:34:25 AM »

can the CT bosses change a planes loadout or is that set from HTC?

ergRTC · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:40:45 AM »

htc only.

LÃ¶we · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2003, 10:54:20 AM »

The biggest drawback to theKate is it's lack of forward firing MGs. Thats what I like about the Val even if they are small caliber MG's You at least have something to keep enemy fighters honest.

I think the Kate was added to give IJN carrier forces a torp plane in the SA. The Kate was never intended to have an offensive weapon , other than it's torps, or bombs. It's designers, probably never envisioned the need for it to have foward firing guns. I think it's a great addition to AH, if for no other reason than special events. Did it's replacement which I believe was the B6N Jill have forward firing guns?

The real world designers never expected, or would have even scoffed at aircraft of this type being flown as fighters. Also the extra wieght, and room needed even for two small MGs in the nose, may have had drawbacks for the planes original purpose. Deliver weapons on target against enemy shipping. Anyway in it's day, and in it's mission historically it was an awesome plane. IMHO