Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on July 02, 2005, 02:35:31 PM
-
Hey guys, consider this an official Spit whine. But it's not a whine about performance but rather a situational thing.
If there's just one plane I think that should never have been in AH, that's the Seafire.
I know that the MA is not replicating WW2, nor is an AH2 dedicated 'WW2 sim'. However, still the game gets its charisma and mythos from recreating certain aspects of WW2 combat that appeals to many people. Historicity is not everything, but it still means something....
Why is the Seafire in here in the first place?
The existence of the Seafire totally warps the image of WW2 naval warfare in that a plane with no significance at all, is actually the most popular and overused carrier-based plane by far.
When we see an enemy TG approach the coastal field, we get to see Seafires. Ofcourse many people do fly the Hellcat or the Corsair.. but mostly as jabo platforms. Let's admit it guys, for the vast majority of the normal pilots, the Seafire is THE CV plane.
IMO, this is like putting in the Bf109T. A non-significant CV plane that was wrongly introduced, taking all the spotlight from the planes that should really have them.
The greatest (and about the only real) naval warfares on a regular scale, were between the IJN and the USN. The sea, is the Hellcat/Corsair's turf, or at least, IMO, should be. Even the Royal Navy themselves, used vastly larger numbers of Corsairs and Martlets than their own Seafires.
I just can't understand why HTC decided to put in the Seafire in the first place.. and I hate it that the preferred fighter of the Aces High Navy is a Seafire.
I'm sure that they won't ever take out a model from the game. But if that be ever the case, I hope that they at least go back to the 12+ boost for the Seafire, since we have a 16+ boost Spit5.
-
a poor choice? that aircraft fought in WW2 in relatively large numbers.
You say nobody flies the Hellcat or Corsair, well that's because they are inferior to the Seafire just like the P47 and P38 and P51 are inferior to the Spitfire.
-
So how many Seafires Mk.IIs fought in the war?
-
Read somewhere the Seafire had a 16/1 k/d over the Zero in the Pac.
Type 340-Seafire Mk IB 340 were built
Type 357- Seafire Mk IIC 372 were built
Type 358- Seafire Mk III 1218 were produced in total.
Type 337- Seafire XV 450 were produced.
Type 395- Seafire XVII (Mk 41) 233 were produced.
About 3-4 other types that varied between 20-90 produced.
More than some other aircraft we have.
-
... and that compares how with the number of Martlets, Hellcats and Corsairs the Royal Navy used?
When the war ended the Royal Navy was still being equipped with Seafire XVs. The rest of the types afterwards were post-war aircraft.
Excerpts from the FAA Archives
*total 1172 Wildcats received during 1940-1945
*252 F6F-3s supplied to the Royal Navy as Hellcat I
*930 F6F-5 supplied to the Royal Navy as Hellcat II.
*Ultimately, fourteen FAA front-line squadrons equipped with F6Fs.
*received 2, 012 Corsairs from the USA, initially under Lend-Lease, which equipped 19 squadrons
* 370 F4U-1Ds were delivered to New Zealand.
..
The number of Royal Navy Corsairs alone, are more than entire WW2-era Seafires combined.
-
I recommend the following book as essential Seafire reading. Its well written and gives a good overall view of what a Seafire pilot could expect to get up to during the whole of WW2.
(http://www.crowoodpress.co.uk/images/covers/1840372451.jpg)
link (http://www.crowoodpress.co.uk/2004/book_details.asp?ISBN=1+84037+245+1)
Needless to say, I think your wrong. :)
Cheers
Gatso
-
I didn't meant 'insignificance' as a disrespectfulness towards the pilots who would have served in squads equipped with Seafires, gatso.
I'm just saying that despite everything, still the impact of Seafires as carrier-based planes for the Royal Navy, was insignificant when the entire number of Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs were more than three fold the numbers of Seafires in the Royal Navy.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The number of Royal Navy Corsairs alone, are more than entire WW2-era Seafires combined. [/B]
The number of Seafires alone are reasonably close to all the rest combined. They were in the invasion of Morroco and Sicily, did most of the CAP over the beach at Salerno, active in the Far East with an admirable k/d over the Zero (albeit a low total), 4 squadrons particiapted in D-day and three squadrons of Seafires which covered the landings in Rangoon and Penang and the raids on the oil fields in Sumatra.
It's not like they weren't active.
-
You have 3 countries fighting with German, US, Russian and British a/c, and your getting all technical about how many Seafires fought in WW2? I dont get it.
It saw action with the East Indies Fleet, British Pacific Fleet, 2nd TAF in Normandy, Norway and the Med.
How many were used operationally? well certainly comparable to the F4U-1C, or the Ta-152, N1K-2, or the Me 262, or the Me 163, or the Arado 234. < All of which are in the game. If your counting.
Most of the RN Fleet Carriers operated the type at some point in the war. Illustrious, Indomitable, Indefatigable, Implacable, I wont list them all. Many of the smaller RN Carriers also used the type. Yes, they also used the Corsair, F6F, F4F in some #s.
...Btw the Seafire IIc (the one in AH) only ran at +16 lbs boost, it was a version derived from the Spitfire Vc. There is no "+12 lbs boost" Seafire IIc for HTC to "go back too".
Seems your gripe is really about the CVs being multi-nation "generic" and the fact you dont like Spitfires. Thats fine, fair enough. Thats the real issue you should be addressing. Maybe some players dont like the fact that you can always launch rocket and bomb carrying Jabo F6Fs and F4Us from CVs and never take IJN types?
I think you do have a point in regards to the plane set on the CVs, I would like to see nation specific CVs, but thats not likely to happen untill TOD comes out.
-
And all that aside, do you ever remember them taking a plane out of the game once it was in?
-
most numerous seafire was the mk lll, it had fold back wings, introduced in 1943 and could carry up to a 500 lb bomb on the belly and two 250lb bombs one on each wing. The mk lll was used
at the Salerno landings By the end of the war Seafires equipped 12 frontline units of the Fleet Air arm. Eight of these units used the mk llls
-
I donno Kweassa... to me, there seems to be a mix up on the definition of how "significance" is to be measured. Is it justified by the numbers used or just an impression left in history? It seems to me that in AH it is the latter... in the mind of HT.
-
Well FD, I guess it's just a gripe about how the Spitfire is dominant in all areas of the game. (dominant in numbers)
I frankly don't mind seeing many of them as land-based fighters... but seeing even carrier based Spitfires.. where its usage is far greater than the any of the true "blue" planes, just seems wrong.
Did the Seafires see combat? Were they active? Sure they were.
But even in the Royal Navy themselves, the planes assigned for fleet defender role, and became the true backbone of its carrier based fighters, were the F4F, F6F and the F4U-1.
Look at the numbers Toad posted.
The real majority of Seafires were the MkIIC(what we have) and the F.MkIII. The Seafire squads were still being requipped with XVs when the war ended, and the XV production continued after the war also. The XVII is a post-war plane.
Basically, it's about 1500 Seafires vs 4400 Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs.
Sure, not all 4400 of them were in service at the same time, but that goes same for the Seafire - not all 1500 were in the service at the same time. During any time line, pick out the Royal Navy squadrons and one would see that the numbers and roles of 'blue' planes greatly outnumbered the Seafires.
I guess it all comes down to that, when I see task force carriers, I want to see swarms of Hellcats and Corsairs taking of from them.. not swarms of Seafires with a couple of Hogs or Hellcats crashing into target field in a suicidal fashion.
-
Be prepared to whine even more then, if, after the remodel we get the Seafire L III (most produced) with the 50M or 55M Merlin in place of the current Seafire IIc.
L III has all the great fighter qualities of the IIc but with the addition of a total 1000lb bomb load (1x500 center, 2x250 wings)
Dominant in numbers?
Up to the 22nd of last month according to HTs figures
La7 - 22736
N1K - 19411
Spit V - 14953
Tiffy - 14221
Seafire - 14148
P51D - 11158
109G10 - 10789
Spit IX - 9866
So where do you come up with "dominant in numbers"?
-
i think this whine is ridiculous.
"OH NO!! ANOTHER PLANE IS TAKING THE SPOTLIGHT OFF MY PRECIOUS AMERICA PLANE!!! TAKE IT AWAY!!!!"
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Dominant in numbers?
Up to the 22nd of last month according to HTs figures
La7 - 22736
N1K - 19411
Spit V - 14953
Tiffy - 14221
Seafire - 14148
P51D - 11158
109G10 - 10789
Spit IX - 9866
So where do you come up with "dominant in numbers"?
Well, just from that list the Spitfire is obviously the dominant ride of choice in the MA, if you put all the different models in the same generic "spit" category.
I see what Kweassa is saying, and it *would* be nice to see more variety, but, on the bright side, at LEAST spitfires are likely to fight, which can't always be said for most people in the blue planes.
At any rate, if you want to see less Seafires post more Hellcat and Corsair films.
-
Whats next?
How about, WAH, 4 out of the top 8 are British, so we shouldn't have some of them either.
-
Why concern yourself about what anyone flies in this GAME. It's neither a true simulation of WW2 combat nor is it restricted to what was available at any given time. It is a GAME, a way to pass time, have fun and make HTC money. No one flies in a "realistic" manner in the game and actual real world tactics are grossly ignored as people are in this to play a GAME using the tools available in a GAME.
If you were restricted to the planes and actual conditions found in true combat you'd likely find another way to spend your time and money. The same if another persons likes and dislikes were imposed on your game play.
In short remember that it is a GAME and it's meant to allow as many different people as possible to have fun the way they want. Don't sweat the small stuff.
-
Just had one hell of a scruffle in tha MA, - it was a carrier raid and most of the cons flew seafires.
They stood and fought, I had great fun, - and it's the best opportunity to peel around, - in a Hurricane, hehe.
-
Kev:
The 'dominance' is referred to as a dominance as a CV-based fighter. In short, our Aces High representation of a "naval fighter", is the most insignificant one of them all.
Sure the Seafire did see service, and were often in important theater of operations, despite small in numbers. But really, when we think of 'naval' planes, is the importance of the Seafire greater than that of the Hellcat? The Zero? The Corsair?
Furball:
Go away! :D
Mav:
It is a difficult thing to define the historicity of a game. You are right, in that Aces High is not a simulation in the respect that the MA rules of game playing is nothing like the war.
However, AH does have roles assigned to planes that is roughly simular to the real war, and the planes we see in the air are more often than not expected to fly and fight like real combat planes of the war. In that sense, when naval battles occur, no matter how gamey and dweebey, PT-launching, 5" toting, suicidal barging it is, people still expect to see real naval planes upping from carriers.
Not, Spitfires.
...
Besides, the stats Kev posted doesn't really help.
The Seafire is the same thing as the SpitV. Basically, it shows that the SpitV usage is at 29101 - roughly 5000 more in usage than the even the La-7.
SpitVs are one of the most preferred land-based planes, and one of the most preferred CV-planes, too.
-
I'd rather suggest taking the Seafire IIC away, and put in a Seafire III, and then perking it at something like 3 points.
-
Kweassa you are wrong about the number of seafires delivered to the FAA. 2699 seafires were delivered by VJ day according to the FAA archives.
Sorry dude, you are wrong about this one.:) The seafire was the FAA's most numerous fighter. Not sure what you were thinking when you compared the seafire to the 109-T.
-
You know, I was thinking we need SeaHurricanes according to my janes guide to fighters they converted apx 800 of these planes armed with 4x20mm cannons and a merlinXX powerplant.:aok
-
Imagine the whines then!
A hizooka armed naval plane...
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Well FD, I guess it's just a gripe about how the Spitfire is dominant in all areas of the game. (dominant in numbers)
yeah, that's the bottom line... numbers is not what is controlled in the MA so, once it is modelled in AH, the usage in the game will not reflect how it was available in history. any control in numbers, as the game is today, will only be done in scenarios.
-
Eh, Kweassa, I totally 110% disgree with you...
I don't see anything wrong with Supermarine Seafire (Including Hawker Sea Hurricane/Hurricats) and the Seafire fought very well in WWII, that also include in Korean War too before they were replace by Naval jet fighter in 1952.
A Seafire fighter of the Royal Navy shot down the last enemy aircraft on the very day of the Japanese surrender in August 1945. Seafire L. Mk.III of 887 Squadron (HMS Indefatigable) of the British Pacific Fleet and piloted by Sub Lt GJ Murphy shot down two Mitsubishi A6M Reisens, at Odaki Bay, Japan, 15.8.45.
;)
-
Hmm..
If that be the case, I'll think about this matter again. Guess it's time to get used to a new perception about WW2 naval planes then.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I'd rather suggest taking the Seafire IIC away, and put in a Seafire III, and then perking it at something like 3 points.
Why the hell would you perk a 1942/3, slow (by MA standards) aircraft?
This is getting into the heights of ridiculousness.
-
Why deny british naval aviation.
They invented the carrier.
The reason i think they used more US aircraft in the end is because those where very reliable aircraft (aircooled engines). Most of them designed for carrier use from the beginning (folding wings rigid undercarriage).
And than there is production capability the british probably directed more spits to the RAF.
I dont see the problem people choosing spits the seafire is like a spitv it is a turnable plane but it is fragile slow and slow climbing.
The US planes carry more load are faster and more rigid.
I would choose for the FM2 when it get busy and the F6F for pounding.
-
In fact the Brits invented the two most important developments on a CV -
1) Steam catapult.
2) Angled deck.
-
Im not really familiar with Seafire L 3 but is seafire L 3 a navalised version of Spitfire 9? What version of merilin engine does it have?
-
Originally posted by IK3
Im not really familiar with Seafire L 3 but is seafire L 3 a navalised version of Spitfire 9? What version of merilin engine does it have?
Seafire III was really the first completely navalized Seafire with folding wings etc. It had a single stage Merlin not the two stage like the later Spit VII, VIII and IX
The Seafire III used the Merlin 55 engine on the normal fighter version and the Merlin 55M or Merlin 32 on the L or FR versions.
Deliveries started in April 43 and finished in July 45, so it was in production for a long time. The III was by far the most produced Seafire with 870 built by Westland and 350 by Cunliffe-Owen. 8 of 12 Seafire Squadrons were equipped with Seafire LIIIs at wars end.
It had multiple ejector exhausts and swung a 4 blade prop as well.
Max speed was 359 mph for the F version at 36000 feet. 341 MPH at 6000 feet for the L version.
Climb rate was 3250 feet per minute.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Max speed was 359 mph for the F version at 36000 feet. 341 MPH at 6000 feet for the L version.
Climb rate was 3250 feet per minute.
Dan/CorkyJr
Hey the Seafire 3 speed is at least on par with A6M5
Its not really gonna overwhelm A6Ms and F4U/F6F except in numbers.
-
From http://www.ww2aircraft.net/?p=info&airinfo=211
Manufacture Supermarine
Model Seafire
Type MkIII
Power Plant One 1,470 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 55 inline piston engine, liquid-cooled
Performance
Maximum speed :: 328 mph :: 99.97 m 352 mph :: 566.49 km/hr
Maximum speed at sea level 321 mph :: 516.60 km/hr
Cruising speed 218 mph :: 350.84 km/hr
Maximum range 465 miles 725 miles (1,167 km) with drop tank :: 748.34 km
Initial rate of climb 2,600 ft/min :: 792.48 m/min
Time to 14,200 ft :: 4,328.16 m 5.55 minutes
Service ceiling 33,800 ft :: 10,302.24 m
Weights
Empty 5,400 lb :: 2,449.40 kg
Loaded 7,100 lb :: 3,220.51 kg
Dimensions
Wing span 36ft 8in :: 11.18 m
Length 30ft 0in :: 9.14 m
Height 11ft 2in :: 3.40 m
Wing area 242 sq ft :: 22.48 sq m
Armament
2 x 20mm Hispano cannon (one in each wing) 4 x 0.303 inch (7.7 mm) Browning machine-guns (two in each outer wing)
Max bomb load 500 lb (227 kg) of bombs :: 226.80 kg
Crew 1
Production
Seafire 1,220
Total production (Variants) 2,556
Countries in Service
U.K (FAA), France(Aeronavale), Canada (RCN)
-
(http://www3.sympatico.ca/w.y.bowman/seafire2sm.JPG)
-
It's just as easy to compare the use of La7s to Yaks in the MA, or Zeros to N1K2s or 190Ds to 190As. Lets face it the MA has never been about realistics usages.
-
Seafire L.III with a Merlin 55M with a cropped supercharger was the standard type after the spring of 1944.
http://hsgalleries.com/spitfireiiieb_1.htm
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lf3.jpg
@4200 ft/min initial climb
316mph TAS at sea level
358mph TAS at 6000 ft which is full throttle height (FTH).
Thats with max combat power (+18 lbs/5min)
It was a very good performer as a low alt fighter and the best all round Seafire version to see widespread use in the Royal Navy in WW2. It was much faster than an A6M5 (not that that was its only opponent).
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The reason i think they used more US aircraft in the end is because those where very reliable aircraft
Range. Very important at sea.
- oldman
-
The reasons were varied, the British required a large number of a/c of all types for both the RAF and the RN as their services expanded to many times the size of their 1940 orbat. They needed a/c from the USA and Canada to fill the need as they maxxed out their own industrial output. Quite simply put, they did not have the industry to manufacture all the needed a/c, so they looked elsewhere to get combat types and employ them. Thats why the RAF got P-40s and other US types, they needed anything that could be used that they could buy. Thats what Lend-Lease was.
Its also important to note that when it came to domestic a/c production, the RAF had more political clout. The RN had to fight hard to get any priority for combat planes compared to the RAF, which was in the process of constructing a very large heavy bomber force, and cared little for what the RN needed. Inter-service rivalries are always a fact of war. The RAF viewed Bomber Command as the most important, followed by Fighter Command, and lastly, Coastal Command. The Fleet Air Arm was somewhere below that on their "do we care" list.
The RN ended up with F4Fs (Martlet) from the USA as early as 1940. So the Fleet Air Arm ended up with a mix of both US and British designs as they expanded the service.
Sea Hurricanes and Martlets in the early years gave way to Seafires and Corsairs in the latter period. They also used the F6F in some quantity. They bought TBF Avengers as well, which saw service along with the British Swordfish and later, the Barracuda.
-
And the Firefly, the Fulmar, the early Skua, the Albacore, etc.
And by coastal command, tons of planes :)
The Firefly could perhaps become an AH candidate some day..
-
What? people are using a plane? Thats just wrong!!! HT, take it away or perk it emidietly :mad:
-
WOW LATE ONCE AGAIN :)
Right I have just quickly read through this post after seeing it 10 years too late.
Making it short & sweet, doesn't it make you pround to be british, having the seafire used most over the USA nazy planes.
P.S just for the record I always fly the F4U-D :)
-
I agree with Kweasa, but it's AH (quake on wings). I just prey there's not one higher than me when I'm trying to run away in my jug ... or one behind me when the guy I just shot down is taking of in a LA7.:D
MAybe TOD will bring them back in their historical context and proportions, and offer something more than the Haloish Mayhem.
-
Kweassa has made many good posts over the years and i have always thought he has put his point across well.. same in theis post .. but alas i do have to disagree with him on this one..
seafire was a fantastic plane.. its draw backs were its range..
it was small, easy to maintain, fast and leathal.. all the things you look for in a carrier plane..
i have always thought that AH should replicate the tactical range of aircraft better than it dose at the moment
-
Wait a minute. You mean..................
They put a Spitfire on a carrier??? Well, there goes the neighborhood.
Next thing you know they'll replace my beer with tea.
-
358 mph max speed in 1944 ? Wow. :D
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
358 mph max speed in 1944 ? Wow. :D
Remember its still basically a Mk V.
Lol all you want, the 109T topped out at around the same speed, and how many of them were made. LOL LOL LOL
Ultimate Seafire was the Type 47 - 451mph @ 20k, 2375hp Griffon 87 or 88.
-
I stepped on a nerve, it seems.
I do wonder though why the Brits bothered with the Seafire, a basically completely unsuited plane with its light structure and narrow undercarriage, and the first operational use of the Seafire was less than sensational, to put it mildly, basically they wiped themselves out in landing accidents. why bother with it when L-L Hellcats, Corsairs were available...
-
Easy answer if you actually think about it -
It's wartime.
Small country.
Can't afford vast numbers of different planes.
Manufacturing capacity.
Therefore it's easier to take an existing design and modify it for another use - QED.
Real easy if you take the time to THINK ABOUT IT.
Nice example - The Mosquito: If it had been made out of metal instead of wood, it never would have got the go ahead, as it would have drawn too much resources away from other production.
-
Costs? I don`t know. The spit was listed as something like 45 000 pounds in 1943 - about 160 000 USD I believe. You could buy any of the big-prettythang US radials for that much.
Why was the Spit so frigging expensive btw? Hand made or something? High profit rates?
-
The elliptical wing was the biggest problem.
Basically it comes down to cost and manufacturing capacity.
Only a small island.
Same holds true today with the -
Tornado
Harrier
Typhoon
All produced in various guises to fulfill all the roles required.
-
Eh didnt the Commonwealth countries produced bombers and fighters for RAF? That should relieve some pressure on the Florida sized island.
-
Yup but with the U-Boats you couldn't rely on delivery. It was hard enough getting spits to Malta!!!!
Most production was 'at home'.
-
Yes, it was essentially a "hopped up" Spitfire L.F. V navalised for CV ops, but it wasn't a "conversion", it was built as a naval fighter from the outset, albeit from a land based design.
They had a lot of accidents in the Torch operation because of the low wind conditions and the small CVE decks many operated from. They had a much better landing record on the larger Fleet Carriers in the pacific.
I think they continued on with it because it was being produced, and they probably needed the #s to fill out the Fleet. The RN built up a large Carrier force by 1944. Im also not certain if the RN had trouble getting enough F4Us and F6Fs from the USA. There were a lot of issues there. National pride might also be a factor?, but I can't say for certain, im only speculating.
"Eh didnt the Commonwealth countries produced bombers and fighters for RAF?"
Yes, many. Mostly from Canada.
-
Yeah Squire, my bad.
By conversion I really should have said commonality of parts between the land and sea based variants.
All goes to keeping costs down, production high, and less time to initial deliveries .i.e. very little retooling required at the factorys.
-
Everyone should fly the Seafire. It is much better than the Hellcat at everything except carrying bombs. As a matter of fact, the Hellcat is only good for carrying bombs.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Everyone should fly the Seafire. It is much better than the Hellcat at everything except carrying bombs. As a matter of fact, the Hellcat is only good for carrying bombs.
I agree.
-- Todd/Leviathn