Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MRPLUTO on September 24, 2005, 05:30:21 PM
-
On page 143 of "American Warplanes of World War II" edited by David Donald, there is a drawing of an F6F-5 Hellcat with a bomb under each wing root and a drop tank under the fuselage.
However, the loadout available in Aces High only allows two bombs or the drop tank.
Anyone know anything more about this?
MRPLUTO
-
you could also carry a bomb on that center hard point in place of the DT.
-
same with the F4U (all versions) , it had a wet center hard point.
But if the F4U had a DT + that killer ord, it would b the best plane in the game. same with F6F, maybe it was a bit too uber for HT
source Greg Goebel's Website (http://www.vectorsite.net/sitemap.html)
-
Here is a web site that suggests a great number of dream ordinances for the F6f-5.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm
Oddly it does not say anything about centerline bombs for the F4u. Maybe that was for Marines only. According to Lindberg three 1000 pound bombs was SOP for keeping Japanese heads down on bypassed islands.
Photo from China Lake
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/f6f/f6f-13.jpg)
-
Noir: same with the F4U (all versions) , it had a wet center hard point.
Sorry I was wrong about the "all versions", but,
* The "F4U-1D" was introduced in April 1944, though the F4U-1C remained in production in parallel. The F4U-1D was much the same as the F4U-1A, retaining the six Browning machine guns, and differed mainly in being fitted for carriage of a 605 liter (160 US gallon) centerline drop tank and two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bombs, one on each inner wing just outside the wingroot
Quoted from http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html#m2 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html#m2)
thougt there is no pic to prove it on the site
They say also that the F6F had 3 1000lb capable pylons there :
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html#m3 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html#m3)
-
The biggest "glitch" in the F6F5 is the lack of the 2x20mm 4x.50cal option. My understanding is that this was actually not a "rare" option but standard on RNAS F6F's as well as many USNA units in the pac......
-
Only the F6F-5 Night Fighters used the 20mm, and at that most did not use them. I can see why PYRO didnt include it as an option, when probably 2 percent or less of them ever saw combat armed like that. If it was a common varient, maybe that would be different.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Only the F6F-5 Night Fighters used the 20mm, and at that most did not use them. I can see why PYRO didnt include it as an option, when probably 2 percent or less of them ever saw combat armed like that. If it was a common varient, maybe that would be different.
Thats not accurate information. The 2x20mm option was standard on all RNAS F6F-5's as well as all F6F-5P's. In addition a significant number of earlier F6F-5's were so equipped. The 2x20mm option was an option from the initial roll out of the F6F-5 in 1943....not a later addition. It was not as rare as you make it out to be.....at the same time I cant find actual production numbers anywhere either. Simply various references that state a "significant" number of F6F-5s were so equipped. By the time the "last" of the F6F-5 mods came out (the N & P) production was standardized on the 2 x 20mm option including the remaining "standard" F6F-5's...but no clue on total numbers....but I bet its an awful lot more then the 3 x20mm option on the la-7 thats so prevalent in the MA.
-
I did a survey of this question (20mm Hellcats) using google image search & F6F-5 as the search term & looking only at B&W images. I found a very low fraction of 20mms in non-nightfighter F6Fs & I also found no photos of F6Fs with bombs on the centerline hardpoint
-
Agree, its just nobody would ever bother with 6 x 50s ala the F4U-1C I suppose...I mean, why would you? ah well thats all MA debate, not my cup of tea.
-
8: All F6F-5 with provisions for three .50-Cal. MG, or two .50-Cal. MG and one 20 mm in each wing; all late model F6F-5Ns delivered with mixed battery.
Hellcat, Barrett Tillman pg 21.
Just because the option wasn't utilized much in actual combat shouldn't be the reason it shouldn't be included in AH. The requirements of the actual Pacific War was different from the MA. Mostly, the 20mm was not needed was due to tactical reasons mainly that the Japenese aircraft torched very well when hit with incindiary rounds. Had the Japenese fielded better armored aircraft and sent waves of heavy bombers to targets, you probably would have seen the Hellcats with the 20mm option a lot more. Since the MA will have you see all sorts of fighters, bombers and even tanks to destroy, I think it's a bad choice to leave this option out.
-
From what I've been able to gather the 20mm loadout was available on "late production run F6F-5's". The only reference I've seen to them being used operationally was on a handful of nightfighters. The provisions exsisted but it was largely not used. I have not found any reference to that armament being used by a day fighter. When you think about it it didn't really make a lot of sense. The 6x.50 armament was more than suffecient firepower when dealing with Zero's which were still the hellcats primary opponent right up to the end of the war. Plus the battery of 50's would have been easier for a reasonably well trained pilot to score with than a mixed battery (at least this was the belief of the Navy IMHO). Personally I hope we never see the mixed battery load in AH.
-
I haven't found it referenced anywhere in the PAC. My understanding is that all 900+ in RAF service carried the mixed gun package. The interesting fact is that the plane was designed from the start with the mixed battery option & that the late production runs were 2 x 20mm, 4 x .50cal on the "standard" F6F-5's. I dont see how this differs much from the la-7 3 x20mm option which was exceedingly rare or the various options on the 109's, 110's etc for various loadout options. The basic capabilities of the plane dont really change all that much.
-
Just because the option wasn't utilized much in actual combat shouldn't be the reason it shouldn't be included in AH.
So we should be able to get the;
* twin 20mm gunpods for the Fw190As, making it a 6x20mm fighter..
* experimental MK103 armament for 190s and 109s
* earliest types of world's first guided missiles
.. and etc, etc ?
-
Then there was that P38 with 12x50cal and a cannon or two in the mix. And the 12x303 armed hurricane, and the 4x20mm spit, and the Ta152 with 4xMg151/20s and a 30mm hub cannon to boot?
THat's the worst argument in HISTORY dude :P
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Then there was that P38 with 12x50cal and a cannon or two in the mix.
hmmm...now I'm starting to see Humble's side of the argument :D
Some of the ordnance load outs for certains planes in AH is inaccurate. The P-38L was able to carry up to 4,000 pounds of ordnance, in AH it's just limited to 2,000 pounds of bombs and 10 HVAR rockets.
ack-ack
-
Yes, but how likely was it to load 2x2000lb-ers onto a p38? It'd probably be way heavy.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, but how likely was it to load 2x2000lb-ers onto a p38? It'd probably be way heavy.
A lot lighter than the A-20G, which hauled 4k of bombs on the same horsepower.
My regards,
Widewing
-
earliest types of world's first guided missiles
Ok I wil need to plug my 2nd joy to control the missile while flying :aok
and we would need flares
The 12x303 Hurri2B would be nice indeed, looking at the crappy performance of the AH2 hurri2C compared to the AH1 hurri2C (wich is ok with me cause the hurri2C was heavy, meant to engage bombers and ground targets)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, but how likely was it to load 2x2000lb-ers onto a p38? It'd probably be way heavy.
It was actually quite common for a P-38L. P-38Ls were often used for level bombing missions and that is when they'd load up with the 4,000 pounds of ordnance. They'd fly to the target with a P-38 Droop-Snoot leading the flight and when the Droop-Snoot dropped it's payload, the rest of the P-38Ls would drop theirs.
ack-ack
-
I read about that in Hub Zemke's book. 2000# bomb weighs about the same as the 310 gallon drop tanks P-38s & P-47s used.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So we should be able to get the;
* twin 20mm gunpods for the Fw190As, making it a 6x20mm fighter..
* experimental MK103 armament for 190s and 109s
* earliest types of world's first guided missiles
.. and etc, etc ?
I have no clue about those types. The F6F-5 came standard in that you could pull out two 50-cals and replace it with a 20mm cannon without bolting anything external onto the airframe. However, tactics dictated that this was not necessary.
If this is a similar case for that which you speak of, then I think your examples should be allowed too. However, I'm not sure about your *experimental* loads though. Don't confuse the issue because this wasn't experimental on the Hellcat but rather was built into each and every F6F-5 at the factory, though tactics deemed the use of it unnecessary in the field. Had the Hellcat had to fight something similar to a B-17 or B-24, you probably would've seen it a whole lot more. High rate of fire with incendiary rounds was preferred because all it took was just one bullet and your target was a flying torch. Just ask "One shot McWhorter." Or was it two shots?
-
If actual usage numbers (which is severely limited insofar as to consider it "unrepresantative") shouldn't obstruct a certain type of armament from appearing in the game...
... then why should actual status of the armament, experimental or not, be any different?
The point is, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
The 109s and 190s had almost every combination of armament available to the Luftwaffe, categorized and made available for use as official Umrustsatz and Rustsatz modification kits and yet, in the game, only the most represantative forms of such armament variations are allowed. The 20mm gunpods, the MK108 30mm cannon, and the WGr21 A2A rocket.
I'm not unhappy with how it is, because having any other type of armament available in the game, would depart a certain amount of realism from the real game. Ofcourse, AH isn't WW2 per se, but IMO it needs a certain level of represantativeness when it comes to depicting WW2 aircraft. Departing from that standard calls out for abuse only, and I've seen it happening in IL2/FB.
I do understand why people would ask such a thing, but IMO, they shouldn't.
-
Originally posted by Puke ver. 2
I have no clue about those types. The F6F-5 came standard in that you could pull out two 50-cals and replace it with a 20mm cannon without bolting anything external onto the airframe. However, tactics dictated that this was not necessary.
If this is a similar case for that which you speak of, then I think your examples should be allowed too. However, I'm not sure about your *experimental* loads though. Don't confuse the issue because this wasn't experimental on the Hellcat but rather was built into each and every F6F-5 at the factory, though tactics deemed the use of it unnecessary in the field. Had the Hellcat had to fight something similar to a B-17 or B-24, you probably would've seen it a whole lot more. High rate of fire with incendiary rounds was preferred because all it took was just one bullet and your target was a flying torch. Just ask "One shot McWhorter." Or was it two shots?
I have no arguement either way on this, but your dead on, the F6F came predesigned with the 2 x 20mm option preengineered. It wasnt a modification or an "add on package". It was a standard loadout from an engineering perspective.
I'd actually rather see some consideration given to the F7F. To me it's an anomaly in that its a 1942 design that was cleared for operational deployment in May of 1944 or thereabouts. This goes to the core arguement in the game....is it a historical simulation or a WW2 era air combat simulation? Under the 1st arguement only planes that engaged in actual combat would be "eligible" {that would include the meteor btw}....under the second arguement any plane that was declared operational would be fair game if it hit a certain cut off date.
The germans, British and russians all have varients of their "latest & greatest" Ta-152,109K4-Tempest spitXVI(?)-1945la-7. On the otherhand the USAAF and USNAF chose not to deploy any "late war" fighters (with exception of the N&M jugs). The F7F is the one US "late war" plane that was clearly deployable. It would certainly be inappropriate in TOD or scenarios. Truthfully like any "late war" US Iron it might be overly unbalancing since no other nation had anything even close in total performance.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So we should be able to get the;
* twin 20mm gunpods for the Fw190As, making it a 6x20mm fighter..
* experimental MK103 armament for 190s and 109s
* earliest types of world's first guided missiles
.. and etc, etc ?
Disney bombs!
-
If you guys are looking for some "absolute fairness formula" you will never find it.
Its a subjective call by HTC for gameplay reasons, thats it. Never mind the advanced calculus on how many were produced vs X Y Z x the GNP of the country - the months to the end of the war divided by deployment rate. It has nothing to do with it, and never has.
Some a/c have certain extras because they want them in there, and some are excluded, because...they dont want them in there. Same reason we have some a/c and not others.
"Fair" isnt a factor.