Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on June 07, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
-
The Vengance is best described a interesting. It was a two seat dive bomber, could fly at 279 mph, could fly 2300 miles, it's celing was 22,300ft. And here's where it gets interesting: it could carry up to 2,000lbs of bombs, around half that of the stuka, AND was armed with six .50 cal mg's. I think it has the potential to be a great addition to the game; it has the ability to defend itself as well as the mustang and better than any divebomber other than the Il2. Think about it before you automaticly reject it as the British ordered over 1,000 planes and the U.S. comandered 243 of the planes meant for enland an made many more under the designation A35. If you want to check it out yourself I got the info at http://www.daveswarbirds.com and click on american aircraft of wwII, go down to divebombers (on the side of the page) once you have clicked enter and it is at the top (http://www.winkton.net/pictures/vultee%20vengeance%20EQUALISED.jpg)
-
Yeah I would take it how ever it was considered a death trap by most of it's crews & was withdrawn from most squadrons.
-
ya, to bad, I mean we don't even have mechanical faliures in AH2. The closest thing we got right now is pilot error if you gota go heat up a hot pocket and forget to put on the auto pilot :(. Just saying, it would be a good combonation: enough bombs to down a hanger and the guns of a P51.
-
ya, to bad, I mean we don't even have mechanical faliures in AH2. The closest thing we got right now is pilot error if you gota go heat up a hot pocket and forget to put on the auto pilot :(. Just saying, it would be a good combonation: enough bombs to down a hanger and the guns of a P51.
I thought hangars required 3000 lbs....
-
No, or I have made serious miscalcultaions on how much ord I am droping from my bomber(sometimes "s").
-
I thought hangars required 3000 lbs....
2500 lbs to take down a hangar.
-
OK, that would explaine it. Well anyway. You got to admit, It would be an insane combonation; 2000lbs of bombs, 6 .50 cal mg's, I would assume it has the manuverability of the usuall divebombers or MABY a little better then the Dauntless.
-
OK, that would explaine it. Well anyway. You got to admit, It would be an insane combonation; 2000lbs of bombs, 6 .50 cal mg's, I would assume it has the manuverability of the usuall divebombers or MABY a little better then the Dauntless.
Or you could take up an F4U-1D and get the same 6x.50cal and 2000lbs of bombs. Then tack on 8x5" HVAR and you still have an aircraft that is far more capable of defending itself once light.
Would it be interesting to add eventually? Sure. But there's no significant gaps that in the plane set this would fill. The Dauntless was already a contemporary, and its service with the US was limited if any. Of those that were exported very few saw front-line combat before they were withdrawn. It might be a nice addition for FSO and other scenario-type setups, but there's still a large number of far more important aircraft of all types needed for those (TBD, G4M, He-111, Ki-43, etc).
-
If you say the dauntless is good enough then how come everytime I up one even with almost total air superiority I get shot down? I can get on their tail for a bit, I would have killed them in that time with a P51, but it just dosen't hit hard enough. besides, unless I am thinking of another planes bomb load then it' bomb load is well....unimpressive. If we aren't going to get this then can we at least get the SB2C-4 (son of a bich second class) aka helldiver.
-
2500 lbs to take down a hangar.
2500 for VH and BH, 3K for FH.
-
Strange, I would have thought the bomber hangers would require more ord :confused:. Can anyone tell me why that is? Well then this kinda sucks if spikes is right.
-
Strange, I would have thought the bomber hangers would require more ord :confused:. Can anyone tell me why that is? Well then this kinda sucks if spikes is right.
I'm right unless they changed it within the past month or so...I've always remembered it that way.
-
Have you checked withen a month or so or do you just remember it like that? I always remembered it as 2,000 for every hanger regardless of the type. Maby we should get an expert on this thing......................
(Nem yelling into the next room)SCUZZY......WE NEED YOUR SAY IN THIS, CAN YOU COME HERE FOR A SEC? :D. You gota admit that was kind funny.
-
Default hanger hardness across the board: 2,781 lb. That's in the MAs.
You never know what the evil terrain builders :t and the CMs will do for the other arenas, testing is always advisable for those.
-
Thank you easyscor, <S>. And could you please make it so it takes only 2000lbs of bombs? It would get the divebombers and other light load aircraft some exercise. :D
-
2 x 1000lbs bombs + 5 HVAR rockets will take down ANY hangar (VH, FH, BH) as will 2 x 1000lbs bombs + 1 500lbs bomb. But as Easyscor noted that the hardness is like 2,781lbs, which seems odd because I recall often taking down hangars in with a Jug with 2 1000 and 1 500. Oh well
-
If you say the dauntless is good enough then how come everytime I up one even with almost total air superiority I get shot down? I can get on their tail for a bit, I would have killed them in that time with a P51, but it just dosen't hit hard enough. besides, unless I am thinking of another planes bomb load then it' bomb load is well....unimpressive. If we aren't going to get this then can we at least get the SB2C-4 (son of a bich second class) aka helldiver.
If you're talking about getting on someone's tail in the Dauntless, you're sort of missing the point of the aircraft....
The Dauntless' real value comes from the Early War arena where most fighters can't match the ordinance load, and especially in scenario play. Although first deployed to British and Commonwealth units in 1942, the Vengeance didn't actually see combat until 1943. This places her firmly in the Mid War arena (otherwise, if HTC decides to add her in Early War you're gonna see me lobbying HARD for the F4U-1 in EW, which was ALSO received by its first squadrons in late-1942). At this point, fighters are now carrying close to, if not as much or more than, the ordinance than most single-engine dedicated strike craft.
For these reasons the Vengeance is a VERY low priority. She didn't see combat until 1943, so your two main reasons for adding her are really sort of pointless, because almost every American fighter from 1943 and on carried close to or the same ordinance, with MUCH better performance. She was deployed in such small numbers that her value for scenario use is limited, and the Vengeance does NOT fill any significant gaps in the plane set. These are ALL reasons why the Dauntless is far more valuable (competitive ordinance load in EW, and VERY important for scenario use in the PTO).
Now the Helldiver would be a VERY worthwhile add, as it was the primary US Navy dive-bomber after the Battle of the Philippine Sea so in that regard has a lot of historical significance, and would fill really one of the only two major gaps in the US PTO plane set (late-war dive bomber. The other being the TBD, which is needed for setups set at Midway or earlier. I'd love the Catalina, but her usefulness is very limited). However once you get her I'm sure you'll be very disappointed. She was very poor-handling, and early models had awful dive characteristics among dozens of other nasty teething problems. Don't think for a second that "Son of a squeak, 2nd Class" was meant as a compliment.
-
2 x 1000lbs bombs + 5 HVAR rockets will take down ANY hangar (VH, FH, BH) as will 2 x 1000lbs bombs + 1 500lbs bomb. But as Easyscor noted that the hardness is like 2,781lbs, which seems odd because I recall often taking down hangars in with a Jug with 2 1000 and 1 500. Oh well
qft.
-
Now the Helldiver would be a VERY worthwhile add, as it was the primary US Navy dive-bomber after the Battle of the Philippine Sea so in that regard has a lot of historical significance, and would fill really one of the only two major gaps in the US PTO plane set (late-war dive bomber. The other being the TBD, which is needed for setups set at Midway or earlier. I'd love the Catalina, but her usefulness is very limited). However once you get her I'm sure you'll be very disappointed. She was very poor-handling, and early models had awful dive characteristics among dozens of other nasty teething problems. Don't think for a second that "Son of a squeak, 2nd Class" was meant as a compliment.
Beat me to it. Cool plane. Either that or the Firefly would be a great addition to the CV lineup.
-
Hmm, good points saxman, I hadn't thought of them, <S>. While I agree with you, I still think this would be a cool plane to have. I mean you got to admit this things combination of guns and ord is, well...interesting.
-
I'm sure there are people out there that still fly dive bombers and maybe its just me but I probably have the same chances seeing someone flying a divebomber in the MA as seeing Bigfoot.
-
I know what you mean. They are mostly used in carrier raids, and defending bases against gv's. Of course then again I mostly use the TBM Avenger as it can carry more ord if I remember correctly. I would use this if we had it. The main problem is that it dosen't have enough capability to defend itself.
-
I'm sure there are people out there that still fly dive bombers and maybe its just me but I probably have the same chances seeing someone flying a divebomber in the MA as seeing Bigfoot.
They should allow a wig option like they do with big Buff for Stukas, Vals, Kates, and SBDs, not for TBMs or Il2s. You take out a formation of three, a finger four, or a V of 5.
-
I'm sure there are people out there that still fly dive bombers and maybe its just me but I probably have the same chances seeing someone flying a divebomber in the MA as seeing Bigfoot.
Just go Rook and see Tomcat21 fighting off the GV hordes.
-
I'm sure there are people out there that still fly dive bombers and maybe its just me but I probably have the same chances seeing someone flying a divebomber in the MA as seeing Bigfoot.
Well, if you consider Ar234 GV bombing...dive bombing...you'll see me a lot.
-
The OFFICIAL hardness is posted as 3000lbs, regardless of hangar type. Now, whether that's been simplified or not is a good question.
See Help (http://www2.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#targets).
-
The OFFICIAL hardness is posted as 3000lbs, regardless of hangar type. Now, whether that's been simplified or not is a good question.
See Help (http://www2.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#targets).
Ah...I was looking for that a couple days ago. Seems odd...the FH seems to take 3K, yet the BH and VH only seem to take 2500...can anyone do tests?
-
It dosen't just seem odd, it seems off as well. One would think that the BH's would be more reenforced as it is (probably) a larger structure. Well then again, maby because FH's are (again, probably) smaller targets the renforcements are more consolidated and is therefor a tougher target. It is the same as a stadium with a roof a half mile across and one a quarter mile across, if you drop something large and heavy in the exact midle of the roof, which one is more likely to break under less preasure if the edges and sides are the exact same? Well anyway, I want to get a pro's opinion again: Can any of you HTC or designe team guys tell me why exactly BH's seem to go down with less.