Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: stealth on March 10, 2010, 04:14:29 AM
-
The Dewoitine D.520.The thing to me with its short fin looks more like a air racer then a combat plane it still deserves its part in the game.It served the battle of France and should have its part in the game.
Armament
One 20-mm Hispano-Suiza HS-404 fixed forward-firing cannon between the engine's cylinder banks, and four 0.295-in(7.5-mm) MAC 34 m39 fixed forward-firing machine guns in the leading edges of the wing.
Powerplant
One Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 Vee piston engine rated at 935 hp.
Performance
Maximum speed 332 mph at 18,045 ft cruising speed 230 mph at optimum altitude;climb to 13,125 ft in five minutes 48 seconds service ceiling 34,450 range 950 miles.
-
want
Question is, where would it fit in the AvA?
(grins)
edit - It *did* fight for the Vichy forces in North Africa, n'est-ce pas?
-
want
Question is, where would it fit in the AvA?
(grins)
edit - It *did* fight for the Vichy forces in North Africa, n'est-ce pas?
Conceivably, on both sides... Why not?
-
edit - It *did* fight for the Vichy forces in North Africa, n'est-ce pas?
Yep, and got chewed up by US Navy fighters during the Torch landings, though the D.520 did give a good account of itself over France during the battle for France against the Luftwaffe.
ack-ack
-
What few there were were mostly ineffective due to the way the French air force was tied more to the uncoordinated armies. Logistically they were just "set up all wrong" IMO.
The majority of fighters were the MS 410s. The 520 was (I'll say it) "rare" and fills no planeset holes.
I'm curious about the French involvement in the Torch landings. Got any quick-n-dirty online links?
-
What few there were were mostly ineffective due to the way the French air force was tied more to the uncoordinated armies. Logistically they were just "set up all wrong" IMO.
The majority of fighters were the MS 410s. The 520 was (I'll say it) "rare" and fills no planeset holes.
I'm curious about the French involvement in the Torch landings. Got any quick-n-dirty online links?
And Bloch 152s and Arsenal VG.33s... We should have those plus the D520, Blenheim, Battle, and Ms.406 so that we can do the battle of France. We've already got the gravity-feed carbureted Hurri and Spit. I love that hurri Mk.I, btw. You can do slow loops in that something like all day. At one point, while waiting around, I pulled 7 of those in a row.
-
The Hurr1 and Spit1 we have in-game were well after the BOF. BOF era hurricanes had fixed pitch 2-blade wooden props and lesser performance overall. Also the same goes for the 110C and the 109E4 we have in-game. They are not representative for the time frame. The Ju-87 is a much much later model.
If you add all these planes, the only thing in the game that matches this timeline is the a6m2, the d3a, and the I-16 (only if you fly it without 20mm cannons). Maybe the P-40B (maybe not)
What would they fight?
-
The Hurr1 and Spit1 we have in-game were well after the BOF. BOF era hurricanes had fixed pitch 2-blade wooden props and lesser performance overall. Also the same goes for the 110C and the 109E4 we have in-game. They are not representative for the time frame. The Ju-87 is a much much later model.
If you add all these planes, the only thing in the game that matches this timeline is the a6m2, the d3a, and the I-16 (only if you fly it without 20mm cannons). Maybe the P-40B (maybe not)
What would they fight?
It's like the theater - it demands a willing suspension of disbelief. Which is, coincidentally, what I'd need to believe your unsourced assertion about fixed pitch props on early Spit variants since the Spitters got two-position DH props from the 78th production airframe (a Mk. I, fyi) onward):
The early Mk Is were powered by the 1,030 hp (768 kW) Merlin Mk II engine driving an Aero-Products "Watts" 10 ft 8 in (3.3 m) diameter two-blade wooden fixed-pitch propeller, weighing 83 lb (38 kg).[a]
Early on in the Spitfire's life it was found that at altitudes above about 15,000 ft (4,572 m), any condensation could freeze in the guns. The system of gun heating, described above, was introduced on the 61st production Mk I.[21] At the outset of World War II, the flash-hiders on the gun muzzles were removed and the practice of sealing the gun ports with fabric patches was instituted. The patches kept the gun barrels free of dirt and debris and allowed the hot air to heat the guns more efficiently. When the guns were fired the patches were shot through, these were replaced by the ground-crew during rearming. Early production aircraft were fitted with a ring and bead gunsight, although provision had been made for a reflector sight to be fitted once one had been selected. In July 1938, the Barr and Stroud GM 2 was selected as the standard RAF reflector gunsight and was fitted to the Spitfire from late 1938.[22] These first production Mk Is were able to reach a maximum speed of 362 mph (583 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5,600 m), with a maximum rate of climb of 2,490 ft/min at 10,000 ft (3,000 m). The service ceiling (where the climb rate drops to 100 ft/min) was 31,900 ft (9,700 m).[23]
From the 78th production airframe, the Aero Products propeller was replaced by a 350 lb (183 kg) de Havilland 9 ft 8 in (2.97 m) diameter, three-bladed, two-position, metal propeller, which greatly improved take-off performance, maximum speed and the service ceiling. It also started the incremental weight increases which continued through the life of the airframe. From the 175th production aircraft, the Merlin Mk III, which had a "universal" propeller shaft able to take a de Havilland or Rotol propeller was fitted. Following complaints from pilots a new form of "blown" canopy was manufactured and started replacing the original "flat" version in early 1939. This canopy improved headroom and enabled better vision laterally, and to the rear. Late in 1940, a Martin-Baker designed quick release mechanism, allowing the pilot to quickly jettison the cockpit canopy, began to be retroactively fitted to all Spitfires. The system employed unlocking pins, actuated by cables operated by the pilot pulling a small, red rubber ball mounted on the canopy arch. When freed, the canopy was taken away by the slipstream.[24]
Keep it sharp, Mr. Krusty. Let's not go making factual misstatements.
-
+1 need this way more than a crappy HE-111 :aok
viva la France
-
It's like the theater - it demands a willing suspension of disbelief. Which is, coincidentally, what I'd need to believe your unsourced assertion about fixed pitch props on early Spit variants since the Spitters got two-position DH props from the 78th production airframe (a Mk. I, fyi) onward):
Er... I said the HURRICANES had 2-blade fixed pitch props.. The spits from that time also had lesser performance because of the lack of constant-speed propellors. less climb, acceleration, and our BOB-era Spit Mk.Ia uses 100 octane. I only lumped the spit in there as a comparison for what a D.520 might go up against. I probably should not have, since NONE fought in the BOF. The few Hurricane squads the Brits sent over depleted UK reserves to the point a letter was sent saying "You have to decide now: Defend France or Defend us, because we can't do both" -- and the decision was made to send no more to France.
-
good stuff :aok
-
Er... I said the HURRICANES had 2-blade fixed pitch props.. The spits from that time also had lesser performance because of the lack of constant-speed propellors. less climb, acceleration, and our BOB-era Spit Mk.Ia uses 100 octane. I only lumped the spit in there as a comparison for what a D.520 might go up against. I probably should not have, since NONE fought in the BOF. The few Hurricane squads the Brits sent over depleted UK reserves to the point a letter was sent saying "You have to decide now: Defend France or Defend us, because we can't do both" -- and the decision was made to send no more to France.
Good clarification.
-
Er... I said the HURRICANES had 2-blade fixed pitch props.. The spits from that time also had lesser performance because of the lack of constant-speed propellors. less climb, acceleration, and our BOB-era Spit Mk.Ia uses 100 octane. I only lumped the spit in there as a comparison for what a D.520 might go up against. I probably should not have, since NONE fought in the BOF. The few Hurricane squads the Brits sent over depleted UK reserves to the point a letter was sent saying "You have to decide now: Defend France or Defend us, because we can't do both" -- and the decision was made to send no more to France.
A larger percentage of RAF fighters were committed to the defense of France than of French fighters, FYI. No need to spread roadkill about a "few" Hurricane squads sent over causing the depletion of RAF fighter command, a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
-
What few there were were mostly ineffective due to the way the French air force was tied more to the uncoordinated armies. Logistically they were just "set up all wrong" IMO.
The majority of fighters were the MS 410s. The 520 was (I'll say it) "rare" and fills no planeset holes.
I'm curious about the French involvement in the Torch landings. Got any quick-n-dirty online links?
krusty has been hating on the D520 for years
+10 to cancel his neg BS
-
krusty has been hating on the D520 for years
+10 to cancel his neg BS
Correction: Krusty has been hating on new adds for years.
Okay, now that I've chucked a lit butt into the rattler pile, to be fair to the ol' Krustbucket, his position looks more sophisticated than that to me. I think what he's really hating on are outrageous claims vis-a-vis proposed adds.
As for Karnak's correction of the Krusted one, I think it has merit, given that there were but 10 squads of Hurris assigned to the defense of French stench.
Unfair? Hey, I've been there. A little rape and pillage at the hands of le boche probably did the ambiance a bit of good, long run. Judging by all the shaved heads and chucked stones, not to mention that little Vichy business, you can't say the French didn't have mixed emotions about the war - and that brings us full circle, I believe. QED.
-
That's like, poetry, man.
-
The D520 would be a good fit, it is very similar to the 109E-4 in performance but with a better turn radius (going from memory).
Yeah, the French had the more numerous Bloch but it was due to be phased out for the D520 anyways.
I too vote YES on the D520. It would represent the French well. :)
-
Hi all!
Aces High will not be complete until the French Air Force is represented to a certain extent. IMHO, 2 fighters, 1 twin-engined heavy-fighter/light bomber and 1 bomber would be representative of the French air war. And many could be skinned as Vichy fighters and used in North African setups.
Expanding the Italian, Soviet and Japanese planeset should be done after the French. The Romanian IAR-80 and other exotica last.
+ 1 (right after the He-111)
Cheers,
-
What do you guys think of this plane anyway didn't seem to go to fast or for that matter be a good combat plane.
-
Thanks---I have been advocating for this ride since I came over in 2008 (posted on it April 15 of that year). The fact that it was somewhat rare in the Battle of France is compensated for by the fact that it was used in Torch and by German units. It is the most elegant of the French planes and the most likely to get used.
I can't give internet sources but:
Operation Torch, Anglo-American invastion of North Africa, Campaign 22,[Ballantine's Illustrated History Violent Century (Paperback)]. This book gives a lot of info about the machinations in French North Africa---including the Jean Bart and Mark Clark's secret mission via submarine to negotiate with Admiral Darlan.
This book gives some good accounts of the air war both before, during, and after Torch.
http://www.aviationsupermart.com/store/p/16033-French-Aces-Of-WW-II.html?feed=froogle (http://www.aviationsupermart.com/store/p/16033-French-Aces-Of-WW-II.html?feed=froogle)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e25/mdmoorman/DewoitineD520.jpg)
More here which also mentions Luftwaffe, Bulgarian, Rumanian use of plane.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Dewoitine%20D.520.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Dewoitine%20D.520.htm)
-
Hi all!
Aces High will not be complete until the French Air Force is represented to a certain extent. IMHO, 2 fighters, 1 twin-engined heavy-fighter/light bomber and 1 bomber would be representative of the French air war. And many could be skinned as Vichy fighters and used in North African setups.
Expanding the Italian, Soviet and Japanese planeset should be done after the French. The Romanian IAR-80 and other exotica last.
+ 1 (right after the He-111)
Cheers,
That's alot of hardware to support a campaign that only lasted till May 1940. Torch operations were even shorter
than that!
-
Hi all!
Aces High will not be complete until the French Air Force is represented to a certain extent. IMHO, 2 fighters, 1 twin-engined heavy-fighter/light bomber and 1 bomber would be representative of the French air war. And many could be skinned as Vichy fighters and used in North African setups.
Expanding the Italian, Soviet and Japanese planeset should be done after the French. The Romanian IAR-80 and other exotica last.
+ 1 (right after the He-111)
Cheers,
The French and Italians are minor players compared to the Americans, British, Russians, Germans and Japanese. The Russian and Japanese sets need to be fleshed out, they were major combatants and have very limited representation in AH right now. Even the British set needs, at the minimum, the Wellington so that there is an early war bomber the Axis can actually fight.
-
Er... I said the HURRICANES had 2-blade fixed pitch props.. The spits from that time also had lesser performance because of the lack of constant-speed propellors. less climb, acceleration, and our BOB-era Spit Mk.Ia uses 100 octane. I only lumped the spit in there as a comparison for what a D.520 might go up against. I probably should not have, since NONE fought in the BOF. The few Hurricane squads the Brits sent over depleted UK reserves to the point a letter was sent saying "You have to decide now: Defend France or Defend us, because we can't do both" -- and the decision was made to send no more to France.
little off topic but in our BoB scenarios, the SpitI HurriI were already outdated also... the SpitV was already in production even though flown in small numbers.
Edit: i mean to say this to back up timeline differences from reality and game
-
Really all these planes look the same like the Russian ones all those yaks basically the same.
-
A larger percentage of RAF fighters were committed to the defense of France than of French fighters, FYI. No need to spread bullsoup about a "few" Hurricane squads sent over causing the depletion of RAF fighter command, a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
That's a crock of "soup" ....
Hundreds and hundreds of French aircraft were flown in the BOF. The few Hurricane squadrons sent over were squandered, lost, or pulled back. At the time, the RAF was barely able to produce them enough for themselves, let alone other nations. That's why the BEF sent out gladiatiors, because they didn't have any more Hurricanes to "waste" on foreign expeditions.
-
The French and Italians are minor players compared to the Americans, British, Russians, Germans and Japanese. ht.
Several points could be made here. (1) Often this game is used to simulate campaigns in scenarios. Often the peripheral fronts are a lot of fun Finland, China-Burma-India, the Med --so French planes would contribute and their absence is a glaring omission. (2) The D-520 played a MUCH more important role in WWII than the TA-152 and THAT is in the game. The Sherman firefly---is an odd, eccentric choice (1 tank in 4 in UK/ Commonwealth units only) BUT it is out there. (3) Broad brush statements about "minor players" can be misleading. France lost roughly as many people as we did. Since 75% of German casualties were taken on the Eastern front, one could argue that the US was a minor player in Europe. (4) France---was there in the war---in the Battle of France, in Norway, in Free French, and Vichy units. By the time of the invasion of southern France the French contributed five active divisions (2 Armored, 3 infantry) to the effort in the west.
So, the D-520 deserves a place. After that, I would say that an Italian bomber, Yak-3, and the Swordfish (Bismarck, Italian fleet Taranto , eg.) would be nice add ons.
-
I would not say the US was a minor player in Europe because of the stratigec bombing offensive
-
I believe he was speaking metaphorically. Obviously, the US played a huge role in the ETO, and France and the rest of Europe would probably be speaking German or Russian if it weren't for the US. But again, that's my opinion...
The D.520 was a good aircraft for its time - albeit a rather short life in terms of quality of performance. The reason was simple - France was taken out of the fight very early in the conflict.
What if the Arsenal VG.33 had achieved operational status? It was easily on par with the 109 and Spitfire. The problem wasn't with the quality of the aircraft they were building and designing, the problem was with the manufacture and production of those aircraft.
The French were notoriously unwilling to believe that the Germans would be capable of occupying France, especially in 1940 when France had a large, numerically superior military force. While most of their equipment was comparable to that of the Axis, the numbers, lack of training and doctrine, and overall poor morale of her armed services was what allowed Germany to run roughshod over France in a matter of weeks.
Is the D.520 filling a hole in the existing planeset? No, not from a performance standpoint. From a historical view, yes, it should be there....but so should the Bloch MB.152, the Moraine Saulnier Ms.406, Breguet 690 series, Potez 630 series, etc. etc. What about the Curtiss Hawk 75s flown by the Vichy? Far more numerous than the D.520 or Ms.406, more than 400 being sent before occupation.
We can ask for, and receive, every single plane to achieve operational status in WW2, and someone will still want something obscure. Adding new aircraft isn't the answer to our problems - improving the quality of gameplay with entirely new features is what's going to make the difference, artillery, SAR, new targets, terrains, etc . Eventually, the structure of AH2 won't be able to support all the the things we want to do, and we'll be forced to move to AH3, and this argument will most likely start all over again with "We need a Spitfire!"
-
We can ask for, and receive, every single plane to achieve operational status in WW2, and someone will still want something obscure. Adding new aircraft isn't the answer to our problems - improving the quality of gameplay with entirely new features is what's going to make the difference, artillery, SAR, new targets, terrains, etc . Eventually, the structure of AH2 won't be able to support all the the things we want to do, and we'll be forced to move to AH3, and this argument will most likely start all over again with "We need a Spitfire!"
I'd like to see the addition of tiered ground defenses around the airbases - layered direct fire and indirect fire defenses. We have no artillery but flak, at this point. Submarines and surface battle groups would be cool, as well.
And that's important since the D-520 is likely to be taxiied from base capture to base capture, given its uberness and the relevance of my point to this thread. It would also likely be a highly potent surface combatant threat, given , uuuuh, that a De520 looks sort of like a contemporary Supermarine product, well-known for Schneider cup racing. (now I know how Michael Moore does it - it's like 6 degrees of separation by means of which you can connect anything - even two things completely and totally unrelated).
-not a highjacker, nothing to see here, PJL
-
I believe he was speaking metaphorically. Obviously, the US played a huge role in the ETO, and France and the rest of Europe would probably be speaking German or Russian if it weren't for the US. But again, that's my opinion...
The D.520 was a good aircraft for its time - albeit a rather short life in terms of quality of performance. The reason was simple - France was taken out of the fight very early in the conflict.
What if the Arsenal VG.33 had achieved operational status? It was easily on par with the 109 and Spitfire. The problem wasn't with the quality of the aircraft they were building and designing, the problem was with the manufacture and production of those aircraft.
The French were notoriously unwilling to believe that the Germans would be capable of occupying France, especially in 1940 when France had a large, numerically superior military force. While most of their equipment was comparable to that of the Axis, the numbers, lack of training and doctrine, and overall poor morale of her armed services was what allowed Germany to run roughshod over France in a matter of weeks.
Is the D.520 filling a hole in the existing planeset? No, not from a performance standpoint. From a historical view, yes, it should be there....but so should the Bloch MB.152, the Moraine Saulnier Ms.406, Breguet 690 series, Potez 630 series, etc. etc. What about the Curtiss Hawk 75s flown by the Vichy? Far more numerous than the D.520 or Ms.406, more than 400 being sent before occupation.
We can ask for, and receive, every single plane to achieve operational status in WW2, and someone will still want something obscure. Adding new aircraft isn't the answer to our problems - improving the quality of gameplay with entirely new features is what's going to make the difference, artillery, SAR, new targets, terrains, etc . Eventually, the structure of AH2 won't be able to support all the the things we want to do, and we'll be forced to move to AH3, and this argument will most likely start all over again with "We need a Spitfire!"
yes the Americans played an extremely large role in the ETO but the Russians had already halted the German forces on the Eastern Front and was pushing the front back before any American stepped foot inside France... yes we sped the war up dramatically but the war most likely would have been won or at least settled by the British and Russians and Free French with out us in Europe. The Battle of France though was a lightning quick campaign by WWII standards though and the French planes were already outdated by the time Operation Torch was underway. Actually some would argue that they were outdated by the time France had surrendered...
And how would AHII be better with submarines godzilla? for this type of game to work with subs we would need manymanymanymanymany.... ahh you get the idea... we'd need many more objects and more physics and parameters to accompany the subs. Rarely were subs destroying war vessels like destroyers and cruisers and CVs. they went after shipping and the DDEs mainly.
-
Way to downplay Lend-Lease and the US role in Europe :rolleyes:
-
yes the Americans played an extremely large role in the ETO but the Russians had already halted the German forces on the Eastern Front and was pushing the front back before any American stepped foot inside France... yes we sped the war up dramatically but the war most likely would have been won or at least settled by the British and Russians and Free French with out us in Europe. The Battle of France though was a lightning quick campaign by WWII standards though and the French planes were already outdated by the time Operation Torch was underway. Actually some would argue that they were outdated by the time France had surrendered...
And how would AHII be better with submarines godzilla? for this type of game to work with subs we would need manymanymanymanymany.... ahh you get the idea... we'd need many more objects and more physics and parameters to accompany the subs. Rarely were subs destroying war vessels like destroyers and cruisers and CVs. they went after shipping and the DDEs mainly.
Indeed, but that's why I accompanied th eref to subs with "surface battle groups" and we've talked, in other threads, about the logistical train. Sure, it would be great to have convoys for the subs to hunt.
Bottom line: this is a virtual world - why limit it to small?
How about a map that's something like global and theaters that comprehend every type of weapon ever used in WWII? This is admittedly aggressive but it is also the logical end-state of the whole thing. I'd love to see HTC's vision for where AH goes in future but he deigns not to tell us.
-
Indeed, but that's why I accompanied th eref to subs with "surface battle groups" and we've talked, in other threads, about the logistical train. Sure, it would be great to have convoys for the subs to hunt.
Bottom line: this is a virtual world - why limit it to small?
How about a map that's something like global and theaters that comprehend every type of weapon ever used in WWII? This is admittedly aggressive but it is also the logical end-state of the whole thing. I'd love to see HTC's vision for where AH goes in future but he deigns not to tell us.
i gotta say. this is very ambitious but id like it also. but if HTC wanted to do this its probably end up being a new game with 4 years of dedicated writing and coding
-
i gotta say. this is very ambitious but id like it also. but if HTC wanted to do this its probably end up being a new game with 4 years of dedicated writing and coding
Yes, and what a game it'd be. The dream lives.
-
I would not say the US was a minor player in Europe because of the stratigec bombing offensive
After 1943, yes...before that...the Brits did their best and lost a lot of aircraft...and before 1941 the U.S. refused to do anything more than send "tanks, bullets and airplanes", much of which was outdated surplus.
Bottom line: this is a virtual world - why limit it to small?
Because you would whine horribly when you found out that you needed to buy an expensive new computer capable of handling all of the extra junk...when the average price of a bleeding edge gaming system is less than $1200 and everyone has gigabit fiber connections to their homes for $30/month...then working stiffs like us might be able to afford a computer capable of handling the amount of graphics needed to grant your wishes.
WWII Online is somewhere out there, but the airplanes suck ==>>
-
The Dewo is indeed beauty. We should also get the H-75 to compliment it. Always a crowd pleaser in those bf110 engagements.
vr
Infidelz
-
After 1943, yes...before that...the Brits did their best and lost a lot of aircraft...and before 1941 the U.S. refused to do anything more than send "tanks, bullets and airplanes", much of which was outdated surplus.
Because you would whine horribly when you found out that you needed to buy an expensive new computer capable of handling all of the extra junk...when the average price of a bleeding edge gaming system is less than $1200 and everyone has gigabit fiber connections to their homes for $30/month...then working stiffs like us might be able to afford a computer capable of handling the amount of graphics needed to grant your wishes.
WWII Online is somewhere out there, but the airplanes suck ==>>
First, I'm not a whiner by nature in general, and not a whiny customer in particular, since I'm quite familiar with tradeoff. Understand that I've been working in Engineering or Product Development Management for about 23 years now - and all in large, well-known companies. I'm not tooting here, just telling you, I know my way around the gives and gets of product offerings. You have to pay to play - and we make let the customer know it in no uncertain terms (go to a dealership and look at the Moroney stickers if you don't believe me). Don't assume I'm one of the mewling leftists or youthful twinkie-eating gamegeeks that a guy with a handle like "gyrene" probably despises. You'll have to label me with some other category of things you despise.
Two, I doubt the Mac I play on would have a problem with such a game - because I doubt the incremental local processing requirements are that much more demanding. Even if it did, I think I'd sort of (I'd take one for the team) welcome the excuse to get a bigger/better Mac - I add nodes to my home LAN every so often as it is (and have a pile of obsolescent junk to verify that). But I don't think the point holds water since the functionality is all stuff we already have - just on a bigger map and with wider hangar selections. For example, how much more processing is required if player A chooses to man a Pak75mm or a PT boat? It's still one player using one weapon. OTOH, such a game might be a MUCH BIGGER draw. But, I think this is likely more relevant to Pt. 3. I may not understand the local processing required here - please elaborate if you know of a reason why the local processing needs would expand dramatically.
Third, where I think you might have a valid point is in the connection speed. Given that things occasionally get a bit funny in the interchange of info b/w a/c, I can only assume the incremental throughput would potentially be problematic for those of us on cable - especially whne you throw a large number of incremental players and weapons types into the game.
-
would be nice to have this added with the update, need some French A/c
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/2/21/Dewoitine_D.520.jpg)
-
To the banana who said the D520 does NOT fill a gap in the plane set... I disagree. It does. No, it wasn't the most common French fighter but it was the best they had. According to the hard stats, it can hold its own vs other EW planes.
Me thinks we could see this plane in both allied and axis skins without violating any of HTC's rules. :aok
-
To the banana who said the D520 does NOT fill a gap in the plane set... I disagree. It does. No, it wasn't the most common French fighter but it was the best they had. According to the hard stats, it can hold its own vs other EW planes.
Me thinks we could see this plane in both allied and axis skins without violating any of HTC's rules. :aok
:salute totally agree with this leg humping gent. :cheers: