Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: wgmount on April 27, 2010, 04:23:51 PM

Title: G4M
Post by: wgmount on April 27, 2010, 04:23:51 PM
Just because the Japanese look funny in B25's when they need to bomb something.

G4M Betty
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 27, 2010, 04:31:26 PM
We need the Ronson Lighter: (http://vmf124.combatsim.com/images/stories/authors/skipper/recognition/G4M-Betty.jpg)
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: ACE on April 27, 2010, 05:06:53 PM
I'm sure it turns good. Lol
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: whiteman on April 27, 2010, 05:30:49 PM
+1, would be nice to have and think the current AVA setup could use it also.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: RaptorL on April 27, 2010, 05:34:10 PM
 :aok
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: Karnak on April 27, 2010, 06:42:36 PM
I'm sure it turns good. Lol
Not particularly.  It had an insanely long range for a twin engine bomber.  Mitsubishi repeatedly asked the IJN for permission to go to four engines as they were really needed for what the IJN was asking for, but the IJN denied the request every time.  Due to the twin engine and range requirements Mitsubishi was forced to take extreme measures to the degree that not only did they have to forgo any armor at all, the skin of the wings is actually part of the fuel tanks.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: LLogann on April 27, 2010, 09:15:17 PM
I've personally started 2 threads for a Betty going back 2 years........................ ..................

Title: Re: G4M
Post by: wgmount on April 27, 2010, 10:37:02 PM
I guess mine will not change any minds then.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: LLogann on April 27, 2010, 10:44:44 PM
I sure hope it does.......... Betty was a mainstay in the Japanese arsenal.   :salute

I guess mine will not change any minds then.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: SIK1 on April 27, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
A Betty would be a good addition for scenarios, and the AvA.  :aok

Not sure how well it would do in the MA, though iirc some did have a 20mm in the tail.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: Karnak on April 27, 2010, 10:53:28 PM
A Betty would be a good addition for scenarios, and the AvA.  :aok

Not sure how well it would do in the MA, though iirc some did have a 20mm in the tail.
All had the 20mm in the tail.  The G4M2 replaced the 7.7mm in the dorsal with a 20mm as well.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: phatzo on April 27, 2010, 11:10:46 PM
All had the 20mm in the tail.  The G4M2 replaced the 7.7mm in the dorsal with a 20mm as well.
now that would be fun  :aok
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: HighTone on April 27, 2010, 11:28:52 PM
I would love to see this aircraft along with the Ki-43. Both would find a lot of use in the special events. They would appeal to some for MA play as well. But any Japanese aircraft would be great IMO.   

+1  :aok
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: Saxman on April 28, 2010, 07:09:41 AM
All had the 20mm in the tail.  The G4M2 replaced the 7.7mm in the dorsal with a 20mm as well.

And I believe the G4M3 replaced ALL the guns with 20mm.  :O
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: ACE on April 28, 2010, 07:15:14 AM
Not particularly.  It had an insanely long range for a twin engine bomber.  Mitsubishi repeatedly asked the IJN for permission to go to four engines as they were really needed for what the IJN was asking for, but the IJN denied the request every time.  Due to the twin engine and range requirements Mitsubishi was forced to take extreme measures to the degree that not only did they have to forgo any armor at all, the skin of the wings is actually part of the fuel tanks.
So it would be very easy to shoot down?
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: AirFlyer on April 28, 2010, 07:18:58 AM
It'll catch on fire just as easy as an A6M2, so likely unless someone gets real good with the 20mms. Regardless it's still an aircraft that would find great use in scenarios, AVA, and maybe some MA use.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: Saxman on April 28, 2010, 09:49:43 AM
Depends on which arena.

The G4M would be easy meat for most Late and Midwar fighters, while she would be far more competitive in the Early War arena where there's fewer high-performance and cannon-armed opposition.

From what I understand, the main durability issue with the G4M was lack of protection for the fuel tanks in early models. So long as she didn't catch on fire (that both sides dubbed her the "Type 1 Lighter" tells you the chance of THAT not happening) the Betty was otherwise fairly rugged and could absorb a good deal of punishment.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 28, 2010, 10:19:33 AM
So long as she didn't catch on fire (that both sides dubbed her the "Type 1 Lighter" tells you the chance of THAT not happening)

All the more reason to have it.

Gods of AHII, please bring us "Sparky the Bomber". I'm suspecting it'll have that nice "one shell and orange trail" effect that's so endearing on the Zekes.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: AirFlyer on April 28, 2010, 11:20:02 AM
Makes you wonder which model we'd get if there was mention of the G4M. The G4M1 and G4M2 saw plenty of production to warrant them. The G4M3 was much rarer but I think we have less produced planes/vehicles in AH.
Title: Re: G4M
Post by: Karnak on April 28, 2010, 12:42:27 PM
And I believe the G4M3 replaced ALL the guns with 20mm.  :O
It also had a fully protected fuel system and some armor.  It also saw very little, if any, combat.

G4M2 would probably be the best one to add as a generalist, single version.