Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: perdue3 on May 20, 2013, 12:56:12 PM
-
For years, we have used the TBM-3 in Early War Pacific, Mid War Pacific, and Late War Pacific setups. Every Early War setup, the Axis finds itself struggling to kill juicy, low torpedo bombers. Until recently, I have just accepted the fact. Reading the tail end of another thread this forum, convinced me to finally make this post.
In Coral Sea setups specifically, we use the following plane set:
Allied = F4F, SBD, TBM-3
Axis = A6M2, D3A, B5N2
The Axis plane set is fantastic in my opinion. The F4F with the 4 gun pack and SBD-3 is fine also. However, the TBM-3 is way over powered for the opposing Japanese plane set. Not only is it over powered but it is very inaccurate. I understand that we do not have every plane in WW2 at our disposal and the CM's do the best they can to replicate the historical aerial campaign. Sometimes adjustments have to be made for playability. I.E. Frame 2's SBD's flying defense and Frame 3's D3A's doing the same. These are adjustments that the CiC made for strategic reasons while reluctantly scrapping accuracy. Using level bombers to destroy CV groups is another example. This happens, sadly.
I am not screaming conspiracy nor am I complaining about fairness. I am screaming for accuracy. With accuracy, the fairness falls into place. As it is now, the Early War Pacific setup that I posted above heavily favors the Allies in plane vs. plane situation. It is quite hard to kill TBM-3's in an A6M2. It is very very easy to kill a Kate in an F4F.
In this particular situation we simulated the Battle of the Coral Sea. The USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown had the following aircraft aboard (NOTICE: I did not include the Port Moresby Forces considering they were not included in this setup):
Yorktown: VF-42 (F4F Wildcat), VB-5 (SBD Dauntless), VS-5 (SBD Dauntless), VT-5 (TBD Devastator)
Lexington: VF-2 (F4F Wildcat), VB-2 (SBD Dauntless), VS-2 (SBD Dauntless), VT-2 (TBD Devastator)
So, in the Battle of the Coral Sea the USN used TBD Devastators. We do not have this aircraft in AH2. The designers always choose to substitute the TBD with the TBM-3. I would think that the substitution protocol would be to choose the closest aircraft (performance) to the one you are substituting for. The B5N's performance and payload is much more similar to the TBD-1 than the TBM-3 is. I have gathered a bit of information on the B5N2, the TBD, and the TBM-3 (NOTICE: I did not include the optional bombs for all 3 torpedo bombers due to this specific case).
TBD-1 TBM-3 B5N
Max Speed: 206mph 262mph 235mph
Climb Rate: 720ft/min 1,540ft/min 1,283ft/min
Range: 435mi 985mi 1,237mi
Armament: .030 nose, .030 tail 2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral 7.7mm tail
Ordnance: 2,000lb torp 2,000lb torp 1,706lb torp
As you can clearly see, the TBM-3 is a world ahead of the TBD Devastator. It is quite an impressive upgrade from the TBD. The B5N is still a bit superior considering performance. The TBD is what the Allies should have, instead they have the TBM-3. Now that you have seen the performance differences allow me to add more vegetables to the soup.
The TBM-3 is a product of Grumman's TBF design. The original TBF-1 Avenger was shipped to the Pacific in June of 1942 to VT-8. Only six made it to Midway in time to participate in the Battle of Midway. The rest were at Pearl. So one could make an argument that even in Midway setups there should be a VERY small number of them in the set up. Keep in mind we use the TBM-3 NOT the TBF-1.
The kicker: The TBM-3 was not in production until mid-1944 and the first TBM-3's shipped were sent in August, 1944 to the Atlantic Fleets (Escort Carriers). The first TBM-3 did not see action in the Pacific until November, 1944. So why are they in the Coral Sea in May, 1942?
So, not only do we have a case where a far superior plane is being used as a substitution, this plane also happens to be a very late war design as well.
We would gain a lot of accuracy if we substituted the TBD-1 Devastator with the B5N2 "Kate." The aircraft performance is much more similar than the TBD-1 is to the TBM-3. Not to mention, the B5N is an upgrade from the TBD-1 anyway. Obviously the ideal situation would be a TBD-1. That is not what I am after. What I am after is accuracy. The balance falls into place in this case if accuracy is given. The Axis would be able to adequately hunt the Kate as the F4F's do now and the event as a whole would be more balanced.
In conclusion, why is the TBM-3 the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 Devastator? Especially since we have a torpedo bomber that is abundantly closer in performance to the TBD-1 Devastator in the B5N "Kate."
Thank you for reading and your opinions. <S>
Sources:
Lundstrom, John B. (2005 (New edition)). The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.
Drendel, Lou. U.S. Navy Carrier Bombers of World War II. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc., 1987.
Jackson, B.R. and Thomas E. Doll. Supplement to Grumman TBF/TBM "Avenger". Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1970.
Francillon, René J. Imperial Japanese Navy Bombers of World War Two. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Hylton Lacy Publishers Ltd., 1969.
-
TBD Devastator had armor, the Kate didn't - while I agree adding the Devastator would be a much factor, it ultimately won't decide any future FSOs or Midway - again we are playing a simulation based on actual events.
If you want accuracy, maybe the Axis should get the top 30 handpicked pilots before every FSO while the Americans have an average bunch of pilots - Then again you being a Luftwaffe pilot - would not like the events around 1944+ and beyond while the allies get all the aces.
Problem with this is everyone will not be happy with fairness. What if we stuck you with the "newbies" of the FSO event? Why not? its historically accurate!
FSO is about playability and fun - its no easy task to balance fairness with historical accuracy, however I have not seen one mention anywhere that FSO is based entire on realism or historical accuracy. Its based on an event in which using data from PREVIOUS fso events, makes balancing easier each time except when numbers different then things get screwy. For example one of the previous Scenarios I flew in, only had 5 Bomber pilots for the allies, in which they faced 4 Me-262s - even with two lives - they were no match for the 262s in which salute to them, nobody whined since once the 262 was shot down, it was gone.
And it was a blood bath, I don't recall many Bombers making it home - problem was Lack of attendance caused a few of the bomber pilots not to show up, leading to shortage of numbers.
I remember while back someone showing the winners of FSO and it seemed it was almost split in half when I thought luftwaffe lost just about every one of them. Clearly I was wrong.
Comparing the TBM to the Devastator and Devastator to the Kate is apples to oranges, while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign, half the scenarios are not setup 100% historically period.
-
TBD Devastator had armor, the Kate didn't - while I agree adding the Devastator would be a much factor, it ultimately won't decide any future FSOs or Midway - again we are playing a simulation based on actual events.
If you want accuracy, maybe the Axis should get the top 30 handpicked pilots before every FSO while the Americans have an average bunch of pilots - Then again you being a Luftwaffe pilot - would not like the events around 1944+ and beyond while the allies get all the aces.
Problem with this is everyone will not be happy with fairness. What if we stuck you with the "newbies" of the FSO event? Why not? its historically accurate!
FSO is about playability and fun - its no easy task to balance fairness with historical accuracy, however I have not seen one mention anywhere that FSO is based entire on realism or historical accuracy. Its based on an event in which using data from PREVIOUS fso events, makes balancing easier each time except when numbers different then things get screwy. For example one of the previous Scenarios I flew in, only had 5 Bomber pilots for the allies, in which they faced 4 Me-262s - even with two lives - they were no match for the 262s in which salute to them, nobody whined since once the 262 was shot down, it was gone.
And it was a blood bath, I don't recall many Bombers making it home - problem was Lack of attendance caused a few of the bomber pilots not to show up, leading to shortage of numbers.
I remember while back someone showing the winners of FSO and it seemed it was almost split in half when I thought luftwaffe lost just about every one of them. Clearly I was wrong.
Comparing the TBM to the Devastator and Devastator to the Kate is apples to oranges, while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign, half the scenarios are not setup 100% historically period.
It is like substituting the 109F-2 with a 109K-4. It shouldn't happen, that is my point. I agree with 96% of what you just said. The "aces" thing is stretching but I see your point. I dont want 100% accuracy for it is impossible to play. Fun is thrown away, however this seems like a pretty easy fix and I dont really see a good defense for it. Yours is interesting, but not good enough to counter my argument.
"while I agree the TBM should not be in the Coral Sea Campaign"
-
sounds more like a lack of proper cic resource implementation (flashbacks of inept military officers) than specs on included aircraft. the a6m2 is more than fast enough to catch the tbm3, if someone was dumb enough to put d3a's in as cap over cv groups, then the axis got screwed by ineptitude.
-
the a6m2 is more than fast enough to catch the tbm3
According to the Aces High performance charts, at sea level (most likely altitude to find TBM-3's) the A6M2 is able to reach a speed of 270mph. The TBM-3 at seal level has the ability to reach 265 mph. The A6M2 is faster, agreed. However, in the Battle of the Coral Sea, A6M2's had no problem killing the TBD Devastator. We have a very hard time killing the TBM-3 on the deck. We can catch them but it takes a long time to catch them due to the similarities in top speed at sea level. By the time the TBM-3 becomes able to be in a Pacific Set up, the Axis have Ki-84's and Ki-61's which are more than capable of catching/killing TBM-3's.
But let us say that we can easily catch TBM-3's in A6M2's. How about killing them? All of that armor with very little to work with on our end.
Again, decent attempt a counter but not quite there yet. It was a valiant effort nonetheless and you bring out a good point that the A6M2 is faster. However, the speed gap is not wide enough to make it relatively conceivable to adequately kill TBM-3's.
-
On paper this looks horrible. In actual practice Fester and kappa had little issue chasing down and shredding our flight of 5 TBM's in Frame 1. In other words, I think this is much ado about nothing. I realize Fester and kappa are outstanding pilots, but I really don't think they are they only guys who could have done this. The difference in speed only meant they had to travel half a sector farther to catch us.
This is just my opinion, but I'd rather not see Allied birds flying as Axis or vice versa for the sole purpose of making some numbers match up better. If the difference is truly that great, just don't run that setup.
-
If I dive on you I will be faster than you for 8 miles until I burn up my energy raking you with ammo and watching you fly through it. Once we even up the energy, the TBM-3 becomes a very tricky fish to catch. Keep in mind, the A6M is maneuvering for shots whilst the TBM-3 remains level with very little movement.
Fester and kappa are great shots and were able to make quick work of you. Most people are not as good as those two. So the TBM-3 will eventually begin to walk away and force the A6M to fly straight and level to get up to the TBM-3's speed.
Axis being flown as Allies. It is is paint job away from being Allied. I find that counter to be the poorest I have read thus far. I find that having a more similar aircraft to that which flew in the historical campaign we are simulating to be more important than what nationality it is (color).
Another good attempt at a valid excuse for the TBM-3 to be the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 but just not quite good enough. I certainly appreciate everyone's input.
-
According to the Aces High performance charts, at sea level (most likely altitude to find TBM-3's) the A6M2 is able to reach a speed of 270mph. The TBM-3 at seal level has the ability to reach 265 mph. The A6M2 is faster, agreed. However, in the Battle of the Coral Sea, A6M2's had no problem killing the TBD Devastator. We have a very hard time killing the TBM-3 on the deck. We can catch them but it takes a long time to catch them due to the similarities in top speed at sea level. By the time the TBM-3 becomes able to be in a Pacific Set up, the Axis have Ki-84's and Ki-61's which are more than capable of catching/killing TBM-3's.
But let us say that we can easily catch TBM-3's in A6M2's. How about killing them? All of that armor with very little to work with on our end.
Again, decent attempt a counter but not quite there yet. It was a valiant effort nonetheless and you bring out a good point that the A6M2 is faster. However, the speed gap is not wide enough to make it relatively conceivable to adequately kill TBM-3's.
Since you weren't there, let me refer you to the logs:
Frame 1
Brownien
00:53:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by ZE.
Shadow
00:50:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by PCHute.
00:53:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Willis.
Tazz69
00:53:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
Fester
00:30:34 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by mbailey.
00:31:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Triton28.
00:31:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cobra89.
00:40:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cactus.
kappa
00:22:19 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by FiLtH.
00:35:21 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Trap78.
10 TBMs splashed frame 1
Frame 2
FBKack
00:38:31 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.
Gremlin
00:30:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by goalie72.
PROJOEe
00:40:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RynoRush.
49Baller
00:33:05 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by LoedeCH.
49Boob
00:31:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Drill.
00:32:11 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68JR.
49Carl10
00:33:14 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Falcon.
49Dingo
00:32:30 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RedBrd.
00:33:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Raptor.
jarbo
00:27:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68hobo.
00:28:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68boxcar.
vSixO
00:28:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68RacrX.
00:29:32 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by luckie.
CRAZYiVN
00:37:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Pollux.
Hamhawk
00:39:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by south52.
JW
00:40:49 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.
Ra
00:37:37 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Striker1.
rayace1
00:40:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie. ;)
SDpops57
00:37:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by hyzer.
waystin2
00:37:57 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Taser.
Sukov
01:02:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
neodad
00:29:55 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Wooley.
00:33:24 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by JazzCH.
22 TBMs splashed frame 2
Frame 3
Dantoo
23:04:16 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DrDigr1.
23:08:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
23:12:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Vlkyrie1.
skewer
23:12:59 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by EagleCH.
23:13:06 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by TracerX.
Ordy
23:04:35 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKTSgt.
JETSOM
22:59:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie.
23:00:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.
BudGray
23:12:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Golfer.
qbert
23:05:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by zzZERO.
BigD
23:13:18 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by LoedeCH.
Fish42
23:12:22 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Nefari.
23:13:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bern1.
LawnDart
23:03:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wulf149.
cuda
23:04:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKGreyga.
Devil5O5 (D3A1)
23:00:13 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by south52.
DAKone
23:04:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKBunk.
23:04:17 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKSofty.
HighTone
23:00:01 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Mason.
shifty
23:00:31 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by hyzer.
TxCoyote
23:00:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.
23:00:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Branch37.
442w30
23:12:27 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DamnName.
wmills
23:12:13 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bigcat.
24 TBMs splashed frame 3
You can check my numbers here:
http://www.ahevents.org/event-logs.html
You're welcome.
-
Any future Coral Sea setup for FSO should be strictly dive bomber and torpedo plane only. No fighters.
Given that the players have become so expert in the the Wildcats and Zekes, they in fact recreate any Turkey Shoot against the the other aircraft. This becomes a demoralizing situation to any player in the dive bomber or torpedo plane. Resulting in low turnouts for those aircraft further increasing lopsided results.
The setup should have 3 CV groups as a single target within a 4 sector grid. Equal to both sides. 40/60 split between Allied and Axis. Close proximity to each other to encourage rearm and second strikes. CM Objectives state Offense Only. The true Objective is to see which side sinks the most and the fastest.
This forces a shift in tactical planning and strategic maneuvering. There will be dogfights between SBD and TBM vs D3A1 and B5N2 with Axis having more numbers.
-
Any future Coral Sea setup for FSO should be strictly dive bomber and torpedo plane only. No fighters.
Given that the players have become so expert in the the Wildcats and Zekes, they in fact recreate any Turkey Shoot against the the other aircraft. This becomes a demoralizing situation to any player in the dive bomber or torpedo plane. Resulting in low turnouts for those aircraft further increasing lopsided results.
The setup should have 3 CV groups as a single target within a 4 sector grid. Equal to both sides. 40/60 split between Allied and Axis. Close proximity to each other to encourage rearm and second strikes. CM Objectives state Offense Only. The true Objective is to see which side sinks the most and the fastest.
This forces a shift in tactical planning and strategic maneuvering. There will be dogfights between SBD and TBM vs D3A1 and B5N2 with Axis having more numbers.
Mmmmmnot thinking this is a good idea - especially if you're concerned about turnout.
-
Mmmmmnot thinking this is a good idea - especially if you're concerned about turnout.
Or we could have the Battle of Coral Sea with no bombers. Then everybody's happy! :banana: ;)
-
For years, we have used the TBM-3 in Early War Pacific, Mid War Pacific, and Late War Pacific setups. Every Early War setup, the Axis finds itself struggling to kill juicy, low torpedo bombers. Until recently, I have just accepted the fact. Reading the tail end of another thread this forum, convinced me to finally make this post.
In Coral Sea setups specifically, we use the following plane set:
Allied = F4F, SBD, TBM-3
Axis = A6M2, D3A, B5N2
The Axis plane set is fantastic in my opinion. The F4F with the 4 gun pack and SBD-3 is fine also. However, the TBM-3 is way over powered for the opposing Japanese plane set. Not only is it over powered but it is very inaccurate. I understand that we do not have every plane in WW2 at our disposal and the CM's do the best they can to replicate the historical aerial campaign. Sometimes adjustments have to be made for playability. I.E. Frame 2's SBD's flying defense and Frame 3's D3A's doing the same. These are adjustments that the CiC made for strategic reasons while reluctantly scrapping accuracy. Using level bombers to destroy CV groups is another example. This happens, sadly.
I am not screaming conspiracy nor am I complaining about fairness. I am screaming for accuracy. With accuracy, the fairness falls into place. As it is now, the Early War Pacific setup that I posted above heavily favors the Allies in plane vs. plane situation. It is quite hard to kill TBM-3's in an A6M2. It is very very easy to kill a Kate in an F4F.
In this particular situation we simulated the Battle of the Coral Sea. The USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown had the following aircraft aboard (NOTICE: I did not include the Port Moresby Forces considering they were not included in this setup):
Yorktown: VF-42 (F4F Wildcat), VB-5 (SBD Dauntless), VS-5 (SBD Dauntless), VT-5 (TBD Devastator)
Lexington: VF-2 (F4F Wildcat), VB-2 (SBD Dauntless), VS-2 (SBD Dauntless), VT-2 (TBD Devastator)
So, in the Battle of the Coral Sea the USN used TBD Devastators. We do not have this aircraft in AH2. The designers always choose to substitute the TBD with the TBM-3. I would think that the substitution protocol would be to choose the closest aircraft (performance) to the one you are substituting for. The B5N's performance and payload is much more similar to the TBD-1 than the TBM-3 is. I have gathered a bit of information on the B5N2, the TBD, and the TBM-3 (NOTICE: I did not include the optional bombs for all 3 torpedo bombers due to this specific case).
TBD-1 TBM-3 B5N
Max Speed: 206mph 262mph 235mph
Climb Rate: 720ft/min 1,540ft/min 1,283ft/min
Range: 435mi 985mi 1,237mi
Armament: .030 nose, .030 tail 2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral 7.7mm tail
Ordnance: 2,000lb torp 2,000lb torp 1,706lb torp
As you can clearly see, the TBM-3 is a world ahead of the TBD Devastator. It is quite an impressive upgrade from the TBD. The B5N is still a bit superior considering performance. The TBD is what the Allies should have, instead they have the TBM-3. Now that you have seen the performance differences allow me to add more vegetables to the soup.
The TBM-3 is a product of Grumman's TBF design. The original TBF-1 Avenger was shipped to the Pacific in June of 1942 to VT-8. Only six made it to Midway in time to participate in the Battle of Midway. The rest were at Pearl. So one could make an argument that even in Midway setups there should be a VERY small number of them in the set up. Keep in mind we use the TBM-3 NOT the TBF-1.
The kicker: The TBM-3 was not in production until mid-1944 and the first TBM-3's shipped were sent in August, 1944 to the Atlantic Fleets (Escort Carriers). The first TBM-3 did not see action in the Pacific until November, 1944. So why are they in the Coral Sea in May, 1942?
So, not only do we have a case where a far superior plane is being used as a substitution, this plane also happens to be a very late war design as well.
We would gain a lot of accuracy if we substituted the TBD-1 Devastator with the B5N2 "Kate." The aircraft performance is much more similar than the TBD-1 is to the TBM-3. Not to mention, the B5N is an upgrade from the TBD-1 anyway. Obviously the ideal situation would be a TBD-1. That is not what I am after. What I am after is accuracy. The balance falls into place in this case if accuracy is given. The Axis would be able to adequately hunt the Kate as the F4F's do now and the event as a whole would be more balanced.
In conclusion, why is the TBM-3 the substitute of choice for the TBD-1 Devastator? Especially since we have a torpedo bomber that is abundantly closer in performance to the TBD-1 Devastator in the B5N "Kate."
Thank you for reading and your opinions. <S>
Sources:
Lundstrom, John B. (2005 (New edition)). The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.
Drendel, Lou. U.S. Navy Carrier Bombers of World War II. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc., 1987.
Jackson, B.R. and Thomas E. Doll. Supplement to Grumman TBF/TBM "Avenger". Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1970.
Francillon, René J. Imperial Japanese Navy Bombers of World War Two. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Hylton Lacy Publishers Ltd., 1969.
i'm reading this as i finish my end of day paperwork(what little i have to do today). i'll read it along with the replies closer when i get home tonight.
i had thought of using the b5n, but that in my geeky mind would destroy the entire event for those flying it on the allied side. i mean......you're supposed to be flying a USN torpedo bomber, you do a scan, looking for enemies, and virtually every time you look out, you see that meatball on your wings. that in my mind cannot happen.
if i had a way i could "nerf" the performance of the tbm-3 a little, i'd have done that.
anyway.....i'll re-read tonight.
-
i'm reading this as i finish my end of day paperwork(what little i have to do today). i'll read it along with the replies closer when i get home tonight.
i had thought of using the b5n, but that in my geeky mind would destroy the entire event for those flying it on the allied side. i mean......you're supposed to be flying a USN torpedo bomber, you do a scan, looking for enemies, and virtually every time you look out, you see that meatball on your wings. that in my mind cannot happen.
if i had a way i could "nerf" the performance of the tbm-3 a little, i'd have done that.
anyway.....i'll re-read tonight.
That's all I wanted to know. I wanted to know why the TBM-3 was chosen. The answer is: Because it is American. We have no Yak-1 so you'd sub with a Yak-9 before you would a P-40N only because it has red stars. Thank you CAP. Discussion over.
-
Or we could have the Battle of Coral Sea with no bombers. Then everybody's happy! :banana: ;)
:huh :headscratch:
-
That's all I wanted to know. I wanted to know why the TBM-3 was chosen. The answer is: Because it is American. We have no Yak-1 so you'd sub with a Yak-9 before you would a P-40N only because it has red stars. Thank you CAP. Discussion over.
I think its more along the lines of its the closest plane we have that carries a torpedo in the pacific theater that resembles the Devastator, I'd like to see what CAP says on this.
The BF-110C gets to replace the Ki-45 (in which I think is overkill in terms of performance and gun package)
The Ki-61 also replaces something else, oh and the Ki-43 was always flown as the A6m5 until we finally got the Ki-43 which is a nice trade since the A6m5 was overkill vs early war rides.
Ki-67 replaces.... G3m? Ki-48 sally? Not sure on this one since the Ki-67 was a late war only plane.
From the Logs, it seems the TBMs got chewed up pretty good, don't sound like much of a performance difference being its a late war ride, compared to some other aircrafts that get subbed in for like above.
If anything, have the TBM's fly at cruise speed and all you got is a beefed up Devastator with 50 cals replacing the 30 cals- they are still dead meat to a zero.
-
I think its more along the lines of its the closest plane we have that carries a torpedo in the pacific theater that resembles the Devastator, I'd like to see what CAP says on this.
The BF-110C gets to replace the Ki-45 (in which I think is overkill in terms of performance and gun package)
The Ki-61 also replaces something else, oh and the Ki-43 was always flown as the A6m5 until we finally got the Ki-43 which is a nice trade since the A6m5 was overkill vs early war rides.
Ki-67 replaces.... G3m? Ki-48 sally? Not sure on this one since the Ki-67 was a late war only plane.
From the Logs, it seems the TBMs got chewed up pretty good, don't sound like much of a performance difference being its a late war ride, compared to some other aircrafts that get subbed in for like above.
If anything, have the TBM's fly at cruise speed and all you got is a beefed up Devastator with 50 cals replacing the 30 cals- they are still dead meat to a zero.
A6M2 always replaced the Ki-43. Ju 88 replaced the He 11 (huge upgrade). 110C is an upgrade for the Ki-45 and if you do a BBS search you will see that I complained about it. I ended up leading the 110C's in Rangoon lol.
Beefed up TBD huh? That doesnt even deserve a response. What would you say a P-51D is when compared to an A-36? Beefed up A-36? Supersized A-36? Streamlined BT-13?
-
Well done, Perdue :salute
I think getting somebody to skin a B5N to look American ( blue.. white underside.. VHTC-# for an identifier, American markings ) would work nicely. It would be more suitable than the TBM.
The one thing that seemingly keeps getting overlooked or undervalued, is that even if you're in an SBD or TBM, if you get behind a baddie, you have enough frontal firepower to make them pay dearly. That isn't an option in the IJN bombers. That feeling of helplessness isn't a lot of fun, when you encounter being harvested repeatedly ( which, in reality, is what it truly is ).
However, not all nights are bad. We survived frame 3 ( for the most part ) and got to lacerate a couple SBDs that we caught in their turns..
(http://www.airmageddon.com/ClaimJumpers/FleetDefense.jpg)
-
:huh :headscratch:
Joke Arlo, joke. :D
-
Well done, Perdue :salute
I think getting somebody to skin a B5N to look American ( blue.. white underside.. VHTC-# for an identifier, American markings ) would work nicely. It would be more suitable than the TBM.
The one thing that seemingly keeps getting overlooked or undervalued, is that even if you're in an SBD or TBM, if you get behind a baddie, you have enough frontal firepower to make them pay dearly. That isn't an option in the IJN bombers. That feeling of helplessness isn't a lot of fun, when you encounter being harvested repeatedly ( which, in reality, is what it truly is ).
However, not all nights are bad. We survived frame 3 ( for the most part ) and got to lacerate a couple SBDs that we caught in their turns..
(http://www.airmageddon.com/ClaimJumpers/FleetDefense.jpg)
To add to your anecdote, the problem for the Japanese in the Coral Sea was not the F4F or the TBD. The problem were the SBD's. The Dauntless won the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. In these FSO events, the SBD's should be the problem. Not the damn late 44 TBM-3 with its R-2600-40 and additional armor. We found ourselves ignoring the TBM'-3's in this FSO because we knew we would be wasting our time. Yes, we can kill 3-5 of them but for what? They will allow those pesky SBD's to get on the boat and give the Wildcat's a great chance at catching us with our pants down.
-
You're simply ignoring what myself and others are saying. I saw nothing that suggested the Allies got some unfair advantage by using the TBM. Period. That's not conjecture, or theortical, it's what I observed from flying in all three frames. When spotted, Zero's caught and made quick work of TBM's.
I also disagree with the "difference is just paint job" when substituting Jap planes for Allied. The differences between the two are way more than paint job. Personally, I think CAP made the right call when faced with the choice, and it's not because I was flying Allied. The TBM is the closest substitution for TBD that was availible.
We disagree. :eek:
-
That's why you just have the dive bombers and torpedo planes only. Let them do their jobs without any fighter defense and see how each side fares. Then it will be whether the FSO players can hit their targets with accuracy. Fleet ack will be still firing especially with 3 CV groups together.
It won't make a difference if you're in a TBM or B5N carrying a torp. Each player will either hit or miss depending in their aim. SBD and D3A players in the same boat especially when the CVs are turning with all the ack firing.
-
I thought the information provided by ARLO about how many tbm's were shot down in fram 1,2,and 3 was very funny, i showed it two several people here and they could not stop laughing.......why? Becuase you provided only one side of the information, you did not show how many japanese planes were shot down by tbm's,and you did not show how many japanese aircraft engaged tbm's and only recieved an assist....this would have complete the information to be compared.....but instead, you selected the information that supported your point. thats what we call bait and switch........you know, where you use only information to pretend you are contributing,but in reality you are just shining the spotlight away from the actual point,because you cant defend the point with valid informaton. arlo,please list the other information for a real comparison, thank you
-
I agree with perdweeb on the performance issue alone. The TBM is a huge upgrade over the TBD that we don't have.
In Shattered Sword, it was stated that the TBD with a torpedo on had a top speed of about 130mph.... :uhoh
However I don't like seeing a substitute that makes an allied plane fly axis, or an axis plane fly allied. I loose some immersion factor in that trade. Ju-88's for He-111's or Zekes for Oscars is one thing, but B5N's for TBD's is another IMO.
I think until the TBD is added, we should just sub the A6M2 for the A6M3 in these situations. :angel:
That may be a tough sell as well. Better we just get the TBD :cheers:
-
That's why you just have the dive bombers and torpedo planes only. Let them do their jobs without any fighter defense and see how each side fares. Then it will be whether the FSO players can hit their targets with accuracy. Fleet ack will be still firing especially with 3 CV groups together.
It won't make a difference if you're in a TBM or B5N carrying a torp. Each player will either hit or miss depending in their aim. SBD and D3A players in the same boat especially when the CVs are turning with all the ack firing.
More ships were sunk over the three frames of this FSO then sunk during the four days of the actual battle. The bombers got through regardless if they were IJN or USN there's no need to remove fighters from the setup.
-
In Shattered Sword, it was stated that the TBD with a torpedo on had a top speed of about 130mph.... :uhoh
What plane in Aces High flies at its operational speed? not one does. Jump into the Main arena and watch B-17s at 30k on full power.
-
More ships were sunk over the three frames of this FSO then sunk during the four days of the actual battle. The bombers got through regardless if they were IJN or USN there's no need to remove fighters from the setup.
Look at our numbers in one frame versus the numbers in the actual battle. Then try to make your point.
-
Look at our numbers in one frame versus the numbers in the actual battle. Then try to make your point.
You are comparing the actual battle to a video game, really?
-
Look at our numbers in one frame versus the numbers in the actual battle. Then try to make your point.
The point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with your TBM B5N debate. I happen to agree with you on the B5N TBM issue the B5N is a closer match to the TBD than the TBM.
My post has to do with the guy suggesting we run the setup without fighters. Not to mention we cannot recreate actual numbers unless we're going to start asking folks to sit out.
-
I wonder what would happen if you put Fester, Kappa, and some other ace in TBM's on the deck, and had Triton28, Arlo, and some other person arguing that it makes no difference in A6M's in a little test in the DA in a best of 10 what would happen? I'd lay money down that Fester and Kappa would probably either kill or escape from the A6M's far more often than they would fall to them.
-
Just a word to you guys who are referencing axis kills of TBM-3 in Coral Sea:
I have killed TBM-3 in Coral Sea, all of us have, sometimes, depending on good positioning, JG11 or KN or anyone has had a good day against these planes. But Kappa and Fester could probably kill most of us in any plane in an A6M2 given time and patience - so yes - their kill sheet is impressive and I assume (since English is my second language, I sometimes miss these subtle hints) the reason you posted it was to say the rest of us need to improve? Other than this (and I believe you are trolling then) I cannot think of any logic to what your argument is (other then to simply distract or to troll).
The TBM-3 is too good, an argument has been put forth, it would be nice to see at least that admitted before people go running off with "hay look, these guys did well in it. . ."
There is also a trend to use this past scenario specifically, to confuse this with some 'whine thread' I assure you it is something that has irked me (as one of the few 'Japanese Empire' fans in mostly a Luft dominated Axis side) since my first frame in an A6M2 chasing a TBM down (this was awhile back) and being called to break off because - and I quote - "you will run out of gas before you catch them Ruah'. . .
During the war, at all stages during the war, torpedo bombers were never a threat, not to the allies (who killed a lot of Vales) nor to the Japanese (the TB loss was one of the highest in the war for any plane allied side), the SBDs were the killers, the TBs the distraction/meat shield. . . having a plane that is zipping through the fighter cap at 450 is. . .well. . . beyond unrealistic.
back on point:
why not the vale?
It is a lot closer in terms of performance, it will die in droves (as it should), and it will better illustrate that the Battle of Coral sea was not an easy win for the Yanks and how the SBD was the real hero of the Pacific war.
-
I'm on the list for a TBM kill and I did get the credit. It took two other guys pressing attacks to finish it. It also was able to survive long enough to have released it's ord. The Zero is fast enough to catch it by not by much, roughly 2% faster at sea level. You get a drawn out chase if no alt advantage at start, this would not be the case using the other torp. plane. The comparatively heavy armor and fire power makes a defensive and offensive skew that does affect the battle. The extra time one has to spend chasing and chewing up the TBM shortens your time elsewhere, plain and simple. The TBM is no SBD but it is much more capable than the other available bird which is undeniably far more correct for capability in this battle time frame. Paint it up allied and use it. My two cents worth. pops57 out.
P.S. Just to be clear I love this game and DO appreciate the hard work and dedication of all those hard working folks that make it the fun game it is! I'm not going anywhere whether a change is made or it stays as is. This is just a point to discuss.
-
Before we start planning my death match with Fester and kappa, I'd really like to hear someone explain how the TBM's awesome firepower, toughness, speed won the day for the Allies.
-
Not sure anyone is saying that Triton but please reread my earlier post I believe I laid it out reasonably well. Simple logic suggests that a faster more heavily armed and armored plane will have some effect in a game scenario. I have flown against both axis and allied torp planes and can say for me and my limited skill level I kill the axis bird much faster far more often than the other way around.
-
Before we start planning my death match with Fester and kappa, I'd really like to hear someone explain how the TBM's awesome firepower, toughness, speed won the day for the Allies.
Nahh let's plan the death match! :banana: :D
-
Before we start planning my death match with Fester and kappa, I'd really like to hear someone explain how the TBM's awesome firepower, toughness, speed won the day for the Allies.
The fact is, the torpedo bombers of Coral Sea and Midway were not the problem for the IJN. The SBD's were. I understand 100% accuracy is impossible but how about a little bit more than a late 44 ride going up against an early 39 design fighter? This is a very simple, cut and dried problem with a just as easy solution. I dont understand what is so difficult about it. Mainly what I am hearing is "it is not blue." That, I am sorry, is a poor excuse.
I am being very open here and am actually reaching out for another reason for the TBM-3 to remain in Coral Sea and Midway setups.
-
The TBM was at Midway. Granted it was a -1, and there were only a few but it was there.
-
From the Logs, it seems the TBMs got chewed up pretty good, don't sound like much of a performance difference being its a late war ride, compared to some other aircrafts that get subbed in for like above.
If anything, have the TBM's fly at cruise speed and all you got is a beefed up Devastator with 50 cals replacing the 30 cals- they are still dead meat to a zero.
sounds more like a lack of proper cic resource implementation (flashbacks of inept military officers) than specs on included aircraft. the a6m2 is more than fast enough to catch the tbm3, if someone was dumb enough to put d3a's in as cap over cv groups, then the axis got screwed by ineptitude.
let me refer you to the logs:
My plan for frame 3 had the minimum numbers of attackers and as many as possible on defense. The actual numbers were 48 attackers (32 B5N and 16 D3A) and 107 defenders (70 A6M2 and 37 D3A).
The TBMs that attacked dove in from 20K hitting over 520 mph. They flew over the carrier in their dive then pulled a 180 degree turn to bleed their speed to get under 200mph and dropped their torps. Fortunately for us defenders, that turn was still in the ack coverage of the boats. They spent too much time in the ack and got swarmed the defenders in the ack. That is why 24 0f 28 TBM's died in frame 3. Had they employed the same diving tactic but stayed out of the ack, the result would have been much different.
The TBM I killed made further mistakes by not dropping his torp, then pulling another 180 to get away from the boats. I dounced him at a blistering 280mph, but he was going only 150 in that second turn. I peppered him and he tried to maneuver hard but spun it into the drink.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png.html)
You can see clearly the speed differential between the TBM and any IJN aircraft. Simply put, there is no possible way to catch TBM's until after they drop. Propper defense is IMPOSSIBLE against TBMs. I'd also suggest a 5K alt cap for ALL torpedo aircraft. The current way of running this setup is FAR from historically accurate.
-
I think its more along the lines of its the closest plane we have that carries a torpedo in the pacific theater that resembles the Devastator, I'd like to see what CAP says on this.
The BF-110C gets to replace the Ki-45 (in which I think is overkill in terms of performance and gun package)
The Ki-61 also replaces something else, oh and the Ki-43 was always flown as the A6m5 until we finally got the Ki-43 which is a nice trade since the A6m5 was overkill vs early war rides.
Ki-67 replaces.... G3m? Ki-48 sally? Not sure on this one since the Ki-67 was a late war only plane.
From the Logs, it seems the TBMs got chewed up pretty good, don't sound like much of a performance difference being its a late war ride, compared to some other aircrafts that get subbed in for like above.
If anything, have the TBM's fly at cruise speed and all you got is a beefed up Devastator with 50 cals replacing the 30 cals- they are still dead meat to a zero.
the bold part just about nails it. i know the -3 has better performance than the '42 versions, and the death trap known as the devastator. if i could (as mentioned previously) nerf the avenger to have brought its performance close to the devastator, i would have. BUT.......i'm a farking geek/nerd with this stuff. i start going off the deep end trying to do little details, and generally one of the other design cm's has to reel me in a bit.
i canno make myself assign(for instance) theb5n to the USN, and ruin that immersion factor when a USN pilot sees the meatball on his wing, and sees it on his squadmates aircraft.
conversely, i could not, and would not sub in a German aircraft for a Japanese one, or an allied aircraft for a Japanese aircraft, but rather will mess with numbers.
the first frame was a slaughter against the IJN, so i adjusted down the number of f4f's for the USN. this forced the allied CiC to have to be more prudent with his assignments, and gave a bit of a numbers advantage to the IJN, in my opinion at least slightly offsetting the performance discrepancies of the avenger.
to me, this is about getting as close as we can in our cartoon world to the real thing, and making it so that you can get the heart pounding moment as you try to dive through the defensive CAP, or in other sets, as you're stalking that straggler that's falling out of the bomber stream, or being a gunner on one of those bombers, watching the fighters circling, planning their attack. i truly feel that THIS is what most all of you guys in FSO like too, and try my best(as we all do) to make them fun.
last frame, our squad "threaded" the needle, as we flew in between radar zones, and avoided flashing strats. we split up, and started looking for the shokaku. when she was reported, we all converged on that location as her coordinates were called out to the other inbound attacks groups. THAT had my heart pumping, especially when i had to dive through high alt CAP, only to find that there was also a lower alt CAP in place too. that forced me to rush my aim a bit, and my bomb didn't do much damage, but i like to feel that i helped move some of the defensive CAP out of position for the inbound attacks.
THAT's what makes these fun i think.
EDIT:::::
i suppose i could sub in a zeek3 for the zeek2, to even that up a bit........
-
My plan for frame 3 had the minimum numbers of attackers and as many as possible on defense. The actual numbers were 48 attackers (32 B5N and 16 D3A) and 107 defenders (70 A6M2 and 37 D3A).
The TBMs that attacked dove in from 20K hitting over 520 mph. They flew over the carrier in their dive then pulled a 180 degree turn to bleed their speed to get under 200mph and dropped their torps. Fortunately for us defenders, that turn was still in the ack coverage of the boats. They spent too much time in the ack and got swarmed the defenders in the ack. That is why 24 0f 28 TBM's died in frame 3. Had they employed the same diving tactic but stayed out of the ack, the result would have been much different.
The TBM I killed made further mistakes by not dropping his torp, then pulling another 180 to get away from the boats. I dounced him at a blistering 280mph, but he was going only 150 in that second turn. I peppered him and he tried to maneuver hard but spun it into the drink.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png.html)
You can see clearly the speed differential between the TBM and any IJN aircraft. Simply put, there is no possible way to catch TBM's until after they drop. Propper defense is IMPOSSIBLE against TBMs. I'd also suggest a 5K alt cap for ALL torpedo aircraft. The current way of running this setup is FAR from historically accurate.
Now you actually make sense for once, first I thought this was another Axis vs Allied whine. I agree TBM's should NOT be over 6k - having them fly at 20k is simply bending the odds a little to unfair using this tactic. I was under the assumption they would be flying under 5k or closest to the deck possible, given any typical planning if you are going to carry a torpedo.
This is just gaming the game, just as every Zero ive ever seen in these scenarios climb to some 30k where wildcats struggle to get anywhere near that (in past frames). With the wind being a factor now I haven't seen what the latest cap has been.
Clearly there needs to be a CAP on the alt for all torpedo bombers, unless Kates are doing level bombing.
-
Not sure anyone is saying that Triton but please reread my earlier post I believe I laid it out reasonably well. Simple logic suggests that a faster more heavily armed and armored plane will have some effect in a game scenario. I have flown against both axis and allied torp planes and can say for me and my limited skill level I kill the axis bird much faster far more often than the other way around.
I'm tracking you Pops. I'm honestly interested in hearing if the upgraded performance of the TBM's really impacted the outcome of this FSO. I offered an example of why I don't think it did, and that was met with a dismissal, a DA match suggestion, and Ruah getting offended because he thinks I meant to say he sucks. For the record, that's not what I meant. It was simple a scenario where we were run down by Zero's, forced to try to "engage" when we had superior numbers, and came out with our butts stinging. That doesn't scream lopsided performance advantage to me. Certainly, Fester and kappa being the two Zero's had an impact, but I was there... they didn't kill us with a series of one ping pilot would sniper kills or haxxxor black magik. They're good pilots in fighters flying against torpedo bombers. In hindsight, the outcome was pretty predictable. I was just dumb enough to think we had a shot for a minute.
To me, the TBM is the logical sub for the TBD. It's the successor to the TBD. If the performance gap is uncomfortable for the Axis, I would suggest what Hightone said and give the Axis a later model Zero. Would that make the Axis rest easy before the next Coral Sea?
-
i canno make myself assign(for instance) theb5n to the USN, and ruin that immersion factor when a USN pilot sees the meatball on his wing, and sees it on his squadmates aircraft.
So, you'd rather ruin the immersion for the ENTIRE axis side because of a poor substitution on the grounds of aesthetics?
-
So, you'd rather ruin the immersion for the ENTIRE axis side because of a poor substitution on the grounds of aesthetics?
i don't think it does/did. your tactics proved that with sinking the lexington with only THREE torp. bombers. and one of those guys made it to a land bast to at least have one member land safely.
i do the best i can. i wouldn't sub an allied aircraft into the IJN either.
-
last frame, our squad "threaded" the needle, as we flew in between radar zones, and avoided flashing strats. we split up, and started looking for the shokaku. when she was reported, we all converged on that location as her coordinates were called out to the other inbound attacks groups. THAT had my heart pumping, especially when i had to dive through high alt CAP, only to find that there was also a lower alt CAP in place too. that forced me to rush my aim a bit, and my bomb didn't do much damage, but i like to feel that i helped move some of the defensive CAP out of position for the inbound attacks.
THAT's what makes these fun i think.
I got a great chance to fly with VF-17 in my first FSO back after a year break of flying. I was happy as a clam to fly an SBD, frankly I couldnt care what plane I was given or what side. I was one of the "you have a bomb, but you can ditch it if you want" crew. I decided to keep it, although a dozen zeros above 20k decided they were going to bounce us, as all combat in aces high and real life - I found myself alone after 3 minutes of dodging zeros. After 5 minutes of flying around, I found a flattop on fire and pressed my dive without flaps. Sadly 3 zeros decided to dive with me, I aimed just ahead (from the rear) of the ship and nailed her. On my way out of the area I noticed 3 SBDs in a wild dogfight with 6 zeros. I engaged and bagged 4 while sending the 5th home with an oil leak.
I would bet a year subscription right now I never imagined this sortie, first one back and I actually have something to show for it. It was a reckless, fun, adrenaline rush that makes that hour long flight home well worth that 5 minutes of enjoyment.
/I really did hate that hour flight home though - sorry allies you screwed the pooch when the CV's got sunk :)
-
i canno make myself assign(for instance) theb5n to the USN, and ruin that immersion factor when a USN pilot sees the meatball on his wing, and sees it on his squadmates aircraft.
Is this guy serious?
You have GOT to be kidding me. How about all of us freaking Zero's trying to kill THE EASIEST TARGET IN THE WHOLE FREAKING CORAL PACIFIC (TBD Devastator) but wait, we have traveled in time to November of 1944 and cant catch it!!!!! So we have 2 options:
Option A: Keep the TBM-3 as the substitute for the TBD-1 Devastator and force the whole Axis to lose immersion. Not to mention throw accuracy out the window with this 206mph for 275mph crap.
Option B: Change the TBM-3 to the B5N Kate and give the Axis a killable target as the F4F's have now (and as it should be!) and the everyone loses immersion.
Either way CAP, there is no way to design this event in an accurate manner when it comes to plane set. Pick a lesser evil and use it. That goes for all designers. Believe me I will choose the plane of closer performance for a substitution before I choose a plane that is the same damn color.
-
At any rate, CAP has answered my question and I do not feel the need to pursue this. It is obvious that having the same insignia is more important than an abundance in upgrade.
I thought I made a good case :( Thank you all for your input and opinions.
-
i don't think it does/did. your tactics proved that with sinking the lexington with only THREE torp. bombers. and one of those guys made it to a land bast to at least have one member land safely.
My tactic? No-no. That was all Pand and the 416 getting through. If I had my choice, I would have sent NONE on attack. My tactic was having every available aircraft defend the boats. I believed that with enough defenders, we could have kept the boats up. I was dead wrong. My plan hinged on keeping the IJN carriers afloat. I failed. I intended to send all the defending D3As on an attack after T+60 after rearming on the ships that got sunk, despite a great effort and great result in ultimately killing USN aircraft. But alas, even in a defensive rout, we couldn't keep the carriers sailing. It simply takes too many IJN aircraft too long to kill TBM's
-
Subbing in a later model Zeke screws up the balance for the other reasonable modeled birds in this fight so I'm thinking that's not so great. Ruining the immersion, try watching torp. bombers flash past you at 500 mph plus in 1942--no, no and so much for immersion! Paint the axis bird and sub it, simple and fair!
-
It simply takes too many IJN aircraft too long to kill TBM's
One point that hasn't been discussed in this performance debate - would the TBD soak up damage like the Kate or more like the TBM? I honestly don't know how it would model in AH, but something tells me that it would have been a fairly tough plane... like the TBM.
Would a later model Zeke have made a difference for you guys?
-
Is this guy serious?
You have GOT to be kidding me. How about all of us freaking Zero's trying to kill THE EASIEST TARGET IN THE WHOLE FREAKING CORAL PACIFIC (TBD Devastator) but wait, we have traveled in time to November of 1944 and cant catch it!!!!! So we have 2 options:
Option A: Keep the TBM-3 as the substitute for the TBD-1 Devastator and force the whole Axis to lose immersion. Not to mention throw accuracy out the window with this 206mph for 275mph crap.
Option B: Change the TBM-3 to the B5N Kate and give the Axis a killable target as the F4F's have now (and as it should be!) and the everyone loses immersion.
Either way CAP, there is no way to design this event in an accurate manner when it comes to plane set. Pick a lesser evil and use it. That goes for all designers. Believe me I will choose the plane of closer performance for a substitution before I choose a plane that is the same damn color.
He's a CM, I suspect he is serious, that is how I take it at least.
Sadly your post wreaks of you wanting exactly as you state.....EASY KILLABLE TARGETS...... Ok that's cool, I totally get that, have for some time actually.
Change the TBM-3 to a B5N? Get an American skin for it, that should be simple right? I'd be fine with it, I suspect most in my squad would make due with it, we usually do.
Better yet, get us a TBD, or another way could be simple throw out torpedo planes on both sides, dive bombers and fighters only, more CV targets to have to hit too.
I was all good with this thread, and your case in general, until I saw those 3 words above in bold, that kinda sank ya.
I suspect EVERYONE who participates in FSO, would love nothing more than a complete plane set, so as to run any major operation that occured in WWII, sadly we don't have that, and only 1 person can give us that...... HiTech!
:salute
-
One point that hasn't been discussed in this performance debate - would the TBD soak up damage like the Kate or more like the TBM? I honestly don't know how it would model in AH, but something tells me that it would have been a fairly tough plane... like the TBM.
Would a later model Zeke have made a difference for you guys?
It would have made a HUGE difference. But at that point we are at Wake Island, not Coral Sea.
TBD would soak up more than a B5N but not near as much as a TBM-3.
Let me make one final point. Torpedo bombers (designated torpedo bombers) have always been very, very easy meat for enemy fighters to kill. Swordfish, Devastator, B5N Kate, TBF-1, TBM-3, etc. But you must think in relative terms against the fighters they saw.
Torpedo Bomber vs. Enemy Fighter
Swordfish vs. Bf 109E,F, Macchi C.200
Devastator vs. A6M2
B5N Kate vs. F4F, F6F, F4U-1
TBF/M-1 vs. A6M3, A6M5b, Ki-61
TBM-3 vs. Ki-61, A6M5b, Ki-84, J2M3, N1K2, Ki-100
My point here is torpedo bombers are very easy kills and always were. That is why we see Ju 88, He 111, Ki-67, G3M, SM.79, Beaufighters refitted to carry torpedos. Because the designated and designed torpedo bombers are all CRAP. Except in this situation when we see a 1944 torpedo bomber versus a 1939 fighter. The TBM-3 is still so bad that it is able to die to A6M2's. But think of how easy it is for an F4F to kill a Kate. That is EXACTLY how easy it was for the Japanese, British, Germans, and Americans to kill designated torpedo bombers in any time of World War II. It should be that easy for the Japanese. To make that possible, the B5N has to be subbed for the TBD-1 Devastator. Period.
-
My plan for frame 3 had the minimum numbers of attackers and as many as possible on defense. The actual numbers were 48 attackers (32 B5N and 16 D3A) and 107 defenders (70 A6M2 and 37 D3A).
The TBMs that attacked dove in from 20K hitting over 520 mph. They flew over the carrier in their dive then pulled a 180 degree turn to bleed their speed to get under 200mph and dropped their torps. Fortunately for us defenders, that turn was still in the ack coverage of the boats. They spent too much time in the ack and got swarmed the defenders in the ack. That is why 24 0f 28 TBM's died in frame 3. Had they employed the same diving tactic but stayed out of the ack, the result would have been much different.
The TBM I killed made further mistakes by not dropping his torp, then pulling another 180 to get away from the boats. I dounced him at a blistering 280mph, but he was going only 150 in that second turn. I peppered him and he tried to maneuver hard but spun it into the drink.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBDspeed_zps294f3180.png.html)
You can see clearly the speed differential between the TBM and any IJN aircraft. Simply put, there is no possible way to catch TBM's until after they drop. Propper defense is IMPOSSIBLE against TBMs. I'd also suggest a 5K alt cap for ALL torpedo aircraft. The current way of running this setup is FAR from historically accurate.
I appologize, I honestly missed this earlier. Are you saying the American torpedo bombers shouldn't be able to outdive a Zero? They weren't doing 520 straight and level. They obviously came in high, dove away from you and tried this spinning attack. What American plane doesn't dive well? Did the TBD have diving attributes that wouldn't have allowed this attack? If so, I would seriously be inclined to agree with you. If it didn't, well, it just comes across as sour grapes.
-
I appologize, I honestly missed this earlier. Are you saying the American torpedo bombers shouldn't be able to outdive a Zero? They weren't doing 520 straight and level. They obviously came in high, dove away from you and tried this spinning attack. What American plane doesn't dive well? Did the TBD have diving attributes that wouldn't have allowed this attack? If so, I would seriously be inclined to agree with you. If it didn't, well, it just comes across as sour grapes.
The 20K dive adds insult to injury. That's why I stated the need for a 5K alt cap for torpedo planes. I don't know the dive speed of a TBD but I can guarantee it got nowhere near 520. But again, that is not the real issue. The real issue was that both sides in the coral sea had difficulty getting their torpedo planes in position to drop their load before getting killed. This setup with TBMs give the Allies the luxury of always having most of their torpedoes launched at the carriers.
-
He's a CM, I suspect he is serious, that is how I take it at least.
Sadly your post wreaks of you wanting exactly as you state.....EASY KILLABLE TARGETS...... Ok that's cool, I totally get that, have for some time actually.
Change the TBM-3 to a B5N? Get an American skin for it, that should be simple right? I'd be fine with it, I suspect most in my squad would make due with it, we usually do.
Better yet, get us a TBD, or another way could be simple throw out torpedo planes on both sides, dive bombers and fighters only, more CV targets to have to hit too.
I was all good with this thread, and your case in general, until I saw those 3 words above in bold, that kinda sank ya.
I suspect EVERYONE who participates in FSO, would love nothing more than a complete plane set, so as to run any major operation that occured in WWII, sadly we don't have that, and only 1 person can give us that...... HiTech!
:salute
It is harder than it should be and should be addressed. I dont mind the TBM-3 for a TBF-1. Would you complain if CAP gave us 109G-14's instead of 109D-2's? That is a 44 fighter replacing a 1937. In this case we have a 1944 aircraft design (TBM-3) replacing a 1934 aircraft (TBD-1). Would I-15's and Fokker XXIII's have trouble killing 109G-14's? Anyway, doesn't matter. It will never happen and CAP has made that clear. I appreciate your input <S>
-
It would have made a HUGE difference. But at that point we are at Wake Island, not Coral Sea.
TBD would soak up more than a B5N but not near as much as a TBM-3.
Ok. You guys get later Zeke's next go round. It won't change my tactics if I'm in a Wildcat. I'll still have to play the energy game and work with teammates.
If the TBD was tougher than the B5N, and Cap did as you suggested, wouldn't all of us Allied guys have been able to post a wall of text about how it wasn't fair we were so lightly armored? The toughness of American planes (especially blue ones) is one of their classic traits, no? I mean I get it, the TBM is faster than the TBD, but like I've said, I was there when Zeke's caught us from behind. I don't think they dove on us from 15k either. From what I recall, they disengaged from a lowish fight on our 10 o'clock and Usain Bolted right towards us.
My point here is torpedo bombers are very easy kills and always were. That is why we see Ju 88, He 111, Ki-67, G3M, SM.79, Beaufighters refitted to carry torpedos. Because the designated and designed torpedo bombers are all CRAP. Except in this situation when we see a 1944 torpedo bomber versus a 1939 fighter. The TBM-3 is still so bad that it is able to die to A6M2's. But think of how easy it is for an F4F to kill a Kate. That is EXACTLY how easy it was for the Japanese, British, Germans, and Americans to kill designated torpedo bombers in any time of World War II. It should be that easy for the Japanese. To make that possible, the B5N has to be subbed for the TBD-1 Devastator. Period.
Kate's are easy to kill because they have no armor and die if you look at them mean. Zero's do too for that matter. It really does sound like what you want is an American torpedo bomber that is slow and flames easy, like the Kate. You made the case that the TBM is faster, has a bigger bore machine guns, and climbs better than a TBD ( although I'm not sure how climb rate matters here, given the distance and time we had to climb), but I think you'll have a hard time proving the TBD is close to a Kate in the damage it can take and still fly.
Cap had a call to make. You think he made the wrong call and I disagree. That's cool, really. But so far, unless I've misunderstood what Devil posted, I haven't seen where it really made a difference.
-
Ok. You guys get later Zeke's next go round. It won't change my tactics if I'm in a Wildcat. I'll still have to play the energy game and work with teammates.
If the TBD was tougher than the B5N, and Cap did as you suggested, wouldn't all of us Allied guys have been able to post a wall of text about how it wasn't fair we were so lightly armored? The toughness of American planes (especially blue ones) is one of their classic traits, no? I mean I get it, the TBM is faster than the TBD, but like I've said, I was there when Zeke's caught us from behind. I don't think they dove on us from 15k either. From what I recall, they disengaged from a lowish fight on our 10 o'clock and Usain Bolted right towards us.
Kate's are easy to kill because they have no armor and die if you look at them mean. Zero's do too for that matter. It really does sound like what you want is an American torpedo bomber that is slow and flames easy, like the Kate. You made the case that the TBM is faster, has a bigger bore machine guns, and climbs better than a TBD ( although I'm not sure how climb rate matters here, given the distance and time we had to climb), but I think you'll have a hard time proving the TBD is close to a Kate in the damage it can take and still fly.
Cap had a call to make. You think he made the wrong call and I disagree. That's cool, really. But so far, unless I've misunderstood what Devil posted, I haven't seen where it really made a difference.
It doesnt have to be as easy to kill as a Kate. Just SLOWER and easIER to kill than a TBM. 2 F4F's can wipe out 10 B5N's in 2 minutes. 20 A6M2's take 10 mins to kill 15 TBM-3's.
-
It doesnt have to be as easy to kill as a Kate. Just SLOWER and easIER to kill than a TBM. 2 F4F's can wipe out 10 B5N's in 2 minutes. 20 A6M2's take 10 mins to kill 15 TBM-3's.
I'm sorry maybe you should email the Japanese and ask them why they didnt put decent guns on their fighters during World War 2 vs the Americans who found out four 50 cals were plenty to shoot down an unarmored aircraft vs an armed aircraft which the Japanese had a VERY hard time doing.
Even with TBD's you still will need 20 A6ms to shoot down 15 Armored TBDs and F4Fs will continue to shoot down 10 B5Ns.
Wasn't it Saburo Sakai who flew behind an F4F and put a thousand rounds of 7.7 into a Wildcat only to watch it fly off? I think you read to much into the battle of Midway where TBDs flew unescorted on the deck vs Japanese carriers against an entire CAP of Zeros.
-
The 20K dive adds insult to injury. That's why I stated the need for a 5K alt cap for torpedo planes. I don't know the dive speed of a TBD but I can guarantee it got nowhere near 520. But again, that is not the real issue. The real issue was that both sides in the coral sea had difficulty getting their torpedo planes in position to drop their load before getting killed. This setup with TBMs give the Allies the luxury of always having most of their torpedoes launched at the carriers.
In frame 1, we were told to climb to 1k and boogie to target. We followed orders and died before reaching the target. <shrug> If the powers that be would have put in an alt cap, we'd have certainly followed it. Usually, I'd like as few restrictions as possible, but if it helps ensure balance I'm cool with it. I still don't know how an alt cap would have prevented the attack you described even if we had TBD's in game. They would have had time to climb and still likely been able to outdive a Zero, but that's just a guess on my part. I'm sure someone here has something that resembles evidence that could clear that up. I would venture a guess that not every real life torpedo attack had the planes on the deck the entire way.
-
But so far, unless I've misunderstood what Devil posted, I haven't seen where it really made a difference.
You do misunderstand. So I'll repeat myself.
The real issue was that both sides in the coral sea had difficulty getting their torpedo planes in position to drop their load before getting killed. This setup with TBMs give the Allies the luxury of always having most of their torpedoes launched at the carriers.
What that means is, by giving the Allies the B5N as a sub for the TBD, the Allies then use an aircraft that is MORE SIMILAR to the TBD than they currently get with the TBM. As with the real battle, both sides in the event must use thoughtful tactics in order to have consistent success in attacking ships with torpedoes. As it stands with the Allies using TBMs, the allies can simply push through the defenders in order to get into drop position. They are only vulnerable after they drop as they try to get back up to speed. That is the key difference being discussed. That issue is negated by giving the Allies the B5N.
-
In frame 1, we were told to climb to 1k and boogie to target. We followed orders and died before reaching the target. <shrug> If the powers that be would have put in an alt cap, we'd have certainly followed it. Usually, I'd like as few restrictions as possible, but if it helps ensure balance I'm cool with it. I still don't know how an alt cap would have prevented the attack you described even if we had TBD's in game. They would have had time to climb and still likely been able to outdive a Zero, but that's just a guess on my part. I'm sure someone here has something that resembles evidence that could clear that up. I would venture a guess that not every real life torpedo attack had the planes on the deck the entire way.
The typical cruise alt for TBD while searching for their target was 4500 feet. The 5K cap keeps people honest, and historically accurate.
-
It doesnt have to be as easy to kill as a Kate. Just SLOWER and easIER to kill than a TBM. 2 F4F's can wipe out 10 B5N's in 2 minutes. 20 A6M2's take 10 mins to kill 15 TBM-3's.
Being fast and well armed for a torpedo bomber is still like being the tallest midget.
If you agree that the TBD was likely a good bit tougher than the Kate (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the TBM is the toughest of the 3), and that ruggedness is a traditional American Navy plane trait, that must be considered (and heavily) when aiming to be as accurate as possible with the setup.
-
You do misunderstand. So I'll repeat myself.What that means is, by giving the Allies the B5N as a sub for the TBD, the Allies then use an aircraft that is MORE SIMILAR to the TBD than they currently get with the TBM.
I just simply disagree. Not only for the reasons I posted above, but the immersion factor as well. I think Perdweeb cartoons the issue when he makes it out to simply be a paint job whine. It's not. Even if you paint it blue and slap some stars on it I'm still gonna know it's a damn Kate.
-
The paint thing was response to CAP's "looks over at his wingman's plane and sees meatballs" comment.
-
I just simply disagree. Not only for the reasons I posted above, but the immersion factor as well. I think Perdweeb cartoons the issue when he makes it out to simply be a paint job whine. It's not. Even if you paint it blue and slap some stars on it I'm still gonna know it's a damn Kate.
Either way, you are NOT in a TBD. That's the whole point; finding a proper substitute for the TBD, and the TBM is not suitable given its gross performance and survivability upgrade.
-
TBM STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 32
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=6
KILLED=19
SAFE LAND=3
OBJ DEST=12
SHIPS SUNK=4
FRAME 2 TOTAL 34
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=7
KILLED=25
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=18
SHIPS SUNK=0
FRAME 3 TOTAL 37
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=0
KILLED=26
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=4
SHIPS SUNK=2
it actually appears to me as if the pilots of the avenger suffered pretty heavily in this setup.
-
Either way, you are NOT in a TBD. That's the whole point; finding a proper substitute for the TBD, and the TBM is not suitable given its gross performance and survivability upgrade.
Right. The way I'm tilting my head at it though, the TBM is a TBD on steriods. It's better, no doubt, but they both share some classic American Navy plane traits. The Kate, aside from straight and level speed, climb, and guns (again, tallest midget) shares virtually no traits with the TBD except... it carries a torpedo.
-
My tactic? No-no. That was all Pand and the 416 getting through. If I had my choice, I would have sent NONE on attack. My tactic was having every available aircraft defend the boats. I believed that with enough defenders, we could have kept the boats up. I was dead wrong. My plan hinged on keeping the IJN carriers afloat. I failed. I intended to send all the defending D3As on an attack after T+60 after rearming on the ships that got sunk, despite a great effort and great result in ultimately killing USN aircraft. But alas, even in a defensive rout, we couldn't keep the carriers sailing. It simply takes too many IJN aircraft too long to kill TBM's
ok. pands tactics. either way, my point was that a capitol ship was lost due to what he and 2 others did. almost 5 others, but apparently one of his pilots couldn't wait for his saki, and went swimming.
-
My plan for frame 3 had the minimum numbers of attackers and as many as possible on defense. The actual numbers were 48 attackers (32 B5N and 16 D3A) and 107 defenders (70 A6M2 and 37 D3A).
The TBMs that attacked dove in from 20K hitting over 520 mph.
400-450. 520 is foolish.
-
TBM STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 32
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=6
KILLED=19
SAFE LAND=3
OBJ DEST=12
SHIPS SUNK=4
FRAME 2 TOTAL 34
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=7
KILLED=25
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=18
SHIPS SUNK=0
FRAME 3 TOTAL 37
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=0
KILLED=26
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=4
SHIPS SUNK=2
it actually appears to me as if the pilots of the avenger suffered pretty heavily in this setup.
Those are funny and unfair statistics, I've been told. ;)
-
400-450. 520 is foolish.
Do you think I pulled 520 out of my ass? Look at the damn screenshot! It highlighted in red for the hearing impaired.
-
TBM STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 32
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=6
KILLED=19
SAFE LAND=3
OBJ DEST=12
SHIPS SUNK=4
FRAME 2 TOTAL 34
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=7
KILLED=25
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=18
SHIPS SUNK=0
FRAME 3 TOTAL 37
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=0
KILLED=26
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=4
SHIPS SUNK=2
it actually appears to me as if the pilots of the avenger suffered pretty heavily in this setup.
Now find the B5N stats. The plane that actually belongs in this setup against proper fighters for this setup.
-
it actually appears to me as if the pilots of the avenger suffered pretty heavily in this setup.
They suffered AFTER they plowed through the defenders and sunk the ships.
-
Now find the B5N stats. The plane that actually belongs in this setup against proper fighters for this setup.
B5N STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 45
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=3
KILLED=30
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=7
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 2 TOTAL 40
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=5
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=0
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 3 TOTAL 55
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=1
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=17
SHIPS SUNK=2
-
B5N STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 45
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=3
KILLED=30
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=7
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 2 TOTAL 40
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=5
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=0
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 3 TOTAL 55
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=1
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=17
SHIPS SUNK=2
FRAME 1= TOTAL 32
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=6
KILLED=19
SAFE LAND=3
OBJ DEST=12
SHIPS SUNK=4
FRAME 2 TOTAL 34
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=7
KILLED=25
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=18
SHIPS SUNK=0
FRAME 3 TOTAL 37
KILLS=4
ASSISTS=0
KILLED=26
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=4
SHIPS SUNK=2
-
B5N STATS FOR BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
FRAME 1= TOTAL 45
KILLS=2
ASSISTS=3
KILLED=30
SAFE LAND=0
OBJ DEST=7
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 2 TOTAL 40
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=5
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=0
SHIPS SUNK=1
FRAME 3 TOTAL 55
KILLS=3
ASSISTS=1
KILLED=33
SAFE LAND=1
OBJ DEST=17
SHIPS SUNK=2
Your totals are wrong for Frame 3 and likely all of them. Frame 3 was a total of 33 B5N's.
-
Your totals are wrong for Frame 3 and likely all of them. Frame 3 was a total of 33 B5N's.
straight from the logs.....
# of A6M2 used 73
# of B5N2 used 55
# of D3A1 used 54
# of Gunner-Observer used 27
-
straight from the logs.....
# of A6M2 used 73
# of B5N2 used 55
# of D3A1 used 54
# of Gunner-Observer used 27
I have counted already, they are wrong. Do not look at the raw logs, they will show take off and landings at T+1 for more/less fuel.
-
straight from the logs.....
# of A6M2 used 73
# of B5N2 used 55
# of D3A1 used 54
# of Gunner-Observer used 27
How many replaned for any reason?
I counted the attendance of squads assigned B5Ns in frame 3. There are exactly 32 players in B5Ns, no more, no less.
-
Do you think I pulled 520 out of my ass? Look at the damn screenshot! It highlighted in red for the hearing impaired.
Calm down, Francis. The film viewer isn't foolproof. I was part of the TBM group and I'm telling you what speed we came in at, per plan. :)
-
I have counted already, they are wrong. Do not look at the raw logs, they will show take off and landings at T+1 for more/less fuel.
then ignore the totals, and look at the rest of the numbers. if i'm off on total of b5n's, then i'm off on total of tbm's too.........but the numbers of kills, objects, and ships sunk ain't gonna lie.
both the tbm and the b5n drivers suffered. giving the b5n to the usn would've done nothing to change the outcome.
-
Calm down, Francis. The film viewer isn't foolproof. I was part of the TBM group and I'm telling you what speed we came in at, per plan. :)
Ok then. Lets see your film. I'll adjust my speed argument if you prove that the TBMs over didn't reach over 500 in their dive from 20K.
-
both the tbm and the b5n drivers suffered. giving the b5n to the usn would've done nothing to change the outcome.
I beg to differ. The Axis battle plan for frame 3 had all of the D3A rearming to regain their bomb then launching on their second sortie to attack the surviving allied carriers. This became impossible after both the Shokaku and Zuikaku were sunk by allied torpedo bombers, who blew past the defenders(at a greater than historically accurate speed) and dropped torps. The very outcome of frame 3 could have been different had the Allies been in a better representative of the TBD.
-
both the tbm and the b5n drivers suffered. giving the b5n to the usn would've done nothing to change the outcome.
Yes and no. I know the TBMs made it to our boats even when under attack from more then 3 D3As at a time. If they had been B5Ns then they would not have reached the ships from how far out we intercepted ssome of them. The TBMs died after they had dropped and turned away for the most part.
Also the TBMs have far better defensive fire then the B5Ns. A TBD has no lower rear fire and a 303 covering a much more limited arc up top. The D3A could have sat under the tail of a TBD and sawed its tail off with ease.
-
I would like to address several points relating to this thread.
I can see Perdue's point in the origianal post. Using the TBM as a sub for the TBD is a big upgrade to the Allies. However, I dont see a satifactory replacement for the Avenger. Unless HTC is going to introduce the TBD, (probably not going to happen) I would imagine that we would keep using the TBM. Unfortunately I dont see using the Kate as a viable replacement for PTO. Sorry.
I have nothing but respect for Pand and Tazz and their squadies, all very good sticks and fine guys to boot. I feel that things may have worked out differently for them had we had a full turnout for Cap of the Lexington. We had 13 Cap total, I had hoped for 20+ but some Squads were short. This happens.
Some of you feel that bringing in our Attack at 20k was gaming the game, well it wasnt against the rules, or Poppy and I wouldnt have brought them in from that alt. The whole idea was to take advantage of both the TBM and SBD's superior diving ability, and blow by your defenders, and get ords on your CV groups. Our objectives were to sink your ships. We overloaded our Attack, and brought them in 4 waves spaced approx. 4-5 mins apart, with approx 11-15 attackers (mix TBM SBD) per wave, per CV group. This was intended to Shred the Axis' defense. We met our objectives. If something "goes against the spirit of FSO" is that an infraction of the stated rules?? I personally dont see that the Plan of Attack which Poppy and I came up with as "going against the spirit of FSO". Im sorry that some feel this added "insult to injury" it was only meant to injure LOL.
Respectfully
Carver
-
cohofly you highlight the argument perfectly. Un fortunately not in your favor. Just because you don't want to fly it is not a valid reason not to use an AC that is FAR more correct for a time frame/specific bird in capabilities. The TBD was not capable of diving anywhere near the speeds of a TBM and would not be able to BLOW THROUGH the defenders. Tactics would have to change and the outcome--torpedo sunk ships-- becomes in question. Paint the axis bird and use it --- even then it is 30 mph faster than the TBD was. That blue plane toughness argument is also part of the problem when talking about the TBD as it does not apply--they were slaughtered, had very limited success and were pulled because they were totally outclassed and frankly not even that many left to use. Use the axis bird if you have any pretense of calling it an attempt to be like real conditions for plane performance.
-
Throwing in my 2 cents as a player here... In frame 3 I lead my group of 9 aircraft, 4 TBMs and 5 SBDs to attack the shokaku. All my TBMs were wiped out less than 2k from the CV by D3A defenders while we were in the attack run. Which is under 200' agl and under 200mph.
The SBDs which are dash 5's (not present at coral sea or midway either) dove in and attacked the boats successfully.
-
Just for info sake I found a site that states the VNE--velocity never exceed-- of the TBD at 208 and a loaded cruise at 115kts in the overloaded condition used at Midway.
-
The TBM I killed made further mistakes by not dropping his torp, then pulling another 180 to get away from the boats. I dounced him at a blistering 280mph, but he was going only 150 in that second turn. I peppered him and he tried to maneuver hard but spun it into the drink.
Yeah Devil, that would be ME! :mad: LOL, I was pw'd by the unbelievable ack I had to fly through, and whilst trying to scrub speed was blacking out very low to the water. Never a good combination. I pulled a little too hard and spun out about 5 feet asl. Was just too eager to get pointed at the boat before I blacked out again, or got blasted by one of the annoying meatballs buzzing around like a swarm of angry gnats. :lol
Anyways, I had a blast (no pun intended), regardless of the outcome.
EDIT: regarding our dive speed: I came in at approx 450-475 (will check my film to verify and correct if I am wrong) and was backing off throttle and giving it hard rudder because she was moaning like a $5 rhymes-with-shore. Still surprised I kept all my control surfaces intact.
-
I've seen someone claim the TBD couldn't dive worth a darn. Anyone got a source about it?
-
I beg to differ. The Axis battle plan for frame 3 had all of the D3A rearming to regain their bomb then launching on their second sortie to attack the surviving allied carriers. This became impossible after both the Shokaku and Zuikaku were sunk by allied torpedo bombers, who blew past the defenders(at a greater than historically accurate speed) and dropped torps. The very outcome of frame 3 could have been different had the Allies been in a better representative of the TBD.
Cactus sank the Shokaku in an SBD. There were two waves of SBD's ahead of us. Did none of the other SBD's get a hit?
-
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/tbd.jpg)
From my conclusion of this, Perdue has no argument here - and here is why - the TBD could sustain a 4G dive with a 1,000lb bomb - however it still needs to slow to 110mph to drop its torpedo. Historically no they did not fly in from 20k, I noted one instance TBD's had to fly to hit ships at Lae and had trouble climbing above 7500ft. However dropping to 95mph had one serious flaw with a CV jynxing at 28mph or better - the TBD's had to sit in AAA fire way longer then they were suppose to, with a Stern run on the CV the TBD's were pretty much doomed.
Speed wise - If the TBD can sustain a 4G dive, then alt cap the TBM's at 7500ft.
Battle Damage - Its been noted a few times the TBD can take rugged battle damage, nothing special as the B-17 or TBM however this is not a B5N Kate - it wasn't unarmored - it was still vulnerable due to its slow torpedo drop speed, but this is pretty much it. What happened at Midway was poor communication on the allied part, the F4Fs were met by a wall of Zeros, however anyone who read Shattered Sword can recall the Japanese did NOT have Radar - if we are going to make this an argument then the Axis should NOT have radar. Cruisers with 8 inch guns would Fire in the direction to warn the CAP where to go, basically saying "Fly above your Carrier and if you see ACK start shooting, theres your target".
The Biggest problem in the Coral Sea and Midway was not the TBM flying at 450mph (kidding aside), it was historically the Mk13 torpedo that was a piece of crap before 1943.
-
Ok then. Lets see your film. I'll adjust my speed argument if you prove that the TBMs over didn't reach over 500 in their dive from 20K.
I told you the film viewer isn't 100% accurate when showing you the other guy's airspeed, I believe
I'll do you one better. You've flown a TBM at least once in game haven't you? Offline, choose a terrain with fleets.
Now grab a TBM and climb to 20k. When you get within visual range of the fleet you are attacking, dive at full
speed to an indicated air speed of 520 mph. If still in one piece at that speed, do what it takes to slow back to
drop speed and make your attack. Let me know how you do and if you still feel incensed about the unfairness
of the TBMs in the frame. :aok
-
I beg to differ. The Axis battle plan for frame 3 had all of the D3A rearming to regain their bomb then launching on their second sortie to attack the surviving allied carriers. This became impossible after both the Shokaku and Zuikaku were sunk by allied torpedo bombers, who blew past the defenders(at a greater than historically accurate speed) and dropped torps. The very outcome of frame 3 could have been different had the Allies been in a better representative of the TBD.
Here's something the film viewer is accurate about - the TBMs having to slow down drastically to make their attack.
This would basically require a lot more than just chopping throttle - some circular maneuvering is involved here.
It also records who could and who could not drop their torps (whether due to position or speed). Having said that,
I've never seen KN hampered by sticking to the same exact tactics an event designer hoped they would mimic. :D
-
.... the TBMs made it to our boats even when under attack from more then 3 D3As at a time.
The argument for historical accuracy has been surrendered, hasn't it? :D
-
Yeah Devil, that would be ME! :mad: LOL, I was pw'd by the unbelievable ack I had to fly through, and whilst trying to scrub speed was blacking out very low to the water. Never a good combination. I pulled a little too hard and spun out about 5 feet asl. Was just too eager to get pointed at the boat before I blacked out again, or got blasted by one of the annoying meatballs buzzing around like a swarm of angry gnats. :lol
Anyways, I had a blast (no pun intended), regardless of the outcome.
EDIT: regarding our dive speed: I came in at approx 450-475 (will check my film to verify and correct if I am wrong) and was backing off throttle and giving it hard rudder because she was moaning like a $5 rhymes-with-shore. Still surprised I kept all my control surfaces intact.
South was my wingman and flew behind me into the target. I made my approach at less than 450
-
Cactus sank the Shokaku in an SBD. There were two waves of SBD's ahead of us. Did none of the other SBD's get a hit?
The 325th found the CV and called in the position, then we hit it with three bombs from our SBDs.
-
The 325th found the CV and called in the position, then we hit it with three bombs from our SBDs.
and imadot died a glorious cartoon death trying to stave off a VERY angry/determined a6m2 pilot from shooting down our sbd........
-
Some of you feel that bringing in our Attack at 20k was gaming the game, well it wasnt against the rules, or Poppy and I wouldnt have brought them in from that alt. The whole idea was to take advantage of both the TBM and SBD's superior diving ability, and blow by your defenders, and get ords on your CV groups. Our objectives were to sink your ships. We overloaded our Attack, and brought them in 4 waves spaced approx. 4-5 mins apart, with approx 11-15 attackers (mix TBM SBD) per wave, per CV group. This was intended to Shred the Axis' defense. We met our objectives. If something "goes against the spirit of FSO" is that an infraction of the stated rules?? I personally dont see that the Plan of Attack which Poppy and I came up with as "going against the spirit of FSO". Im sorry that some feel this added "insult to injury" it was only meant to injure LOL.
Respectfully
Carver
I don't think you taking your TBMs to 20k is "Gaming the game". You were within the rules in doing so, and I don't blame you or any other TBM squad (even VF-17) for doing so. I'm using your actions though to illustrate the gross advantage the TBM gives the Allies in this setup, with the intent of making FUTURE setups both more balanced and historically accurate.
Cactus sank the Shokaku in an SBD. There were two waves of SBD's ahead of us. Did none of the other SBD's get a hit?
I wasn't over the Shokaku, so I didn't see the exact series of events there. I'm going by what Stampf (Flight lead for Shokaku defense) told me about the attack there. Again, 20k TBMs dropped after blowing through defenders, I don't know if they hit anything, but is seems the Shokaku experienced the same type of coordinated attack as the Zuikaku, and the same result.
The 325th found the CV and called in the position, then we hit it with three bombs from our SBDs.
See above.
-
The 325th found the CV and called in the position, then we hit it with three bombs from our SBDs.
Seems to me the SBD was the nemesis of the Shokaku.
-
The 325th found the CV and called in the position, then we hit it with three bombs from our SBDs.
The lone scout disco'd midway into his mission and "fields were closed for the night". Great job in finding her 325th <S>.
-
(even VF-17)
Do you have issues with VF-17? Care to share what they are since this is apparently a public show? :)
-
The attack on the Shokoku was very well done...and plane variants aside (which I won't discuss here)...actually quite historically accurate, in some regards.
Single and double plane attacks at low altitude, while mostly foiled, succeeded in making a large part of the defensive CAP look foolish. The axis defenders were throwing entire squadrons into wave top chases against one or two attackers. Axis range communications were unbearable, unprofessional, unrelenting and resulted in utter chaos over the fleet. It was laughable at times, and impossible to even remotely kommand the battle. The outcome of the attack on the Shokoku in other words... was more complex than simply the aircraft involved.
Even so...it looked like we had carried the day, and that she would survive...and then that last high group appeared. The few remaining defenders at altitude simply could not stop them from making their attacks. Not fast enough and if they pushed it...simply shedded control surfaces, and died horribly in the ocean. Yes there is a current aircraft void in aces high...that makes some set ups rather untenable...this is one of them...For sure.
However,...Victory can always be found. Over the Shokoku...the Allies had discipline. The Axis did not. I'll take discipline over chaos...in any aircraft...any day.
-
The attack on the Shokoku was very well done...and plane variants aside (which I won't discuss here)...actually quite historically accurate, in some regards.
Single and double plane attacks at low altitude, while mostly foiled, succeeded in making a large part of the defensive CAP look foolish. The axis defenders were throwing entire squadrons into wave top chases against one or two attackers. Axis range communications were unbearable, unprofessional, unrelenting and resulted in utter chaos over the fleet. It was laughable at times, and impossible to even remotely kommand the battle. The outcome of the attack on the Shokoku in other words... was more complex than simply the aircraft involved.
Even so...it looked like we had carried the day, and that she would survive...and then that last high group appeared. The few remaining defenders at altitude simply could not stop them from making their attacks. Not fast enough and if they pushed it...simply shedded control surfaces, and died horribly in the ocean. Yes there is a current aircraft void in aces high...that makes some set ups rather untenable...this is one of them...For sure.
However,...Victory can always be found. Over the Shokoku...the Allies had discipline. The Axis did not. I'll take discipline over chaos...in any aircraft...any day.
Best post in the thread.
-
Do you have issues with VF-17? Care to share what they are since this is apparently a public show? :)
No issue at all. Just want to add extra emphasis for your benefit. VF-17 is a top notch squad both in the MA and special events. Truly a respected enemy and trusted ally, depending on who's on which side.
-
No issue at all. Just want to add extra emphasis for your benefit. VF-17 is a top notch squad both in the MA and special events. Truly a respected enemy and trusted ally, depending on who's on which side.
Glad to hear that. Now, since the vitriol in this thread has nothing to do with personal dislikes may I humbly suggest less public displays of 'this is just so unfair' when being frustrated over the other side doing better in a frame or entire event and more 'we lived up to the ideals of those we honored, next time we'll recall our mistakes and do better.' We had a great deal of fun flying I-16s against your 109s in the previous event, even though the likelihood of either scoring a great deal of kills on higher and faster 109s or winning a single frame was statistically against us. I was excited that my virtual pilot survived all three frames and managed to get a kill on a 110 and several assists on other models.
Banzai, brave samurai pilots. :salute :)
-
The attack on the Shokoku was very well done...and plane variants aside (which I won't discuss here)...actually quite historically accurate, in some regards.
Single and double plane attacks at low altitude, while mostly foiled, succeeded in making a large part of the defensive CAP look foolish. The axis defenders were throwing entire squadrons into wave top chases against one or two attackers. Axis range communications were unbearable, unprofessional, unrelenting and resulted in utter chaos over the fleet. It was laughable at times, and impossible to even remotely kommand the battle. The outcome of the attack on the Shokoku in other words... was more complex than simply the aircraft involved.
Even so...it looked like we had carried the day, and that she would survive...and then that last high group appeared. The few remaining defenders at altitude simply could not stop them from making their attacks. Not fast enough and if they pushed it...simply shedded control surfaces, and died horribly in the ocean. Yes there is a current aircraft void in aces high...that makes some set ups rather untenable...this is one of them...For sure.
However,...Victory can always be found. Over the Shokoku...the Allies had discipline. The Axis did not. I'll take discipline over chaos...in any aircraft...any day.
one of the best posts i've read yet.
-
personally, i think all squads in fso are top notch. you guys are what/who makes fso.
-
I told you the film viewer isn't 100% accurate when showing you the other guy's airspeed, I believe
I'll do you one better. You've flown a TBM at least once in game haven't you? Offline, choose a terrain with fleets.
Now grab a TBM and climb to 20k. When you get within visual range of the fleet you are attacking, dive at full
speed to an indicated air speed of 520 mph. If still in one piece at that speed, do what it takes to slow back to
drop speed and make your attack. Let me know how you do and if you still feel incensed about the unfairness
of the TBMs in the frame. :aok
I did test the TBM in a 20K dive as well as the accuracy of the Film Viewer vs. in game speed indications. I hit a top speed of 541 mph @ 3500ft and was able to pull out of the dive @ under 3G without shedding any parts, going level @ 400ft. I grabbed a screenshot in game while in the dive and took a screenshot from the film viewer from nearly the same moment. These should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TBM can dive and survive a dive over 520, as well as the accuracy of the film viewer indicated speed.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBMspeedscreenie_zps075a85b7.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBMspeedscreenie_zps075a85b7.png.html)
From in game. True air speed: 536
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBDFilmViewer_zps4c56e47b.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBDFilmViewer_zps4c56e47b.png.html)
From film viewer, as close to matching the exact time of the in game screenshot as I could get. True air speed: 537
Raw AH film: http://www.mediafire.com/download/xxu1xlo1k30uukd/TBM_test_2.ahf
Sorry Arlo, but the TBM is clearly capable of higher speed than you think. And the film viewer is more accurate than you believe. You might have not reached 500 in your dive, but as far as I'm concerned, those TBMs in my initial screen shot are in fact going as fast as shown.
-
I did test the TBM in a 20K dive as well as the accuracy of the Film Viewer vs. in game speed indications. I hit a top speed of 541 mph @ 3500ft and was able to pull out of the dive @ under 3G without shedding any parts, going level @ 400ft. I grabbed a screenshot in game while in the dive and took a screenshot from the film viewer from nearly the same moment. These should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TBM can dive and survive a dive over 520, as well as the accuracy of the film viewer indicated speed.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBMspeedscreenie_zps075a85b7.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBMspeedscreenie_zps075a85b7.png.html)
From in game. True air speed: 536
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/TBDFilmViewer_zps4c56e47b.png) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/TBDFilmViewer_zps4c56e47b.png.html)
From film viewer, as close to matching the exact time of the in game screenshot as I could get. True air speed: 537
Raw AH film: http://www.mediafire.com/download/xxu1xlo1k30uukd/TBM_test_2.ahf
Sorry Arlo, but the TBM is clearly capable of higher speed than you think. And the film viewer is more accurate than you believe. You might have not reached 500 in your dive, but as far as I'm concerned, those TBMs in my initial screen shot are in fact going as fast as shown.
I did not say it wasn't capable of high speed. How did your torp run fare?
And airspeed disparity in the film viewer has nothing to do with your plane. It deals the the planes of other pilots you record.
P.S. Speed in the viewer appears to be ground speed
-
do your test this way. one of you take a cv out away from the action in mw or lw. get a squad of defenders to it. the other take a squad of attackers, and attack it in the manner in which you're discussing. both of ya film it, and post the films.
-
I did not say it wasn't capable of high speed. How did your torp run fare?
And airspeed disparity in the film viewer has nothing to do with your plane. It deals the the planes of other pilots you record.
P.S. Speed in the viewer appears to be ground speed
The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.
P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.
-
B5N has closer performance stats to the TBD than the TBM-3 does. Therefore, it should be the proper substitute.
-
B5N has closer performance stats to the TBD than the TBM-3 does. Therefore, it should be the proper substitute.
You're still not accounting for the ruggedness of the airframe. That's huge considering we're talking about torpedo bombers. Ability to take damage and continue to fly is a large part of survivability for planes in this role.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/001a1_zps1684bf22.png) (http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/arloguh03/media/001a1_zps1684bf22.png.html)
Airframe strain becomes apparent under 500 IAS
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/001a2_zps60404ac4.png) (http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/arloguh03/media/001a2_zps60404ac4.png.html)
A little above 500 ias I experienced partial structural failure.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/001a5_zpsce2b4ff4.png) (http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/arloguh03/media/001a5_zpsce2b4ff4.png.html)
It involved loss of rudder
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/001a4_zpscc9f7c59.png) (http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/arloguh03/media/001a4_zpscc9f7c59.png.html)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/001a6_zps506c5299.png) (http://s1197.photobucket.com/user/arloguh03/media/001a6_zps506c5299.png.html)
Under 520 ias there was extreme oscillation. The aircraft completely self-destructed a second later.
The odds of any TBM you filmed making a successful torpedo attack under conditions even slightly slower that this are miniscule.
-
The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.
P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.
Indicated air speed is how most squads operate.
-
Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.
If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.
-
You're still not accounting for the ruggedness of the airframe. That's huge considering we're talking about torpedo bombers. Ability to take damage and continue to fly is a large part of survivability for planes in this role.
OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:
A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.
-
OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:
A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.
Again, since you weren't there (unless a squaddie let you fly under their account), let me refer you to the logs:
I'll just post multiple credits this time ...
Shadow
00:50:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by PCHute.
00:53:23 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Willis.
Fester
00:30:34 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by mbailey.
00:31:09 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Triton28.
00:31:53 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cobra89.
00:40:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by cactus.
kappa
00:22:19 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by FiLtH.
00:35:21 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Trap78.
49Boob
00:31:26 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Drill.
00:32:11 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68JR.
49Dingo
00:32:30 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by RedBrd.
00:33:54 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Raptor.
jarbo
00:27:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68hobo.
00:28:42 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68boxcar.
vSixO
00:28:33 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68RacrX.
00:29:32 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by luckie.
neodad
00:29:55 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by 68Wooley.
00:33:24 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by JazzCH.
Dantoo
23:04:16 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by DrDigr1.
23:08:56 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Doc72CH.
23:12:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Vlkyrie1.
skewer
23:12:59 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by EagleCH.
23:13:06 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by TracerX.
JETSOM
22:59:58 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Guthrie.
23:00:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Seighin.
Fish42
23:12:22 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Nefari.
23:13:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Bern1.
DAKone
23:04:10 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKBunk.
23:04:17 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by AKSofty.
TxCoyote
23:00:02 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Wizard.
23:00:04 Shot down a TBM-3 flown by Branch37.
:salute
-
Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.
If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.
IIRC, auto-ack for this FSO was 0.1 of MA standard. Depending on the FSO setup, ack is usually somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 of MA standard lethality. The whole idea of turning down the ack is to allow players to fight other people in planes, not fight auto-ack...which is also why we don't allow people to man the guns at bases or on ships.
-
If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.
IIRC, auto-ack for this FSO was 0.1 of MA standard. Depending on the FSO setup, ack is usually somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 of MA standard lethality. The whole idea of turning down the ack is to allow players to fight other people in planes, not fight auto-ack...which is also why we don't allow people to man the guns at bases or on ships.
Ack was a killer frame 3
-
To wrap this up for me, I have one final question for CAP (or some other designer). As far as my understanding goes this is what I take from this thread:
Although most agree that the B5N has a more similar performance sheet, the TBM-3 will remain the substitution for the TBD-1 Devastator because it is United States Navy. CAP, am I correct in this statement?
-
anyone consider asking for the TBF-1 - slower than tbm-3 at 257mph max, slightly less armor??? frames are very close and the TBF-1 was put into action just before the TBD was pulled from the front line. would be a better sub than the TBM-3 for early war pto setups.
-
Hey, yaknow, if it'll just cease the whine-age then yeah, make a USN skin for the Kate and be done with it.
Specifications (TBD-1)
Performance
Maximum speed: 206 mph (179 knots, 331 km/h) at 8,000 ft (2,400 m)
Cruise speed: 128 mph (111 knots, 206 km/h)
Range: 435 mi (700 km) (378 nmi, 700 km) with Mk XIII Torpedo, 716 mi (623 nmi, 1,152 km) with 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Service ceiling: 19,500 ft (5,945 m)
Rate of climb: 720 ft/min (3.7 m/s)
Armament
Guns:
1 × forward-firing 0.30 in (7.62 mm) or 0.50 (12.7 mm) machine gun
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine gun in rear cockpit (later increased to two)
Bombs:
1 × Mark XIII torpedo or
1 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb or
2 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
12 × 100 lb (45 kg) bombs
Specifications (Nakajima B5N2)
Performance
Maximum speed: 378 km/h (204 kn, 235 mph)
Range: 1,992 km (1,075 NM, 1,237 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,260 m (27,100 ft)
Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1,283 ft/min)
Wing loading: 101 kg/m˛ (21 lb/ft˛)
Power/mass: 0.20 kW/kg (0.12 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns: 1 × 7.7 mm Type 92 machine gun 'Ru' (Lewis) in rear dorsal position, fed by hand loaded drum magazines of 97 rounds. A number of B5N1s were equipped with 2 × 7.7 Type 97 machine guns in the wings.
Bombs: 1 × 800 kg (1,760 lb) type 91 torpedo or 1x 800kg (1,760lb) bomb or 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 6 × 132 kg (293 lb) bombs[4]
Specifications (TBF Avenger)
Performance
Maximum speed: 275 mph[24] (442 km/h)
Range: 1,000 mi (1,610 km)
Service ceiling: 30,100 ft (9,170 m)
Rate of climb: 2,060 ft/min (10.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 36.5 ft·lbf˛ (178 kg/m˛)
Power/mass: 0.11 hp/lb (0.17 kW/kg)
Armament
Guns:
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) nose-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun(on early models)
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) dorsal-mounted M2 Browning machine gun
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) ventral-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun
Rockets:
up to eight 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets, 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets or High Velocity Aerial Rockets
Bombs:
Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs or
1 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) Mark 13 torpedo
And hopefully this will put to rest all future early PTO 'unfairness' debates. :D :salute
(p.s. I made this same request years ago ;) )
-
uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.
-
Whatever you want to call it Arlo. It should be done regardless what anyone thinks about me or why I want it. The facts are here and on page 1. There is no good reason why it shouldn't be done. But the buck stops with the designers. So it is up to them and I patiently await CAP's response to my previous post.
-
uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.
Not a mistake as much as that's what Wiki has when requesting the other.
-
uh Arlo, those specs you got listed for the TBF, are actually for the TBM...i made the same mistake a few times. biggest difference is the armament and the engine. TBF-1 had .30 cal brownings until the -1c and used the wright r2600-8. the TBM was made by gm and used the wright r2600-20.
Whoa whoa. The TBM-1 and TBF-1 have very little difference (3 mph at sea level). The TBM-3 is in a class of its own.
You should know better than to not use wiki when looking for aircraft specs. So many variants, charts, altitudes, etc. Doesnt matter though, specs still favor my argument :/
-
Whatever you want to call it Arlo. It should be done regardless what anyone thinks about me or why I want it. The facts are here and on page 1. There is no good reason why it shouldn't be done. But the buck stops with the designers. So it is up to them and I patiently await CAP's response to my previous post.
And, honestly (given the 'impact' the Avengers had on this event), there's no good reason
it should be done. I'm just saying that this particular protest is rather tiresome and
dated. I don't think what you're suggesting will end up causing the typical Aces High allied
player to hike skirt and make demands in turn. I throw my vote in alongside. Just do it
already.
-
The torp run over the boats was less than successful, damn ack. I made the same approach you did. First run, the puffy got me at 7K and the second the ack tore me to shreds in the 180 turn. Maybe the Ack lethality should remain default for FSO in this setup if using TBMs.
P.S. The ground speed is the same as TAS on the E6B in the screenshot.
devil....to be fair....if you're still doing runs, turn the ack down. we had it set to .1 for this setup/
-
devil....to be fair....if you're still doing runs, turn the ack down. we had it set to .1 for this setup/
Anything above 500 ias isn't gonna be an efficient run, anyhow. :)
-
If it wasn't default it was damn close. The B5Ns would suffer the same.
it was turned way down.
-
OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:
A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.
show me the armor on a b17 please? there wasn't much.
-
Not a mistake as much as that's what Wiki has when requesting the other.
that's why wiki suxx as a good reference...
Whoa whoa. The TBM-1 and TBF-1 have very little difference (3 mph at sea level). The TBM-3 is in a class of its own.
You should know better than to not use wiki when looking for aircraft specs. So many variants, charts, altitudes, etc. Doesnt matter though, specs still favor my argument :/
where did you get TBM-1? i mentioned the TBF-1, which wasn't much faster than the B5N1 and would be a much easier/better substitute for several early pto setups. the TBF-1 was the successor to the TBD.
the only other thing that could be done (easily) is seriously limit the TBM-3 usage and increase the number of sbd's allowed.
-
that's why wiki suxx as a good reference...
It's a quick reference and quite oft, good enough. I suppose I can dig out my Encyclopedia
of WWII Aircraft but, quite frankly, this thread really doesn't rate it. :cool:
-
Although most agree that the B5N has a more similar performance sheet, the TBM-3 will remain the substitution for the TBD-1 Devastator because it is United States Navy. CAP, am I correct in this statement?
-
Cap, he's gonna hound you until you answer. He claims once he gets one, he'll be done. Give him one.
I don't care which way this fish flops anymore, myself.
-
Arlo.... :bhead
-
no need to press for a response today, Perdue. We shouldn't see an early PTO with USN for at least 8 months while the other periods/theatres are cycled through.
Looking forward to see the HE111 used.. :)
-
We shouldn't see an early PTO with USN for at least 8 months while the other periods/theatres are cycled through.
:huh
-
Arlo.... :bhead
Hey, I'm voting with you and helping you press Cap for that important answer. No appreciation
required. :)
-
It's a quick reference and quite oft, good enough. I suppose I can dig out my Encyclopedia
of WWII Aircraft but, quite frankly, this thread really doesn't rate it. :cool:
get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...
-
get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...
I'm sure you have. Having said that, even the Wiki article differentiates. It just doesn't post multiple specs.
Modeling an earlier Avenger may be easier for Dale and co than modeling the Devastator (though I'd really
like to see that, deathtrap or not).
-
get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...
Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.
-
OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:
A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.
Cool story. :)
You're making the case that certain performance aspects of the TBM make it an unfit substitute for the TBD (it's predecesor, fwiw). Your OP listed three main categories of performance discrepancies that support your claim.
TBD-1 TBM-3 B5N
Max Speed: 206mph 262mph 235mph
Climb Rate: 720ft/min 1,540ft/min 1,283ft/min
Range: 435mi 985mi 1,237mi
Armament: .030 nose, .030 tail 2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral 7.7mm tail
Ordnance: 2,000lb torp 2,000lb torp 1,706lb torp
You're essentially saying that in judging a torpedo plane, speed is the ace of spades. IF (big if) the max speed of the TBM allowed to to outrun it's fighter opposition, I'm right there with you. Since the speed upgrade DOES NOT allow it to outrun it's fighter opposition, personally, I give that much less weight than you seem to.
I have no idea what the climb rate upgrade is supposed to do. It's a significant upgrade, but for a third time, we're talking about the tallest midget. If the TBM could match a Zero in climb... ok, I jive with ya. It can't. But that doesn't really matter since your Kate substitution still gives the Allies a big upgrade. I'd call that a push even if it were a factor.
Armament, an upgrade in bore size, and another taller midget. I actually shot down a Zero from the back of Badcore's SBD in frame three and I felt like I won the frickin' lottery. In my experience, the guns on these Navy bombers are laughable and only there to make you feel like you tried.
Now, the dark side to what you propose is making the TBD substitute a flying lighter, i.e., the Kate. You would take away a nose gun and give a significant armor downgrade all in the name of speed. Speed, that again, will not allow it to outrun the fighter opposition tasked with shooting it down.
-
Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.
Mine is right? When sources conflict, unless you've personally flown the planes in
question, it's a matter of opinion, still (favored sources versus non). That being said,
the differences in the various models of Avenger doesn't matter until they are modeled in AH.
Just paint the damned Kate and be done with this. I wanna see what the next FSO
crisis ends up being.
-
You guys are right. My case is dumb and stupid. My sources suck and I am nothing but an Axis whiney-butt. Excuse me for wasting everyone's time.
I appreciate your patience with my whines and complaints. Looking forward to chasing TBM-3's next Coral Sea <S>
-
You guys are right. My case is dumb and stupid. My sources suck and I am nothing but an Axis whiney-butt. Excuse me for wasting everyone's time.
I appreciate your patience with my whines and complaints. Looking forward to chasing TBM-3's next Coral Sea <S>
Always look on the bright side of life .......
I'm sure you'll have more fun when it isn't 'second hand.' :aok
-
Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.
except that the TBM (general motors built) which used a 1900hp motor, didn't go into production until 43 after the TBF-1 had been built through variants up to F or J(?). the only one i'm talking about is the initial TBF-1 that had around 1200 built.
-
I thought the information provided by ARLO about how many tbm's were shot down in fram 1,2,and 3 was very funny, i showed it two several people here and they could not stop laughing.......why? Becuase you provided only one side of the information, you did not show how many japanese planes were shot down by tbm's,and you did not show how many japanese aircraft engaged tbm's and only recieved an assist....this would have complete the information to be compared.....but instead, you selected the information that supported your point. thats what we call bait and switch........you know, where you use only information to pretend you are contributing,but in reality you are just shining the spotlight away from the actual point,because you cant defend the point with valid informaton. arlo,please list the other information for a real comparison, thank you
Actually, al, I provided info that disproved someone else's 'point' - that point
being that TBMs in Aces High are too hard for A6Ms to catch and take way too much
ammo to splash. Apparently that's not so much the issue as the skill of the pilot.
Oh ... and an actual 'bait and switch' situation is more like when a car lot paints on
the window of a one year old Ferrari 'Ferrari's for sale $10,000' and when you pay
they wheel out a ten year old wrecked one.
Thanks for making me laugh in turn. :)
-
Actually, al, I provided info that disproved someone else's 'point' - that point
being that TBMs in Aces High are too hard for A6Ms to catch and take way too much
ammo to splash. Apparently that's not so much the issue as the skill of the pilot.
Oh ... and an actual 'bait and switch' situation is more like when a car lot paints on
the window of a one year old Ferrari 'Ferrari's for sale $10,000' and when you pay
they wheel out a ten year old wrecked one.
Thanks for making me laugh in turn. :)
What Perdue and the rest fail to understand, the Devastator is just as armored as the TBM - if not slightly less. Only speed makes the difference between the two aircrafts, if an A6m cant splash a few TBM's they are going to find out TBD's are no different. Not to mention although the TBD is slower, its also a way smaller target then a TBM, so there will be another whine later on for it I guess?
Then again if were goign to play the historical Card, I want the AXIS to have no radar for the Coral or Midway scenarios. On top of that, the allies Radar should be I think 30 miles?
-
... they are going to find out TBD's are no different. Not to mention although the TBD is slower, its also a way smaller target then a TBM, so there will be another whine later on for it I guess?
Unfortunately, until it's modeled in AH, they won't. I believe what some of the axis players
are wanting is a change of tactics employed by the Allied side in frames two and three
(can't speak for frame one, my group was flying F4Fs then). If the B5N is subbed for the
TBD then the tactics involving a high speed approach become impractical. The B5N can't
handle the stress. This will require a lower and slower approach, giving the axis side ample
time to deal with the torpedo bombers on their inbound. Fewer defending planes would be
required.
Paint the Kate. What the hell. If this is the biggest crisis of the setup, then it's a pretty
good one. :)
-
What Perdue and the rest fail to understand, the Devastator is just as armored as the TBM - if not slightly less. Only speed makes the difference between the two aircrafts, if an A6m cant splash a few TBM's they are going to find out TBD's are no different. Not to mention although the TBD is slower, its also a way smaller target then a TBM, so there will be another whine later on for it I guess?
Yes, there is always a whine from me. The reason why I failed to realize all of that is because I am an idiot. Didnt you read my previous post. I am a stupid Axis Luftwhiner that doesnt deserve to lead men in FSO let alone fly it. I will not be happy until the Allies are forced to fly Camels whilst we fly 109's. There I said it.
-
Yes, there is always a whine from me. The reason why I failed to realize all of that is because I am an idiot. Didnt you read my previous post. I am a stupid Axis Luftwhiner that doesnt deserve to lead men in FSO let alone fly it. I will not be happy until the Allies are forced to fly Camels whilst we fly 109's. There I said it.
Always look on the bright side of life .......
:D
-
Yes, there is always a whine from me. The reason why I failed to realize all of that is because I am an idiot. Didnt you read my previous post. I am a stupid Axis Luftwhiner that doesnt deserve to lead men in FSO let alone fly it. I will not be happy until the Allies are forced to fly Camels whilst we fly 109's. There I said it.
Giving the Allies the Kate is about as stupid as giving the Germans a Spitfire or P51. "Lets just paint a meatball on it and call it even"
Instead of 10 pages, you could of posted the photo of TBM's diving at 450+ and requested an ALT cap to limit people playing timid in the FSO - this would of saved 10 pages of non-information regarding the said problem.
This makes more sense then painting a meatball, dont ya think?
-
Giving the Allies the Kate is about as stupid as giving the Germans a Spitfire or P51. "Lets just paint a meatball on it and call it even"
Instead of 10 pages, you could of posted the photo of TBM's diving at 450+ and requested an ALT cap to limit people playing timid in the FSO - this would of saved 10 pages of non-information regarding the said problem.
This makes more sense then painting a meatball, dont ya think?
Makes no cents to me because my IQ is 47. TBM-3 is 70 mph faster than the heavylee armurred, ruggud, tuff, un-killable TBD-1 Devastator. Probbly because the TBD-1 had 3 ft thick stainless steel armor all over the aircraft.
Sources:
Dood, Random. "Wikipedia", 2004.
-
... timid in the FSO
The tactics employed involved anything but timidity. It was the best chance of getting to
the target and possibly getting torps off. All of us figured we were dead. :)
-
Makes no sense to me because my IQ is 47. TBM-3 is 70 mph faster than the heavily armored, rugged, tough, un-killable TBD-1 Devastator. Probably because the TBD-1 had 3 ft thick stainless steel armor all over the aircraft.
You're just embarrassing yourself with a public pity party at this point (not unlike
your last crusade). Prove you're better than this. I'm giving you credit here. Take
it. :)
And .... FSO staff ... just paint the Kate already. :aok
-
You're just embarrassing yourself with a public pity party at this point (not unlike
your last crusade). Prove you're better than this. I'm giving you credit here. Take
it. :)
No fun in that, no one takes me seriously anyway so why not have some fun?
-
And .... FSO staff ... just paint the Kate already. :aok
lol I wonder how unbalanced FSO is going to be when zeros can use bb's to shoot down kates (which they couldnt even kill a devastator with them), maybe they can actually even out the F4Fs to Zero ratio if they do decide this.
-
No fun in that, no one takes me seriously anyway so why not have some fun?
Becauuuuse ... when you get carried away you get yourself banned and what
good are you doing then? :aok
-
lol I wonder how unbalanced FSO is going to be when zeros can use bb's to shoot down kates (which they couldnt even kill a devastator with them), maybe they can actually even out the F4Fs to Zero ratio if they do decide this.
There you go. The ultimate silver lining. :cool:
-
Becauuuuse ... when you get carried away you get yourself banned and what
good are you doing then? :aok
Can I get banned for talking crap to myself? Anyway, Im out of this one. I tried. I stayed with it for 7 pages. Remained friendly and well-behaved but a few got to me and wouldnt get off. The trolls have taken over and the big boys are playing elsewhere in this forum. Therefore, Im gone.
Once more, I appreciate everyone's input <S>
-
Can I get banned for talking crap to myself? Anyway, Im out of this one. I tried. I stayed with it for 7 pages. Remained friendly and well-behaved but a few got to me and wouldnt get off. The trolls have taken over and the big boys are playing elsewhere in this forum. Therefore, Im gone.
Once more, I appreciate everyone's input <S>
:salute
-
And .... FSO staff ... just paint the Kate already. :aok
FSO Staff has no control over skins; someone would need to create a USN skin for it, and it would need to be approved by HTC. If you joined a mission, you'd have to manually self-launch (not using the mission pop-up box that asks if you want to score as this or as that) to have it use anything other than the "default" skin...you'd still see the majority of USN Kates with IJN markings. And if there is only one mission type, like certain fighters can only be flown in fighter mode or a bomber can only be in bomber mode, you don't even get to use a custom skin if you're in a mission.
-
FSO Staff has no control over skins; someone would need to create a USN skin for it, and it would need to be approved by HTC. If you joined a mission, you'd have to manually self-launch (not using the mission pop-up box that asks if you want to score as this or as that) to have it use anything other than the "default" skin...you'd still see the majority of USN Kates with IJN markings. And if there is only one mission type, like certain fighters can only be flown in fighter mode or a bomber can only be in bomber mode, you don't even get to use a custom skin if you're in a mission.
FSO staff is the volunteer group that may request approval of said created skin when it involves
substitution for an event. The skin may be created by anyone (including an FSO staff member) but
just any ol' player can't get HTC's approval for the skin to be downloadable for use in the event
arena.
Unless the method has changed since I was an AvA vol.
-
Once more, I appreciate everyone's input <S>
:salute Sorry you think trolls took over, I don't see any real comment from anyone that would say otherwise.
FSO Staff has no control over skins; someone would need to create a USN skin for it, and it would need to be approved by HTC. If you joined a mission, you'd have to manually self-launch (not using the mission pop-up box that asks if you want to score as this or as that) to have it use anything other than the "default" skin...you'd still see the majority of USN Kates with IJN markings. And if there is only one mission type, like certain fighters can only be flown in fighter mode or a bomber can only be in bomber mode, you don't even get to use a custom skin if you're in a mission.
I don't think HTC would approve of it, then again there were Japanese Skins for German Aircrafts etc so anything is possible - from HTC's standpoint if someone wants to skin it I don't think he would care since the FSO staff is mostly volunteer.
-
FSO Staff has no control over skins; someone would need to create a USN skin for it, and it would need to be approved by HTC. If you joined a mission, you'd have to manually self-launch (not using the mission pop-up box that asks if you want to score as this or as that) to have it use anything other than the "default" skin...you'd still see the majority of USN Kates with IJN markings. And if there is only one mission type, like certain fighters can only be flown in fighter mode or a bomber can only be in bomber mode, you don't even get to use a custom skin if you're in a mission.
The soloution for this (sort of) is to make a USN skin, update the terrain with the USN skin as the "default" for the B5N. Of course, that means the IJN squads wont be able to do missions. But there is a way to circumvent HTC for special event skins. (This is how we had a Japanese Bf 110 for Rangoon '11)
-
And .... FSO staff ... just paint the Kate already. :aok
there was a bf-110c-4 meatball skin (ki-45 sub) made for a scenario...isn't too far fetched of an idea.
-
Actually, Perdue, you can get banned if you carry on a discussion with a second bbs account.. but that's not important right now.
One other option, other than skinning a Kate, would be to make a different armament loadout for the TBM that reflected the TBD.
i.e. single forward firing 30 cal in the nose, and the rear turret being outfitted with a 30 cal. No dorsal gun.
That would remove my major gripe with the plane. Then the loadout can be restricted in the hangar.
That doesn't address the speed issue, but it is probably easier than incorporating some engine governor or building the TBD.
Again, it's gonna be awhile before we see the Coral Sea/Midway event again. I surmise that they swapped the PTO '44 scheduled for May with the PTO '42 that was scheduled for Sept.
-
Actually, Perdue, you can get banned if you carry on a discussion with a second bbs account.. but that's not important right now.
One other option, other than skinning a Kate, would be to make a different armament loadout for the TBM that reflected the TBD.
i.e. single forward firing 30 cal in the nose, and the rear turret being outfitted with a 30 cal. No dorsal gun.
That would remove my major gripe with the plane. Then the loadout can be restricted in the hangar.
That doesn't address the speed issue, but it is probably easier than incorporating some engine governor or building the TBD.
This makes the best sense, ALT CAP limit the torpedo planes to 5k no more and the speed will have no real impact (unless Axis cap decides to sit on the carrier deck waiting) In the real Coral Sea the CAP had no real impact on intercepting and shooting down Devastators - the Axis fighters would have to chase down the TBMs unlike the devastators, but with the reduced armaments it cancels the TBM's ability to defend itself other then speed. Using the Kate - would mean the zeros get a bunch of easy kills when historically, it was quite opposite.
How hard would it be for HTC to redo the TBM for scenario purposes? Its a stop gap measure for when he decides to redo the TBM and possibly add the earlier TBF's. I would hate for him to do the Devastator or TMF just out of spite - but the main issue seems to be the ALT limit.
-
Just wanted to clarify things here in regards to skins.
For the downloadable skins no, it is HTC policy that non historic skins will not be use in the downloadable sets. So CMs can't make an USN skin for the B5N, submit it and have it put into the downloadable sets.
However, the CM terrain team can actually include skins directly in a terrain. This is how we reskinned the Betty as an Italian bomber for the Italy terrain. The drawback to this is that the skin included is the DEFAULT skin for that plane type for that terrain every time the terrain is used. Meaning the Japanese players would actually all start in USN skins until they changed them. Also it would mean ANYBODY using the Coral Sea terrain for other events would have the Japanese players B5N start off in USN skins. This is why we don't do it very often ... skin other planes with different country skins. The few times we do it is usually when we are subbing in an aircraft from a plane set that would not normally be used in the terrain (e.g. for the Italy terrain skinning the Betty with an Italian skin).
-
Just wanted to clarify things here in regards to skins.
For the downloadable skins no, it is HTC policy that non historic skins will not be use in the downloadable sets. So CMs can't make an USN skin for the B5N, submit it and have it put into the downloadable sets.
However, the CM terrain team can actually include skins directly in a terrain. This is how we reskinned the Betty as an Italian bomber for the Italy terrain. The drawback to this is that the skin included is the DEFAULT skin for that plane type for that terrain every time the terrain is used. Meaning the Japanese players would actually all start in USN skins until they changed them. Also it would mean ANYBODY using the Coral Sea terrain for other events would have the Japanese players B5N start off in USN skins. This is why we don't do it very often ... skin other planes with different country skins. The few times we do it is usually when we are subbing in an aircraft from a plane set that would not normally be used in the terrain (e.g. for the Italy terrain skinning the Betty with an Italian skin).
Well that settles that (and I do now recall the only way we could substitute Japanese skins for 262s and 163s were because they only flew that side). Looks like TBMs until a TBD is modeled (if ever). *sigh* :airplane:
-
Yeah it is a pain I wish there was a way to set two default skins somehow or a default skin per plane per country but right now we don't have that.
-
Yeah it is a pain I wish there was a way to set two default skins somehow or a default skin per plane per country but right now we don't have that.
Is it possible for Hitech to do a quick remodel of the TBM? REmove the 50s for a 30 etc - would that be an option?
-
Is it possible for Hitech to do a quick remodel of the TBM? REmove the 50s for a 30 etc - would that be an option?
Hitech can add variants of any aircraft but he won't bother unless it's historically
accurate and it seems worthwhile.
-
Actually, Perdue, you can get banned if you carry on a discussion with a second bbs account.. but that's not important right now.
What makes you say that?
-
What makes you say that?
happened a few years ago.. somebody did a 'look at me' thread then used a shade bbs account to keep looking at himself. wasnt important enough to remember those involved.
-
happened a few years ago.. somebody did a 'look at me' thread then used a shade bbs account to keep looking at himself. wasnt important enough to remember those involved.
Are you insinuating that Perd is has a shade account on the BBs?
I thought people only got paranoid when he commands a CV. :noid
-
My interest in the TBD is up. Can anyone point me to where the info is about it diving at speed, vne, armor, did it have self sealing tanks, etc. I'm mostly coming up empty or with hear say. Some one here suggested the TBM was much larger but the specs I've found are not that different.TBD had 4ft less span and 5ft less fuse length with the real dif. in speed and climb. Anyone know where I can look? Thanks
-
Off topic from the thread but -
happened a few years ago.. somebody did a 'look at me' thread then used a shade bbs account to keep looking at himself. wasnt important enough to remember those involved.
The reason he was banned was due to what he was saying, not because he had a 2nd BBS account. There is nothing in HTC's rules about having multiple BBS accounts, in fact, I know for a fact that many of the "funny haha" guys on the BBS are actually doing exactly that - and no, I'm not one of them.
I've never seen anyone specifically banned for it either, not since 1999 when I joined the BBS, had a BBS account under GmanJG2, and this one, "Gman" as well, then shut the other one down when JG2 folded. Also remember many many people have created multiple game accounts for whatever reason, and they aren't kicked from the game because of it. Granted guys killing shades and whatnot have been disciplined, but TwinTail for example who did this is still around, as are dozens of others. Heck, Semp makes a good laugh out of having a 2nd account, Midway's namely, holding it hostage, and he isn't kicked or banned for it.
As for this thread, I personally think it was pretty well behaved, and everyone should pat themselves on the back for it not turning into a monkey slinging poop contest as so many do. Perdweed, Devil, Arlo, Cap, Butcher, Gyrene, all the others I'm too lazy to go back and find and type - other than a few bumps here and there - I personally think everybody behaved rather well, especially compared to prior instances. I think HTC adding the SBD obviously would easily solve the whole issue, and although in the MA it would be hanger queen numero uno most likely, for FSO it is a key plane that is missing, considering the number of early war scenarios in the pacific.
This brings up something I've often wondered. With all the talent and people who volunteer their time like the CM's and whatnot, surely somebody is capable of building the planes we use in this game, as well as their skins (obviously). I wonder if HTC would ever consider letting the community design and build planes/tanks/etc, and submit them for approval for HTC to go over, then add them into the game, thus speeding up the rate at which new toys are added by a huge factor, without costing HTC any time or $. Thoughts?
At any rate, <S> to all in the thread.
-
Are you insinuating that Perd is has a shade account on the BBs?
I thought people only got paranoid when he commands a CV. :noid
I believe he was being facetious when Perd reinterpreted his sarcasm as literally putting
himself down. ;)
-
My interest in the TBD is up. Can anyone point me to where the info is about it diving at speed, vne, armor, did it have self sealing tanks, etc. I'm mostly coming up empty or with hear say. Some one here suggested the TBM was much larger but the specs I've found are not that different.TBD had 4ft less span and 5ft less fuse length with the real dif. in speed and climb. Anyone know where I can look? Thanks
Message me your email address and I can send you the information you request.
Off topic from the thread but -
This brings up something I've often wondered. With all the talent and people who volunteer their time like the CM's and whatnot, surely somebody is capable of building the planes we use in this game, as well as their skins (obviously). I wonder if HTC would ever consider letting the community design and build planes/tanks/etc, and submit them for approval for HTC to go over, then add them into the game, thus speeding up the rate at which new toys are added by a huge factor, without costing HTC any time or $. Thoughts?
At any rate, <S> to all in the thread.
I think this is a huge no, its been asked before - but I think HTC shot it down (2004?) maybe he might change his mind now a days, don't think he would change his mind anytime soon. I asked him about this long time ago as well, I didnt get any answer specifically (at least 2008?)
-
The reason he was banned was due to what he was saying, not because he had a 2nd BBS account.
I don't think he's referencing Perdue.
-
I don't think he's referencing Perdue.
I realize that, it didn't even enter my head to be honest. I was talking about that past incident, not about this thread or anyone in particular in it.
I think this is a huge no, its been asked before - but I think HTC shot it down (2004?) maybe he might change his mind now a days, don't think he would change his mind anytime soon. I asked him about this long time ago as well, I didnt get any answer specifically (at least 2008?)
Ok, some intel regarding it at least. I wonder how receptive he would be now in 2013. I think it's a good idea personally, although I have absolutely no ability to do this sort of thing, I know there are guys here that could, I'm certain of it. I'd be happy to fly stuff they built, and it would as I said really crank up the number of new rides we could get IMO.
-
If the CMs have such available, I'd like a list of all event substitutions for possible wishlist consideration.
-
If the CMs have such available, I'd like a list of all event substitutions for possible wishlist consideration.
+1 excellent idea maybe HTC might look at it closer coming from CMs vs rest of us no names :angel:
-
+2, Great idea IMO, same reasons as stated already. Maybe run with that ball a little and see what happens.
-
I believe he was being facetious when Perd reinterpreted his sarcasm as literally putting
himself down. ;)
I don't think he's referencing Perdue.
Ah, It just really came across that way.
-
Ah, It just really came across that way.
I can completely understand.
-
+1 excellent idea maybe HTC might look at it closer coming from CMs vs rest of us no names :angel:
We're special...us with those cool tags under our names...yes we are. ;)
Any well thought out wishlist idea, with some background and maybe some data and sources, no matter who it came from, would (IMO) be equally considered by the HTC staff.
-
We're special...us with those cool tags under our names...yes we are. ;)
Any well thought out wishlist idea, with some background and maybe some data and sources, no matter who it came from, would (IMO) be equally considered by the HTC staff.
I wish I had my 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 accounts combined into one, however I cant recall which email address I used over the years every time I quit.
-
The point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with your TBM B5N debate. I happen to agree with you on the B5N TBM issue the B5N is a closer match to the TBD than the TBM.
My post has to do with the guy suggesting we run the setup without fighters. Not to mention we cannot recreate actual numbers unless we're going to start asking folks to sit out.
If there was no fighters, and gunners on board ships was in their place, I'd gladly take a ships gun . . preferably a dual 5" 38 but I wouldn't care if I went down to a 20mm . . maybe others feel like I do when it comes to fleet ops, just a thought. I wish there was some kind of option for ships guns. :rolleyes:
-
Are you insinuating that Perd is has a shade account on the BBs?
I thought people only got paranoid when he commands a CV. :noid
Not at all! I was referring to this quote:
Can I get banned for talking crap to myself?...
-
Not at all! I was referring to this quote:
gotcha. :aok
-
cohofly you highlight the argument perfectly. Un fortunately not in your favor. Just because you don't want to fly it is not a valid reason not to use an AC that is FAR more correct for a time frame/specific bird in capabilities. The TBD was not capable of diving anywhere near the speeds of a TBM and would not be able to BLOW THROUGH the defenders. Tactics would have to change and the outcome--torpedo sunk ships-- becomes in question. Paint the axis bird and use it --- even then it is 30 mph faster than the TBD was. That blue plane toughness argument is also part of the problem when talking about the TBD as it does not apply--they were slaughtered, had very limited success and were pulled because they were totally outclassed and frankly not even that many left to use. Use the axis bird if you have any pretense of calling it an attempt to be like real conditions for plane performance.
pops57, our plan for frame 3 would have been the same if we actually had TBD's, we where mainly concerned with defending all our AC, getting the 'mostest clostest' to target. I hear it was a pretty sight watching the entire attack group orbit, waiting for Zuikaku's location to be reported. Once the targets where located, waves where also utilized to their best effect, forcing the Axis defense to react to our benefit. Had the TBM's been TBD's(or Kates), they would've dove for their drop alts earlier is about the only difference to the plan, considering we all expected them to be sacrificial or at best lucky to survive. We felt having them cruise in high and using the fighters as escort was the best way to get as many in force to the targets areas with out loosing them half way there, at least to give em a chance of dropping their torps in each successive wave. I know the Axis CV's where down before the last wave even got into visual range. Apparently they tried to attack the survivors but, as FSO history wrote it . . they died with their targets. Only way to see a real difference is to put in a TBD or give an existing Allied plane the TBD's characteristics . . I believe every change could be made to any aircraft in game to achieve this, yes/no? Sides gotta fly their own sides AC, Axis/Allied, when it comes to substitutes, just my opinion on the Kate sub'n for the TBD. Any takers for Jap carriers running on Borneo fuel instead of Essex class CV's for all sides? There's an unmentioned problem for Jap carriers, like their planes they also flamed up easier than allied ships. :salute