Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chuikov on July 26, 2013, 01:51:24 AM
-
I thinking adding the Tu-2, and the Yak3p would enchance game play a bit. The Tu-2 was a Soviet "medium" bomber capable of a 8000lb bomb load and a top speed of around 330mph. The Yak3p was a late war variant that sported 3 20mm cannon instead of the two 12.7 mg's and the single 20mm
-
I get the Tu 2, but the Yak 3P.... NEG!!!
-
I agree %100 that the Soviets need a level bomber. That is without question the biggest gap in the AH plane set. The SB-2 or Tu-2 would make the sense. Then, bring on the Pe-2. :aok
No more Yak planes! If AH is looking to add anything for a Soviet fighter I hope they consider one of the early war MiG's.
-
I agree %100 that the Soviets need a level bomber. That is without question the biggest gap in the AH plane set. The SB-2 or Tu-2 would make the sense. Then, bring on the Pe-2. :aok
Well, the SB-2 certainly wouldn't make a whole a lot sense at this point. The method of delivery is irrelevant, Pe-2 was by far the most important bomber for Soviets.
-
No more Yak planes! If AH is looking to add anything for a Soviet fighter I hope they consider one of the early war MiG's.
Yak-1 is still needed.
-
That is without question the biggest gap in the AH plane set.
A-hem .....
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/3457/4vqn.png)
:aok
-
A-hem .....
Yep, Soviet bomber aircraft which the VVS bomber units flew is the biggest gap in the AH planeset currently. Italian bomber is so much smaller gap, a quick, clansing and casual look to WWII history tells it right away.
-
Yep, Soviet bomber aircraft which the VVS bomber units flew is the biggest gap in the AH planeset currently. Italian bomber is so much smaller gap, a quick, clansing and casual look to WWII history tells it right away.
:huh
A casual look at WWII history as compared to AH would reflect that the AH plane set actually has tons of Soviet lend lease aircraft, including bombers - all with accurate skins. :aok
What it also has is 2 whole Italian planes, neither of which is a bomber. :D
(http://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/images/avion_militaire/Gsm79-2.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79
-
:huh
A casual look at WWII history as compared to AH would reflect that the AH plane set actually has tons of Soviet lend lease aircraft, including bombers - all with accurate skins. :aok
What it also has is 2 whole Italian planes, neither of which is a bomber. :D
(http://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/images/avion_militaire/Gsm79-2.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79
Hmmm....how do you spell 'Target' in Italian?
-
Hmmm....how do you spell 'Hangar Queen' in Italian?
-
Hmmm....how do you spell 'Target' in Italian?
The same way you spell 'He111 yeah!' in German? :aok
-
It's all about you, kid. Always has been. Always will be. :D
-
It's all about you, kid. Always has been. Always will be. :D
Holy crap, you really hump my ankle everywhere! Damn, next time I'll just dangle my cotton piece over your head.
-
Holy crap, you really hump my ankle everywhere! Damn, next time I'll just dangle my cotton piece over your head.
Case in point^
:lol
The point you missed was .... you don't like it, hence it's a hangar queen already. :rolleyes:
-
I agree %100 that the Soviets need a level bomber.
:devil
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322970.0.html
-
With regard to the expansion of the planeset would it be possible to know what further planes are being looked at to expand the current set?
Just which aircraft are still to come would be nice to know - not that bothered about the timeline or when, I think that USA seems mostly complete, Brit has one or two, JP afew more would be nice as would a couple for the Sovs.
The above would mostly be for scenario's though as late war arena is pretty much set.
-
:huh
A casual look at WWII history as compared to AH would reflect that the AH plane set actually has tons of Soviet lend lease aircraft, including bombers - all with accurate skins. :aok
What it also has is 2 whole Italian planes, neither of which is a bomber. :D
That is why I mentioned Soviet bomber units. Boston's and A-20's were mostly used by the mine and torpedo regiments. As far as the actual bombing goes, lend-lease bombers like the B-25 were a complete non-entity compared to the domestic Soviet bombers. Biggest battles of the human kind's history were fought on the eastern front which was thousands of kilometers long. It is compeletely rediculous to even imply that a Italian bomber is a bigger hole in the planeset than a Soviet one. I mean those two things are so far apart that it is a total no-brainer which was more influential.
I have nothing against SM.79, it would be a cool and historic bomber, but far less needed than a Pe-2. Pe-2 is the biggest single gap in the planeset at the moment.
-
That is why I mentioned Soviet bomber units. Boston's and A-20's were mostly used by the mine and torpedo regiments. As far as the actual bombing goes, lend-lease bombers like the B-25 were a complete non-entity compared to the domestic Soviet bombers. Biggest battles of the human kind's history were fought on the eastern front which was thousands of kilometers long. It is compeletely rediculous to even imply that a Italian bomber is a bigger hole in the planeset than a Soviet one. I mean those two things are so far apart that it is a total no-brainer which was more influential.
I have nothing against SM.79, it would be a cool and historic bomber, but far less needed than a Pe-2. Pe-2 is the biggest single gap in the planeset at the moment.
My Finnish friend,
Your personal definition of 'non-entity' appears to be somewhat flawed as is your comparative analysis of "biggest single gap."
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862
"American Douglas A-20 (known by British name Boston in Russia) was most widespread foreign bomber in the Soviet aviation. During the Great Patriotic War years the USSR had more planes of this type, then the USA. About 3000 bombers (3125) were supplied in accordance to Lend-Lease terms. These planes flew over land and sea. Bostons served as bombers, reconnaissance planes, torpedo-bombers, heavy night fighters and high-speed transports. Armies of other countries used many A-20s too, but Soviet Air Force was main user of these planes. Some years after war ending Bostons served with Soviet Air Force, Navy Aviation and Civil Air Fleet. "
" B-25 Mitchell in accordance to Lend-Lease terms were delivered and in other countries of a coalition — Great Britain, Australia, France, Holland, 861 in various modifications were delivered in the USSR.
First machines (B - 25B) were delivered by a sea way in USSR at the end of 1941 year. B-25 in the USSR used for armies support. Further B-25 (modifications C/D, later were delivered and J) were applied for different long-range actions. "
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/uk/gs_uk60.shtml
"The Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero (Italian for "Sparrowhawk") was a three-engined Italian medium bomber with a wood-and-metal structure. Originally designed as a fast passenger aircraft, this low-wing monoplane, in the years 1937–39, set 26 world records that qualified it for some time as the fastest medium bomber in the world.[1] It first saw action during the Spanish Civil War and flew on all fronts in which Italy was involved during World War II.[2] It became famous and achieved many successes as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean theater.[3] The SM.79 was an outstanding aircraft and was certainly the best-known Italian aeroplane of World War II.[2] It was easily recognizable due to its distinctive fuselage dorsal "hump", and was well liked by its crews who nicknamed it Gobbo Maledetto ("damned hunchback").[4] It was the most widely produced Italian bomber of World War II, with some 1,300 built, remaining in Italian service until 1952.[5]"
"Almost 600 SM.79-I and –II aircraft were in service when Italy entered World War II, and these aircraft were deployed in every theatre of war in which the Italians fought. The 12° Stormo (Wing) was the first to be equipped with the SM.79, starting in early 1936. 12 Wing was involved in the initial evaluation of the bomber, which continued throughout 1936. The Wing went operational on 1 May 1936 with the SM.79 successfully completing torpedo launches from a target distance of 5 km (3.1 mi) in August 1936. The torpedo bomber variant was much more unstable and harder to control than the civilian version (and much less precise than its successor, the SM.81). Its capabilities were still being explored when the Spanish Civil War broke out, and a number of SM.79s were dispatched to support the Nationalists. By 4 November 1936, there were only six SM.79s with enough crew to fly them operating in Spain. At the beginning of 1937, there were 15 SM.79s in total, and they went on to be used in Spain throughout the conflict, with very few losses. Around 19 of the total sent there were lost. Deliveries to 12 Wing and other units involved numbered at least 99 aircraft.
The first recorded interception of an SM.79 formation took place on 11 October 1937 when three aircraft were attacked by 12 Polikarpov I-16s. One of the SM.79s was damaged but its defensive armament prevented close-up attacks. All bombers returned to base, although one had been hit by 27 bullets, many hitting the fuel tanks. Other interceptions occurred in the conflict without any SM.79s being lost.[20]
Combat experience revealed some deficiencies in the SM.79: the lack of oxygen masks for high altitude operation, instability, vibrations experienced at speeds over 400 km/h (250 mph) and other problems were encountered and sometimes solved. General Valle, in an attempt to answer some of the criticisms about the ability of the aircraft to operate at night, took off from Guidonia and bombed Barcelona, a journey of six hours and 15 minutes. On this occasion the aircraft proved it had a useful range (around 1,000 km/620 mi with eight 100 kg (220 lb) bombs, for a total gross weight of around 1,000 kg/2,200 lb). SM.79s operated from the Balearic Islands and later from mainland Spain. Hundreds of missions were performed in a wide range of roles against Republican targets. No Fiat CR.32s were needed to escort the SM.79s, partly because the biplane fighters were too slow.
After serving in the Spanish Civil War, the Sparviero came into use with 111° and 8° Wing. By the end of 1939, there were 388 Sparvieros in service, with 11 wings partially or totally made up of this aircraft. They also participated in the occupation of Albania in autumn 1939.[21]
By the beginning of World War II 612 aircraft had been delivered, making the Sparviero the most numerous bomber in the whole of the Regia Aereonautica, assigned to a total of 14 wings (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41 and 46).[21] Not all of these wings had Gruppi (groups) entirely equipped with the SM.79. Every squadron had around nine to 10 aircraft, but this included second line aircraft, so the force of each squadron consisted on average of around seven to eight bombers, and every wing had around 30 bombers. Among these units; 8, 9, 11, 12, 30, 32, 36, 41 and 46 Stormi (Wings) were based in Italy, and participated in the Battle of France. They were equipped with a total of around 350 SM.79s, including those used in training squadrons."
^ Arena et al. 1994, p. 7.
^ a b Angelucci and Matricardi 1978, p. 198.
^ a b Arena et al. 1994, p. 9.
^ "Savoia-Marchetti SM.79/" Aviation History On-Line Museum. Retrieved: 26 December 2011.
^ a b Mondey 1996, p. 236.
^ Sgarlato 2002, p. 13.
^ a b Sgarlato 2002, p. 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The AHII "Italian plane set" consists of 2 variants of the C2 series fighter. There is no bomber. There is no lend-lease bomber. There is nothing to fill the bomber role for the Italians in a Mediterranean (or any other) setting. The claim that the lack of a Soviet built level bomber for the AHII plane set is the most glaring omission is both biased and false. While I've nothing against adding a Soviet built level bomber (I, myself, being an advocate of the TU-2), such modeling work should not be a precursor to the SM.79. Game events have at least some suitable historical level bombers for the Soviets without substitution.
-
Arlo,
If what Wmaker says about the Soviet use of the A-20 is true than those 2908 examples can be dismissed as they aren't relevant. That leaves the 862 B-25s, which I think we can agree were vastly out numbered by domestic Soviet bombers. What he said is true.
The Italians were a minor power despite their desire to play with the big boys and if the major player Soviets can be argued to get by with the B-25C then there is an even stronger argument that the Italians can make do with the Ju88 and He111.
-
As said, the sheer scale of the Eastern Front compared to the small role of Italy (as compared to Soviet Union) in WWII makes your suggestion utterly laughable. The sheer difference in impact of these countries in WWII is nicely illustrated when comparing the production numbers of these bombers (~1350 SM.79s vs. ~11400 Pe-2s). MTO in general was much smaller show than the eastern front and in that smaller show German involvement was clearly larger than the Italian. You conveniently like to forget that the Ju 88s were operating in the same theater as the SM.79s and at the same time say that Soviet bomber gap can be covered using lend lease bombers. As said, Special Events-wise which is more important is a no-brainer. Ju-88 certainly give the look and feel of the MTO especially with Greebo's excellent skins. Lend lease bombers certainly don't have the look and feel of the Eastern Front as their use was minuscule as bombers compared to domestic Soviet bombers.
Your personal definition of 'non-entity' appears to be somewhat flawed as is your comparative analysis of "biggest single gap."
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862
"American Douglas A-20 (known by British name Boston in Russia) was most widespread foreign bomber in the Soviet aviation. During the Great Patriotic War years the USSR had more planes of this type, then the USA. About 3000 bombers (3125) were supplied in accordance to Lend-Lease terms. These planes flew over land and sea. Bostons served as bombers, reconnaissance planes, torpedo-bombers, heavy night fighters and high-speed transports. Armies of other countries used many A-20s too, but Soviet Air Force was main user of these planes. Some years after war ending Bostons served with Soviet Air Force, Navy Aviation and Civil Air Fleet. "
" B-25 Mitchell in accordance to Lend-Lease terms were delivered and in other countries of a coalition — Great Britain, Australia, France, Holland, 861 in various modifications were delivered in the USSR.
First machines (B - 25B) were delivered by a sea way in USSR at the end of 1941 year. B-25 in the USSR used for armies support. Further B-25 (modifications C/D, later were delivered and J) were applied for different long-range actions. "
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/uk/gs_uk60.shtml
Your quote just reinforces my point. As your quote mentions A-20, were involved in a lot of other roles other than bombing like (as I already mentioned) being the main type of mine and torpedo regiments. This is nicely illustrated when looking at the numerical strength of the Soviet bomber aviation at the beginning of March 1944:
Pe-2 1293
Il-4 543
Boston III 348
Li-2 309
B-25 100
Pe-8 68
DC-3 45
SB-2 10
(Source: Hannu Valtonen: LENTO-OSASTO KUHLMEY ISBN 978-952-99989-0-6)
Rather telling numbers.
The AHII "Italian plane set" consists of 2 variants of the C2 series fighter. There is no bomber. There is no lend-lease bomber. There is nothing to fill the bomber role for the Italians in a Mediterranean (or any other) setting. The claim that the lack of a Soviet built level bomber for the AHII plane set is the most glaring omission is both biased and false. While I've nothing against adding a Soviet built level bomber (I, myself, being an advocate of the TU-2), such modeling work should not be a precursor to the SM.79. Game events have at least some suitable historical level bombers for the Soviets without substitution.
Like I mentioned, you conveniently forget that Germans were operating in the same theater with Ju88 and had generally bigger impact in that theater than the Italians. Ju88 fits right into the MTO Special events as it was heavily used in the said theater. Soviets didn't use lend-lease bombers heavily in the bomber role compared to the domestic bombers which they had far bigger numbers of.
-
Arlo,
If what Wmaker says about the Soviet use of the A-20 is true than those 2908 examples can be dismissed as they aren't relevant. That leaves the 862 B-25s, which I think we can agree were vastly out numbered by domestic Soviet bombers. What he said is true.
The Italians were a minor power despite their desire to play with the big boys and if the major player Soviets can be argued to get by with the B-25C then there is an even stronger argument that the Italians can make do with the Ju88 and He111.
The Russian source I quoted is at odds with his claim. *ShruG*
Do you have a source where Germany gave Italy any He-111s to use? I know most don't like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111 as a source for anything.
As for the JU-88:
"But for the most part A-4, were supplied Italian Air Force, which did not have time to enter them into operational service before the armistice, they were destined to 9 ° and 10 ° Stormo and Groups 38 ° and 51 ° BT. "
"Junkers Ju 88 in operational condition not only the Luftwaffe. Regia Aeronautica ordered in mid-1940, 200 aircraft Ju 88, which should ‘have entered service Italian bomber parts, because Italy was not a modern bomber. The Germans were in no hurry to supply-only in 1943 tested two machines: Ju 88A-4 and Ju 88A-7. The first German aircraft were 9, 10, 30 and 35 Stromo BT (Shelves land bombers). Preparation of the Italian pilots were carried out in LG 1 (Eleusis, Greece) and KO 30 (Rhodes, Greece). Pilots 9 Stromo B.T. were trained at the airport of Montpellier, where the training was based V1./KG 77. Pilots from 10 Stromo B.T. internships in VI. / KG 30 (airfield Aalborg, Denmark) and in Wiener Neustadt. April 10, 1943 the Italians had four Ju 88A-7 (W.Nr. 55078, 55079, 55082 and 55086), as well as 12 brand new Ju 88A-4 (W.Nr. 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1223, 1246 and 1247). By the time of the surrender of Italy, no re-parts did not have time to achieve readiness. Total Italian Air Force received six Ju 88A-7, and 25 Ju 88A-4 (from, 25 of these aircraft were in use)."
Read more: http://authspot.com/poetry/ju-88-combat-service/#ixzz2aFm0Jdhs
Which isn't remotely comparable to the Allied lend-lease bomber use of the Soviets.
-
Your quote just reinforces my point. As your quote mentions A-20, were involved in a lot of other roles other than bombing like (as I already mentioned) being the main type of mine and torpedo regiments.
No it doesn't. You try to make it sound as if that was all they were used for. My quote illustrated all their uses on all fronts.
This is nicely illustrated when looking at the numerical strength of the Soviet bomber aviation at the beginning of March 1944
A snapshot of later in the war is not making the case of what you claim to be the most obvious gap in the AHII plane set.
The Italian sub-set retains that, hands down. Any number of lend-lease Soviet bombers at any time in the war is going to be a greater number than 0 (or 25 JU-88s, for that matter ;) ).
-
I am not saying the German bombers flew in Italian colors, I am saying that they work just fine as stand ins, or in the colors of the Germans who were flying them alongside the Italians.
The scale of the two conflicts are simply not comparable. The Soviet Union was one of the two most powerful nations in the world by 1944 and Italy was never in contention. Ethiopia put up a hard fight when the Italians invaded, they couldn't take Greece without German help, they only declared war on the UK when they thought it was safe, and then when forced to fight the UK in north Africa got soundly trounced until rescued by the Germans.
Yes, the Italian planeset is spare and additional Italian planes would be nice to have, higher priority than any American plane and all but a small handful of British, German and Japanese planes. The Russians though have a significant number of aircraft that are higher priority than any Italian aircraft. While the Russian fighter stable is almost to the point where it can be said to have coverage, just need one or more of the LaGG-3, MiG-3 or Yak-1, its bomber forces are completely unrepresented. Yes, the B-25C and Boston work as stand ins for early war, but neither is as survivable as the Pe-2 and neither comes close to the Tu-2's capability.
-
No it doesn't. You try to make it sound as if that was all they were used for. My quote illustrated all their uses on all fronts.
It explains the uses of A-20 in SU. Vast majority was used in other roles than regular bombing which AH events are mostly about.
"The USSR received 2,908 Douglas twin-engined attack aircraft; more than one in three Havocs produced. The Soviet Air Force (VVS) often modified the aircraft using Soviet gun turrets and armament.
Nearly every anti-shipping aircraft in the Soviet Naval Air Service was a Havoc A-20G fitted to drop torpedoes and mines."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Douglas_A-20_Havoc_operators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Douglas_A-20_Havoc_operators)
A snapshot of later in the war is not making the case of what you claim to be the most obvious gap in the AHII plane set.
Actually it is far more relevant than anything you've managed to post so far. I'll post a table later which gives yearly delivery numbers for Pe-2, Il-4, B-25 and A-20. They tell the exact same story.
The Italian sub-set retains that, hands down. Any number of lend-lease Soviet bombers at any time in the war is going to be a greater number than 0 (or 25 JU-88s, for that matter ;) ).
Erm, what exactly are you trying to prove comparing German aid to Italy with the allied lend-lease? Completely apples to oranges as they have nothing to do with each other except showing that Italy was, like karnak said, a small player compared to SU and therefore much more important regarding any new plane additions. I was talking about the Ju88s as in Lufwaffe Ju88s which were operating in the same theather as Regia Aeronautica. As karnak said, if you think that most significant bomber of a country of the size of SU can be subbed using little used lend lease aircraft, He111 is more than capable of subbing SM.79.
-
Survivability isn't the issue anymore than how many bombers the Soviets built would be. I addressed the claim that most obvious gap in the entire AHII plane-set is the lack of a Soviet built bomber. That apparently didn't take into account the Italian plane-subset at all nor does it acknowledge the Soviet use of lend-lease in high numbers (as well as historical skins being available for use in AHII that supports such). While I can understand the oversight, I don't understand the stubbornness to stand behind such a claim once that oversight has been brought up.
-
Erm, what exactly are you trying to prove ...
That a claim of the lack of a Soviet built bomber in AHII is more of a glaring gap that the lack of an Italian built bomber (or attack plane or even a couple of more fighters) is erroneous. While it may be your opinion, it's a poor one. I'm not hard-pressed to prove it at all. It's as simple as that. When your argument devolves to subbing aircraft to play the role of another, well, the Soviet built bomber argument becomes a moot point. :)
-
That a claim of the lack of a Soviet built bomber in AHII is more of a glaring gap that the lack of an Italian built bomber
Which it absolutely is. I'm totally with WMaker, by the facts that are obvious. :aok
-
Which it absolutely is. I'm totally with WMaker, by the facts that are obvious. :aok
Not so much ..... as the 'argument' shows. :)
-
Not so much ..... as the 'argument' shows. :)
Actually it's shows exactly that. To such an extend that I once more am not sure if you are just trolling (which I hope)
-
Actually it's shows exactly that. To such an extend that I once more am not sure if you are just trolling (which I hope)
I presented facts, not massaged facts. Wmaker can't honestly say the same, even with your wholehearted support. :salute
-
If you compare the Soviet participation in WWII and the Italian and then compare their unit sets in AH, the Italians are over represented.
The biggest land war in human history was on the east front of WWII and we have a whopping two Russian GVs (yes, they used lend-lease Shermans too) arrayed against ten, eleven if you count the 251, German models.
-
If you compare the Soviet participation in WWII and the Italian and then compare their unit sets in AH, the Italians are over represented.
Ahhh, this distraction to argument has been tried before, complete with retraction when I challenged such. :)
-
Arlo, you are presenting facts, but only the facts that suit you and you are declaring any other facts as to be irrelevant. I understand that you want more Italian stuff, but you are seriously doing a disservice to history when you minimize the Soviet participation like you're doing here.
-
I presented facts, not massaged facts. Wmaker can't honestly say the same, even with your wholehearted support. :salute
It has been said to you time and again by more than one person in here. Soviet Union was one of the five major players in WWII, Italy was not. Therefore, the lack SU's most important bomber is a far bigger gap than the lack of Italy's most important bomber. Simple as that. 11400 built compared to 1350. It really doesn't get much more trivial than that. Looking at this thread, you seem to be the only one that does not grasp it, Arlo.
-
Arlo, you are presenting facts, but only the facts that suit you and you are declaring any other facts as to be irrelevant. I understand that you want more Italian stuff, but you are seriously doing a disservice to history when you minimize the Soviet participation like you're doing here.
Huh. Are we having the same conversation? I never downplayed Soviet participation. I sure am seeing Italian participation being downplayed when the actual argument should have stayed about what the actual most glaring gap in the AHII plane-set is. I'm a very realistic potential ally when it comes to exploring what historical relevance, desire and perceived need is in this game's plane and vehicle set.
1. Statement was made that the game's most obvious gap to plug is that of a Soviet built bomber. However, scenarios and events can provide more historically accurate bombers sporting a Soviet star than they can bombers sporting (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Italy-Royal-Airforce.svg/200px-Italy-Royal-Airforce.svg.png).
2. I illustrated the latter above.
3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.
4. I challenged such.
5. Italy gets poo-pooed, in general.
6. Argument forgets where it all started from there.
-
It has been said to you time and again by more than one person in here. Soviet Union was one of the five major players in WWII, Italy was not. Therefore, the lack SU's most important bomber is a far bigger gap than the lack of Italy's most important bomber. Simple as that. 11400 built compared to 1350. It really doesn't get much more trivial than that. Looking at this thread, you seem to be the only one that does not grasp it, Arlo.
The complete lack of any level bomber sporting a Soviet star (which, is patently false) versus a level bomber sporting Regia Aeronautica markings in an AHII scenario being an argument you can't win, however. What you're repetitively stating still doesn't support your opinion of what is and isn't the most glaring gap in the AHII plane-set. However, it apparently seems the core of your argument made in place of concession and agreement on what order the next 5, even 2 models should be and in what order.
-
:D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img32/1693/owst.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img41/1466/2zx.png)
;)
-
You're downplaying the Soviets when you put them on equal footing with the Italians.
-
3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.
4. I challenged such.
You said 'nuh-uh' and provided no counter argument based on statistics.
You're citing summaries from random websites and Wikipedia and WMaker is citing data and hard numbers from published books. If you don't see the gap in each argument here you're either putting up blinders or trolling.
Also with how small the Regia Aeronautica was in comparison to the VVS I wouldn't be all that surprised if 25 Ju-88s made up closer to an equal proportion of the RA's bomber force as lend lease aircraft made of the VVS' bomber force than one might initially imagine.
-
You're downplaying the Soviets when you put them on equal footing with the Italians.
You're confusing my point in what's being discussed if that's what you're getting out of it. What I've challenged is what the largest gap (and perhaps gaps) in the Aces High II plane set is/are. This involves comparing what is modeled to what isn't as well as what scenarios leave out what planes and nations or often what gets subbed (out of desperation) because the plane just plain wasn't modeled (or hasn't been yet). This isn't about modeling the D.520 fighter because France deserves representation in the game (or whether that means France is more important than the Soviet Union or the British or the U.S. in the overall scheme of credit due in World War II). There is an Italian category to fill and it doesn't have a bomber. The Soviet plane-set can claim the lend-lease planes sent by allied nations for historically accurate scenarios. Hence, your triage reasoning is somewhat skewed. The Soviets in an Eastern Front scenario (as if there's really another front we could portray for the Soviets) aren't suffering nearly as much as the Italians in a Med scenario (as if the Italians could have a shot in anything other than a Med or African scenario - BoB the exception, though a limited one).
There's no racial, national nor ethnic bias in my argument, whatsoever. :)
-
You said 'nuh-uh' and provided no counter argument based on statistics.
I'm missing detailed statistics other than some rather tunnel-visioned ones to challenge from Wmaker, for that matter.
You're citing summaries from random websites and Wikipedia and WMaker is citing data and hard numbers from published books. If you don't see the gap in each argument here you're either putting up blinders or trolling.
The Wiki article came with source citing built in. When you see a '[(number)]' you can scroll down to see a source reference. They are generally from published books.
The argument is what is or is not THE most glaring gap in the plane-set. This would be an historical event argument. Since I've flown the Soviet lend-lease bombers in more than one event (such being historically accurate, requiring no plane to sub) and I have yet to see an Italian bomber that could be flown without it being subbed by a completely different aircraft and nation, I'm fairly convinced the point you fail to acknowledge has been made quite sufficiently. :)
And, again, what hard numbers were provided for the A-20 other than a selected late period in the war where Soviet production was indeed increased and reliability on lend-lease was reduced?
Also with how small the Regia Aeronautica was in comparison to the VVS I wouldn't be all that surprised if 25 Ju-88s made up closer to an equal proportion of the RA's bomber force as lend lease aircraft made of the VVS' bomber force than one might initially imagine.
Rather than being surprised, do a comparative analysis your-own-self as you critique me for not being detailed enough to be taken seriously by you? ;)
-
:lol
-
It would seem as an observer of the arguments presented that Wmaker is talking about the absolute size of the hole, and arlo is talking about the relative size of the hole.
If the war effort was represented by a sheet of cloth, the Italian sheet would be a large table cloth, whereas the Soviet sheet would be the size of soccer pitch.
-Not having the Italian bomber is like a 2ftx2ft hole in a table cloth.
-Not having the PE-2 is like having a 60ftx60ft hole in a soccer pitch.
Relatively speeking, the 2x2 is a larger percentage of the table cloth, but the 60x60 is a larger hole.
...Ok continue.. ;)
-
My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events (though minus the ShKAS modification).
"Through Lend-Lease, Soviet forces received more than two-thirds of version A-20B planes manufactured and a significant portion of versions G and H. The A-20 was the most numerous foreign aircraft in the Soviet bomber inventory. Actually the Soviet Air Force had more A-20 than the USAAC. [9] They were delivered via the ALSIB (Alaska-Siberia) air ferry route. The aircraft had its baptism of fire at the end of June 1942. The Soviets were unsatisfied with the four Brownings machine guns and replaced them with faster firing ShKAS. During the summer 1942, the Bostons flew low-level raids against German convoys heavily protected by flak. Attacks were made from altitudes right down to 33 ft (10 metres) and the air regiments suffered heavy losses. [9] By mid 1943 Soviet pilots were well familiar with the A-20B and A-20C. The general opinion was that the aircraft was overpowered and therefore fast and agile. It could make steep turns with angle of up to 65° while the tricycle landing gear facilitated take-off and landings. The type could be flown even by scarcely trained crews. The engines were reliable but rather sensitive to low temperature, so the Soviet engineers developed special covers for keeping propeller hubs from freezing up. [10] Some of these aircraft were armed with fixed-forward cannons and found some success in the ground attack role. [11]
By the end of the war, 3,414 A-20s had been delivered to USSR, 2,771 of which were used by the Soviet Air Force. [9]"
^ a b c Gordon 2008.
^ Gordon 2008.
^ "Douglas A-20 Havoc / Boston." militaryfactory.com. Retrieved: 30 August 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DB.7
There are no historically accurate Italian level bombers for anything.
Since the argument centers on what the most glaring omission is in the AHII plane set (relative size of national air forces not an issue), then the claim of it being a Soviet built bomber is no more glaring (less so if we take the lend-lease bombers into consideration) than the claim of it being an Italian built bomber. Changing the argument to how important the Soviets and the Eastern front was in comparison to Italy in the Med and Africa or which bomber was better (the SM.79 vs. the Pe-2 [or Tu-2] ) doesn't change the hole in the plane set argument.
-
My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events
As there are for Mediterranean and North African events.
-
As there are for Mediterranean and North African events.
If you're meaning that there are historically accurate skins for Italian bombers in the Med or Africa (and aren't suggesting that the Soviet lend-lease bombers serve just as well in Med or African theater events), you're obviously wrong (and would be in either case). If you're meaning that there are historically accurate skins for German bombers in the Med and in Africa, the same holds true for the Eastern front. Granted, there they are opposing sides but the argument isn't really about overall contribution (WWII in it's entirety) or sides. What's being discussed is what is or isn't the most glaring omission from the AHII plane set. This, obviously, would be from an event pov. The Soviets have tons of lend-lease and, as such, can at least fufill such a role without relying on their allies to fulfill it for them (becaaaaause .... the Soviets actually flew lend-lease bombers and there is no plane subbing required). The Italian plane set doesn't have a significant chunk of it's bombers provided through lend-lease at any given point of the war. In the Med and African theaters the Italians provided more axis bombers than the Germans up until the Italian armistice, the SM.79 being the lion's share. Insisting that the German plane set provide all level bombing duties in all Med or African theater events is not equivalent to the Soviets flying their lend-lease bombers in historically accurate roles in Eastern front events.
Now, one could admit such and perhaps say that the next two planes modeled should be the the SM.79 then the Pe-2 (or better yet, the Tu-2) but such would require a slight swallowing of pride and an ability to compromise and work with other parties. I've done such. I'd be more than happy to support both. Alas .... ummmmm ......
:D
-
3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.
Never said that all of them were used by the mine and torpedo regiments, btw. Just a significant amount of them. Nothing sudden about it either. In my short life, I've know that fact for about 15 years now. Maybe you shouldn't casually talk about how lend lease aircraft can cover the Soviet bomber aircraft need when you don't know much about their use in the Soviet Union in the first place?
My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events (though minus the ShKAS modification).
Germans fought along side with Italians in the MED and as said had a greater impact in that theater. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that Ju88 saw heavy use in the MED and is already in the game. As far as special events go, Ju88 fits right in there, where as B-25 or A-20 isn't as good fit for Eastern Front events. For example, Bostons were out of place in Stalin's Fourth Scenario, where as Ju 88s were right in place and a good fit in the recent Mediterranean Maelstrom-scenario. Niemen (almost 10 years ago) used B-26s. There has been big scenarios with large Soviet bomber involvement that would have very much benefited from historic Soviet bombers.
Since the argument centers on what the most glaring omission is in the AHII plane set (relative size of national air forces not an issue), then the claim of it being a Soviet built bomber is no more glaring (less so if we take the lend-lease bombers into consideration) than the claim of it being an Italian built bomber. Changing the argument to how important the Soviets and the Eastern front was in comparison to Italy in the Med and Africa or which bomber was better (the SM.79 vs. the Pe-2 [or Tu-2] ) doesn't change the hole in the plane set argument.
The relative size of the air force and its impact and scenario potential is totally the issue here! That's the whole point! If the size of the country wouldn't be an issue ,one could make a case for IAR 81 for example. And that would make absolutely no sense what so ever. Niemen, Kurland, Stalin's Fourth all were Eastern Front scenarios with significant bomber involvement. In the MED scenarios, Ju 88 have level bombed, dive bombed and torpedo bombed and have been a historical fit for those scenarios.
I'll post a table later which gives yearly delivery numbers for Pe-2, Il-4, B-25 and A-20. They tell the exact same story.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Sovietbomberdeliveries_zpsb9a2a07f.jpg)
-
Il-4 please :aok
:pray
-
Never said that all of them were used by the mine and torpedo regiments, btw. Just a significant amount of them. Nothing sudden about it either. In my short life, I've know that fact for about 15 years now. Maybe you shouldn't casually talk about how lend lease aircraft can cover the Soviet bomber aircraft need when you don't know much about their use in the Soviet Union in the first place?
"As early as September 29, 1939, Douglas received a Soviet offer to purchase ten DB-7s and a license to produce them in Russia, along with a license to build Wright R-2600 engines. Those negotiations were ended by war in Finland and the resulting weapons embargo. In September 1941 the situation changed as the Nazi invasion added the Soviet Union to lend-lease programs.
Since the Havoc was produced to give close support to ground troops, and since the largest Allied army was Soviet, the USSR was allocated 3,125 Douglas Havocs at a promised rate of 100 a month. Of these, 2,908 actually arrived, including 869 flown over the South Atlantic and 550 shipped over to the Persian Gulf, plus 126 shipped to North Russia.
Another 1,363 were flown over the Alaska-Siberian (Alsib) route, the first 12 A-20Bs leaving Ladd Field with Soviet pilots on October 6, 1942. Regular deliveries were completed in July 1944, but the last 97 A-20H/Ks were added in May/August 1945, to replenish units to be used against Japan.
The first DB-7Bs for the Soviet Union shipped via the South Atlantic and Persian Gulf, began arriving at Basra in February 1942. Since the first to arrive were 77 Boston III (DB-7B) and 103 IIIA (A-20C) aircraft originally scheduled for Britain; they were designated B-3 in Soviet service, and entered combat on the Southwestern front in May 1942 with the 794th Bomber Air Regiment (BAP). DOUGLAS A-20K-15
When joined by the 57th and 745th BAPs, they formed the 221st Bomber Air Division. Beginning in September 1942, a Soviet UTK-1 turret with a 12.7-mm UBT gun replaced the .30-caliber guns in the open rear cockpit. A-20s replaced the standard Pe-2 light bombers in 12 Red Army (VVS-RK) air regiments, including the 45th, 449th, 860th and 861st BAPs of the 244th Bomber Air Division; the 63rd, 277th, 367th, and 542nd BAPs of the 132nd Bomber Air Division, and the separate 201st BAP.
Cameras were introduced in July 1942 for reconnaissance by A-20Bs of the Baltic Fleet’s 15th RAP and by the Black Sea’s Fleet’s 30th RAP in November. Two torpedoes test launched from a DB-7C in March 1943 showed that a Boston could handle those weapons better than the II-4s then used by Soviet crews, so 36 A-20Bs were modified for torpedo attacks.
While American crews did not use the torpedo provisions added under the A-20G’s fuselage, torpedoes became standard for the five Soviet Navy (VVS-VMF) Mine-Torpedo Air Regiments (MTAP). The 9th Guards MTAP and the 36th MTAP, operating against German convoys near Norway, the 1st Guards and 51st MTAP in the Baltic Sea, and the 5th Guards MTAP in the Black Sea, used A-20Gs modified for four crewmen with windows added in the nose and behind the turret.
A Soviet airborne intercept radar, Gneys-2, was tested on a few Pe-3 night fighters and a Boston III, and production ordered on June 16, 1943. The lend-lease A-20G-1 was considered the best type then available for night fighting because of its forward firepower and the space available for a navigator and an operator of the Gneys-2 sets added to the planes at the Monino modification center. Extra 274-gallon bomb-bay fuel cells were added, but the flexible guns were usually removed.
The 45th and 173rd long-range night-fighter escort regiments (APON), of the 56th Fighter Air Division, each had 32 A-20G-1s. Like the AAF P-70s, they were seldom able to line up their guns on enemy bombers, flying 650 sorties in 1944 without definite result. The German night attack upon the U.S. bombers landed at Poltava showed the limitations of VVS night defense measures.
When the war with Germany neared its end on May 1, 1945, 127 A-20B, 105 Boston III/A, 147 A-20G-1, 115 A-20G-10, 376 A-20G-20, and 65 A-20J/K remained with the Red Army (I count 935 - arlo). Navy units also had 43 A-20Gs with the North Sea Fleet, another 43 with the Baltic Fleet, and 70 with the Black Sea Fleet (I count 156 - arlo). War against Japan in August 1945 involved A-20s of the Red Navy’s 36th MTAP, 49th MTAP, and 50th MRAP regiments. The 36th MTAP was still flying A-20s from Port Arthur on September 4, 1950, when one was shot down by F4U-4Bs from the Valley Forge.
http://www.americancombatplanes.com/a20_5.html
It seems there's more availability for their historically accurate use in a scenario than there is an Italian skinned bomber of any kind. :D
(to be cont.)
-
(cont.)
Germans fought along side with Italians in the MED and as said had a greater impact in that theater. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that Ju88 saw heavy use in the MED and is already in the game. As far as special events go, Ju88 fits right in there, where as B-25 or A-20 isn't as good fit for Eastern Front events. For example, Bostons were out of place in Stalin's Fourth Scenario, where as Ju 88s were right in place and a good fit in the recent Mediterranean Maelstrom-scenario. Niemen (almost 10 years ago) used B-26s. There has been big scenarios with large Soviet bomber involvement that would have very much benefited from historic Soviet bombers.
I'm not the one ignoring anything. ;)
"In November 1940, moved the X. Air Corps to Sicily, to neutralize the British base ofMalta. On 12 January 1941 were about 60 ready Ju88 A-4 and some reconnaissance Ju 88 D. In addition to the machine itself Malta convoy attacked with supplies for the island, and British bases and ports in North Africa as well as ships in the Mediterranean.
After the hijacking on Yugoslavia and Greeceon 6 April 1941 flew Ju 88s of KG 30 attacks on Zagreb and Piraeus, as well as against Allied ships in Crete. They sank or damaged many ships, with about 55 Ju 88 lost to the occupation of Crete went.
From late 1941 to early May 1942, flew from Bf 109 Ju 87 and Ju 88s escorted back attacks on Malta. The base was hit hard, many of the defending fighter aircraft from Hawker Hurricanes were destroyed. On 17 March 1942 brought the carrier HMS Eagle, the first fifteen Spitfire to defend the island, on 20 April started another 45 Spitfire from the aircraft carrier USS Wasp to Malta. Some of the new machines were destroyed immediately after their landing in the bombing, but the rest received represented a gain of defenders After the 10th May 1942, the bombing of Malta was set, they wanted the island now cut off from supplies.
On 11 May 1942 attacked two waves of Ju 88 a destroyer Association of the Royal Navy at that would intercept an Italian convoy to North Africa: at sank HMS Lively, HMS Kipling, HMS Jackal, but the HMS Jervis escaped with 630 survivors of other ships board.
Now Ju 88 flew at night attacks on British bases in North Africa, often attacked by the radar RAF night fighters using Bristol Beaufighter, and by day close support for the German Afrika Korps. The attacks on supplies for Malta went on, the convoys “Harpoon” and “Vigorous” were almost completely destroyed. Beginning of August 1942 under the codename Operation Pedestal took a convoy of thirteen freighters, the tanker SS Ohio and strong security forces break through to the besieged island: nine freighters, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the carrier HMS Eagle fell to attacks from all available Ju 88 and He 111, German and Italian submarines, an association of Italian cruisers and machinery of the Regia Aeronautica. The SS Ohio reachedMaltaand the defender could provide much-needed fuel.
After the defeat of the Afrika Korps (DAK) at el-Alamein flew the Ju 88 attacks against the British 8th Army. Although on the landing of the Anglo-American troops 8th November1942 in Tunisia, North Africa was no longer tenable, the High Command sent another troop transport across the Mediterranean. The Ju 88s were increasingly used in defense of convoys against enemy ships, but suffered heavy casualties in attacks by fighters. After the fighting in North Africa after the surrender of the Afrika Korps had been discontinued, many units of the Air Force were transferred to the eastern front, others to Sicily and southern Italy to fight the now expected Allied landing.
http://desertwar.net/junkers-ju-88.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61808520/SSP-In-Action-016-Junkers-Ju-88
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWat_VuorRc
"In 1940, well over 1/2 of Italy’s 1,000 bombers were SM.79s, which also turned out to be one of the best land based torpedo bombers of the war. The SM.79 was used to bomb Malta and, in the summer of 1942, had one its best successes against Operation Pedestal, the Royal Navy effort to relieve Malta. The SM.79II also saw extensive service in North Africa, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. After the armistice, the series III was built for use by the pro-axis Italian Air Force."
http://www.comandosupremo.com/sm79.html
The relative size of the air force and its impact and scenario potential is totally the issue here! That's the whole point! If the size of the country wouldn't be an issue ,one could make a case for IAR 81 for example. And that would make absolutely no sense what so ever. Niemen, Kurland, Stalin's Fourth all were Eastern Front scenarios with significant bomber involvement. In the MED scenarios, Ju 88 have level bombed, dive bombed and torpedo bombed and have been a historical fit for those scenarios.
Relative size? Really? So the fact is that the relative size (strength/number of) JU-88s versus the relative size (strength/number of) SM.79s, as used in the Mediterranean and the scenario potential of such is important? I'm glad to hear you admit that. So we can agree that it would be beneficial to the AHII community to model the SM.79 then the Tu-2 (or Pe-2, if you prefer). Even better if both are released in the same patch but, if not, in that order?
We're talking about what is and isn't a glaring omission in the AHII plane set. This would be a focus on plane types per sub-category for event use, specifically bombers. Your argument is the Soviets need a bomber in AHII more than the Italians because the Soviets played a larger role on the Eastern front than the Italians had down South is merely rationalization for your preference. The JU-88 is not an Italian lend-lease bomber that satisfactorily fulfills the role of the SM.79. That's not a logical counter-argument against Soviet lend-lease bombers. This isn't about the Romanian IAR 81 or the French Dewoitine D.520. This is about how much more "desperately" the Soviet sub-set deserves a bomber than the Italian sub-set. It doesn't. :) :salute
-
"As early as September 29, 1939, Douglas received a Soviet offer to purchase ten DB-7s and a license to produce them in Russia, along with a license to build Wright R-2600 engines. Those negotiations were ended by war in Finland and the resulting weapons embargo. In September 1941 the situation changed as the Nazi invasion added the Soviet Union to lend-lease programs.
Since the Havoc was produced to give close support to ground troops, and since the largest Allied army was Soviet, the USSR was allocated 3,125 Douglas Havocs at a promised rate of 100 a month. Of these, 2,908 actually arrived, including 869 flown over the South Atlantic and 550 shipped over to the Persian Gulf, plus 126 shipped to North Russia.
Another 1,363 were flown over the Alaska-Siberian (Alsib) route, the first 12 A-20Bs leaving Ladd Field with Soviet pilots on October 6, 1942. Regular deliveries were completed in July 1944, but the last 97 A-20H/Ks were added in May/August 1945, to replenish units to be used against Japan.
The first DB-7Bs for the Soviet Union shipped via the South Atlantic and Persian Gulf, began arriving at Basra in February 1942. Since the first to arrive were 77 Boston III (DB-7B) and 103 IIIA (A-20C) aircraft originally scheduled for Britain; they were designated B-3 in Soviet service, and entered combat on the Southwestern front in May 1942 with the 794th Bomber Air Regiment (BAP). DOUGLAS A-20K-15
When joined by the 57th and 745th BAPs, they formed the 221st Bomber Air Division. Beginning in September 1942, a Soviet UTK-1 turret with a 12.7-mm UBT gun replaced the .30-caliber guns in the open rear cockpit. A-20s replaced the standard Pe-2 light bombers in 12 Red Army (VVS-RK) air regiments, including the 45th, 449th, 860th and 861st BAPs of the 244th Bomber Air Division; the 63rd, 277th, 367th, and 542nd BAPs of the 132nd Bomber Air Division, and the separate 201st BAP.
Cameras were introduced in July 1942 for reconnaissance by A-20Bs of the Baltic Fleet’s 15th RAP and by the Black Sea’s Fleet’s 30th RAP in November. Two torpedoes test launched from a DB-7C in March 1943 showed that a Boston could handle those weapons better than the II-4s then used by Soviet crews, so 36 A-20Bs were modified for torpedo attacks.
While American crews did not use the torpedo provisions added under the A-20G’s fuselage, torpedoes became standard for the five Soviet Navy (VVS-VMF) Mine-Torpedo Air Regiments (MTAP). The 9th Guards MTAP and the 36th MTAP, operating against German convoys near Norway, the 1st Guards and 51st MTAP in the Baltic Sea, and the 5th Guards MTAP in the Black Sea, used A-20Gs modified for four crewmen with windows added in the nose and behind the turret.
A Soviet airborne intercept radar, Gneys-2, was tested on a few Pe-3 night fighters and a Boston III, and production ordered on June 16, 1943. The lend-lease A-20G-1 was considered the best type then available for night fighting because of its forward firepower and the space available for a navigator and an operator of the Gneys-2 sets added to the planes at the Monino modification center. Extra 274-gallon bomb-bay fuel cells were added, but the flexible guns were usually removed.
The 45th and 173rd long-range night-fighter escort regiments (APON), of the 56th Fighter Air Division, each had 32 A-20G-1s. Like the AAF P-70s, they were seldom able to line up their guns on enemy bombers, flying 650 sorties in 1944 without definite result. The German night attack upon the U.S. bombers landed at Poltava showed the limitations of VVS night defense measures.
When the war with Germany neared its end on May 1, 1945, 127 A-20B, 105 Boston III/A, 147 A-20G-1, 115 A-20G-10, 376 A-20G-20, and 65 A-20J/K remained with the Red Army (I count 935 - arlo). Navy units also had 43 A-20Gs with the North Sea Fleet, another 43 with the Baltic Fleet, and 70 with the Black Sea Fleet (I count 156 - arlo). War against Japan in August 1945 involved A-20s of the Red Navy’s 36th MTAP, 49th MTAP, and 50th MRAP regiments. The 36th MTAP was still flying A-20s from Port Arthur on September 4, 1950, when one was shot down by F4U-4Bs from the Valley Forge.
http://www.americancombatplanes.com/a20_5.html
It seems there's more availability for their historically accurate use in a scenario than there is an Italian skinned bomber of any kind. :D
(to be cont.)
Yes, part of the were assigned to bomber regiments. Just like I said. Significant part were however used as mine laying and as torpedo bombers by the Navy air forces. The recorded combat losses go roughly 50/50 between the Navy and Army air forces which means the portion of the A-20s doing 'regular' bombing sorties as usually seen in scenarios, is much smaller than the delivered numbers would lead to believe. I've said the same thing over and over again. You being obtuse and googling single sentences which you high light out of context won't change facts in anyway.
(cont.)
I'm not the one ignoring anything. ;)
"In November 1940, moved the X. Air Corps to Sicily, to neutralize the British base ofMalta. On 12 January 1941 were about 60 ready Ju88 A-4 and some reconnaissance Ju 88 D. In addition to the machine itself Malta convoy attacked with supplies for the island, and British bases and ports in North Africa as well as ships in the Mediterranean.
After the hijacking on Yugoslavia and Greeceon 6 April 1941 flew Ju 88s of KG 30 attacks on Zagreb and Piraeus, as well as against Allied ships in Crete. They sank or damaged many ships, with about 55 Ju 88 lost to the occupation of Crete went. snip
Yes, I'm so impressed on your googling and cut-pasting.
Relative size? Really? So the fact is that the relative size (strength/number of) JU-88s versus the relative size (strength/number of) SM.79s, as used in the Mediterranean and the scenario potential of such is important? I'm glad to hear you admit that. So we can agree that it would be beneficial to the AHII community to model the SM.79 then the Tu-2 (or Pe-2, if you prefer). Even better if both are released in the same patch but, if not, in that order?
Nope. Relative sizes of the countries, production numbers and relative impact in the war. Being childishly obtuse won't make you sound anymore convincing.
We're talking about what is and isn't a glaring omission in the AHII plane set. This would be a focus on plane types per sub-category for event use, specifically bombers. Your argument is the Soviets need a bomber in AHII more than the Italians because the Soviets played a larger role on the Eastern front than the Italians had down South is merely rationalization for your preference.
LOL no, actually, that's history. And history dictates which planes are beneficial for Special Events that are based on...history.
-
Significant part were however used as mine laying and as torpedo bombers by the Navy air forces.
Your math and my math aren't matching. I'm getting about 10% (is that significant to you?) :)
Yes, I'm so impressed on your googling and cut-pasting.
AKA attempting to back one's claim with a source both can verify. :aok
Nope. Relative sizes of the countries, production numbers and relative impact in the war. (snipped the personal and emotional part)
What an interesting way to claim that the Soviet sub-set always takes precedence when it comes to modeling planes in AHII. Again, when it comes to triage estimation or order of importance, you appear to be attempting to use numbers to make an emotional argument. That generally fails. So does your lack of ability to win allies in the Wishlist. I met you more than halfway in a logical manner. :)
LOL no, actually, that's history. And history dictates which planes are beneficial for Special Events that are based on...history.
Interesting theory. Prove this retroactively. List each Aces High plane (or vehicle, for that matter) modeled in order as they relate to your version of how they were added to 'support history.' Or, for that matter, in what order you would have had them modeled (if even modeled) to support such.
Now, having said that, HTC has six sub-categories of plane-set: U.S. (35 aircraft - 9 bombers and ... 5 or 6 models received as lend-lease, as well), British (17 aircraft - 3 bombers [many of which were lend-lease aircraft to various nations] and 4 or 5 lend-lease they took, themselves), German (21 aircraft [3 of which are jet or rocket propelled] - 5 bombers, if you include the JU-87), Italian (2 aircraft - no bombers), Japanese (11 aircraft - 4 bombers, if you include the D3A) and Soviet (8 aircraft - 1 bomber if you consider the Il-2 acceptable for that category - 4 lend-lease bombers ... well, technically even more than that).
Doesn't math come into play at all when you present your relative historical rationalization as it relates to what actually has or hasn't been modeled in AHII so far? Where does lend-lease deserve scribbling out of your history books? (And no, I'm not into the emotional how much I'm supposed like and respect the Soviets more than the Italians and how important that is to making my claim thing.) :salute :)
-
Ok, time to stop feeding this troll.
-
Ok, time to stop feeding this troll.
Okie dokie. Don't let pride stand in the way of discussion. :aok
-
:bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: