Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Alucard_II on March 29, 2015, 09:11:35 AM

Title: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Alucard_II on March 29, 2015, 09:11:35 AM
Allie has returned! :t
Its been a while, tried out some other games, such as War Thunder and such. But now that im back, I can make my insane suggestions to HTC.  :aok

So I watched Pearl Harbor, by Michael Bay, the one we all know.
And the Doolittle raid scene got me in the mood to play some AH and try out the B-25 launch off a carrier. I upped a 25H with 25% fuel and no bombs. Flew to the nearest carrier, and landed on it intact (suprisingly).
I attempted to take off again, and... I made it! And not even with the full carrier. If you pull up hard enough and get enough speed, you can take a B-25 off a CV with only half a carrier's worth of deck.

I had a few people say that HTC let them spawn B-25s on carriers for the anniversary of the Doolittle raid. So my question is... Why not let us do it normally? If you can clearly and easily take a B-25 off a carrier (with bombs and plenty of fuel, i tested it), why not put them on it?

If them boys in the doolittle raid can do it, we certainly can. Now if you excuse me, I have B-25s to land on carriers now.
<S> KNIGHTS!  :salute
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Lusche on March 29, 2015, 09:26:27 AM
Why not let us do it normally?


Because they didn't do it normally.  :)
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: USCH on March 29, 2015, 09:36:32 AM
would it be possible for it to be enabled on 1 carrier on some of the large maps like the one up now? Just one per side.. sneaky  :noid
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Guppy35 on March 29, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
You do understand that it was a one time event and resulted in the loss of all the B-25s?

Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2015, 01:16:31 PM
You do understand that it was a one time event and resulted in the loss of all the B-25s?

I'm thinking not but then I'm speaking out of turn.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Volron on March 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
You do understand that it was a one time event and resulted in the loss of all the B-25s?

Had it gone to plan, they would have been able to land safely.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Guppy35 on March 29, 2015, 01:41:01 PM
Had it gone to plan, they would have been able to land safely.

Not on the carrier however.

I guess that made them the original bomb and bailers :)
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: macleod01 on March 29, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
Had it gone to plan, they would have been able to land safely.

Ok, my knowledge is a bit shaky, but I don't think that is the case.

If my memory serves me, didn't the carrier turn for home instantly? Was there ever any talk about landing? I didn't think there was.

I thought the plan was this: Launch a set of B25's that had been stripped down to the bare minimum and had any extra weight removed and point them on a course to Tokyo. Then Carrier turns for home and forgets about every plane that just launched. Said planes drop their bombs on Tokyo then head onto China where some partisians would have a radio beacon in order to guide the planes to a safe spot and then smuggle the pilots back home.

Didn't work this way. Even then the only major deviations from the plan were that the planes launched early and then had to find their own places to land due to no radio beacon.

Am I mistaken in any of this? Either way the bombers were not intending to land back on the carrier.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2015, 03:02:10 PM
Ok, my knowledge is a bit shaky, but I don't think that is the case.

If my memory serves me, didn't the carrier turn for home instantly? Was there ever any talk about landing? I didn't think there was.

I thought the plan was this: Launch a set of B25's that had been stripped down to the bare minimum and had any extra weight removed and point them on a course to Tokyo. Then Carrier turns for home and forgets about every plane that just launched. Said planes drop their bombs on Tokyo then head onto China where some partisians would have a radio beacon in order to guide the planes to a safe spot and then smuggle the pilots back home.

Didn't work this way. Even then the only major deviations from the plan were that the planes launched early and then had to find their own places to land due to no radio beacon.

Am I mistaken in any of this? Either way the bombers were not intending to land back on the carrier.

Sounds on the mark to me. As much as some don't care for the source, let me wiki to finish this post right quick.

Wiki excerpts 'Dolittle Raid':

Sixteen U.S. Army Air Forces B-25B Mitchell medium bombers were launched without fighter escort from the U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier USS Hornet deep in the Western Pacific Ocean, each with a crew of five men. The plan called for them to bomb military targets in Japan, and to continue westward to land in China—landing a medium bomber on Hornet was impossible. Fifteen of the aircraft reached China, and the other one landed in the Soviet Union. All but three of the crew survived, but all the aircraft were lost. Eight crewmen were captured by the Japanese Army in China; three of these were executed. The B-25 that landed in the Soviet Union at Vladivostok was confiscated and its crew interned for more than a year. Fourteen crews, except for one crewman, returned either to the United States or to American forces.[1][2]

After the raid, the Japanese Imperial Army conducted a massive sweep through the eastern coastal provinces of China, in an operation now known as the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign, searching for the surviving American airmen and applying retribution on the Chinese who aided them, in an effort to prevent this part of China from being used again for an attack on Japan.

The raid caused negligible material damage to Japan, but it succeeded in its goal of raising American morale and casting doubt in Japan on the ability of its military leaders to defend their home islands. It also contributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's decision to attack Midway Island in the Central Pacific—an attack that turned into a decisive strategic defeat of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) by the U.S. Navy in the Battle of Midway. Doolittle, who initially believed that loss of all his aircraft would lead to his being court-martialled, received the Medal of Honor and was promoted two steps to Brigadier General.

~~~~~~~~

So - modify the wish to be the capability of spawning 16 B-25s with no defensive armament on the deck (at once) with the creator of the mission in the first B-25 (with 25% fuel on all planes). When landing gear is raised it is disabled. (This mission can be uploaded once per 12 hours.) There ya go.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Volron on March 29, 2015, 03:26:17 PM
Ok, my knowledge is a bit shaky, but I don't think that is the case.

If my memory serves me, didn't the carrier turn for home instantly? Was there ever any talk about landing? I didn't think there was.

I thought the plan was this: Launch a set of B25's that had been stripped down to the bare minimum and had any extra weight removed and point them on a course to Tokyo. Then Carrier turns for home and forgets about every plane that just launched. Said planes drop their bombs on Tokyo then head onto China where some partisians would have a radio beacon in order to guide the planes to a safe spot and then smuggle the pilots back home.

Didn't work this way. Even then the only major deviations from the plan were that the planes launched early and then had to find their own places to land due to no radio beacon.

Am I mistaken in any of this? Either way the bombers were not intending to land back on the carrier.

Right now, you can land a B-25 on a CV.  So that argument is null.  It's taking off from one that OP wants.

Personally, I do not see the point of enabling B-25's on the CV's in the MA.  Kind of neat, yes, but no real point beyond that.  It is as Guppy pointed out, it was only used once, by HEAVILY MODIFIED B-25B's.  It would be just plain weird too boot. lol  I was just pointing out that had the plan gone as it was suppose to, then the B-25's would have been able to land safely.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: macleod01 on March 29, 2015, 03:43:36 PM
Volron,

In game they could land yes.

In real life? It is entirely speculation as it was never done, never contemplated and never even thought about. So that is a big part. We would be adding in a 'What If' into this game and that opens up a can of worms. We could then go onto the 109T and the Carrier JU-87's... But that is another debate  :aok
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Muzzy on March 29, 2015, 03:47:13 PM
I want my Sea Mossie! :)
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2015, 04:08:15 PM
In real life? It is entirely speculation as it was never done, never contemplated and never even thought about. So that is a big part. We would be adding in a 'What If' into this game and that opens up a can of worms. We could then go onto the 109T and the Carrier JU-87's... But that is another debate  :aok

Well, they did try it in real life. Once.

PBH-1H 43-4700 BuNo 35277 modified for catapult launch and arrests aboard the USS Shangri La ( CV-38 ) on November 15, 1944.

(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r202/USMF1/PBJ-1HShangriLaNov44b.jpg)

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachment.php?s=ac4820c1b837a1ea24c1a2415ecc57ce&attachmentid=195187&d=1331075360&thumb=1)

I believe the bigger problem was hangar deck storage.

Still -1 here.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: macleod01 on March 29, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
Arlo, So did they try to land her on the deck? Or was it like the Sea Hurricane from Escort Carriers which where designed to take off but then ditch?
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2015, 05:00:14 PM
Arlo, So did they try to land her on the deck? Or was it like the Sea Hurricane from Escort Carriers which where designed to take off but then ditch?

The designed a hook apparatus. It was an 'arrested' landing.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: macleod01 on March 29, 2015, 05:02:47 PM
Well well well, You know what they say about learning things!
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2015, 05:10:49 PM
They tried a number of things as the war wound down. Most didn't go past the 'Well, let's see if it can be done.' stage.

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/bunk22/P51b_zpsab6dc0c4.jpg)

P-51 fitted with arresting gear.

(http://www.pmcn.de/English/USN%20Markings%20IV/Fotos/318%20Fighter%20Group.jpg)

P-47s being catapulted off a CV (but no arresting gear for landing).


Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Muzzy on March 29, 2015, 06:43:49 PM
You know, if you want to fly the 25C so badly, you could sign up for this:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,370904.0/topicseen.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,370904.0/topicseen.html)

Because nothing says Doolittle more than a dangerous mission deep inside enemy lines. With no tail gun. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: MrKrabs on March 29, 2015, 10:35:14 PM
Just remember one thing... Doolittle employed the B-25B... Neither the C H or hopefully in the future J
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 31, 2015, 12:20:18 PM
Just remember one thing... Doolittle employed the B-25B... Neither the C H or hopefully in the future J

And the B-25B used in the raids weren't regular B-25Bs but modified to allow them to take off the carrier.
Title: Re: B-25s on Aircraft Carriers
Post by: glzsqd on March 31, 2015, 12:21:09 PM
B25J!!!!!!!!!!!