Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: tuba515 on June 25, 2015, 03:46:12 PM
-
I know you can up a F4f but the Brewster is its own unique aircraft. And historically they were operated off of CVs and land. The battle of midway for example had a squadron of Brewster and F4f's in the first engagements defending the island this squadron was initially meant for the USS Saragtoga. It would be a nice addition to the CV aircraft list , and the nice thing is we already have the aircraft. The Brewster along with the F4F was used on CV's up until the F4u and f6f were introduced. This wish is a historical wish and tactical all in one nice package.
-
I know you can up a F4f but the Brewster is its own unique aircraft. And historically they were operated off of CVs and land. The battle of midway for example had a squadron of Brewster and F4f's in the first engagements defending the island this squadron was initially meant for the USS Saragtoga. It would be a nice addition to the CV aircraft list , and the nice thing is we already have the aircraft. The Brewster along with the F4F was used on CV's up until the F4u and f6f were introduced. This wish is a historical wish and tactical all in one nice package.
I believe our Brew is not the U.S. carrier version in service during the war, and has much better performance than the U.S. Navy's.
- oldman
-
The Brewster we have in game (B-239) was the export version of the F2A-1 and was "de-navalized", meaning that the gear added to the planes to allow them to operate from a carrier was removed (tail hook, etc.) and as such, could no longer operate off a carrier. So it is correct that the B-239 should not be allowed to operate from a CV in game, just like the B-25 isn't allowed.
The Brewster Buffalo that took part in Midway with the Marines was the F2A-3, a version we do not have in game. The B-339 series (used by the RAF/Commonwealth forces and the Dutch) also didn't operate off carriers.
-
I agree, a carrier version of the Brewster would have to be a lot heavier that the 239 and less maneuverable.
-
In other words it would have to be as crappy as people complain that it should be. :)
That being said, I think the Lexington was the last CV to operate the Brew...she had F2A's from 7 December until 26 January but they never saw action.
-
In other words it would have to be as crappy as people complain that it should be. :)
That being said, I think the Lexington was the last CV to operate the Brew...she had F2A's from 7 December until 26 January but they never saw action.
Those also were F2A-3s of Fighting Squadron 2 (VF-2).
-
According to Wiki the F2A3 weighted in at 7,159 lb MTOW, compare that to the 6700lb of a spit VB so the Brewster suffered a lot from the extra weight added.
-
Those also were F2A-3s of Fighting Squadron 2 (VF-2).
Yeah that was VF 2 aboard the Lex before they transitioned to the Wildcat.
-
According to Wiki the F2A3 weighted in at 7,159 lb MTOW, compare that to the 6700lb of a spit VB so the Brewster suffered a lot from the extra weight added.
Now compare the weight of the F2A-3 with the F2A-1 (5,040lbs) and you can see why the Brewster we have in game is so nimble.
-
Now compare the weight of the F2A-3 with the F2A-1 (5,040lbs) and you can see why the Brewster we have in game is so nimble.
Yep, the difference was huge, wing loading went from 24 lbs/ft2 to 34 lbs/ft2, taking it from almost equal to a Zero to just slightly better than a Spit XIV. A F2A-3 would prob be outturned by a lot of planes in the game.
-
Thanks for the input :aok alot of cool inputs there van ww maybe use them in scenarios or FSOs it would be better than what we had in real life but very similar
-
If current brewster is allowed on CV, then how about 109T?
-
If current brewster is allowed on CV, then how about 109T?
The current Brewster has not been allowed on CV since its introduction in 2009. Are you holding your breath that it will be? 109T enabled from CVs makes just as much sense as adding Brewster Model 239 on CVs, which is none in both counts.
-
If current brewster is allowed on CV, then how about 109T?
Because the few 109T's that did see service were also de-"navalized." They never operated off of a carrier, nor was there a carrier to operate from.
The 109T is the least useful, needed, or merited variant of the 109 for AH.
-
Notice the word "if" at the beginning of my quoted post.
I still would like to see the 109T in game because it flew more combat missions than many planes currently in game.........just not from a carrier.
It would require more Flight Model work than any other 109 variant because of the different wing, though so maybe it would be too much trouble.
It would fly different than any 109 variant.
-
I still would like to see the 109T in game because it flew more combat missions than many planes currently in game.
Which planes? I can only think of a couple of candidates, Ta152 and Me163....
-
Well..........that's two for a start.
-
How many missions did the 109t fly and what planes in AH flew less?
-
Well..........that's two for a start.
You said "many". Two is not many.
I can't think of any others the Bf109T is likely to have flown more sorties than, certainly not by much of a margin.
-
ar234?
It definatley flew more than the mossies and 38s :x combined
-
The 109t shot down the first B17 in european theater.
There were 70 built and they flew from mid 1941 to 1944.
There is a book about them that details most every sortie but I'm not buying it just to refute you.
The fact is that the plane flew more sorties than more than two planes currently in our planeset.
This doesn't mean that it should be available from CV in game but neither should the current brewster......of which 44 were delivered.
-
The current Brewster flew from 41-44 and had almost 1000 aerial victories. The number of planes might be low but the impact in the war was significant.
But no, it is not a cv plane.
-
The 109t shot down the first B17 in european theater.
There were 70 built and they flew from mid 1941 to 1944.
IIRC, the Bf 109T was withdrawn around 1941 and crews converted to the Bf 109E-3.
-
B17......3272 (351st BG, 510st BS) shot down by Lt Erich Hondt in Bf 109T of Hasta Helgoland at Schmalfeld, Germany Jul 25, 1943 on raid on Hamburg, Germany. MACR 92. 5 KIA, 5 POW
5895 (385th BG, 548th BS, 'Souse Family') shot down by Uffz Erich Ulmschneider in Bf 109T-2 of Jasta Helgoland over North Se 43 km NW of Helgoland, Germany Jul 26, 1943. MACR 191B.
5 KIA, 6 POW
B17.......7486 (392nd BG, 578th BS, "The Shark") shot down by Uffz Walbeck in Bf 109T of Jasta Helgoland and and crashed into North Sea 117 km SW of Hanstholm, Norway Nov 18, 1943
B17.......29996 (92nd BG, 407th BS, "Flag Ship") shotdown by Uffz Ernst Breton in Bf 109T-2 of Jasta Helgoland and crashed at Mandal, Norway Nov 16, 1943. MACR 1384. 9 POW, 1 evaded
-
+1 on the 109T!
-
A denavalized 109T was pretty much a 109E. They could take off in a bit shorter distance but since the 109E rarley leave the hanger I dont see.
The 109T were put back into action in April 1943 and deployed to norway later that year. I cannot see it as an attempt to boost the numbers of fighters aviable by transfering 109T from training units to active duty. (in an remote area with low enemy activity)
-
And 109T cannot land on cvs either, besides a few prototypes used for testing most of 70 109T did not have equipment for carrier landing.
-
109t had 1.5 sq. meter more wing area due to the longer span, full wing length leading edge slats, longer ailerons.
Some sources credit the longer span helped high altitude operations.
The slow speed handling should be very different than any other 109 variant.