Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mitsu on May 13, 2002, 12:18:46 AM
-
http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~tochy/etc/zero21c.mpg
(http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~tochy/index_1.htm Top Page)
Very impressive CG movie, F4F-3 vs A6M2... :cool: :cool: :cool:
We would be able to play like this in Special Events of v1.10! :)
-
Nice man
-
nice film!
now I cant wait to fly the wildcats and zekes next version :)
-
Way cool. Almost makes me forget the morons that constantly turn the CV when I want to take off in my Imperial Japanese allies' provided Zero (all but one of my dang Zero deaths :mad: )
-
Fantastic, even better when I try to imagine all the work behind it !
One thing is interesting though. While these Wildacts and Zeros were flying over the Pacific, Europe already had Fw190As and Spit IXs. Quite a disparity, don't you think ?
-
Hristo: <>
Yeah, but see how well the FWs and Spit IX's do in blue-water operations, CV vs CV.
It's my understanding the Spitfire didn't do as well outside of Europe and specifically were hard-pressed against the Zeke when a few veteran British pilots were sent to the Pacific. And I believe the Seafire didn't do as well in the naval role as Martletts and later Hellcats used by the British. (IMO, it wasn't until the F8U Crusader that USN aircraft obtained parity with land-based aircraft, due to all the extra weight/penalty necessary for CV operations on an aircraft.)
-
The thing is, you have to take role into account instead of only performance. Europe and the Pacific were two completely different types of war. It really is like comparing apples and oranges. It is also why I don't consider USN and USAAF planes to be from the same "country" when I count the planes available here in AH (only thing that connects them is the national insignia on the wings and fuselage IMO).
The carrier war in the Pacific was a unique type of war that the world had never seen before, and most likely will never see again.
Anyways, I would take a PTO plane from 1942 over any contemporary RAF or LW plane any day of the week (but then again, I already take a 1944 PTO plane over 1944 Brit and LW planes almost all the time).
Back to the topic: I am really looking forward to 1942 PTO battles. I want to see what it was like for the 1942 USN pilots to face "superior" IJN planes and come out on top. :)
-math
-
Originally posted by Steven
Hristo: <>
Yeah, but see how well the FWs and Spit IX's do in blue-water operations, CV vs CV.
It's my understanding the Spitfire didn't do as well outside of Europe and specifically were hard-pressed against the Zeke when a few veteran British pilots were sent to the Pacific. And I believe the Seafire didn't do as well in the naval role as Martletts and later Hellcats used by the British. (IMO, it wasn't until the F8U Crusader that USN aircraft obtained parity with land-based aircraft, due to all the extra weight/penalty necessary for CV operations on an aircraft.)
What about the F4U-4 (and later versions) and the F8F Bearcat?
Both were a match for any land based fighters. How about later Seafires too? Yeah, there was a brief gap in terms of early jet fighters, but that gap was closed rather quickly as more powerful engines became available and the Navy's belated acceptance of swept-wings for carrier aircraft (their primary concerns being takeoff and landing speeds and handling, plus the rather slow spool-up speed of early turbojets, even worse for centrifigal flow designs, being a factor) allowed for greater performance beginning with the Grumman F9F-6 Cougar and North American FJ-2 Fury. Oddly enough, the F9F-6 proved to have better low speed handling qualities than the straight-wing F9F-5 Panther.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Anyways, I would take a PTO plane from 1942 over any contemporary RAF or LW plane any day of the week
Ok. You take a 1942 PTO plane and I'll take a Panvia Tornado. I know you're a better pilot than I, but I think I'll win. ;)
-
Originally posted by devious
Way cool. Almost makes me forget the morons that constantly turn the CV when I want to take off in my Imperial Japanese allies' provided Zero (all but one of my dang Zero deaths :mad: )
Except that the guys turning the CVs are not morons. Furthermore, it is likely that had you consulted the map prior to launching, you could determine if the carrier is approching a waypoint (where it will turn). Secondly, the CV must be turned when enemy bombers are overhead, or you'll be flying your Zeke from a land base in short order. Waiting a few moments to launch is the price we pay to keep the CV from being sunk. While waiting, man a gun and help defend the carrier or cruiser. You can get a lot of kills in those 5" dual gun mounts. These kills may not improve your ranking, but they do adversely effect the ranking of the victims.:D
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Yippee38
Ok. You take a 1942 PTO plane and I'll take a Panvia Tornado. I know you're a better pilot than I, but I think I'll win. ;)
No doubt, that is why i said contemporary to a 1942 PTO plane. :)
-
Well, I take off the turning cv's all the time, just don't try to auto-takeoff, that's all.
-
What about the F4U-4 (and later versions) and the F8F Bearcat?
Both were a match for any land based fighters. How about later Seafires too? Yeah, there was a brief gap in terms of early jet fighters, but that gap was closed rather quickly as more powerful engines became available and the Navy's belated acceptance of swept-wings for carrier aircraft (their primary concerns being takeoff and landing speeds and handling, plus the rather slow spool-up speed of early turbojets, even worse for centrifigal flow designs, being a factor) allowed for greater performance beginning with the Grumman F9F-6 Cougar and North American FJ-2 Fury. Oddly enough, the F9F-6 proved to have better low speed handling qualities than the straight-wing F9F-5 Panther. -Widewing
=======================================
You are absolutely right and it's certainly open to debate. What I stated about parity not being achieved until the F8U Crusader was just my opinion. I'd have to look into what are true contemporaries of the F4U-4 and F8F (which I would guess include everything, prop or not.) I'd love to have access to a Bearcat in the MA! :D
-
Guys, plane debate aside, I am amazed by your inability to be amazed.
This guy created a WW2 furball scenes all by himself and you keep blabbing Hellcat this Tornado that. Watch the film again instead ;).
-
Originally posted by Mathman
No doubt, that is why i said contemporary to a 1942 PTO plane. :)
Actually, you just said contemporary. (My wife calls me "semantics man" ) When I read it, I immediately thought of the meaning of contemporary that refers to modern as opposed to the one that refers to "of the same time period."
Just messin' witcha.
-
Hristo, Sorry about that. But so you know, I was amazed when I saw it about 8 months or more ago.
-
Hey everyone, watch it!
http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~tochy/etc/1945/1945_demo.mpg
It's just AWESOME!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I can't wait for the full movie! :cool:
Pyro, It's time to release Ki-84!
Superfly, is it a waste of time? :D
Ok, it's joke...but, this film is worth seeing. :)
-
Nice! But it's too short :( And I'm trying to figure out what's happening. Is the KI driver forcing the 51 to land somewhere or directing him to where they should dogfight?
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
Nice! But it's too short :( And I'm trying to figure out what's happening. Is the KI driver forcing the 51 to land somewhere or directing him to where they should dogfight?
Westy
Maybe he's shaming him for trying to shoot that little kid
:confused:
-Sikboy
-
Maybe he's shaking his finger like "No no no" or (in best mid-east accent) "You are a very very bad man."
-SW
-
Ahh. Had to re-watch it (no sound on this pc). You may be right. First viewing I thought the kid was just seeing the 51 on the deck with KI's attacking it.
Looking forward to the whole thing. The author is an absolute artist. Simply masterful work on those videos.
Westy
-
I think this is 2 P-51Ds vs 2 Ki-84-I-Ko battle...
anyway, wait for the full movie. :)
-
im showing a broken link? all i see is a peice of film cut in half?
-
Originally posted by Steven
Hristo: <>
Yeah, but see how well the FWs and Spit IX's do in blue-water operations, CV vs CV.
It's my understanding the Spitfire didn't do as well outside of Europe and specifically were hard-pressed against the Zeke when a few veteran British pilots were sent to the Pacific. And I believe the Seafire didn't do as well in the naval role as Martletts and later Hellcats used by the British. (IMO, it wasn't until the F8U Crusader that USN aircraft obtained parity with land-based aircraft, due to all the extra weight/penalty necessary for CV operations on an aircraft.)
Bull pucky.
Last kill of the war: Seafire vs A6M5.
Some nice Seafire links:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/seafire/sea-info/sea_info.htm
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/pacspitfire.htm
Check out the last item shown on this page for details of the combat I mentioned above.
http://www.aviationartprints.com/fleet_air_arm.htm
palef
-
Horse pucky to your bull pucky.
The last kill of the war is hardly a good argument in itself. Heck, the Seafire probably shot down some 12-year old who had 1-week's training in a cardboard box using a broom handle to learn to fly. Look into the early days of the war, specifically when the BoB vets arrived in theater to combat the Japenese in Pacific operations. It wasn't exactly any easy days for them. As for the Spitfires and Hurricanes, they were always superior to their Naval variants (IMO) which can support my claim that naval aircraft weren't on par with land-based aircraft for quite some time (until the F8U Crusader IMO.) I think land-based Spitfire and Hurricane "up" times were less in the Pacific than in Europe because the plane couldn't handle that type of climate as well as the European climate in adition to things such as a limited endurance being a handicap with the vast expanses of the Pacific. The Spitfire is a wonderful plane, but I do personally feel that the Pacific and European theaters are like apples and oranges. I defer to Mathman's post about the differences and agree with him.
CV aircraft are typically specialty-builds and did differ from land-based and typically suffered in some performance.
The 2nd half of the war in the Pacific was basically offensive for the Allies, did the Seafire have the range like the F4U or F6F and could it deliver a similar amount of rockets and bombs? I know very little about the Seafire.
Take care.
-
I'm not building an "argument" just providing some facts to show that the Seafire didn't suck as bad as everyone seems to think it did.
Fact - The Seafire adapted badly to CV Ops especially in the Pacific because of range limitations.
Fact - The Seafire adapted badly to CV Ops because of it's spindly narrow track landing gear. More were lost in deck accidents than in combat.
Fact - As a combat aircraft there were few competitors to the Seafire in handling or hitting power in the carrier world as far as pure fighters go. The 2 x 20mm Hispanos gave it an edge over even the cannon equipped Japanese aircraft.
Fact - The FAA (Fleet Air Arm) didn't get involved in preparations for the Pacific war until after D-Day, and had a lot of learning to do. At least they had the balls to operate F4Us from CVs.
The Seafire suited the European Coastline and Mediterranean theatres that it was prepared for, and you are right to question it's lack of strike versatility and range. It just doesn't mean it under performed generally or was a waste of time.
Spitfire's and in particular Spitfire Mk VIIIs in Australian service served with distinction in Burma, Malaysia, New Guinea, and in defence of Nth Australia.
palef
PS I'm only grumpy because of the Pointy Haired Oppressor in the corner. I try to stay positive but he's an idiot, and of course that makes me descend to idiot level. Which makes me grumpy. And then someone picked on my beloved Seafire :)
-
dont upset palef, trust me!
(I know I do it all the time... and hes in the same squad!!!)
-
Heh heh. I'll try not to upset him.
Really, my whole point was that land-based aircraft were superior to naval aircraft for quite a long time, and even a naval variant of a land-based aircraft wasn't always as good as an aircraft designed from the outset to be CV capable. If you thought I was saying the Seafire sucked in my original post, I apologize because that was not my meaning. I still do not believe the Seafire did as well with the kills as British Hellcats and Corsairs did though for a whole host of reasons... basically that is because it was a different environment and war.
When I originally typed my point, I was thinking of some blurb I'd read about British BoB vets taking their aircraft against the Japanese and not fairing so well. At least not as well as they thought they'd perform being veterans and not really appreciating the capability of the Zeke. I can't recall where I've read that though now.
I think you take my words in the wrong manner. I never said the Seafire sucked or was any waste of time. So yeah, I do think you are a bit grumpy.
-
I think the Ki-84 pilot is supposed to be giving hand signals to his wingman, not the P-51D pilot.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I think the Ki-84 pilot is supposed to be giving hand signals to his wingman, not the P-51D pilot.
Yep. Unfortunately, the pilots look a little bit alike, but right after the gesture there's a sharp cut to a pilot in a Ki looking over his starboard wing then checking six.
BTW, does anyone have a definitive answer to what is being said in the 1942 film? A lot of it is pretty easy, but the part where the Zeke does its barrel roll is a little hard to hear.
-
My puter sucks.
1 frame every 2 seconds...
:(
eskimo