Author Topic: no bombers  (Read 1277 times)

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
no bombers
« on: December 27, 2003, 01:24:56 PM »
What no bombers? The Japanese Takao Kokutai sent an unescorted flight of 7 Mitsubishi G4M bombers to raid Darwin on 28 March 1942. As the Allied fighters had been unable to intercept a number of the recent bombing raids, the Japs decided they would not send any escort fighters.
On 19 February 1942 mainland Australia came under attack for the first time when Japanese forces mounted two air raids on Darwin. The two attacks, which were planned and led by the commander responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbour ten weeks earlier, involved 54 land-based bombers and approximately 188 attack aircraft which were launched from four Japanese aircraft-carriers in the Timor Sea. In the first attack, which began just before 10.00 am, heavy bombers pattern-bombed the harbour and town; dive bombers escorted by Zero fighters then attacked shipping in the harbour, the military and civil aerodromes, and the hospital at Berrimah. The attack ceased after about 40 minutes. The second attack, which began an hour later, involved high altitude bombing of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Parap which lasted for 20–25 minutes. The two raids killed at least 243 people and between 300 and 400 were wounded. Twenty military aircraft were destroyed, 8 ships at anchor in the harbour were sunk, and most civil and military facilities in Darwin were destroyed.

The 1st and 2nd Kokusentai comprised respectively of the aircraft carriers Kaga and Akagi, and Hiryu and Soryu, sailed from Palau (west of the Philippines) on the 15th of February bound for Timor and Darwin. They reached their fly-off point, 200 miles north west of Darwin, on the morning of the 19th. The first raid was launched from the carriers and consisted of 71 B5N2’s (Kate) level bombers, 81 D3A1’s (Val) dive bombers, and 36 A6M2’s (Zero) fighters led by Commander Mitsuo Fuchida. (There is a discrepancy in the number of Japanese aircraft reported as participating in the carrier-borne strike. Analysis of observer reports of the raid concluded the total to be 81 aircraft, whereas a contemporary Japanese report records 188 carrier aircraft launched (Hermon Gill, 1985). As each of the four aircraft carriers had a complement of 66 aircraft (plus reserves) at the time of the attack (Chesneau, 1984), the second, higher number seems most likely.)

Co-ordinated to closely follow this first strike were 54 twin engine land-based bombers of the 1st Air Attack Force flying from Kendari on the island of Sulewasi. They were G3M2’s (Nell/Tina) and G4M1’s (Betty) of the Takao and 1st Kokutai’s.


Not very realistic.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2003, 01:46:00 PM by gear »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
no bombers
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2003, 01:50:00 PM »
You're right. Substituting a Peggy for a Betty would be MUCH more realistic. Especially against the P-40B and the SpitI.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
no bombers
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2003, 01:56:39 PM »
Hehehe ....

Offline LtMagee

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
no bombers
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2003, 03:04:04 PM »
Yeah, I wish AH had the Betty, they BLOW UP REAL F!@#$ NICE while the Ki-67 has its lazer 20mm guns...LOL,,,,yet another stupid post.

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
no bombers
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2003, 03:55:47 PM »
how do ya figure a stupid post ?
It's the way it was done in real life.I'm sorry if it bothers you. If you prefur to have a campain changed to the favor of the allies.
 I imagine if you had it your way the attack on pearl would have been met with p51s, spits,p47s,while the IJN would have 1 flattop equipted with only zekes. but I thought the CT was about tryn to keep to the facts as best as possable.But now i see it differntly.keep it to the best accounts of history as long as the allies have the advantage.:aok

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
no bombers
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2003, 04:10:53 PM »
You Axis revisionist types ... sheesh. Everyone knows the war was won by Kurt Tank in a 190 but was called on a technicality due to superior logistics, strategy, intelligence and Betty Grable's legs. :lol

Offline LtMagee

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
no bombers
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2003, 04:28:10 PM »
Gear what do you not understand...bring on the Betty Bombers, not the Ki-67, if that is what you are referibg to. I have no problem with the IJA having bombers, but not the Ki-67 everytime.

I have seen more Kates and D3A in the past two days than I have seen all year! The Ki-67 "Peggy" does not belong in this particular plane set, but yes, the G4M "Betty" does.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2003, 04:32:58 PM by LtMagee »

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
no bombers
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2003, 05:02:41 PM »
Believe me, if HTC had a Betty (and a Hudson) modeled, I'd have gladly included them.  If they magically materiallize before the end of the week, I'll be happy to through them in:aok .
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
no bombers
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2003, 05:08:23 PM »
I don't really care 4 the Ki67.It drinks gas like i drink beer LOL plus it has a low ammo load.:D

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
no bombers
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2003, 06:57:19 PM »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
no bombers
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2003, 07:17:46 PM »
Our secret weapon.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
no bombers
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2003, 09:37:01 PM »
Looks like plenty of backside to me! :D

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10899
no bombers
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2003, 08:45:42 AM »
Mention bombers and the hecklers come out.  The Ju88 has been accepted as the Betty substitue but it isn't here.

Maybe one of you polite, well-mannered :p gentlemen wants to post where Gear asked for a Ki67 or where the implied Ju88s are based.  I’d like to know because if there are any IJN bombers other than the Kate and Val installed in this setup I haven’t heard about them and Saber said he didn’t include any.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
no bombers
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2003, 09:15:23 AM »
The thought of a basically "pork free" Pac map has got to be driving you bonkers, I know. Just think of it a "kosher week." :D

Offline LtMagee

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
no bombers
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2003, 01:40:45 PM »
Quote
Mention bombers and the hecklers come out. The Ju88 has been accepted as the Betty substitue but it isn't here.


HArd enough killing zekes in the P-40b, much less the Ju-88 its almost as bad as the Ki-67...it sure as hellll aint no "Betty".