Using the TBM-3 in Coral Sea setups

[perdue3]

Arlo.... 

[APDrone]

no need to press for a response today, Perdue.  We shouldn't see an early PTO with USN for at least 8 months while the other periods/theatres are cycled through.

Looking forward to see the HE111 used..

[Arlo]

We shouldn't see an early PTO with USN for at least 8 months while the other periods/theatres are cycled through.

 

[Arlo]

Arlo.... 

Hey, I'm voting with you and helping you press Cap for that important answer. No appreciation
required. 

[gyrene81]

It's a quick reference and quite oft, good enough. I suppose I can dig out my Encyclopedia
of WWII Aircraft but, quite frankly, this thread really doesn't rate it. 

get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...

[Arlo]

get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...

I'm sure you have. Having said that, even the Wiki article differentiates. It just doesn't post multiple specs.
Modeling an earlier Avenger may be easier for Dale and co than modeling the Devastator (though I'd really
like to see that, deathtrap or not).

[perdue3]

get it out, info on the TBF-1 is mixed in with the flipping TBM so much it's nearly impossible to find anything specific to the aircraft. i've even seen people mistake one for the other...

Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.

[Triton28]

OMG dude. Ok, listen to this:

A B-17 is well armored right? Ok, a fighter against it in its day (1943) could be a FW 190A-5. Do you have any problems killing the heavily armored B-17 (more armored than a TBM) in a FW 190A-5? NO. You do not. Why? Because the 190A-5 is a superior aircraft. Armor counts some, yes, but not enough for that to be the sole reason why we keep the TBM-3 as a TBD-1. Even the well armored 1944 ride that is the TBM-3 is able to die to an A6M2. Granted it is not easy and eats up a TON of ammo, but still possible. My point is, it may be more armored than the Kate but not enough for a case against using the B5N.

Cool story.   

You're making the case that certain performance aspects of the TBM make it an unfit substitute for the TBD (it's predecesor, fwiw).  Your OP listed three main categories of performance discrepancies that support your claim. 

                             TBD-1                           TBM-3                                    B5N
                                           
Max Speed:                     206mph                          262mph                                 235mph
Climb Rate:                     720ft/min                       1,540ft/min                            1,283ft/min
Range:                             435mi                             985mi                                 1,237mi
Armament:                .030 nose, .030 tail        2x.050 wing, dorsal, ventral             7.7mm tail
Ordnance:                       2,000lb torp                   2,000lb torp                          1,706lb torp

You're essentially saying that in judging a torpedo plane, speed is the ace of spades.  IF (big if) the max speed of the TBM allowed to to outrun it's fighter opposition, I'm right there with you.   Since the speed upgrade DOES NOT allow it to outrun it's fighter opposition, personally, I give that much less weight than you seem to. 

I have no idea what the climb rate upgrade is supposed to do.  It's a significant upgrade, but for a third time, we're talking about the tallest midget.  If the TBM could match a Zero in climb... ok, I jive with ya.  It can't.  But that doesn't really matter since your Kate substitution still gives the Allies a big upgrade.  I'd call that a push even if it were a factor.

Armament, an upgrade in bore size, and another taller midget.  I actually shot down a Zero from the back of Badcore's SBD in frame three and I felt like I won the frickin' lottery.  In my experience, the guns on these Navy bombers are laughable and only there to make you feel like you tried.

Now, the dark side to what you propose is making the TBD substitute a flying lighter, i.e., the Kate.   You would take away a nose gun and give a significant armor downgrade all in the name of speed.  Speed, that again, will not allow it to outrun the fighter opposition tasked with shooting it down.   


 

[Arlo]

Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.

Mine is right? When sources conflict, unless you've personally flown the planes in
question, it's a matter of opinion, still (favored sources versus non). That being said,
the differences in the various models of Avenger doesn't matter until they are modeled in AH.

Just paint the damned Kate and be done with this. I wanna see what the next FSO
crisis ends up being.

[perdue3]

You guys are right. My case is dumb and stupid. My sources suck and I am nothing but an Axis whiney-butt. Excuse me for wasting everyone's time.

I appreciate your patience with my whines and complaints. Looking forward to chasing TBM-3's next Coral Sea <S>

[Arlo]

You guys are right. My case is dumb and stupid. My sources suck and I am nothing but an Axis whiney-butt. Excuse me for wasting everyone's time.

I appreciate your patience with my whines and complaints. Looking forward to chasing TBM-3's next Coral Sea <S>

Always look on the bright side of life .......

I'm sure you'll have more fun when it isn't 'second hand.' 

[gyrene81]

Mine is right, if you want to check, go buy the book I used as a source on page 1.

except that the TBM (general motors built) which used a 1900hp motor, didn't go into production until 43 after the TBF-1 had been built through variants up to F or J(?). the only one i'm talking about is the initial TBF-1 that had around 1200 built.

[Arlo]

I thought the information provided by ARLO about how many tbm's were shot down in fram 1,2,and 3 was very funny, i showed it two several people here and they could not stop laughing.......why? Becuase you provided only one side of the information, you did not show how many japanese planes were shot down by tbm's,and you did not show how many japanese aircraft engaged tbm's and only recieved an assist....this would have complete the information to be compared.....but instead, you selected the information that supported your point.  thats what we call  bait and switch........you know, where you use only information to pretend you are contributing,but in reality you are just shining the spotlight away from the actual point,because you cant defend  the point with valid informaton.    arlo,please list the other information for a real comparison, thank you

Actually, al, I provided info that disproved someone else's 'point' - that point
being that TBMs in Aces High are too hard for A6Ms to catch and take way too much
ammo to splash. Apparently that's not so much the issue as the skill of the pilot.

Oh ... and an actual 'bait and switch' situation is more like when a car lot paints on
the window of a one year old Ferrari 'Ferrari's for sale $10,000' and when you pay
they wheel out a ten year old wrecked one.

Thanks for making me laugh in turn. 

[Butcher]

Actually, al, I provided info that disproved someone else's 'point' - that point
being that TBMs in Aces High are too hard for A6Ms to catch and take way too much
ammo to splash. Apparently that's not so much the issue as the skill of the pilot.

Oh ... and an actual 'bait and switch' situation is more like when a car lot paints on
the window of a one year old Ferrari 'Ferrari's for sale $10,000' and when you pay
they wheel out a ten year old wrecked one.

Thanks for making me laugh in turn.  

What Perdue and the rest fail to understand, the Devastator is just as armored as the TBM - if not slightly less. Only speed makes the difference between the two aircrafts, if an A6m cant splash a few TBM's they are going to find out TBD's are no different. Not to mention although the TBD is slower, its also a way smaller target then a TBM, so there will be another whine later on for it I guess?

Then again if were goign to play the historical Card, I want the AXIS to have no radar for the Coral or Midway scenarios. On top of that, the allies Radar should be I think 30 miles?

[Arlo]

... they are going to find out TBD's are no different. Not to mention although the TBD is slower, its also a way smaller target then a TBM, so there will be another whine later on for it I guess?

Unfortunately, until it's modeled in AH, they won't. I believe what some of the axis players
are wanting is a change of tactics employed by the Allied side in frames two and three
(can't speak for frame one, my group was flying F4Fs then). If the B5N is subbed for the
TBD then the tactics involving a high speed approach become impractical. The B5N can't
handle the stress. This will require a lower and slower approach, giving the axis side ample
time to deal with the torpedo bombers on their inbound. Fewer defending planes would be
required.

Paint the Kate. What the hell. If this is the biggest crisis of the setup, then it's a pretty
good one.