But if we're discussing what-if planes, how about the Avro Manchester?
I don't think that the Manchester would be likely to appear in the Pacific, even as a 'what if' with it's dodgy engines. I would have thought theat the Halifax or Stirling would be far more likely. IMO the Halifax would be a better candidate as BC back in the UK was intended to be almost entirely re-equipped with Lancs for the main force squadrons.
At one point we HAD the Stirling - but removed it when we learned it didn't serve PTO. It is one of only two planes (the Sturmovik being the other) rating a special protection value due to its structure.
I too have long thought of the Grumman Goose. It was in good numbers in the Pacific, m10bob has certainly made a good early plane inclusion. In the case of considering eliminating light aircraft. The Ki-36 might have a limited role, but RHS has made it a useful aircraft in China. In the case of aircraft like the Goose and Lysander is early recon planes. I know there are no spotting bonus, but recon is certainly of major importance. Not that I am a lover of light aircraft, but they are of abundance for both sides. Of course if WitP II were out with those "extra" slots all this talk would be moot as most of us would plunk down the money right away.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
What about the P-40K. It was a P-40 with a supercharger. Because of this the version had double Bomb load (1000 in place of 500) then the ealier versions
Need to see if we can work out some art for the Goose? And decide what goes away? It is a very useful plane - and it did do ASW and recon - so it has a job.
What about the P-40K. It was a P-40 with a supercharger. Because of this the version had double Bomb load (1000 in place of 500) then the ealier versions
I think there used to be a P-40K - so we probably have the art. Good suggestion.
Need to see if we can work out some art for the Goose? And decide what goes away? It is a very useful plane - and it did do ASW and recon - so it has a job.
It's a retouched version of an old side I had. I also have the top artwork as well.
What about the P-40K. It was a P-40 with a supercharger. Because of this the version had double Bomb load (1000 in place of 500) then the ealier versions
I think there used to be a P-40K - so we probably have the art. Good suggestion.
One of the users of this plane is the 49th FG (7 FS, 8 FS & 9 FS) by Port Morseby. Thereafter received they the P-38 in November ?
As for el cid's original question about the A-36. I brought up the concern. The A-36 was intended as a bomber and the pilots were trained for dive bombing. However, it goes into a fighter bomber squadron that upgrades to P-51Bs. Because of game mechanics, the A-36 will be allowed to perform fighter missions, which is ahistorical. A-36s never flew escort or performed any of the P-51's fighter roles.
Someone asked how many were used in the PTO/CBI. As far as I can tell, only one squadron ever had them. The bulk of A-36s were used in North Africa and Italy.
I do believe the P-51A was used in the CBI. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I believe it was more than one squadron.
I'm not sure the P-40F was used in the PTO or CBI. The only pictures of P-40Fs I've ever seen were in North Africa or Italy. The Goose would be a good addition. It's rimary role, as a communication and utility aircraft, is not covered by the game's mechanics, but it's secondary role as an ASW aircraft is.
I also think the Privateer would be a good addition. It is somewhat late war, but it served in significant numbers.
We probably can deal with the techincal problem and the A-36. If we classify the plane as a dive bomber - it won't play fighter - yet it will upgrade to a fighter rated plane that can! EDIT: It was classed as a fighter bomber. It does not matter if it could be a fighter - if not trained and doctrinally suited for such use - it should not be allowed. What should this plane upgrade to? What plane should upgrade to it? [If any]
We get to have the B-32 if we want it. There was only one unit of 15 planes - 386th Bombardment Squadron - and so we can use the B-29 in a dual role - giving it the B-32 armament (which is different). They were built to the same spec, fly within 1 mph the same speed, have the same ceiling and bomb load: only range is different - and the B-29 outflies the permitted range code can handle anyway - so it never does get its full absolute ferry range - in particular in the RHS form (which is extended so the operational range is right = 42% of transfer vice 33%). The real impact is to add 8 planes to the production rate every month.
EDIT AGAIN: Boy was I wrong: we had the unit with the A-36. Quite a change - ultra light dive bomber to super heavy bomber!
I like the idea of the Goose too - and I think this board is a lot more sensible than I expected. I took a lot of flak for putting in "unnecessary" heavy transports, gliders, and other unglamorous planes.
The B-42 is worth looking at. It maneuvers like a 1 engine plane! It is fast!
From Joe Baughers excellent website:
The first A-36A flew on September 21, 1942. Deliveries of the A-36A were completed by the following March. The A-36A equipped the 27th and 86th Fighter Bomber Groups based in Sicily and in Italy. They initially were painted in olive-drab and light-gray finish and were painted with yellow wing bands and yellow circles around the national insignia. Both of these Groups arrived in North Africa in April of 1943 just after the end of the Tunisian campaign. They saw their first action during aerial attacks on the island of Pantelleria, with the first sortie being flown on June 6, 1943. The A-36A was involved in the taking of Monte Cassino, and participated in the sinking of the Italian liner Conte di Savoia.
The only other A-36 user was the 311th Fighter Bomber Group, based in India. It saw extensive use in the China-Burma-India theatre.
Several sources list the Invader as not being particularly effective during combat. It seems that this is not strictly correct. Although losses during low-level attacks were rather high, the A-36 was actually a good dive bomber and it was a stable and effective ground strafer. The engine was very quiet, and it was often possible for an A-36 to get nearly on top of an enemy before he realized that an attack was imminent. Dive bombing was usually initiated from an altitude of 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet, with bombing speed held to around 300 mph by the dive brakes. The bombs were dropped at an altitude of 3000 feet, and pullout was at approximately 1500 feet. The Invader was fairly rugged and easy to maintain in the field. The A-36 could consistently stay within 20 feet of the deck and could easily maneuver around trees, buildings, and other obstacles while strafing. The A-36A was able to take a considerable amount of battle damage and still return to base. Nevertheless, a total of 177 A-36As were lost in action.
The A-36s did not see very much air-to-air combat, since it was optimized for low-altitude operations and lost its effectiveness above 10,000 feet altitude. It was generally believed that the A-36 Invader was no match for the Messerschmitt Bf 109 at high altitudes, and that it was therefore best for A-36 pilots to avoid such encounters if at all possible. If air-to-air combat was unavoidable, it was thought best to force the battle down to altitudes below 8000 feet, where maximum advantage could be taken of the A-36A's excellent low-altitude performance. Although it was not a fighter, the Invader claimed 101 enemy aircraft destroyed in air-to-air combat. One of the pilots of the 27th Fighter Bomber Group, Lt Michael T. Russo, became the only ace in the Allison-engined Mustang, although several other of his colleagues did score victories as well
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Well - yes they do. But so do dive bombers. Very likely the same penalty - so same same. And this is right - you take low as well as high flak - and are in the sights longer than if you just fly over. Dive bomers may not have been the best of ideas - and unarmored ones definately not. {see the Val - the most successful sinker of Allied or US ships of all time - but unarmored - pilots suffered badly}
I want my Fighter-Bombers to be able to perform as IRL.
I understand they are not as good as commited Fighters, nor bomb like a committed Dive Bomber. But they should bomb better than a fighter and A-A better than a Dive Bomber.
Its not just the A-36, various P-40's, Corsairs, Hurricane IV's and the FB Zero's are affected in the same way. And many of the Allied Fighters proved effective in the shallow dive bomber role so the A-36 should be treated similarly.
IMHO, the Fighter-Bombers should be able to fly the sweep & LRCap fighter missions as well as the Naval/Ground/Airfield attack bomber missions.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
The problem here is they are NOT being used as IRL. They were NOT being used as escorts - so it is better design to not permit that mission - or you will feel you can have them do it.
Software is as meaningful as hardware. I spent most of my life as a field engineer, systems integrator or analyst.
It is just as real a fix to say "change the doctrine, train the people, change the procedures" as it is to change the machine or replace parts. If ANY element of the system cannot do it - the system cannot do it. The objection here is valid. Now if you can show they DID dogfight and escort and perform CAP - that is another story.
Someone (Dili?) proposed long ago (not necessairily for RHS) that we COMBINE Allied slots.
Now we have a problem with art already - plane markings are sometimes wrong for the nation/service to which they are assigned. To solve that completely we would need to have still more slots - or alternatively reduce the number of plane types. But what if: [EOS ONLY]
a) We adopt a DIFFERENT standard from history for plane markings? This is sometimes used by the US and UK.
Either use NO markings - or do something like was done for D-Day - adopt a universal symbol (in that case "invasion stripes). THEN it does not matter what service or nation a plane is assigned to.
EDIT: FYI Cobra designed a unified plane art scheme for the Japanese in EOS - and no one at all has complained about it. This is not quite as radical as it sounds - we already do it on the other side.
b) We then gain slots for planes in differenct services - something we are sometimes doing right now. We can then use different versions of the plane. [A PBY can start with no radar and upgrade to having radar etc] When there is a significant national / service model - we can keep it. [Note the suggestion above that we "put in" the P-40K - yet it IS in already - as the Kittyhawk III!! But it is NOT available to US units. We could give units/players many more options for upgrades in this way.
c) We combine US/CW and other pools - the Russians would be separate - giving the Allies a lot more flexability
The great increase in combat power of Japan in EOS is due to being able to organize air power more rationally. Nemo and I worried the Japanese might be "too strong - undefeatable by normal players" - and this is a way to give something of that to the other side. It also would permit an increase in versions of planes - or plane models - to the point we might be able to include some interesting options. For example:
what about a Stirling V Transport? It has a range of 4000 nautical miles and a capacity of 40 troops at a fairly high speed.
Or the Beverly - with a cargo capacity of 22 tons - and a normal capacity of 94 troops over 1300 miles (a typical medium transport range - but this is a HEAVY transport)?
The B-42. This strange creature with 2 engines INSIDE the plane - driving by gearing two contra rotating tail props - is very very fast and high flying - and but for jets we would have bought the thing. [In fact, a version was given a jet to study jet effects - because it was designed for such speed that even more speed was no big problem] With engines on the centerline - and contra rotating propellers - this aircraft would not even have the torque problems of classical one engine planes - and would get a very high maneuver rating using the RHS formula.
Then there is the B-35 - ordered in November 1941 - BEFORE PTO began: had it been given funding due to crisis need, it might have been available during the war. This is the first flying wing bomber - none of which ever was operational until the B-2 - by the same manufacturer - generations later!
We could consider restoring some of the deleted obsolete flying boats (e.g. Singapore and Stranraer).
We could consider seriously the possibility of planes developed for contingencies that didn't happen - because in EOS they MAY happen: B-36, Hughes Flying Boat, Martin Mars, B-42, etc.
On a less esoteric line - regardless of reaction to the above proposal - we probably will add the Goose to all scenarios. But it only served in RAF 24 Squadron - and not in PTO - so look for it mainly in US service - and mainly in patrol units. These permit it to do multiple roles - including transport, ASW and search - so it seems best to classify it as a Patrol plane instead of a seaplane. Since it appears we were able to fix the A-36 so it won't play fighter - we will use the second B-26 slot - probably.
On a less esoteric line - regardless of reaction to the above proposal - we probably will add the Goose to all scenarios. But it only served in RAF 24 Squadron - and not in PTO - so look for it mainly in US service - and mainly in patrol units. These permit it to do multiple roles - including transport, ASW and search - so it seems best to classify it as a Patrol plane instead of a seaplane. Since it appears we were able to fix the A-36 so it won't play fighter - we will use the second B-26 slot - probably.
Actually it served with several squadrons of the RCAF as well.
I like the idea of combining the Allied plane slots.
If you are planning on combining the allied aircraft I would like to….
Keep the A36A (as fighter-bomber or dive-bomber)
Add the P-51A (fighter)
Add the P-51H (does it arrive to late for RHS?)
Split the F6F to –3 and -5 versions
Add the P-38F
Add the B-42 Mixmaster (great twin engine bomber)
Dutch
