PDA

View Full Version : Carrier Based Torp Planes



Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 10:25 PM
Okay. I know this has been covered a ton of times, but it begs to be asked again, and I was inspired by another thread...

Why are there no flyable carrier-based torpedo planes?

The sense of this player being absent is questionable at best. Torpedo planes were at the very heart of almost every conventional carrier-launched antiship attack (and please, no more suggestions of IL2T, B25, Beaufighter, or A20 substitutions; those make about as much sense as WW2 PTO without carriers in the first place). Musashi alone could stand as testament to the pivotal role these planes played: how many Avengers did it take to plant 19 aerial torpedo into that mammoth?

Granted, the title of the game says a lot - the primary focus is on fighters. But if the case, why supply a carrier based dive bomber for each side and exclude any torpedo planes?

All I'm saying here is that there seems to be a decided lack on getting this type of plane into the players' hands. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, but when the dev update bypassed the flyable Avenger for AI Devastators and Jills... it just seems like this isn't going to happen.

Anyone else out there wondering what is going on on this front?

Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 10:25 PM
Okay. I know this has been covered a ton of times, but it begs to be asked again, and I was inspired by another thread...

Why are there no flyable carrier-based torpedo planes?

The sense of this player being absent is questionable at best. Torpedo planes were at the very heart of almost every conventional carrier-launched antiship attack (and please, no more suggestions of IL2T, B25, Beaufighter, or A20 substitutions; those make about as much sense as WW2 PTO without carriers in the first place). Musashi alone could stand as testament to the pivotal role these planes played: how many Avengers did it take to plant 19 aerial torpedo into that mammoth?

Granted, the title of the game says a lot - the primary focus is on fighters. But if the case, why supply a carrier based dive bomber for each side and exclude any torpedo planes?

All I'm saying here is that there seems to be a decided lack on getting this type of plane into the players' hands. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, but when the dev update bypassed the flyable Avenger for AI Devastators and Jills... it just seems like this isn't going to happen.

Anyone else out there wondering what is going on on this front?

Philipscdrw
12-13-2004, 10:50 PM
I think they decided to concentrate on finishing the fighters and bombers part of the sim first, so we could start playing with the new features as early as possible, and continue on to complete the torpedo bombers afterwards.

It's a good idea, because we get PF in early November instead of January, and come January (or whenever the patch with the torp planes is complete) we get the complete sim, and Ubi get christmas sales so the series has more money to develop with. It's a win-win scenario really.

Consider PF version 3.02 to be an advanced demo of PF, (which will be released in 2 weeks from the time you enquire about the release date http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) with a pre-order built in...

Waiting for the torpedo bombers to be complete before releasing the PF would just be bad for everyone, us, Ubi, 1C, the shops...

WTE_Gog
12-13-2004, 10:50 PM
I don't think you are wrong at all mate.

But we shouldn't complain. Look at what we have been given since!

'Thanks to our resident guru updaters, Extreme One and bird_brain, we have updates to the missions page, tracks, community screenshots, fansites, and squadrons page. Click the links below to be taken to the pages and we hope you enjoy the downloads!'

and who could forget the amazingly useful,

'The guys over at Worthplaying have a nice review of Pacific Fighters on their website which scores a lovely 8/10! You can read the review over here.'

seems to me we are totally spoiled and have a lot of nerve pestering the designers for a torpedo bomber! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Maj_Death
12-13-2004, 10:54 PM
From what I keep getting told here, it is because there are no WW2 torpedo bombers like the TBF left in the world and so there is no cockpit data. This is dispite the fact that an airworthy TBF is within 30 miles of my house and I've even sat in it.

The real reason PF doesn't have the Kate, Devistator or Avenger as flyable is cause 1C has decided that not enough people want them in order for it to be profitable.

On a side note, PF is the first WW2 flight sim based on the Pacific that does not have atleast 2 carrier based torpedo bombers.

xTHRUDx
12-13-2004, 11:08 PM
with this logic we could make an awesome racing game with lots of tracks and cars, but the wheels for all of them will come in a later patch. for now you have to just sit on the track. "cool they modeled the wipers," big picture no wheels. i hope you understand the analogy.

AlmightyTallest
12-13-2004, 11:19 PM
I would think that flyable torpedo planes for both sides in PF would be great fun. We may be in for a nice surprise with more patches to PF in the near future I think. Of course, if you have any additional info that may help in making a torpedo bomber a reality, you may want to check out the links below.

Hope others here can help out the modelers interested in a particular project. It would be good if we could work to help them add more aircraft to PF.

Netwings forums that may be useful for those interested and those that may be able to add additional information for the modelers:

Kate info:
http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1233.html

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1211.html

TBD info:
http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1245.html


Netwings forum for modelers, design and development.

http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&mm=1&archive=

Charlie901
12-13-2004, 11:28 PM
Cause this game was produced by Russian Developers who did not share in the same experience and history of the PTO as the countries that did.

Hence, we have a Western Front game set in the Pacific, where Dive Bombing carriers takes president over having flyable torpedo A/C. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 11:33 PM
I can agree with the 'get it now rather than later' point (thx for the input, Philips), but it still bothers me that AI-types are still coming before the flyables. We've all read that Avenger is in the works sometime soon, but there hasn't been a hint of any development - no screens, no word on progress, nothing. Perhaps if something leaked out that 'this torp plane is in this stage of modeling', it would satiate many a person's curiosity on this subject.

actionhank1786
12-14-2004, 12:18 AM
Maj_Death i think the point about not having reference material is more in the respect of the Kate being flyable, since i think the only one left is a rusted out piece of ****.
As for the Avenger i think they may be making that flyable, and if they say lack of resourse, then go get some photos for them.
They can't claim no resourses with you holding a handful of photos now can they?

Sakai9745
12-14-2004, 12:32 AM
Just seeing if my new banner is working. It pretty much sums it up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HotelBushranger
12-14-2004, 02:18 AM
oh god no another torp bomber. but fair enough, some good points made, im justa gonna not care, just want my ****ed PF copy first!

taly01
12-14-2004, 03:23 AM
This first game was Pacific Fighters, the next CD add-on will be Pacific Bombers? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can wait if it means the torpedo bombers are made right, with authetic torpedo lead sights, and properly modelled US vs Japanese torpedo physics etc..

It not like there isn't enough to do in the game till then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 03:36 AM
"From what I keep getting told here, it is because there are no WW2 torpedo bombers like the TBF left in the world "

There was one at the local airshow in August. If I'd thought there was an issue with a lack of cockpit information (I don't know what the delay is) I would have asked to get inside for some photos. The PBY that I didn't get chance to take the photos of internally last year (they agreed but it didn't pass its airworthiness certificate and couldn't get the show) was there this year, but I assumed Gibbage has all the required information by now.

WTE_Gog
12-14-2004, 03:58 AM
I fully support the designers efforts to get the cockpits exactly (or as close as possible to) perfect.
It's quite obvious from looking at the current available aircraft that they go to a great deal of trouble with them but, if the Kate was known to be very thin or non-existant in regards to cockpit detail then why advertise it as being flyable?
If there are no records left and no existing examples of the aircraft then who cares what the cockpit looks like? As long as it is representative of a Japanese aircraft then it will have to do, in fact the cockpit could consist of bells, whistles and levers from Mr Wonka's marshmallow erupting train and I wouldn't care, just release the daamn things already!

KG26_Wulf
12-14-2004, 05:00 AM
I really love what has been done so far but your right no torps? I really like to fly bombers myself (been waiting for Ju-88 from day one) and would like to see the more fo them. Granted it takes skill to fly around in circles and shoot eachother down buy what about bombing a bridge or a lone factory fromm 5000 to 7000 meters?

Shangko
12-14-2004, 06:49 AM
No inclusion of based-carriers torpedo-bombers is incredible.

With only D3A1 flyable bombers, anybody sink a carrier?

USA pilots have SBD3-5 with heavy loadout armament, but IJN pilots with 250 Kg bombs is impossiblem sink a carrier.

Torpedo-planes for both sides are neccesary for Pacific Theatre.

Philipscdrw
12-14-2004, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maj_Death:
The real reason PF doesn't have the Kate, Devistator or Avenger as flyable is cause 1C has decided that not enough people want them in order for it to be profitable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the reason they're not flyable is that they needed to release the sim earlier, and decided that torp bombers were the least critical thing, and delayed them for a patch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>xTHRUDx:
with this logic we could make an awesome racing game with lots of tracks and cars, but the wheels for all of them will come in a later patch. for now you have to just sit on the track. "cool they modeled the wipers," big picture no wheels. i hope you understand the analogy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>B/S. If they'd released the game without carriers or fighters your post would be right. The analogy is the other way round, the wheels and engine are there but the windscreen wipers are missing. Would you prefer to have absolutely no Pacific Fighters, and still be on AEP, until the torp bombers are complete? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Charlie901:
Cause this game was produced by Russian Developers who did not share in the same experience and history of the PTO as the countries that did.

Hence, we have a Western Front game set in the Pacific, where Dive Bombing carriers takes president over having flyable torpedo A/C. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What, do you think that somehow Russians are incapable of reading books? I'll bet that all the 1C house have a better understanding of the PTO than you. WTF are you talking about, 'Western Front in the Pacific'?

If you can't sink a carrier with a divebomber, then assign the AI torp bombers to attack it. Or fly a different type of mission and wait for the patch with the torp bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Taly01:
This first game was Pacific Fighters, the next CD add-on will be Pacific Bombers?

I can wait if it means the torpedo bombers are made right, with authetic torpedo lead sights, and properly modelled US vs Japanese torpedo physics etc..

It not like there isn't enough to do in the game till then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they're putting torp bombers into a payware addon, it's coming in a free patch I think. At least that's what we've been told... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WTE_Gog:
I fully support the designers efforts to get the cockpits exactly (or as close as possible to) perfect.
It's quite obvious from looking at the current available aircraft that they go to a great deal of trouble with them but, if the Kate was known to be very thin or non-existant in regards to cockpit detail then why advertise it as being flyable?
If there are no records left and no existing examples of the aircraft then who cares what the cockpit looks like? As long as it is representative of a Japanese aircraft then it will have to do, in fact the cockpit could consist of bells, whistles and levers from Mr Wonka's marshmallow erupting train and I wouldn't care, just release the daamn things already! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I agree with you, but this is Oleg's game, and it is to his standards. From what I've gathered he is perfectionist and hates to release inaccurate models.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>KG26_Wulf:
I really love what has been done so far but your right no torps? I really like to fly bombers myself (been waiting for Ju-88 from day one) and would like to see the more fo them. Granted it takes skill to fly around in circles and shoot eachother down buy what about bombing a bridge or a lone factory fromm 5000 to 7000 meters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have plenty of flyable level bombers: the He-111, B-25, TB-3, A-20 (if that counts?), and also several dive-bombers. The Ju-88 is allegedly complete, and in the process of being implemented, although I don't know where it is at right now...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Shangko:
No inclusion of based-carriers torpedo-bombers is incredible.

With only D3A1 flyable bombers, anybody sink a carrier?

USA pilots have SBD3-5 with heavy loadout armament, but IJN pilots with 250 Kg bombs is impossiblem sink a carrier.

Torpedo-planes for both sides are neccesary for Pacific Theatre. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They're included, but they are AI-only right now. Soon the cockpits will be released and they will be flyable by the player.

actionhank1786
12-14-2004, 08:29 AM
I dont recall them ever promising to make the Kate flyable.
I think people are now getting things they promised and advertised, mixed up with what every things should be flyable.
As far as i know, the only flyable thing they're missing right now is the betty, so in all actuallity that's all they need to add to the game.
They could have just released the Betty cockpit and left the game like it was in 3.00
But lucky for us they didnt.
I'm not belittling the original poster of this, but in a lot of these threads people show Oleg and Company a lot of dissrespect. That seems to be a popular thing these days.
Oleg doesnt owe any of us anything, except maybe that Betty, and really, he doesnt even need to give us that, because i can think of a ton of games that are released in a crappy way and the parent company say "Oh we don't care".
The Microsoft Combat games come to mind, Microsoft didnt do anything, it knew that 3rd party companies and mod makers would keep the game floating.
We're lucky Oleg does so much for us, and i think a lot of people should be a bit more respectful and watch what, and how they say things, because it may not take much to convince Oleg to just drop Pacific Fighters and go work on Battle of Britain. I'm also sure that would be a more cost effective method since then he's not paying for 2 games.
My two cents call me a fanboy if you will.

MiszaNC
12-14-2004, 10:34 AM
Hi all,
The game is great OK, very accurate historical airplanes OK. I have been waiting patient for more flyable planes, no complains from me side. However I do not agree with theory that we can not have flyable planes (very, very important ones for PT, like Kate) b/c there are no good enough cockpit documentation. I am scientist working with wild animals so for me there are no perfect database anyway, there always some gaps here or there. So I can accept a party fictional cockpit of Kate. Having that beauty flyable would you care about that or that switch being in probably wrong place or that shade of paint in the cockpit? From what we have available let's make a cockpit as close to oryginal as possible! It will be anyway NOT the SAME as it was in WW2. Even in a well documented plane like Corsair do you realy care about that "a second switch in the first row on the third panel from the right" is in exact place? If you say the Corsair cockpit is 95% (or 98% there is no 100% as we know) accurate according to the available data, I say PERFECT, well done. If you say would I accept Kate cockpit being 60% (or 45%) accurate due to missing data, I say PERFECT, we have best we CAN. This is a game which tryes to be as much close to reality as possible but it will NEVER be reality. So I am waiting for Kate (in free patch or payable CD, I do not care) with patient and hope and a great respect for all modelers and Oleg.
S!

DRB_Hookech0
12-14-2004, 10:59 AM
:::: pulls on hip waders:::::

Ok, I figured I'd wade into the swamp of the mythical Torp bomber. Would it be a nice addition to have...yes. Is it critical to game play....a resounding no. What is with these people bemoaning the lack of a torp bomber? Lets look at their place in combat in the PTO. At the start, IE Pearl Harbour, they did very well. In the early carrier engagements they performed poorly and by the time Midway came around...they were a pretty good way to die for your flag. Both sides found that unless Torp bombers were escorted by massive amounts of fighters, they tended to die well short of their targets. Low and very slow over open ocean in the middle of a combat zone is a bad place to be. The Kate was a great Torp plane in the 1930's, state of the art so to speak. It's summit was PH. The USN and their Devestators were even worse off, as that plane was considered a POS for it's primary role at best. It had to fly even slower than the Kate and at 50 feet off the deck to drop a torp that might or might not even work. Again after the USN lost **** near all their carrier based Torp's, even with the new TBF, they began to shy away from direct torpedo attacks on warships. Yes there were exceptions to this rule but for the most part both sides decided to drop more bombs than torps from midway on.

In this game, attacking a carrier with a flight of Corsairs hualing 1000 pounders doing 350 KIAS in a dive is going to produce about 80% casualties. What makes you think a Torp plane is going to do better? People are going to try it once....get blown away badly...and move back to what they have been flying while gripeing about the Torp planes. I dont see this game critical. We can make torp attacks now...we can use the AI (when they are not flying into the water) as we cover them. I think there are bigger problems to be addressed before we worry about making suicide attacks low and slow over the water.

Just my opinion......YMMV

Latico
12-14-2004, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shangko:
No inclusion of based-carriers torpedo-bombers is incredible.

With only D3A1 flyable bombers, anybody sink a carrier?

USA pilots have SBD3-5 with heavy loadout armament, but IJN pilots with 250 Kg bombs is impossiblem sink a carrier.

Torpedo-planes for both sides are neccesary for Pacific Theatre. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I've found in the after action reports and ships logs of CV6 USS Enterprise, the load out for the SBD3-5 is over done. It looks more like what the Avenger might carry.

From the Logs, the VS and VB squadtrons were loaded with:
A) single 500#
B) Single 1000#
C) single 500# and 2 100#

Those are the loadouts for the Marshal Island Raids through Midway.

Krt_Bong
12-14-2004, 12:01 PM
Hey I'm sure as time goes by more and more A/C will become available, and will be correct in cockpit layout, for many of us it will be the only time we will be able to see what a warbird cockpit looks like and for a fortunate few will be as reliving the event again in virtual reality so I want to see it as it was and there's more than enough film shot on the subject to model it accurately so just be patient it will come

Philipscdrw
12-14-2004, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
:::: pulls on hip waders:::::

Ok, I figured I'd wade into the swamp of the mythical Torp bomber. Would it be a nice addition to have...yes. Is it critical to game play....a resounding no. What is with these people bemoaning the lack of a torp bomber? Lets look at their place in combat in the PTO. At the start, IE Pearl Harbour, they did very well. In the early carrier engagements they performed poorly and by the time Midway came around...they were a pretty good way to die for your flag. Both sides found that unless Torp bombers were escorted by massive amounts of fighters, they tended to die well short of their targets. Low and very slow over open ocean in the middle of a combat zone is a bad place to be. The Kate was a great Torp plane in the 1930's, state of the art so to speak. It's summit was PH. The USN and their Devestators were even worse off, as that plane was considered a POS for it's primary role at best. It had to fly even slower than the Kate and at 50 feet off the deck to drop a torp that might or might not even work. Again after the USN lost **** near all their carrier based Torp's, even with the new TBF, they began to shy away from direct torpedo attacks on warships. Yes there were exceptions to this rule but for the most part both sides decided to drop more bombs than torps from midway on.

In this game, attacking a carrier with a flight of Corsairs hualing 1000 pounders doing 350 KIAS in a dive is going to produce about 80% casualties. What makes you think a Torp plane is going to do better? People are going to try it once....get blown away badly...and move back to what they have been flying while gripeing about the Torp planes. I dont see this game critical. We can make torp attacks now...we can use the AI (when they are not flying into the water) as we cover them. I think there are bigger problems to be addressed before we worry about making suicide attacks low and slow over the water.

Just my opinion......YMMV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I wasn't aware of the realities of torp bomber warfare...

Charlie901
12-14-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
:::: pulls on hip waders:::::

Ok, I figured I'd wade into the swamp of the mythical Torp bomber. Would it be a nice addition to have...yes. Is it critical to game play....a resounding no. What is with these people bemoaning the lack of a torp bomber? Lets look at their place in combat in the PTO. At the start, IE Pearl Harbour, they did very well. In the early carrier engagements they performed poorly and by the time Midway came around...they were a pretty good way to die for your flag. Both sides found that unless Torp bombers were escorted by massive amounts of fighters, they tended to die well short of their targets. Low and very slow over open ocean in the middle of a combat zone is a bad place to be. The Kate was a great Torp plane in the 1930's, state of the art so to speak. It's summit was PH. The USN and their Devestators were even worse off, as that plane was considered a POS for it's primary role at best. It had to fly even slower than the Kate and at 50 feet off the deck to drop a torp that might or might not even work. Again after the USN lost **** near all their carrier based Torp's, even with the new TBF, they began to shy away from direct torpedo attacks on warships. Yes there were exceptions to this rule but for the most part both sides decided to drop more bombs than torps from midway on.

In this game, attacking a carrier with a flight of Corsairs hualing 1000 pounders doing 350 KIAS in a dive is going to produce about 80% casualties. What makes you think a Torp plane is going to do better? People are going to try it once....get blown away badly...and move back to what they have been flying while gripeing about the Torp planes. I dont see this game critical. We can make torp attacks now...we can use the AI (when they are not flying into the water) as we cover them. I think there are bigger problems to be addressed before we worry about making suicide attacks low and slow over the water.

Just my opinion......YMMV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's you opinion. Mine is that Flyable Torpedo AC would be fun and it's as simple as that!!!!!!!!!

Sakai9745
12-14-2004, 12:51 PM
No disrespect intended by this post. I think the majority if not all of us can agree on having the utmost gratitude for a game that aims for the level of fidelity that the IL2 series has. A lot of combat flight sim titles that have hit the stocks since have just simply paled in comparison.

This thread is more aimed at getting the point across that there is a decided interest in the usage of flyable, carrier-based torpedo bombers. PF offers to immerse us into the PTO of '41-'45, and people are having a blast recreating history or making it up as they go when the machines of the era. Torpedo-bombing, Pacific-era style, is a facet of this time and place that is sorely missed by many.

This post is just the latest installment in the attempt to convey that opinion amongst us simmers. It is not meant to be taken as an insult to Oleg and his crew. We're just letting them all know that we love the concept of bringing these planes to the 'under-our-control' playing field.

DuxCorvan
12-14-2004, 12:56 PM
Hookech:

I've never believed the lame quality of an aircraft or a wrong tactical philosophy to be an obstacle to have a plane flyable in a realistic sim. A sim tries to recreate historical situations, and since these things were used in great numbers -even if they were sh1tty or flying coffins- they should be used in great numbers by virtual pilots as the real ones did.

The guys who fly them and despair because they rarely get their targets, have two choices:

1) Accept that this was the real thing, and accept the challenge, because they admire the 'real' brave guys and find it exciting trying to survive in a carrier-based torpedo-bomber -that's what I'd do. Or...

2) Accept that they're not real mature gamers nor aircraft lovers, since they only enjoy it when they win.

I think that there's a legion of guys that like playing 'God' mode, but that's not the way that a sim that is intended to be so realistical that real cockpits must be researched and replied even under the seat should work.

The 'suicidal' flyable torpedo carriers must be in a realistic WW2 PTO sim, because the 'suicidal' 'flyable' torpedo carriers were in the real WW2 PTO scenarios, and not in minor numbers.

That torpedo bombing being a hard task with little or no chance of success would not be a flaw, but the proof that things are well done.

They were there, I want them here.

Only a wish, nothing is promised, and I don't think it's a duty of 1C to give them. But I think is a serious shortcoming of PF as a 'comprehensive' sim.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 02:19 PM
The Hellcat carried torpedos too.

Just sayin...


(cropped for image size, from declassified Naval documents)
http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/hellcat%20ordnance.jpg

Latico
12-14-2004, 04:13 PM
It should also be pointed out that T-bombers were also used in bombing strikes on dry land. They were able to carry heavier loads than the SBD's.

DuxCorvan
12-14-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
It should also be pointed out that T-bombers were also used in bombing strikes on dry land. They were able to carry heavier loads than the SBD's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, I've always heard that the Japanese carriers in Midway suffered greater damage for having their Kates on the deck, having their torpedos changed to bombs to attack the base, when they were surprised by the US attack. The decks were full of planes, fuel and explosive devices.

Is it true?

Latico
12-14-2004, 05:19 PM
Yes, the Japanese were caught with their "pants down" so to speak. The first waev af attack planes that hit Midway were on deck being re-fueled and re-armed.

IIRC, the IJ fleet was only aware of one US carrier. When word got back that it (the Yorktown) had been heavily damaged the commander ordered the attack planes armament to be changed back to GP ordinance, so they could continue with the assault on Midway. It was during this switch that the Enterprise attack group showed up.

Firestorm07
12-14-2004, 08:39 PM
I dont believe that a plane's effectiveness in a virtual combat scenario is relevant to the argument as to whether or not it should be included in a simulation.

It's presence is mandatory primarily for the reason that it was widely used in that particular theatre in real life and has had a historical impact on the tactics used by either side to achieve battle objectives.

The Kate and the Avenger were there in large numbers, they should be here, for better or for worse.

Think Carrier operations in the Pacific Theatre? You immediately think Zero, Val, Kate, Wildcat, Dauntless Avenger, purely as a starting point. These are essential, no avoiding it.

Thanks for listening.

s.bush
12-14-2004, 09:07 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/d1_trainstation_020034.jpg

Everyone up against the wall.......

Sakai9745
12-14-2004, 11:19 PM
bump

taly01
12-14-2004, 11:56 PM
B5N cockpit? You mean one of these http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.aerosim.co.jp/img/product/cfs2/sango/97panel_hp2.jpg

http://www.aerosim.co.jp/img/product/cfs2/sango/97panel_hp2.jpg

Blackdog5555
12-15-2004, 01:03 AM
Yes, Yes, yes,...so the first 6 avengers used at midway wentout from the Hornet with no escort and got their *** shot off. Only one barely survived with the rear gunners body parts splatted all over the inside of the plane. after that most avengers wre use for regular bombing, radar aand survallience. notuntil about 1944 whenthe Mk13 torpedo was upgraded. the mk 13 wa a real POS (piece of ****) It waa innacurate which was made up by being a dud most the time. The Battle of Leyte Gulf the Torpedo bomber came into its own. the Yamado (Yamato) biggest jap Battleship(sp) was sunk but 10 bombs and 7 torpedos from the Avengers using the upgraded improved torpedo. Come on. its not like you can have too many planes. Carrier base bombers for the US. F4F... F6F.. F4U.. SBD Dauntless and TBF Avenger. 5 planes. Yes the Hellcat was set up, eventually to carry torps but none ever did. You cant be historical if you leave out a big piece.

Czunik
12-15-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
It should also be pointed out that T-bombers were also used in bombing strikes on dry land. They were able to carry heavier loads than the SBD's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they have (TBF and Kate) bomb-sights ! At least in WarBirds it's strategic importance was great.

aminx
12-15-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by taly01:
B5N cockpit? You mean one of these http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

]

http://www.aerosim.co.jp/img/product/cfs2/sango/97panel_hp2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not the freeware MIDWAY PROJECT kate panel right?Its not AKEMI?if not is it a freeware from japan and can i have the link
please?
aminx

Lewicide
12-15-2004, 06:34 PM
I don't know which project it is from or its 'ware status, I downloaded it as a CFS2 pit from a Japanese site OneGPilotsClub at this link;

http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~LD-REP/OneGPilotsClub.htm

then go to the link second from the top left of the page (tan CD) and you get the panels page, its in the Japanese panels. Sorry for the long path but i had troubles getting the direct link.

Cheers

Lewicide
12-15-2004, 06:45 PM
Oops!
sorry it's a actually a different B5N panel, similar sight etc.

Cheers

Sakai9745
12-16-2004, 06:15 AM
Does anyone know if Droopsnoot is still around. Just curious about what his duties were when he was involved as consultant for the various projects he was involved with. At this time, the Kate and the Devastator are amongst the more difficult planes to fully develop as there are no intact surviving examples. All we have are pictures and, if lucky, design schematics.

Just asking because I would be willing to commit myself to attempting to contact individuals with actual experience in these aircraft for consulting purposes, much as when MS got together with Saburo Sakai for their CFS2's Zero, or Drrop for The Mighty Eighth (he was involved with that game, right?). They could at least lend their experiences to confirming the flight characteristics and the loook of the aircraft and panel.

Just an offer if everyone is deadly serious about trying to implement these two birds in PF.

aminx
12-16-2004, 08:57 AM
ATT SAKAI
----------
KATE DEVASTATOR COCKPITS
------------------------

The forum is a year old soon and i dont know how often you take a look.Below is a resume,

DAY ONE OF FORUM OPENING:
I personally become the 3rd person to place a thread and my question is will there be the flyable Devastator Avwenger and Kate?The question is directed directly to Luthier who wont reply and so i repeat it until he finally answers saying "are you going to go on repeating the same question?"strange right?Well that was my first signe that there was something wrong.

Months later:
Members ask the same question and rumours, nothing official, start invading the forum with
1)Not enough documentation.
2)Takes too long to make.
3)No exemplary left for a walk around.
4)If we cant produce one for one side we cant have it for the other,and all sorts of tall stories.
5)the developers remain tight lipped.
Three-four months later:
We find out that the full documentation on the Kate,Jill etc.is available through the Maru books 30usd each+- so one member of the forum purchases same,contacts 1C company and sends them all the scans they need.Since then 1C has never come back making some official announcement wether they are now satisfied and wether it is in the programme or sent on to an independant developer.So the documentation they do have.
Devastator:
More or less same argument,they have the full documentation and the member who sent them was on the forum with the news and links for the tech drawings.
Netwings Dev club:
Untrustworthy and a shambles.
Avenger:
As you know they are still flying in the USA.

Conclusion:
It was evident right from the start that Luthier the person in charge of the project never had any intentions to include these planes in the sim and he never changed his mind,the intention really was an add on sim and not a fully blown pacific hystorically correct stand alone job.This was evident almost 3 months after the anouncement was made and soon after he dissapeared completely from the scene for various known reasons which i will not list here.
Where do we go from here?
I dont know,there is no one left at the hyperlobby,i am not playing the game nor building missions because of the missing torp planes which where present in every battle and campaign.I am still following this forum with the hope of a miracle happening and i have scouted around and found no other sim in development,very sad indeed.
I hope the above is of use to you.
bye
aminx

JG51Beolke
12-16-2004, 09:52 AM
Is there anyone who can make the girl in Hookech0's sig and noseart, Please !!!!! ?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DRB_Hookech0
12-16-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Is there anyone who can make the girl in Hookech0's sig and noseart, Please !!!!! ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you could just ask me. I find she is a little too tall for the nose of a F4U, by the time you get her scaled down to fit, the image falls apart.

Sakai9745
12-16-2004, 12:57 PM
Thx for the input aminx. T'would be a shame if that is the case. Short of an spoken 'no' from Luthier (I missed that one), however, I'm still hopeful.

What can I say, I can be hardheaded sometimes (helps to offset this - hammer: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif). Much more than my previous Superfort-want, I am very passionate about the inclusion of the flyable-versions of these types. Yes, I have been watching the boards and waiting. You last post is closest I've come thus far to a definitive 'no'.

Until I get unadulterated confirmation from the source that the flyable carrier-based torpedo bomber is a no no, I will continue to lobby for these birds and try to help in any way that I can to further their development. Like you said, they were amongst the core elements of both the US and Japan in the Pacific Theater of Ops in WW2, and it's clear that many people agree.

For those interested, I just got the ball rolling on my end. As of today:


1. Contact has been established with the NASM/Archives Dept in DC. They are currently researching their records for any blueprints, schematics, and photos of both the TBD-1 and B5N2. They are much more sure that they can get this kind of info on the former than the latter. A secondary request was made for data pertaining to the flight characteristics of these aircraft.

2. An inquiry has been sent out to my local Japanese Embassy in an attempt to start tracking down the same for the B5N2. I am not sure if Nakajima even exists in this day and age, and am hopeful that the embassy can at least point me in the right direction.

3. Additional inquiries to be sent to the following; Planes of Fame in Chino for access to their Avenger for photographic record taking, NASM for access to their Jill for same purpose, and the National Archives in DC for data on all four aircraft.

JG51Beolke
12-16-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Is there anyone who can make the girl in Hookech0's sig and noseart, Please !!!!! ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you could just ask me. I find she is a little too tall for the nose of a F4U, by the time you get her scaled down to fit, the image falls apart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's alright, I'd put her on a Bomber........She'd fit a B-25 very nicely.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

aminx
12-16-2004, 01:30 PM
Att SAKAI
http://www.j-aircraft.com/main/newkits/b5nbk.htm

These are some of the books that were sent to them.
aminx

aminx
12-16-2004, 01:58 PM
sakai

You better read rocket dogs thread above,this is bad news indeed.
aminx

SKULLS_Exec01
12-16-2004, 02:54 PM
I used to volunteer at the flying leatherneck aviation museum in So Cal and we also have this one: http://home.pacbell.net/flhf/avengerpage.html and I emialed Olegs group that I had full access to the real plane, the manuals we have and offered to make copies and take pictures of what every they needed.
(the planes not fully restored but a lot of it is still there...)
I never heard one single word from them (not even a no thanks)- I got the same great communication others have posted about...

So its not that they can't get the info - its that they don't want it or need it!!!

This is not to blame them - its their game and they can put or not put in what ever they want - but a simple post that said "Its Pacific FIGHTERS, not Pacific BOMBERS get it", would be all thats needed...

And I'm with everyone else - just hoping that they don't need this info because they already had it and these planes will be included in the next patch.

aminx
12-16-2004, 03:19 PM
SKULL$
The efforts and costs of everyone elses contributions met with the same ending as yours, if not worse.
aminx

icrash
12-16-2004, 03:59 PM
Bummer, guess this means I get to paint red circles on an A-20 and figure out to get it off a carrier wearing a torp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

Sakai9745
12-16-2004, 09:30 PM
I read the posts you mentioned earlier - what an absolute pain. What is it with this stuff???