PDA

View Full Version : The Menace of the Pacific?



Eagle1_Division
09-06-2006, 10:13 AM
I havn't gotten the game working online so i decided i'd start practicing the planes i'd use, i made a quick-build mission, im in a A6M-21 and there are 2 avengers, 4 SBD's. The SBD's are in-flight so i chase after them and... A: i can hardly catch up B: my plane is ripped to shreds in seconds while it takes all my cannon to kill the enemy in hits.

Iv'e heard that during WWII the zero was a ferocuos and feared plane, whatever happend made it pretty much a chew toy...

Eagle1_Division
09-06-2006, 10:13 AM
I havn't gotten the game working online so i decided i'd start practicing the planes i'd use, i made a quick-build mission, im in a A6M-21 and there are 2 avengers, 4 SBD's. The SBD's are in-flight so i chase after them and... A: i can hardly catch up B: my plane is ripped to shreds in seconds while it takes all my cannon to kill the enemy in hits.

Iv'e heard that during WWII the zero was a ferocuos and feared plane, whatever happend made it pretty much a chew toy...

Chuck_Older
09-06-2006, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eagle1_Division:
I havn't gotten the game working online so i decided i'd start practicing the planes i'd use, i made a quick-build mission, im in a A6M-21 and there are 2 avengers, 4 SBD's. The SBD's are in-flight so i chase after them and... A: i can hardly catch up B: my plane is ripped to shreds in seconds while it takes all my cannon to kill the enemy in hits.

Iv'e heard that during WWII the zero was a ferocuos and feared plane, whatever happend made it pretty much a chew toy... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you expect the Zero to be a fast, nimble, flying tank, you need to re-examine your expectations

Firstly, if you can't catch an SBD, that's pilot error http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Zero is not the fastest thing around true, but it's not so flat-footed that it can't catch a US dive bomber. I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but then again you don't give much detail

Second, the Zero is not a very tough plane. Contrary to popular beleif however, it had no wooden wing spars. Still, it's not a very robust machine. It's supposed to do the shooting, not get shot at. It's an aerial sword, not a suit of aerial armor. Sitting off the SBD's tail and shooting at it is perhaps not a good tactic. Shoot at it from underneath- your Zero has great climb. Use it

Lastly, if it takes a lot of cannon rounds to down an armored and strong US aircraft, you need to A) start getting better at hitting vulnerable areas, B) become a better marksman, C) stop shooting at the SBD's tail only, or D) realise that an armored target may absorb some damge, and that your lightweight nimble plane will by definition have limited ammo reserves

Sorry you're having trouble, but the way I interpret your troubles, what you're saying is that the Zero hasn't made you an expert, so it must suck

LEBillfish
09-06-2006, 10:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Dtools4fools
09-06-2006, 10:31 AM
Try to get above the target at distance of about 1000m. Then dive down, lower than the Dauntless und come up with high speed. Open fire not before (180-)150m distance. Don't stay but immediately zoom away and up. Once above again, get ready for next attack.


If you sit steady at the tail of Dauntless at 400-500m distance you will most likely hit nothing (did you see many flashes from cannon shell hits?) while the AI tailgunner will hit you and ruin your day.
****

VF2_Sarge
09-06-2006, 10:32 AM
Eagle:

Since I have been converted.

You might want to try changing your tacticts. The avengers and the SBD's have rear facing guns so you don't want to stay behind them for more than a few senconds. Use a Boom and Zoom tech. Try atttacking at an angle instead for straight at the 6 o'clock position. In the mission that you built, change the A6M to a Hellcat or other Allied aircraft and practice your runs. That way those rear gunner won't be taking pot shots at you while making you run. This will help you develope the leads that you need.

With respect to the Zero. At the begining of WWII the zero was a superior aircraft to anything the US had. It was faster, more manuverable and had better gunns,...ie 20mm cannons vs the 30 .cal and .50 cal machine guns. But with that there was a problem.

1. it was made of paper and wood. Later US aircraft came with armored cockpit which protected the pilots better.

2. During the last year of the war the Allied forces were able to cut off most of the supply lines going to Jap, thus less materials to make better planes.

3. Japan was fighting an industrial nation like the US, they were able to design, build, equipment, and man better aircraft and pilots than there Jap counter parts.

4. Near the end of the war Jap could barely put up any planes let alone experienced pilots to fight off the American fighters and bombers.

However I don't understand why you cannot play online. What verison are you running? IL2FB+ACES+PF+PE, PF stand alone?

Chuck_Older
09-06-2006, 10:37 AM
Paper and wood? Duralumin, with fabric control surfaces.

VF2_Sarge
09-06-2006, 10:42 AM
Ok....my fault..didn't I know I had to be so freak'in literal. But thats ok, if you want to continue to bash me while I'm try to help the poor guys that fine.

Eagle1 ...sorry the construction of the Zeros were... All-metal construction with fabric-covered control surfaces. I was only implying that they were fragile. If you want more spec I can provide them.

Happy Chuck?

LEBillfish
09-06-2006, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
1. it was made of paper and wood. Later US aircraft came with armored cockpit which protected the pilots better.

2. During the last year of the war the Allied forces were able to cut off most of the supply lines going to Jap, thus less materials to make better planes.

3. Japan was fighting an industrial nation like the US, they were able to design, build, equipment, and man better aircraft and pilots than there Jap counter parts.

4. Near the end of the war Jap could barely put up any planes let alone experienced pilots to fight off the American fighters and bombers.

However I don't understand why you cannot play online. What verison are you running? IL2FB+ACES+PF+PE, PF stand alone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. No, it was made of Duraluminum. Also, the early A6m series did not utilize armor or self sealing fuel tanks to improve on manueverability and range due to weight. Their logic being "if you fly right, only attack, attack, attack, you'll not need it". Later versions had it, yet by that time most armor in planes was relatively ineffective due to the power of rounds used.

2. No, the Japanese had materials making it to the home island yet manufacturing was slow and quality just coming up to speed. Materials used in planes by both sides remained essentially the same throught the war. Where Japan had real trouble was getting replacement parts and planes out to where needed.

3. The U.S. out manufactured them, design was par yet the "politics" involved hindered the process. Many aspects of Japanese design were quite innovative. Unfortunately, they had not the manufacturing know how to keep up or maintain consistant quality. In the end though the greatest detriment were the policies on how a plane should be dictated by the army and navy command...........As to pilots the Japanese were some of the best in the world, their tactics however based on individualism were sorely lacking.

4. Again, they had planes, yet the lions share were pulled back and hidden away to wait for the final battle that never came.

Chuck_Older
09-06-2006, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
Ok....my fault..didn't I know I had to be so freak'in literal. But thats ok, if you want to continue to bash me while I'm try to help the poor guys that fine.


Happy Chuck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ain't bashing you sarge. You posted it was made of something that it wasn't. This guy needs help like you say, but when you give him help and then post something erroneous about construction, the guy's gonna beleive you about it. You're way out of line here

LEBillfish
09-06-2006, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I ain't bashing you sarge. You posted it was made of something that it wasn't. This guy needs help like you say, but when you give him help and then post something erroneous about construction, the guy's gonna beleive you about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for the record, if you look about old threads here you'll find some very indepth detail.....Most often discussed, researched, debated, and documented also including supporting documentation and credits. The point often, is to have the sim be as close as is possible to how it was. To do that takes facts.

Though often just offhanded, please don't take offence when someone steps in with some supporting info even if contradictory. As Chuck mentions above, you'd be surprised at how many take a single wildly incorrect posting be it in jest or not and then start repeating it as gospel. Those quotes alone very probably generating 50+% of the threads here as what they heard is argued vs. how things really are or were with planes tactics, the sim, and so on.

It's not corrected to humiliate or insult, yet to perpetuate the facts.......So we all know.

KIMURA
09-06-2006, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eagle1_Division:
I havn't gotten the game working online............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Eagle for playing online U need to install the game(s) and the patches as follow:

1. Install FB
2. Install AEP
3. Install PF
4. Install Patch pf_patch303m.exe (100MB)
5. Install Patch pf_patch401m.exe (141MB)
6. Install Patch pf_v402m.exe (31MB)
7. Install Patch pf_patch403m.exe (155MB)
8. Install Patch pf_patch404m.exe (21.8MB)

<span class="ev_code_RED">click me for the patches</span> (http://www.3dgamers.com/games/pacificfighters/downloads/)
install the "m" version of the patches if U patch the merged version of the game.


after that I suggest do download the PE-2 Peshka payware to get the game version 4.05. Most guys who fly online have the game up to version 4.05.

for an easy access to online servers download
<span class="ev_code_RED">click me to get Hyperlobby</span> (ftp://www.txsquadron.com/HLClient/hlpro38101.zip)

KIMURA
09-06-2006, 02:26 PM
a side note:

Duraluminium was used on nearly all monocoque design of that time. Developed around 1910 or 1920 (out of my mind).

The Zero used ESD (Extra Super Duralumin) which was developed by the Sumimoto Metals Company - that ESD is to compare to todays AL7075 alloy. But in early days of WWII the handling of that new alloy suffered from problems while production, especially on extruding process.

actionhank1786
09-06-2006, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Just for the record, if you look about old threads here you'll find some very indepth detail.....Most often discussed, researched, debated, and documented also including supporting documentation and credits. The point often, is to have the sim be as close as is possible to how it was. To do that takes facts.

Though often just offhanded, please don't take offence when someone steps in with some supporting info even if contradictory. As Chuck mentions above, you'd be surprised at how many take a single wildly incorrect posting be it in jest or not and then start repeating it as gospel. Those quotes alone very probably generating 50+% of the threads here as what they heard is argued vs. how things really are or were with planes tactics, the sim, and so on.

It's not corrected to humiliate or insult, yet to perpetuate the facts.......So we all know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
haha, aint that the truth!
possibilities become "Oleg's sworn word" and someone with 1 post count dropping a wish become something that's comming in the next add on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Telephone game anyone?

VF2_Sarge
09-06-2006, 03:22 PM
Man tough crowd around these parts.

Any way, Eagle....with all the attention pointed in my direction because of past post that made some people angry or upset. I can only hope that your questions have all been answered.

VF2_Sarge
09-06-2006, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
1. it was made of paper and wood. Later US aircraft came with armored cockpit which protected the pilots better.

2. During the last year of the war the Allied forces were able to cut off most of the supply lines going to Jap, thus less materials to make better planes.

3. Japan was fighting an industrial nation like the US, they were able to design, build, equipment, and man better aircraft and pilots than there Jap counter parts.

4. Near the end of the war Jap could barely put up any planes let alone experienced pilots to fight off the American fighters and bombers.

However I don't understand why you cannot play online. What verison are you running? IL2FB+ACES+PF+PE, PF stand alone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. No, it was made of Duraluminum. <span class="ev_code_RED">And I think I corrected that statement already.</span> Also, the early A6m series did not utilize armor or self sealing fuel tanks to improve on manueverability and range due to weight. <span class="ev_code_RED">Never said that they did</span> Their logic being "if you fly right, only attack, attack, attack, you'll not need it". Later versions had it, yet by that time most armor in planes was relatively ineffective due to the power of rounds used.

2. No, the Japanese had materials making it to the home island yet manufacturing was slow and quality just coming up to speed. Materials used in planes by both sides remained essentially the same throught the war. Where Japan had real trouble was getting replacement parts and planes out to where needed. <span class="ev_code_RED">Like I said there supply lines were cut.</span>

3. The U.S. out manufactured them <span class="ev_code_RED">And I thin I said that to</span>, design was par yet the "politics" involved hindered the process. Many aspects of Japanese design were quite innovative. <span class="ev_code_RED">I wouldn't deny that. I would even second that.</span> Unfortunately, they had not the manufacturing know how to keep up or maintain consistant quality. In the end though the greatest detriment were the policies on how a plane should be dictated by the army and navy command...........As to pilots the Japanese were some of the best in the world, their tactics however based on individualism were sorely lacking. <span class="ev_code_RED">Not towards the end of the war like I stated. Near the end of the war they could barely get pilots that were old enough to fly let alone look over the instrument panels.</span>

4. Again, they had planes, yet the lions share were pulled back and hidden away to wait for the final battle that never came. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VF2_Sarge
09-06-2006, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
Ok....my fault..didn't I know I had to be so freak'in literal. But thats ok, if you want to continue to bash me while I'm try to help the poor guys that fine.


Happy Chuck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I ain't bashing you sarge. You posted it was made of something that it wasn't. This guy needs help like you say, but when you give him help and then post something erroneous about construction, the guy's gonna beleive you about it. You're way out of line here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry m8. Was kinda in the defensive mode from an earlier post. Please accept my apologies.

Eagle1_Division
09-06-2006, 07:20 PM
Wow, I make a post with a good name, have 1 busy day, come back, and there has been A LOT of talking going on!

I was thinking of attacking them from below b4 I left, never did, and I could tell that it is not very well armored, the A6Mb has a Wooden fuel tank, that doesn;t tell u much good about the armor of the plane.

As for catching up, Should i be using the thing where the rotors bend more?(the name slipped my tounge, was it feathering?) All I use is mix and throttle, AKA power. I slowwwly catch up, but not fast enough to do much good. as for the shooting them, i think i spoiled myself when i flew the Bf110 with gunpods right before i practiced the A6M.

And for playing online, i have all the patches, the "m" versions for my mixed install (i got FB and AEP then after a long time heard about PF and then merged them all). The problem is I go to the hyperlobby thing, download the client, not sure how to get an account(not that i tried very hard) but most of all i didn't c any FB+AEP+PF servers.

Did u c that "New PTO Server on Hyper Lobby" Post, looks and sounds fun, in the meantime, being a rookie i can practice my skip-bombing(Im doing dive bombing at the moment, but ive heard skip bombing is alot better) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Thats right, im going to be a F4U bomber, and a 2,000 lb monster, just 3 to sink a carrier, or do they just keep the game going and sink destroyers online? i simply have no idea...(I think i can get off the deck in a 2,00 :P i can't hardly get off the deck w/ 4000 lb's, and the uber AI w/out flaps at landing and all the other specialties can get off the carrier w/ 4000 lb's if the carrier's top speed, try it on FMB, U.S.S. Lexington, then try urself.)

staticline1
09-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Its more than possible to down an SBD using only the two 7.7 machine guns in the Zeke, try doing that against an allied SBD. Keep in mind the AI gunners can hit you from angles not possible to the player or in real life.

Eagle1_Division
09-06-2006, 08:45 PM
I figured out some things:
A. the max. takeoff payload of a F4U is a tiny 500 lbs! but it carries rockets.
B. Torpedo practice(A-20)
C. Skip bombing
D. How to prioritize Jap. ships b4 i hit them (destroyers) in the way to assist later attacks most, using the FMB. Want to know?
Heres a hint for FMB, look carefully at the 1941 destroyers, 1943, and 1945.
Do they allow u to use A-20G on carrier maps online?

JFC_Rautaristi
09-07-2006, 12:34 AM
You can take off with 2000lbs on a static carrier with F4U, but usually i use 2x500lbs and rockets, as i like to have some fuel with me as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Remember to taxi to the back of the deck.

R_Target
09-07-2006, 12:48 AM
Try attacking from the side. It takes practice, but if you stay off their wing, the AI can rarely shoot you. You can also try an overhead shot: climb about 1000ft above and ahead, roll inverted, and drop in on top of them. Again, it takes practice, but it's really fun when you get it right.

hi_stik
09-07-2006, 09:43 AM
Here's what you need to know about the Zero:

1. It was made of papier-mache and dried animal hides.

2. It was powered by a lawnmower engine, running on whale oil.

3. The gas tank was a series of treated whale bladders.

4. The control surfaces were made of human skin, taken from Chinese prisoners.

5. It's ANCHORMAN, not ANCHORLADY, and that is a scientific fact!!

Eagle1_Division
09-07-2006, 09:54 AM
lol, nice, it sure seems like that.

But taxing to the back of the U.S.S. Lexington? I havn't been able to...

VF2_Sarge
09-07-2006, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hi_stik:
Here's what you need to know about the Zero:

1. It was made of papier-mache and dried animal hides.

2. It was powered by a lawnmower engine, running on whale oil.

3. The gas tank was a series of treated whale bladders.

4. The control surfaces were made of human skin, taken from Chinese prisoners.

5. It's ANCHORMAN, not ANCHORLADY, and that is a scientific fact!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't say that around these parts. People will think that is true. I suggest you read more about the Zero and post all your findings here. LOL.

Chuck_Older
09-07-2006, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
Ok....my fault..didn't I know I had to be so freak'in literal. But thats ok, if you want to continue to bash me while I'm try to help the poor guys that fine.


Happy Chuck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I ain't bashing you sarge. You posted it was made of something that it wasn't. This guy needs help like you say, but when you give him help and then post something erroneous about construction, the guy's gonna beleive you about it. You're way out of line here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry m8. Was kinda in the defensive mode from an earlier post. Please accept my apologies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Np http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
09-07-2006, 10:38 AM
The zero was a fine aircraft. That said, it has been grossly overestimated as an aircraft in most histories. The constant repetition of the zero sweeping the skies of all-comers actually gets many to believe it. Same with the excellence of IJN pilots.

Yes, the plane was a good platform.

Yes, the IJN had excellent pilots---but so did the USN.

The reality is that faced with a surprised, inqdequately armed foe, the Zero did very well. Against determined, prepared enemies, it was at best an even match in RL, operational settings (1v1 is another issue, but RL was not usually 1v1). Take the P-40. Clearly the Zero is a better plane in many ways. In the Philipines, the P-40s were frequently defenseless to to gun problems, however (the guns were not even instralled when the japanese attacked, and the chargers were turned off due to the mistaken idea they caused problems so any jams were there until they landed). The USN, on the other hand, did pretty well vs the Zero from the beginning, slightly less well at Coral Sea, about even at Midway, and better than even at Guadalcanal. The First Team books document this in some detail.

tater

JG53Frankyboy
09-07-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The zero was a fine aircraft. That said, it has been grossly overestimated as an aircraft in most histories. The constant repetition of the zero sweeping the skies of all-comers actually gets many to believe it. .................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not to forgett it got not less from its reputation from Malaya too.
were the Commenwealth pilots alwasy reported Zeros when they met fighters without fixed gears. and that was at 99% Ki-43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it took some time till they saw the japanese had actually two fighters with such a gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
09-07-2006, 12:48 PM
Well, I've researched in great detail even rediculous aspects of Japanese planes, though focussed on the Ki-61, to discover the logic you must look at all others.

In reality, many of the Japanese designs, little taken forgranted things even like rivets and such were very innovative to much larger important things like fuel cell fire extinguisher systems, to even pressurized space suits.......

What was lacking was primarily 2 things.
1. A solid "experienced" industrial base able to manufacture in quantity and consistant quality what was designed.
2. Team tactics in combat.

As to 1, that's understandable, to develop and use manufacturing efficently from a primarily hand crafted society takes time.....Yet in no way detracts from the innovation especially from such a small base.

As to 2, in contrast to what we hear of todays Japanese, things were very individually driven. Now granted, orders may be given for X group to be a team, yet in the end it often worked out to a lot of individual efforts toward an end goal.

That translates to disaster.....Do not be fooled, the Japanese even till the end had some very skilled, talented, and experienced pilots. Yet team tactics and experience with them literally did them in.

Even here, as I would want more so in real life, I'll take a solid wingman or flight that is of average skills over an ace any day.

The Japanese had such success at first simply due to the "lack" of team tactics, inferior equipment, and lesser numbers of their opponents. In time, improved tactics alone even still with inferior equipment halted the advance.....As soon as equipment and numbers increased, exceeding the Japanese the deal was sealed.

Yet, the average allied pilot was not as experienced or skilled (not speaking to talent). Never the less tactics alone compensated....In time the Japanese slow to adjust were passed in all aspects.



When fighting an SBD, or any other plane here 1 vs. 1, it really is nothing more then knowing your plane and theirs, and suiting your "individual tactics" just like the Japanese did to that situation........Yet don't make their mistake, adjust your team tactics to really make the day.......(in this case having your AI both cover and attack as well).

An SBD can easily be taken out by the 7.7mm guns alone of a zero, and with not that many rounds......What the original poster here needs is simply experience.......A luxury only we have.

KIMURA
09-07-2006, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
not to forgett it got not less from its reputation from Malaya too.
were the Commenwealth pilots alwasy reported Zeros when they met fighters without fixed gears. and that was at 99% Ki-43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it took some time till they saw the japanese had actually two fighters with such a gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for Singapore it seems that the 22.Flottila had some A6M2 at Soc Trang during the final assault on the city. So Allied reports of Zero seems not that false.

Crash_Moses
09-07-2006, 01:02 PM
Oh, you poor misguided fool. You're supposed to be flying the SBD not the Zero! SBD is made of titanium and has a jet engine. Can't be shot down so don't even try...

That said, Pacific Conflict is an awesome server! Haven't been able to visit lately due to work and such but I always have a blast. I'll keep my eyes peeled for ya. Ol' Bessy and I will be happy to provide target practice for ya.

S!