Battle of Midway 1942 Plane Set (By me).

[StaB/Tomio_VR***]

The nearest islands with airfield of Midway are Wake and Pearl Harbour but very far away

do you expect devs to make something not realistic and put those islands closer ?

Edited October 1, 2016 by 64sTomio

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I know that my writing skills in English are somewhat limited, but I thought I made it rather clear with this one. So which part of this you did not understand ?

 

 

 

I'd hope and expect more than one map of which at least one would actually include some land with airfields. 

 

 

So except for Midway map, there could be a map of central Solomon Islands or something else, whatever sounds suitable. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

This topic is funny : Midway occured in 1942, not 1943

 

Also you don't make a difference between IJN and IJA planes

 

did you think about where Betty/Sally will take off from cos they don't take off from a carrier and there is no island with a strip around...

 

 

 

I love trolls

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

In Jason's request for references there is a hint of what the possible Japanese plane set might be. It's interesting mostly because there is a scout/float plane in the request for the F1M2 Pete. Though not final or confirmed, the request for references on this bird strongly suggest it's inclusion.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29478-japanese-airplane-reference-materials/

Edited May 26, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Arsenal53]

Mostly agree with the planeset, but on the US side there were more B-17 E bombers involved on the battle than B-26 and there are two omissions : the SB2U vindicator and the TBF Avenger. And on the japanese side i think its better to replace the Sally and Claude by the E8N2 type 95  "Dave " and E13A1 type 0 "Jake" who played a dramatic and major role in this great battle.

 

obviously, if the actual format of planeset is kept (ten plane) this planeset cannot be achieved and will remain unfinished as the other theatre

[Gambit21]

The B-17 was insignificant to say the least - a total non-factor, and is about the last plane you can expect...probably ever.

[Feathered_IV]

The planeset is good for the most part, but I would not recommend the Ki-21, as it does nothing he G4M doesn't do already.  It's just a different shape and does nothing to further the gameplay options.  I would suggest a ship-launched floatplane like the E13a or F1M series.  Something the player can launch from a cruiser and perform reconnaissance or artillery spotting duties with.  The ability to land next to the parent ship and be hoisted back aboard (think of the old TB3 & Zveno fighter mechanic of the last Il-2 series) would give the whole process extra appeal.

[JG4_dingsda]

The planeset is good for the most part, but I would not recommend the Ki-21, as it does nothing he G4M doesn't do already.  It's just a different shape and does nothing to further the gameplay options.  I would suggest a ship-launched floatplane like the E13a or F1M series.  Something the player can launch from a cruiser and perform reconnaissance or artillery spotting duties with.  The ability to land next to the parent ship and be hoisted back aboard (think of the old TB3 & Zveno fighter mechanic of the last Il-2 series) would give the whole process extra appeal.

Exactly what I thought when looking at the planeset. -> +1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I still dont understand whats so intriguing about floatplanes. Particularly as bad performing as Jake or Pete. They dont have any air fighting capability, nor bombing. The only thing they can do is reconnaissance which they performed pretty bad due to limited range and speed. Japanese figured that themselves and used B5Ns as well as new D4Y to perform such duties. In my opinion it will end up as a curiosity, interesting but having little to no use and standing there in the hangar. Considering that with every expansion we get only ten aircraft I just feel like each of them should be a valuable addition. 

[ZachariasX]

I still dont understand whats so intriguing about floatplanes. Particularly as bad performing as Jake or Pete. They dont have any air fighting capability, nor bombing. The only thing they can do is reconnaissance which they performed pretty bad due to limited range and speed. Japanese figured that themselves and used B5Ns as well as new D4Y to perform such duties. In my opinion it will end up as a curiosity, interesting but having little to no use and standing there in the hangar. Considering that with every expansion we get only ten aircraft I just feel like each of them should be a valuable addition.

 

+1

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

B-17 performance at Midway was dismal to say the least and Jason/Han have already said on several occasions that the heavies are not on the foreseeable horizon. As to float planes/ flying boats; the theater and water dynamics just cry out for them. That and I wants me some PBY from this DEV team. Mmmhnn!

 

To be fair, we struggle to find a Japanese counterpart and that's why we default to less capable AC on that side to complement the Cat..

[Gambit21]

Float planes are just cool - I have a soft spot for them.

There's something satisfying about taking off and landing on water.

I had great fun with the Rufe in the old IL2

 

A recon mission in a poorly performing Japanese float plane who's survival depends on avoiding contact with the enemy?

Bring it!

[xvii-Dietrich]

I still dont understand whats so intriguing about floatplanes. Particularly as bad performing as Jake or Pete. They dont have any air fighting capability, nor bombing. The only thing they can do is reconnaissance which they performed pretty bad due to limited range and speed. Japanese figured that themselves and used B5Ns as well as new D4Y to perform such duties. In my opinion it will end up as a curiosity, interesting but having little to no use and standing there in the hangar. Considering that with every expansion we get only ten aircraft I just feel like each of them should be a valuable addition.

 

 

 

 

TLDR:   I disagree.

 

 

 

Disclaimer:   I like seaplanes.

Yes, seaplanes are generally slow, partly due to floats/hull design, but also because they were built for flight economy. Thus I disagree that all seaplanes had limited range. To the contrary, seaplanes are renowned for their endurance and range. (The longest multiplayer flight I've ever done was 11h04m in a Vickers Canso.)

 

The seaplane role is different, not limited. Reconnaissance, maritime patrol, search-and-rescue and liaison are the main uses. The larger seaplanes have a bombing and transport capacity.

 

In game mechanics for photo-recon, radio-reports of ships being spotted and the ability to rescue downed airmen would all provide new game-play than the usual combat-flight-sim-stuff. Seaplanes add operational versatility and make the missions and scenarios more diverse. It is more valuable to add richness to the sim with new roles, rather than having just-one-more-fighter. And, to counter the "curiosity" argument, surely every second-rate fighter is in exactly the same situation, but without something unique to do.

 

Seaplanes have the ability to "land" is so many different places. Wouldn't it be cool to touch-down along side a floatplane tender and get hauled on board? This makes them easier to find safe places to set down when returning injured, and allows mission builders the option of a plethora of sites for liaison and transport.

 

Then there are the launching places. Couldn't you imagine being catapulted off a battleship or heavy cruiser? Or taxiing out along a river lined with mangroves? Or rolling down a sandy beach under the palm trees to take-off across clear blue water?

Seaplanes are also different in appearance. Frankly, the 109s all look the same to me. Especially at a distance. It is nice to see a different silhouette out there for a change.

 

Seaplanes are also stable and easy to handle. This makes them great aircraft for learning. I flew the Hansa-Brandenburg W12 a lot in Rise of Flight, and it is a superb aircraft for getting started and teaching newcomers.

 

Running a seaplane gives a different mission experience. You learn to water-taxi, manage the step, experience vaning, weigh anchor, etc.. The different sights and sounds of the shoreline make for a change from the usual airfield routine. You get to experience a lot more of the map this way. And get to see close-up the fantastic detail of the naval units that are being created for the Midway setting. The single-player missions could be drastically different from the regular fighter sorties. This allows for creativity, new challenges and the opportunity for compelling story-lines.

 

I agree that they would not be the mainstay of any server, nor be the routine go-to-aircraft for the majority of players. However, even in small numbers they serve an important niche that add to the overall environment. I would draw a comparison to the Ju52. To re-use your words: "They dont have any air fighting capability, nor bombing". True. But the ability to do canister drops, parachute-assaults and transport -- along with their iconic appearance -- adds so much to the sim that yet-another-fighter would ever achieve. I hope all agree that the Ju52 is an important part of the IL-2:BoX series. I assert that the seaplanes would likewise become a cornerstone of the franchise.

 

At the moment, there has only been one hint at the production of a seaplane by the developers. This is the Mitsubishi F1M "Pete" (REF). But hopefully, there will be others... USA, German and Soviet - to follow. PBY-Catalina, SOC-Seagull, OS2U Kingfisher, Ju52, CANT Z506, etc., let alone all the other Japanese ones! But even a single floatplane, no matter how weak, would be superb.

 

Seaplanes are cool.

 

< / rant >

 

[TG-55Panthercules]

I think that the P-38 would be an absolute must-have plane for the basic plane set for Battle of Midway 1943 - in fact, it's really the only US plane they would need, IIRC:

 

[Cloyd]

Just give me a Wildcat, preferably a F4F-3, and I'll be a happy man. I wonder which will come first, the Clod Martlett or the BoM Wildcat?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, seaplanes are generally slow, partly due to floats/hull design, but also because they were built for flight economy. Thus I disagree that all seaplanes had limited range. To the contrary, seaplanes are renowned for their endurance and range. (The longest multiplayer flight I've ever done was 11h04m in a Vickers Canso.) The seaplane role is different, not limited. Reconnaissance, maritime patrol, search-and-rescue and liaison are the main uses. The larger seaplanes have a bombing and transport capacity. In game mechanics for photo-recon, radio-reports of ships being spotted and the ability to rescue downed airmen would all provide new game-play than the usual combat-flight-sim-stuff. Seaplanes add operational versatility and make the missions and scenarios more diverse. It is more valuable to add richness to the sim with new roles, rather than having just-one-more-fighter. And, to counter the "curiosity" argument, surely every second-rate fighter is in exactly the same situation, but without something unique to do. Seaplanes have the ability to "land" is so many different places. Wouldn't it be cool to touch-down along side a floatplane tender and get hauled on board? This makes them easier to find safe places to set down when returning injured, and allows mission builders the option of a plethora of sites for liaison and transport.   Then there are the launching places. Couldn't you imagine being catapulted off a battleship or heavy cruiser? Or taxiing out along a river lined with mangroves? Or rolling down a sandy beach under the palm trees to take-off across clear blue water? Seaplanes are also different in appearance. Frankly, the 109s all look the same to me. Especially at a distance. It is nice to see a different silhouette out there for a change. Seaplanes are also stable and easy to handle. This makes them great aircraft for learning. I flew the Hansa-Brandenburg W12 a lot in Rise of Flight, and it is a superb aircraft for getting started and teaching newcomers. Running a seaplane gives a different mission experience. You learn to water-taxi, manage the step, experience vaning, weigh anchor, etc.. The different sights and sounds of the shoreline make for a change from the usual airfield routine. You get to experience a lot more of the map this way. And get to see close-up the fantastic detail of the naval units that are being created for the Midway setting. The single-player missions could be drastically different from the regular fighter sorties. This allows for creativity, new challenges and the opportunity for compelling story-lines. I agree that they would not be the mainstay of any server, nor be the routine go-to-aircraft for the majority of players. However, even in small numbers they serve an important niche that add to the overall environment. I would draw a comparison to the Ju52. To re-use your words: "They dont have any air fighting capability, nor bombing". True. But the ability to do canister drops, parachute-assaults and transport -- along with their iconic appearance -- adds so much to the sim that yet-another-fighter would ever achieve. I hope all agree that the Ju52 is an important part of the IL-2:BoX series. I assert that the seaplanes would likewise become a cornerstone of the franchise. At the moment, there has only been one hint at the production of a seaplane by the developers. This is the Mitsubishi F1M "Pete" (REF). But hopefully, there will be others... USA, German and Soviet - to follow. PBY-Catalina, SOC-Seagull, OS2U Kingfisher, Ju52, CANT Z506, etc., let alone all the other Japanese ones! But even a single floatplane, no matter how weak, would be superb.   Seaplanes are cool.

 

 

Which does not contradict my point. There are some very useful and interesting floatplanes and some of them have top notch characteristics, but I was specifically referring to E13A Jake, F1M Pete or E8N2 Dave. I dont mind seaplanes in general but something useful should be picked, frankly I find PBY the most appealing and interesting machine to be added. But there is no comparable Japanese design since their flying boats to maintain even greater range, bombing and torpedo capability but also some transporting capabilities, had four engines. And we're not getting any four engine machines any time soon. 

Which means that whether Jake, Dave or Pete are picked ... they will be of lesser value then P-40 is right now.

 

Sidenote, there were no Petes in Main Body force at Midway. IJN Tone and Chikuma both carried 3 E13A1s and 2 E8N2s, IJN Haruna and Kirishima carried 3 E8N2s. IJN Nagara had one E11A1. The only Petes were present at Seaplane Tender group - Chitose had 16 F1Ms and 4 E13As and Kamikawa Maru had 8 F1Ms and 4 E13As. You might as well add then H6Ks which were also part of operation, 18 flying boats belonging to 14th Ku were stationed at Jaluit and Wotje and 6 assigned to Midway Expeditionary Force awaited at Jaluit capture of Midway. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[sniperton]

 

The seaplane role is different, not limited. Reconnaissance, maritime patrol, search-and-rescue and liaison are the main uses. The larger seaplanes have a bombing and transport capacity.

In game mechanics for photo-recon, radio-reports of ships being spotted and the ability to rescue downed airmen would all provide new game-play than the usual combat-flight-sim-stuff. Seaplanes add operational versatility and make the missions and scenarios more diverse. It is more valuable to add richness to the sim with new roles, rather than having just-one-more-fighter. And, to counter the "curiosity" argument, surely every second-rate fighter is in exactly the same situation, but without something unique to do.

 

Yep, but for a seaplane to be functional you also have to add all the those new features to game mechanics, which means that properly implementing a seaplane requires two or three times more development and testing time. The same applies to carrier based aircrafts, which require the game mechanics to be reworked thoroughly (carriers are very sophisticated airfields moving on water). I think the devs won't risk doing two major developments at the same time. I think seaplanes could be added to Kuban after its release and before Midway is being worked on, or after Midway when the carrier-based game mechanics is already working flawlessly. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by sniperton

[xvii-Dietrich]

I dont mind seaplanes in general but something useful should be picked, frankly I find PBY the most appealing and interesting machine to be added.

 

Sorry, if I misunderstood. Perhaps I was thrown when you started with: "I still dont understand whats so intriguing about floatplanes."

 

I do not want to defend the choice of any particular individual model. The PBY and OS2U seem the good choices to me. But I still support having some Japanese seaplane of some description. And I would contend that the addition of a seaplane of some description would be a valuable addition to the IL2 series, offering mission options that are impossible with other types.

 

 

 

Yep, but for a seaplane to be functional you also have to add all the those new features to game mechanics, which means that properly implementing a seaplane requires two or three times more development and testing time.

 

Agreed.  This is a more compelling argument that "seaplanes are useless". It is clear from the fact it is "Battle of Midway" that carriers will get the priority. The devs have also said that there will be no seaplanes in Kuban or floats on the Ju52 (*sob*).

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

My seaplane tech thread is a direct result of this thread.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30335-midway-and-seaplane-tech/page-1

 

It's not the four engines, per se, that are limiting but AI scripts for the crew. The H6K has the same number of crew as a PBY. Neither has a ton of defensive positions which would eat up AI scripting like a B-17 would. If we get a Cat there's no technical reason to not get the Mavis as well.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

And it can carry a Mk.13 Torpedo

I hope that the Torpedo mechanics are as such that this video below would be more than relevant:

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Te6qsBKmI

 

 

 

 

Oh and here is the new set:

 

 

 

Yep, this is the one. No more edits required.......

[xvii-Dietrich]

Yep, this is the one. No more edits required.......

..... apart from the fact that this is not the usual 8+2 format.

[Gambit21]

Just addition of that Betty would make so many more scenarios possible, even using the Kuban map as a stand-in.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

..... apart from the fact that this is not the usual 8+2 format.

I think the line makes the intent 8+2, the B-26 and Betty as collectors.

[TG-55Panthercules]

I think the line makes the intent 8+2, the B-26 and Betty as collectors.

 

No, the line makes it 10 + 2. If you wanted to stick with the traditional 8 + 2, that would make the PBY and the Sally the collector planes, with the B-26 and Betty being 2 extra collector planes.

Edited July 31, 2017 by TG-55Panthercules

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Essentially what I meant. Above the line would be the premium Midway release, no multiengine is the standard but it's all conjecture within conjecture at this point anyway. I still like this planeset the most so far.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Loading up the planeset with lots and lots of (complex) multiengine aircraft is not realistic to me. There are a lot of 2 seaters as is leaving out the medium bombers. 

[MaxGM]

I'm frankly quite excited about the Pacific !

I gotta admit that the B-25 will be missed in the begining. From what I read and remember there weren't mitchells at the battle of Midway, but the perspective of flying this legendary aircraft and reenact a "Doolittle" style raid in MP is so appealing 

[sniperton]

Let me start with the American and Japanese aircraft inventory at Midway:

 

Essential planes:

F4F: 79 on carriers + 7 in Midway

SBD: 113 on carriers + 16 in Midway

TBD: 42 on carriers

 

Possible planes:

TBF: 6 in Midway – small numbers and marginal role in the battle, but since it’s the successor to the TBD, it would be an ’investment in the future’ and therefore worth doing

PBY: 38 in Midway – it’s gameplay value is questionable, and making a flying boat takes more development time, but it can be widely used in many future scenarios as well, so I think it’s worth the effort, at least as a collector plane

F2A: 20 in Midway – apart from sentimental reasons I’m not sure it’s worth doing, unless it is done together with export variants AND if we can also expect another early map where it can be flown e.g. against Oscars; in the Midway scenario, it could be easily substituted with F4Fs (it would not turn the tide having 27 Wildcats instead of 20 Buffalos + 7 Wildcats against 108 Japanese planes including 36 Zeros)

 

Undesirable planes:

SB2U: 11 in Midway – played only a marginal role and was already being withdrawn from service in those days

B-26: 4 in Midway – played only a marginal role in the battle and it’s later use in the Pacific was also limited; it could be created for other maps, but has no place here IMO

B-17: 19 in Midway – 4-engine with several battle stations, a no-go as declared

 

Nagumo’s fleet:

 

Essential planes:

A6M: 84

D3A: 84

B5N: 93

 

Undesirable planes:

F1M: 4 (Chikuma and Tone) – in their role they can be easily substituted with B5Ns

D4Y: 2

E8N: 1 (Haruna)

 

As you see, we have 3–3 essential planes for both sides, and 3 possible planes which are all American. There are no other Japanese planes that could be reasonably included in a Midway scenario.

 

On top of that, we already have the P-40 and the Spitfire Vb, and by the release of Midway we will also have the P-39 and the A-20, which all saw some combat in the Pacific on the Allied side.

 

I could easily imagine a Midway And Something release with a second map and an asymmetric planeset in favour of the Japanese. I’d vote for the 6 essential Midway planes and 2 IJA planes (1 fighter and 1 light bomber), and would add the Catalina and a Japanese medium bomber as collector planes.

 

But if the devs want to keep the symmetry of the planeset, I still would like to trade the A5M for the Ki-43. Together with the P-40 and the F2A (and the Sally or the Betty) it would open up new campaign possibilities.

[xvii-Dietrich]

{{citation needed}}

 

 

Nice summary, sniperton but, seriously, you should state your sources and references for those numbers.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Nice summary, sniperton but, seriously, you should state your sources and references for those numbers.

What difference does it really make ?

 

 

 

I could easily imagine a Midway And Something release with a second map and an asymmetric planeset in favour of the Japanese. I’d vote for the 6 essential Midway planes and 2 IJA planes (1 fighter and 1 light bomber), and would add the Catalina and a Japanese medium bomber as collector planes.   But if the devs want to keep the symmetry of the planeset, I still would like to trade the A5M for the Ki-43. Together with the P-40 and the F2A (and the Sally or the Betty) it would open up new campaign possibilities.

Thing is ... if you dont get any other map than Midway than those aircraft would have nowhere to land. Ki-43 could maybe land if it approaches real slow and carrier cranks up speed to 34 knots or something like that but else ...

 

All depends what comes with Midway.  

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

I'm hoping they might throw Wake in there. AI G3Ms. For Midway they could add Kure with a small airstrip for non historical scenarios.

[sniperton]

@ Dietrich:

My source was the Osprey book uploaded by szelljr here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29478-japanese-airplane-reference-materials/page-2

Dunno how correct the numbers are, I'm not a historian, but it gives you a fair idea what they had in numbers and what not.

 

@ Hiromachi:

You're right, my summary was a suggestion or 'request'. With a well chosen planeset and an extra map the Midway release could be much more than pure Midway. From an SP perspective Midway is a one-day wonder, it can hardly be longer than a six-mission operation, no matter whatever side you fly. I'm pretty sure that you for instance can tell us what other map(s) could be considered to fly all or most of those planes in a historically relevant setting in a longer campaign. Compared to the complexity of the Kuban map, neither Midway, nor a larger area in Burma, Borneo, New-Guinea, or the Solomons seem to be too pretentious. We only need some scattered runways in the jungle surrounded by the see.

 

[xvii-Dietrich]

 

Nice summary, sniperton but, seriously, you should state your sources and references for those numbers.

What difference does it really make ?

 

 

 

I know that sniperton didn't pluck the numbers out of thin-air. He's pretty reliable and is likely to have found a reasonable source. By saying what that source is, a) we get to find out and b) it encourages others to do the same. Although some of you know Midway like the back-of-your-hand, I certainly do not. That said, I'm keen to find out, and that means learning the sources.

 

As it turned out, it was one of the sources in this thread, that I had seen earlier. However, it might have been something difference. Regardless, it has made me go back and double check the source again. That makes a difference, sure.

 

 

 

@ Dietrich:

My source was the Osprey book uploaded by szelljr here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29478-japanese-airplane-reference-materials/page-2

Dunno how correct the numbers are, I'm not a historian, but it gives you a fair idea what they had in numbers and what not.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[sniperton]

My point is that Midway alone is simply not enough to make up a game. You hit or not, it'll be over after a few missions. Players need something comparable to BoM and BoS, where the battle is not resolved by hitting Soryu or Kaga.

[Alexmarine]

My point is that Midway alone is simply not enough to make up a game. You hit or not, it'll be over after a few missions. Players need something comparable to BoM and BoS, where the battle is not resolved by hitting Soryu or Kaga.

I am also puzzled about how the career mode can be played out with such a small scenario...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I am also puzzled about how the career mode can be played out with such a small scenario...

Simply, it won't be. What the other areas will be has not been stated but Jason has a pretty good handle on the direction of this endeavor. Have a little faith.

[VeryOldMan]

Waaait, that source is some aces high scenario, isnt it ? 

There were no A6M3s during the battle, closest would be A6M3 model 32 of which production started somewhere before June 14th, 1942. A6M3 model 22 was not present until end of 1942 (production started somewhere around December 1942).

Thus, if something Spektre, there could be A6M3 model 32 (with clipped wings) in your setup

Considerign the pacific battles were  so much shorter than the  eastern front  battles   I think we may very well  be a bit less strict about timeframes. Allowing that plane woudl be  less weird than the FW on the original  BOS.

My point is that Midway alone is simply not enough to make up a game. You hit or not, it'll be over after a few missions. Players need something comparable to BoM and BoS, where the battle is not resolved by hitting Soryu or Kaga.

That can be made  with an "early pacific" title and then  2 years later a late pacific title.

 

Problem is to find a name more catchy than "Battle of the early pacific  months "

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

The Battle of the Rising Sun 

[VesseL]

PBY is a must, I'd actually drop B-26 in favor of SB2U or F2A-3

Yes, favor especially the f2a-3, so we could use it for Isthmus map( the LLv guys are thinking it already im sure) also. Smart!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

We must be getting closer to hearing what the actual/official planeset is relatively soon. Ninety days or less I'd think. Pretty exciting.