Jump to content
Wolf8312

Be specific about why you want the pacific?

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Didn't the carriers have a homing beacon though ? I can already imagine my despair, when my instruments get shot up and lose my compass and radio direction instrument at the same time.

The carriers wouldn't have transmitted all the time though would they ?

 

http://aafradio.org/docs/YE-ZB.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bzc3lk said:

 

I guess there wouldn't have been any real harm in continuously transmitting considering the range was relatively small anyway. I wondered if there were concerns that the enemy may be able to triangulate their position

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, Wolf8312 said:

from a historical and aesthetic perspective it doesen't excite me anywhere near as much as maps like stalingrad, or Moscow.

 

For me the green atoll of hot paradise islands with a shallow green lagoon and tropical trees under deep blue sky is incomparably more visually attractive than the common cold steppe.

And huge fast battleships are more attractive than small slow tanks. 

And i'm not an American.

 

The Pacific is very diverse, there are tropical or volcanic islands, there are vastness of the ocean, there are areas of Indochina and Southeast Asia etc. It is far more diverse than just a steppe, colder or warmer.

 

I think that it affects us subconsciously, on the principle of some atavism, because natural conditions in many Pacific islands are ideal for human habitation.

That's why you send someone a postcard with a hot Island, not a cold steppe.

And that's why millions of people are going on holiday for hot tropical islands, swims in the water and lies under the palm trees , instead of going to Russian steppe :).

It is just pleasurable to look at stereotipical Pacific conditions.:salute:

Edited by bies
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

This is a great question that has always bothered me. I am sure there must have been some radio navigation, but I ignore the specifics. I would love to see the top  brass historical experts in this forum like  @Finkeren and others give a detailed answer on this.

I'm no expert in any way, but IIRC the signal range was much shorter than the operative range of the aircraft. I.e. airplanes had to navigate manually until they reached the vicinity of the carrier (60-100 miles, still beyond visual range) to be able to receive the homing signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings at a BOX level of detail.

 

That's enough for me. :cool:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ST_ami7b5 said:

Zero.
And then... Zero :)

 

 

And exchanging the tidy peacetime airfields of BoX for something that looks like this

 

OscAEE9.jpgNfEIoEc.jpgmnAYykN.jpg3Q5Ob0M.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sniperton said:

I'm no expert in any way, but IIRC the signal range was much shorter than the operative range of the aircraft. I.e. airplanes had to navigate manually until they reached the vicinity of the carrier (60-100 miles, still beyond visual range) to be able to receive the homing signal.

 

As far as I know, VOR-type signals can have a range of 400km or so, ADF considerably less. but maybe in the 40s the transmission power was much weaker. I would love to see some reference or hard data on this.

 

As far as operations, how was it done?  I doubt the transmission was left on all the time. Was it on only during specific times, in  sync with the estimated time of arrival? Was in intermitent,  say,  on for a few seconds then off for some minutes then on again etc?

 

If PTO is to become a thing,  this has to be modelled correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bies said:

 

I think that it affects us subconsciously, on the principle of some atavism, because natural conditions in many Pacific islands are ideal for human habitation.

That's why you send someone a postcard with a hot Island, not a cold steppe.

 

No, it's not because a thing is beautiful that it is harmless. Pacific islands aren't ideal for human beings, it's quite the contruary actually...

Edited by Eicio
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eicio said:

No, it's not because a thing is beautiful that it is harmless. Pacific islands aren't ideal for human beings, it's quite the contruary actually...

Yes, Mediterranean climate is perfect probably. You would not have a long life crashing on deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Anyway people stereotypically just like this picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bies said:

 

For me the green atoll of hot paradise islands with a shallow green lagoon and tropical trees under deep blue sky is incomparably more visually attractive than the common cold steppe.

And huge fast battleships are more attractive than small slow tanks. 

And i'm not an American.

 

The Pacific is very diverse, there are tropical or volcanic islands, there are vastness of the ocean, there are areas of Indochina and Southeast Asia etc. It is far more diverse than just a steppe, colder or warmer.

 

I think that it affects us subconsciously, on the principle of some atavism, because natural conditions in many Pacific islands are ideal for human habitation.

That's why you send someone a postcard with a hot Island, not a cold steppe.

And that's why millions of people are going on holiday for hot tropical islands, swims in the water and lies under the palm trees , instead of going to Russian steppe :).

It is just pleasurable to look at stereotipical Pacific conditions.:salute:

 

No you're right. The terrain in the pacific is beautiful so I can see why you think what I said doesent make alot of sense!

 

I guess I just remember pacific fighters. The thing that sticks with me most, was endless flights over endless blue oceans! I dont really remember myself enjoying those maps, so when I hear pacific I kinda think air craft carriers in the middle of the ocean more than I do rich tropical island terrain!

 

But I think the best point people have made so far, is even if we do get alot of those kinds of maps, I think solely for the sake of variation, and the addition of torpedo warfare, and heavy shipping attacks etc will make the pacific map a worthwhile endeavour.

 

So I'm pretty much sold on it! 

Edited by Wolf8312

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complementing the oceanic navigation used by the US in the pacific:

 

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/zb-1-radio-homing-adapter-and-security-cover

 

Interestingly, IL2 1946 depicted such a system! 

 

 

 

This kind of thing, in my humble opinion, is what justifies PTO as unique enough to deserve a go. 

 

EDIT:  two quotes from this interesting forum (http://ww2f.com/threads/carrier-aircraft-navigation-how-did-they-do-it.21172/😞

 

"My father was a carrier pilot in WW II, serving from 1941 until 1946 in the Pacific. He flew SBD's in 1942, was a flight instructor in the States for most of 1943, and returned to the Pacific flying F6F's from 1944 to 1946.

Over-water navigation was always one of the most difficult challenges that Navy pilots faced. Combined with weather which might change rapidly, navigational errors probably killed as many naval pilots as did the enemy. When flying from carriers, pilots were briefed on what courses to fly both outbound and inbound, and were advised of a "Point Option", which was the location the carrier expected to be at the time the pilots returned from their mission. 

Things sometimes happened to cause the carrier to alter it's plans and in that case it wouldn't be at "Point Option". In that case, the pilot had two options; conduct a search for the carrier with what fuel it had remaining, or hope to pick up the homing beacon each carrier operated.

All US carriers were equipped at the start of the war with a device called the YE-ZB. This was a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. If the pilot picked up a Morse "M" for instance and homed on it, then started picking up another letter, he would know he was moving an a tangential course in relation to the carrier; he would then turn and home on the strongest signal. Since this was a UHF device it worked better at higher altitudes. It wasn't extremely reliable and some pilots were better at using it than others, so pilots had differing levels of confidence in it.

Planes with multiple crew members, like SBD's and TBM's had an advantage in that the pilot could concemtrate on flying while a crew member was delegated to attend to navigation. Fighter pilots, of course, were most likely to become a victim of faulty navigation because they were by themselves, and air combat with enemy fighters would often cause them to become disoriented as to their location. My father once said he felt that perhaps as many as a quarter of all losses of carrier aircraft were due to the pilot becoming lost, but this, I think, was just a guess. In some exceptional cases, like Mitscher's command at the Battle of Philippine Sea, carriers might display lights at night to help lost pilots. In fact, Mitscher's task Groups not only displayed lights, they directed search lights straight upward, fired star shells, and turned on all deck lights on all ships, escorts included. This confused at least some of the returning pilots, at least one of whom made a landing approach on a destroyer."

 

 

Then this one:

 

"The old way: USN carrier pilots were generally pretty skilled at navigation. One took into account the mission parameters - - - go so far at such and so speed and on such and so bearing, do whatever you supposed to do, then go back on this or that bearing to find the ship. Each pilot had a plotting board for keeping track of where he was based on the mission parameters. Before taking off, with some notable historical exceptions, he would be given the location of "Point Option" - the location of where the ship expected to be at the end of the time allotted for the mission. So starting from a known point, time, bearing, and distance navigation to another point, do your business, and time, bearing, and distance to a pre-plotted point. 

The new way, as DA noted, was utilization of the YE-ZB homing system, developed by Frank Akers, which all USN carriers had at the start of the war. Without going into the boring details, this system used a morse code transmission of a particular letter for a particular bearing, a different letter for each 15 degree sector. This was a UHF line-of-sight system, so the higher you were the better. If the letter you were receiving changed, then you knew you were moving tangentially to the transmission point. You simply found the strongest signal and followed it back to the ship. In the early days of the war it was a fairly new system and some pilots were more proficient with it than others and those less proficient tended to be less believing. For example on the 4 May 42 Yorktown strike on Tulagi, there were 4 F4Fs very hurriedly sent off to deal with some F1Ms that were bothering the SBD and TBD strike planes. After performing their mission, shooting down 3 of the F1Ms, and shooting up a destroyer they happened upon, they started to head back to the ship. The division leader signaled for an increase in altitude to pick up the YE-ZB signal, but his section leader did not see the signal (although the section leader's wingman did). So the division leader and his wingman pulled up through the cloud layer, picked up the signal, and, after milling about a bit waiting for the other two, proceeded back to the ship. The section leader left behind had a problem, his radio did not work. His wingman's did. Eventually they came up through the clouds and the wingman picked up the YE-ZB signal. He also made radio contact with the ship and started flying a box pattern so the ship could get a good radio fix so to tell him which letter he should be listening for. Well, as far as the section leader was concerned, his wingman was flying in all sorts of odd directions for no apparent reason and finally signaled him to knock it off and then led the way back to Guadalcanal where they bellied in on Cape Henslow - - - with the wingman keeping a running commentary with the ship the whole time. Result was two of the ship's 18 F4Fs were lost for no apparent reason. The two pilots were rescued the next day through some extraordinary efforts by the crew of USS Hammann. Apropos of nothing else, I have the original flight instructions for this mission carried by the division leader. It clearly indicates the ship's location relative to Tulagi and the Point Option for the return. The division leader was clear in his recounting that the instructions would have gotten him back to the ship, but the YE-ZB was easier. 

Even worse happened at Midway when the VF-8 strike escort improperly used their YE-ZB and all 10 of them ended up ditched at various locations. Fortunately for some of them some rather diligent PBY crews managed to find and rescue 8 as I recall. This was a combination screw up in that the flight was not given a Point Option and their own unfamiliarity with the YE-ZB system sealed their fate. They actually saw the smoke of the US task group off to their north as they headed off into the expanse of the Pacific, but were so screwed up in their navigation that the leader presumed he was looking at the Japanese."

 

 

Edited by danielprates
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there's no snow.  OK, actually it's the planes, the geography and the carriers.  All of it in one package.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to see a Kongo class battleship. That would be a reason for an instant buy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read @danielprates
Does anyone know if there is a logic in the morse letters and which 15° they belong to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kissklas said:

Does anyone know if there is a logic in the morse letters and which 15° they belong to?

In IL-2 1946 each carrier on your side had its own code and it wasn't always the same from mission to mission.

Edited by US103_Furlow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB Presentation.pdf

 

With regard to Midway, I read somewhere that at low altitudes (where aircraft were limping home after battle) the effective range of the homing beacon didn't exceed 30 miles/48 kms. The YE-ZB was more to help pilots to find their nearby carrier in the dark, than to help them to navigate back to it from afar.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited. Japanese aviation during the war was pretty interesting, and oddly still misunderstood in many cases. 

 

The tough bit is that alot of the factors are out of sim level. i.e.: the zero having over twice the range of a modern multirole fighter,

horrible, horrible state of Japanese electronics and worthless radios, the USN's team tactical approach, etc.

 

I'm happy that 1c/777 are willing to risk losing money on a theater that for WW2 is pretty niche and sales data isn't kind to.

They've got my order. I'll support anyone making a PTO sim. I'll buy a 'Target for tonight" sim too with Lanc's and nachtjagd if you make it. just sayin.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solomon Islands and New Guinea. Looks beautiful and gorgeous.

Add some floatplanes/flying boat , C47-L2D and it is perfect.

 

Edited by TG1_Nil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers @US103_Furlow and @sniperton

 

Seems from the PDF that they changed it regularly to prevent the enemy decoding it, and writing it down on pilot cards each time. Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Float planes/flying boats - nothing else like them. I know better than to expect an Emily (my dream aircraft) but the Rufe is reasonable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kissklas said:

Seems from the PDF that they changed it regularly to prevent the enemy decoding it, and writing it down on pilot cards each time. Makes sense.

Yep, but it was not meant as an early substitute for GPS, it was just a "little help" to direct pilots to the the carrier when visibility was bad. When heading home, it was a constant dilemma whether to climb and to catch the signal from a greater distance, or to believe that the carrier will be where you think it should be, and not to expend precious fuel for climbing in the hope that you can reach that location.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Float planes/flying boats - nothing else like them. I know better than to expect an Emily (my dream aircraft) but the Rufe is reasonable.

 

I would prefer an Aichi E13A or an Aichi E16A for seaplanes. They could be used as proper recoinassance planes and as bombers too...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Master_Caution said:

I'm excited. Japanese aviation during the war was pretty interesting, and oddly still misunderstood in many cases. 

 

The tough bit is that alot of the factors are out of sim level. i.e.: the zero having over twice the range of a modern multirole fighter,

horrible, horrible state of Japanese electronics and worthless radios, the USN's team tactical approach, etc.

 

I'm happy that 1c/777 are willing to risk losing money on a theater that for WW2 is pretty niche and sales data isn't kind to.

They've got my order. I'll support anyone making a PTO sim. I'll buy a 'Target for tonight" sim too with Lanc's and nachtjagd if you make it. just sayin.

 

 

 

I don’t think you’ll get the Lanc’s but some twin engined night fighting could be really interesting if Jason can farm it out; Mosquito, P-61, 110 and 219. Especially if both cockpit positions can be manned cooperatively online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, Wolf8312 said:

So be specific why does everyone care so much about the pacific?

 

Seaplanes.

 

I definitely prefer the European theatre (Do 24, Ar 196 or Ju 52/3m W for instance), but I'm guessing either the Pacific or maybe FCv2 (v3?, v4?) is realistically the best chance for getting a seaplane into this game. If the Pacific, then any of E13A, SO3C, E7K, OS2U or F1M would be excellent, but there are some nice flying boats too, such as the Sunderland, H6K or Catalina.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the thoughts on ships for the Pacific?  Would the team have the resources to do each fleet properly, or would we be more likely to see a placeholder of four or five Enterprises, going up against a similar sized group of Akagis. Maybe one generic destroyer and cruiser for each side, and a shared merchant ship with different skins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

What’s the thoughts on ships for the Pacific?  Would the team have the resources to do each fleet properly, or would we be more likely to see a placeholder of four or five Enterprises, going up against a similar sized group of Akagis. Maybe one generic destroyer and cruiser for each side, and a shared merchant ship with different skins?

 

My speculation is that ships are the - or at least a - real reason why the Pacific got "postponed".

 

Not only do they have to be modeled to the standard we have come to expect, but many of them had dozens of AA mountings. Too many of these makes the game a stutter-fest.  Large ships are visible from vast distances: playing with our current bubble would be impossible. That is before you even start on carrier deck operations: it is hard enough to get the AI to behave itself on a normal airfield, as playing the career shows. 

 

All of these may be surmountable with time, more powerful PCs and a redesign of the game engine but not in the normal year or so for BoX releases. I do think a Pacific theatre module with a map such as the Slot, ground based aircraft and simplified ship models would work with the current technology, leaving carrier operations till later.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a wide variety of options, if it hits big the updates and new additions can go on almost infinite.  The Japanese were seasoned vets, much better at what they were doing going up against fairly well trained opponents.  The first two years after Pearl they had a luxury of time to polish and hone what was already on the drawing boards from years of experience at war.  While the American side had the vast industrial scale to do likewise.  So it's like an explosion of lethal variety.  Russia and Germany were pretty much forced to go what they had or could steal and borrow.

 

Maybe some day we can get into the pre Pacific China theater, the variety in planes is amazing, everyone was selling China the goods, some really obscure and varied crap planes going up against early Japanese stuff.  Got to be a couple million potential Chinese simmers interested in that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 5:16 AM, =FEW=Herne said:

Carrier ops is the big appeal for me. Catching the wire in VR with a damaged bird, then taking a 5 minute afk to calm down while my hands stop shaking :)

 

What he said..

And, I love the Corsair and Hellcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it has to be a planeset. Then again I’d probably buy anything these guys put out. It tends to be such exceptional quality, I’d buy almost* anything. These guys blow the standards out of the water. That being said I still enjoy the thought of a F4f cruising over the open ocean. 

 

 

 

*I’m kidding, I would buy everything these dudes put out. 

Edited by angus26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion a carrier battle wouldn't be the best first move into the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre.

As of now I can't see them doing more than two scenario packs of it. Would be very unfortunate but that's my guess.

Question: For how long do you think average players are into carrier missions? By average I mean those with limited knowledge about the whole theatre.
Having build hundreds of missions in first Gen. IL2, many of which run on public servers, my personal answer would be: Not that long!

I know carrier missions are intriguing and they are a big part of the public image of the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre, but they tend to be extremely monotonous.
Always going to be the same few carriers, the same few aircraft, the same few targets, and the same long-distance flights over nothing but water.
The initial excitement will wear down sooner or later and there won't be a lengthy campaign.
We have to face the fact not everyone is into the Theatre and I can't see the overwhelming demand for a second release after this.

Therefore I'm personally convinced it would be better going for a less limiting and more beginner friendly scenario first and doing a carrier scenario afterwards.
Just an example but imo the most versatile option: New Guinea first, Battle of the Coral Sea second.

Two coherent scenarios giving a pretty comprehensive broad picture of the overall Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre. New Guinea representing the 1942-44 timeframe, Army aviation of both sides including a Commonwealth Air Force (RAAF) and even the IJNAS for a time (incl. famous Saburo Sakai), nearly unlimited possibilities, and the Jungle warfare and landscape.
Battle of the Coral Sea representing the naval scenarios of the Theatre, pretty balanced setup, neither fleet got annihilated, famous aircraft, and related to New Guinea.
They only had to do six aircraft for Coral Sea (TBD-1, B5N2, SBD-3, D3A1, F4F-3, A6M2-21 (A5M4 could be added later as collector aircraft)) and a plane water map, freeing up resources for detailed ship models and other advancements.

Edited by =27=Davesteu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1_Robert_ said:

.And, I love the Corsair and Hellcat

See, for me that's the main issue with the pacific theater. Obviously those two are some of the most iconic planes, and I get that people would love to get them. Those, and the P-38s, mustangs and the ever-coming back forts and superforts.

 

But (and that's just my opinion), from the point of view of balance, they represent zero value. That might very well be somewhat fine in SP (and even then, I'm not sure), but building MP scenarios with those is a nightmare. Roughly by 1943, the japanese are so outmatched it makes little sense to try and get some decent gameplay out of it.

 

On the other hand, earlier engagements present more interesting aspects, albeit with somewhat less iconic airplanes, at least on the allied side.

 

A planeset build around the F4F, P-40, dauntless, catalina (I guess flying boats and floatplanes are gonna be quite the challenge to implement), maybe an avenger or a devastator, maybe a buffalo, against a classic mix of A6M2, D3A and B5ns, and maybe some land based stuff like the Ki-43 would be the optimum.

 

Or even earlier chinese theatre stuff, but maybe getting too far from the real iconic stuff might be an issue sales-wise. 

Edited by Quinte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quinte said:

But (and that's just my opinion), from the point of view of balance, they represent zero value. That might very well be somewhat fine in SP (and even then, I'm not sure), but building MP scenarios with those is a nightmare. Roughly by 1943, the japanese are so outmatched it makes little sense to try and get some decent gameplay out of it.

Nah, in terms of raw performance A6M5 and Ki-61 can fight pretty well against early F6F-3 and F4U-1. To be fair, by 1943 Japanese were not outmatched at all, since its only around that time that first Marine Corsairs and Army Lightnings started arriving and they had much to learn. Until mid 1943 primary Navy fighter was still Wildcat, Army relied heavily on P-40s, P-39s and was slowly expanding its P-38 numbers. In mid 1943 was also introduced early P-47 D-2:

lvM2Wh.jpg

That one was actulally a bigger problem for Japanese. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My elevator pitch for a plane set would be Il2: the battle of Marianas

 

You would get a very manageable sized Saipan and Tinian Battlemap and maybe even an ocean for coral sea carrier fun.

 

The planeset would be A6M5, D4Y, B6N and F6F5, SBD5, TBF.

Attractive options for collectors planes would be the GM Wildcat, the SB2c, A6m21, G4m2.

 

The advantage of this set that is is that although you’re never going to get some people to buy in on a PTO set, there’s also the jock types who just want to fly and fight in the state of the art late war super fighters,  and a mid late 1944 group could add to the appeal.

 

Not to mention that this set would fit perfectly alongside the Bodenplatte US fighters adding plenty of options for owners. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be most interested in the radial engine fighters available in this theater - Wildcat, Hellcat, and of course the Zero - and I would love to see a Brewster Buffalo.

 

I would primarily be interested in land based operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Nah, in terms of raw performance A6M5 and Ki-61 can fight pretty well against early F6F-3 and F4U-1.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute that, really, but I'd assume the speed difference between a Zeke 52 and a corsair to be at least 30mph at all altitudes, even with an early corsair?.

5 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

To be fair, by 1943 Japanese were not outmatched at all, since its only around that time that first Marine Corsairs and Army Lightnings started arriving and they had much to learn.

That's largely besides the point, since our multiplayer experience does not rely on aircrafts being delivered from US mainland, nor do we have much to learn, discovering a fight we never heard about before.

If you give some players lightnings and corsairs, and others zeroes, assuming we're talking about somewhat experienced players, it's a bloodbath and the zeroes are on the defensive all day long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...