Navy Planes and Campaign’s?

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

16 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Now let's take the least obscure: Salerno.  Do you hear Salerno and think "carrier ops!".  I know that I don't.  I think of infantry.   When I do think of air ops in Italy I think of ground pounding, anti shipping, and the 15th AF strategic operations, not carriers.

I always do, but maybe this is a UK versus US thing. The main theatre in which the RN's carriers operated was the Med and the Salerno operation was infamously difficult for naval aviators who had to land fast and temperamental Seafires on slow and small escort carriers to support the landings. Hundreds were committed and within three days almost all had been lost. 

[PatrickAWlson]

24 minutes ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

I always do, but maybe this is a UK versus US thing. The main theatre in which the RN's carriers operated was the Med and the Salerno operation was infamously difficult for naval aviators who had to land fast and temperamental Seafires on slow and small escort carriers to support the landings. Hundreds were committed and within three days almost all had been lost. 

 

Interesting perspective.  Appreciated.  ETO carrier ops definitely do not get much air time in the US. 

[Pict]

24 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I don’t think it’s ultimately off the menu - it ultimately can’t be...that’s my point.

 

Yes that much I understood and it makes sense. How they would go about it is another thing.

 

19 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Putting carrier ops out as central part of any ETO module - do you really believe that would attract the numbers that would produce the required income to justify the expense?

 

I don't know, I don't have the data for that. They did Moscow & the Kuban and they appeared to work out ok, yet next to Stalingrad these theatres could be seen as obscure by the average bod.

 

Anyhow, if it was my call, I wouldn't do Salerno as a stand alone anything and certainly not carrier ops. I would however look tucking it into a Battle of Malta release or possibly as an add-on to that, in the way I've elswhere suggested they do a Dieppe add-on for the Normandy map.

Malta after all wouldn't have survived without carrier operations, as after all that's how they got the Hurricanes and Spitfires out to the Island. And carriers covered the convoy's up to the point the Malta based fighters took over.

Salerno was a breif show compared to Malta and Malta would need Siciliy on the map just as Salerno would. Plus many of the opposing types for Salerno would already be a part of a Malta scenario.

 

============

 

Same goes for Norway or North Africa. Why not have more than one plane set and associated campagin per map?  All up I'm for the devs getting more out of one map, as much as possible really.

 

Lots happened on the maps, not just carrier ops, but carrier ops happen there too.

 

32 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I don't.  If you do then we just disagree, which should not be a big deal.

 

For sure, disagreement is the lubrication of discussion.

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Interesting perspective.  Appreciated.  ETO carrier ops definitely do not get much air time in the US. 

 

Indeed.

Growing up I had no idea such a thing existed - let alone Eastern front etc.

 

[Pict]

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

I always do, but maybe this is a UK versus US thing.

 

You might have something there, but I would say it's more of an informed versus uniformed thing. I know many people in the UK who don't have a clue about Royal Navy carrier ops during WWII, yet know something about US Navy carrier operations in the PTO, Midway in particular. Could be the Hollwood factor.

 

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

The main theatre in which the RN's carriers operated was the Med and the Salerno operation was infamously difficult for naval aviators who had to land fast and temperamental Seafires on slow and small escort carriers to support the landings. Hundreds were committed and within three days almost all had been lost.

 

If I recall right at the end of WWII the Royal Navy had 98 carriers and only a handful of them ever saw the Med. Many operated in the Atlantic on convoy duty, some on the Russian convoy's. Others were in the Indian Ocean and even the Pacific.

 

The Seafire attrition rate at Salerno was more due to weather or lack of it (no wind over the deck) while operating from the small escort carriers than any issues with the aircraft or pilots. Later Seafire operations had a better landing - accident ratio than land based Spitfires according to statisitcs of the time quoted by a pilot who was there in the documentary below. I set it to run at the right point, but it's worth a watch from the start for anyone with an interest.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Pict

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Interesting perspective.  Appreciated.  ETO carrier ops definitely do not get much air time in the US. 

Tell you what mate, I'll put a rush on Salerno for my Odessa-style overview. If you don't want it now, I'll sell it to you!

 

Then there may be some small amount of productionising and we might have to talk to Jason or 1C or something? The module should be out fairly quickly after I've written some words and found a couple of pictures.

[Enceladus828]

Overall, guys, Carrier Ops in this game will be introduced when the devs do the Pacific such as the Battle of Midway. Doing Atlantic Carrier Ops first wouldn't be worth it as most people would find it uninteresting and doing Midway would have a greater return on investment as more people are aware of Midway than Atlantic Carrier Ops.

 

Atlantic as well as a Gibralter/Torch map would work best as Collector maps.

 

As for Malta and the Med, Carrier Ops there would be more profitable than the Atlantic and, but I feel that the Pacific is the best place to start for Carriers in this game.

 

Cheers.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

12 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

Would love to see how Zero's will annihilate Wildcat's.

 

Sorry guys I have to apologize for my brother. He promised to stop drinking. ?‍♀️

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well, in part you are correct.  The collective skill set of the online "flyer" is so advanced at this point in the time line of computer flight simulation, that early war scenarios will never play out in anything resembling a historical manner, unless they are in single player mode.

 

Getting enough "online aces" to fly for Japan was a problem, even back in original IL2.  Still, put me in a Ki 61 and turn me loose against those pesky blue planes.  It was always great fun to beat a cocky Hellcat pilot who thought that flying a blue colored aircraft was pushing the "easy" button.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Gambit21]

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

 

Getting enough "online aces" to fly for Japan was a problem, even back in original IL2.  Still, put me in a Ki 61 and turn me loose against those

 

 

Well if I was there...I pretty much had it handled...just saying. 

 

Warrant Officer Yamaha Kawasaki on the loose!!!!

 

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

pesky blue planes.  It was always great fun to beat a cocky Hellcat pilot who thought that flying a blue colored aircraft was pushing the "easy" button.

 

 

 

So many times.

 

 

I miss killing Beowulf.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Gambit21

[oc2209]

16 hours ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

Whether it will then get sales is an open question, would you pay, say, $30 for two planes and some random islands when it's $50 for eight planes, an important theatre of WW2 and a couple of campaigns?

 

I'd pay $30 for the Zero alone. I couldn't care less about flying it on an accurate Pacific map. If they wanted to make a Pacific map cheaply, they could make one that's 75% water. I'm not kidding. Just enough land for two airstrips and not much else.

 

What it boils down to is being able to fly one of the most aerobatic combat monoplanes in history. There are enough period-appropriate enemies for it in the sim already: the Spit V, the I-16, the P-39, P-40, and B-25. It would have enough to do in quick missions to make the price of admission worthwhile.

 

Would I rather fly a George, Frank, or Ki-100? Well, yes. But in lieu of those and a full Pacific lineup, a Zero by itself would be a hell of a lot better than never flying any Japanese planes at all.

Edited October 12, 2021 by oc2209
Forgot to mention the I-16.

[JG27_Steini]

10 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

Sorry guys I have to apologize for my brother. He promised to stop drinking. ?‍♀️

 

Made my day 

[[CPT]Crunch]

They sell airplane packs, they sell tank packs, they sell flak truck pairs, why can't they sell carrier sets and more plane packs to boot?  You don't have to make the whole damn shebang over night.

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'd pay $30 for the Zero alone. I couldn't care less about flying it on an accurate Pacific map. If they wanted to make a Pacific map cheaply, they could make one that's 75% water. I'm not kidding. Just enough land for two airstrips and not much else.

 

What it boils down to is being able to fly one of the most aerobatic combat monoplanes in history. There are enough period-appropriate enemies for it in the sim already: the Spit V, the I-16, the P-39, P-40, and B-25. It would have enough to do in quick missions to make the price of admission worthwhile.

 

Would I rather fly a George, Frank, or Ki-100? Well, yes. But in lieu of those and a full Pacific lineup, a Zero by itself would be a hell of a lot better than never flying any Japanese planes at all.

Exactly, stick it in an others Axis plane six pack Japanese, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Vichy, there's plenty to choose from.  It'd sell like hotcakes, I'd be on that like stink on a skunk.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Any single Japanese aircraft would be an instant buy from me.

 

Take my Yen, please.

[Vig]

Land-based Skuas sinking light cruisers off Bergen is fine for me.

[porks46porksf1sr]

So I logged into IL-2 this evening and on the dogfight loading screen where you click to choose dogfight was an F4F shooting down a Zero. Never seen that before, maybe I just missed it in the past.

Edited October 13, 2021 by porks46porksf1sr

[DBFlyguy]

4 minutes ago, porks46porksf1sr said:

So I logged into IL-2 this evening and on the dogfight loading screen where you click to choose dogfight was an F4F shooting down a Zero. Never seen that before, maybe I just missed it in the past.

It's always been there.

[porks46porksf1sr]

11 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

It's always been there.

Ah ok. I must have missed it

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

They sell airplane packs, they sell tank packs, they sell flak truck pairs, why can't they sell carrier sets and more plane packs to boot?  You don't have to make the whole damn shebang over night.

 

Probably one of the things about a Pacific map that makes the whole thing unappealing (from a developer perspective) is carrier ops.

 

While it would be a great challenge (and fun) for us to land on carriers with a complex flight model, if ships are one of the major stumbling blocks to flying Pacific planes (including American besides Japanese), then I say to hell with ships.

 

So, like I think you're saying, make the Pacific map first, then worry about populating it with ships much further down the road (if ever).

 

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Any single Japanese aircraft would be an instant buy from me.

 

Take my Yen, please.

 

Just off the top of my head, I'd buy (in no particular order; I'm also using the American names because those are easier to remember):

 

My must-fly list: Claude, Judy, Grace, Nick, Dinah, Zeke, Tony (and the related Ki-100), Frank, George.

 

My don't-love-but-still-would-buy list: Nate, Oscar, Betty, Peggy, Tojo, Jack.

 

Might be forgetting a few.

 

On the American side, I'd buy the Wildcat, Hellcat, and Corsair without blinking. Even though I'm not partial to their flight characteristics, I'd still be very, very curious to see how they handle in a much more detailed flight model than IL-2 1946's.

 

I doubt I'd want any American naval bombers. Though, the Dauntless was pretty agile for a bomber. I definitely don't want to buy its successor, the Son of a Bitch 2nd class, (Helldiver).

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

I doubt I'd want any American naval bombers. Though, the Dauntless was pretty agile for a bomber. I definitely don't want to buy its successor, the Son of a Bitch 2nd class, (Helldiver).

I'd buy the Helldiver as it's surely a plane that should have been included in PF or IL-2 1946 but wasn't.

I've grown a great fascination with the Helldiver since watching an episode of Dogfights Death of the Japanese Navy when I was in Elementary school.

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

if ships are one of the major stumbling blocks to flying Pacific planes (including American besides Japanese), then I say to hell with ships.

Well, I disagree on that as the lack of ships in PF and IL-2 1946 is pretty bad. We never got any light cruisers, Japanese submarines, no Japanese Heavy cruisers, only 1 American Heavy cruiser, no HMS Repulse, no USS Arizona, and no American or Japanese Battleships... and the worst aspect of that was the King George V BB was the place- holder Battleship. Would only work for the Iowa and Yamato class, not for the Kongo, Pennsylvania, etc. class Battleships.

 

I mean, Desert Wings-Tobruk has a much, much better depiction of ships than PF.

[oc2209]

33 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Well, I disagree on that as the lack of ships in PF and IL-2 1946 is pretty bad. We never got any light cruisers, Japanese submarines, no Japanese Heavy cruisers, only 1 American Heavy cruiser, no HMS Repulse, no USS Arizona, and no American or Japanese Battleships... and the worst aspect of that was the King George V BB was the place- holder Battleship. Would only work for the Iowa and Yamato class, not for the Kongo, Pennsylvania, etc. class Battleships.

 

I mean, Desert Wings-Tobruk has a much, much better depiction of ships than PF.

 

I want a billion dollars to accidentally be wired into my bank account, but, as the saying goes, we can't always get what we want.

 

It's a pretty clear equation as I see it; especially given things Jason's said recently about not even being able to fill certain positions in the company. If planes and maps are hard enough to develop in IL-2 right now, for whatever reasons, then large ships are a bridge too far.

 

If the choice is to never fly any Japanese planes because ships will add too much development expense/time, or because there isn't enough data available to accurately model certain Japanese ships, or a combination of both--again, if it's a choice between that and being able to fly Japanese/Pacific planes with few/no ships, then, since this is foremost a flight simulator, ships absolutely must be discarded in the quest to get as much airplane diversity as possible.

 

Bear in mind that even if the current IL-2 systems are part of the problem, and that a new game engine would partially rectify certain development issues that make a Pacific module unworkable--there's still the missing data problem. There are undoubtedly certain planes and ships that simply can never be accurately modelled because of a paucity of data.

 

Therefore, if we are always doomed to have gaps in a Pacific module, they might as well cut to the chase and gives us a few planes without waiting for a new game engine, and/or a complete lineup of ships, planes, and maps.

 

In other words, I'd rather have a half-assed Pacific package sometime in the next 5 years, over none at all, or a more complete (but never perfect) package with a new game engine 10 years from now.

[Dennis_Nedry]

Battle of Bismarck.  The map could be SW England and Brittany/West Normandy and then a large open ocean area off to the west.  This could feature Ark Royal and Victorious for carrier ops and of course Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.  Because this only a single event the whole timeline for this installment could be from May 41 - Feb 42.  Feb 42 is when the Channel Dash happens where the Normandy map would come in handy.  A lot of air engagements during this period across the channel, French ports, and western approaches.

 

Aircraft could include

 

Swordfish

Fairey Fulmar  

Sea Hurricane

Martlet

Spitfire MkII

Westland Whirlwind

 

Ar 196

Bf109E4/B

FW190A1 or 2

Do 217

Bf110C7

 

Could be fun

 

 

 

 

[Enceladus828]

@Dennis_Nedry your suggestion would probably work best as a Collector map (Bay of Biscay) and would most likely be made after a Battle with Pacific Carrier Ops. such as Midway is made.

 

Compared to Midway, this wouldn't generate much revenue for the devs.

 

[Feathered_IV]

I would not need carriers. A few extra trucks and flat bottom barges to strafe  would be fine. 

 

Edit:Lol Luke, you are such a little prick. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Feathered_IV

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

We have to remember, when talking about ships....BIG ships, there is an INSANE amount of AAA that comes with them. I remember building and flying some co-ops in 1946 on Hyperlobby with large flotillas of ships. Those with great hardware had no problems, while others with more modest systems had issues. All of that AAA would bring some folks' machines to their knees. It's no fun trying fly in a slide show.

 

But, perhaps a compromise could be made? Maybe if carriers, battle wagons, DD's, etc were implemented, they could be made to "deactivate" some of the guns in mission builder to be easier on players resources? Just thinking out loud here.

 

Either way, a PTO expansion would be an insta-buy for me. (I would LOVE to fly a Ki-43 or Ki-84 online!) ((SB2C would be cool too!))

[76IAP-Black]

4 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I would not need carriers. A few extra trucks and flat bottom barges to strafe  would be fine. 

 

Edit:Lol Luke, you are such a little prick. 

The barges are part of the ww1 Expansion, so they could be used for river hunting in missions

[Feathered_IV]

20 minutes ago, 76IAP-Black said:

The barges are part of the ww1 Expansion, so they could be used for river hunting in missions

Good idea. I was thinking of those Daihatsu barges that were everywhere in the Pacific, but some of the FC ones would be useful assets too.  

[Pict]

14 hours ago, porks46porksf1sr said:

So I logged into IL-2 this evening and on the dogfight loading screen where you click to choose dogfight was an F4F shooting down a Zero. Never seen that before, maybe I just missed it in the past.

 

Well spotted, but what about the Co-operative side?

 

In that black & white photo we can clearly see a highly classified war game where the team on the left are using acrobatics to join two strategic locations on the map with a turquoise ribbon...

 

A less complicated and declassified version of this game literally floored the civilan market in the 1960's under the brand name Twister™

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

As I have said before, a Pacific expansion does not necessarily need carriers, there are two theatres that could get us there without the need for modeling half the Combined Fleet.  New Guinea and the CBI.  Of course these were mainly army shows, for both sides, so the A6M would really not be needed there, for the most part.   

[Ribbon]

On 10/12/2021 at 5:32 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Interesting perspective.  Appreciated.  ETO carrier ops definitely do not get much air time in the US. 

Neither in Europe from my experience.

Here in Europe when it comes to general ww2 knowlege ppl are familiar with ground based war and their focus will be Europe (also thnx to Viasat hitlerstory) but thnx to Hollywood when ever you mention ww2 air battles most of the ppl will first think of Midway, IJN ,USN and carriers.....Hollywood!

Same is with other naval activities beside wolfpacks in atlantic.

I grew up on those movies making PTO my favourite theatre.

 

//speaking for ww2 knowlege of average person, ww2 enthusiasts excluded//

Edited October 14, 2021 by =VARP=EvilRibbon

[Props]

52 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As I have said before, a Pacific expansion does not necessarily need carriers, there are two theatres that could get us there without the need for modeling half the Combined Fleet.  New Guinea and the CBI.  Of course these were mainly army shows, for both sides, so the A6M would really not be needed there, for the most part.   

I agree with your assessment except for the mention of Being mainly army shows. While the CBI was definitely an IJA  theater especially in the west over Burma and western/ SW China, New Guinea was primarily an IJN show in early stages, where they also provided a majority of the ground forces involved. The IJA did not commit much to the Southwest Pacific until late '42 -'43, of course they had a pretty good presence after that as the Allies moved up the northern coast and threatened the Philippines. Almost all air support through '42 and early '43 for IJA ground forces during their operations in New Guinea were provided by land based IJN aircraft, specifically the A6M2/3 and G3M / G4M bombers from the east coast and Rabaul. Once the IJN shifted focus to Guadalcanal (and elsewhere in the Pacific) the IJA had to start moving some resources in.

 

CBI of course would require Oscars (Ki43 variants) as there were no Zeros involved in Burma or western China as the IJN's involvement was mostly limited to the interior and eastern China. And after Dec. '41 they pretty much started pulling those out for other campaigns. New Guinea did see quite a few Tonys , Ki44s, and Dinahs after '42.

 

Me I still cling to the Up the Solomons as the best scenario, as you can string airfields all over the islands to eliminate the long flight times from Rabaul, you can get it going without carriers and add those later as they become feasible. You technically only have to add 4 US aircraft - F4F, Dauntless, and Avenger with maybe a F6F, and F4U later, as we already have most of the other AC available. Then of course add the A6M2/3, G4M, Val and Kate to get things up and running. As with all the BoX series it would be a work in progress adding more AC and maps as you go along and I would be very happy with a New Guinea map, especially with Port Moresby, the Stanley Owens mountains, eastern strongholds /battles of Lae, Salamaua, Buna, Milne Bay, etc.

 

I see a lot of comments here and over on the "What every one wants?" discussion about the lack of specs on Japanese AC and think this is an invalid argument. While it is true that for some AC like the Ki44 Tojo it would be very difficult to get a solid base of tech specs, I have found loads of info on many of the others online, even old US intelligence tech manuals showing interior framing, wiring, and hydraulics for most of them, even for the Tojo. I believe I've only scratched the surface of what's really available. I'm sure if this community put it's collective skills together we could dig up plenty of solid info to build good quality sim AC. Anyway I've brought all this up before so I'll just leave it at that.

[Pict]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As I have said before, a Pacific expansion does not necessarily need carriers, there are two theatres that could get us there without the need for modeling half the Combined Fleet.  New Guinea and the CBI.  Of course these were mainly army shows, for both sides, so the A6M would really not be needed there, for the most part.   

 

There is also the Battle of Singpore and the Dutch East Indies. The A6M was definately there at both venues and land based, as was the Ki-43 & Ki-27. They were up against Brewster Buffaloes & Hurricane MK.II's

 

It'd make for an interesing scenario, G3M2 Nell & G4M1 Betty bombers, PBY Cataliana (I think), plus the Bristol Blenheim MK.I was there and even made it onto the cover of Life magazine. And last and probably least the Vickers Vildebeest, for those who thought the Buffalo was the only useless beef the RAF had 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Pict

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As I have said before, a Pacific expansion does not necessarily need carriers, there are two theatres that could get us there without the need for modeling half the Combined Fleet.  New Guinea and the CBI.  Of course these were mainly army shows, for both sides, so the A6M would really not be needed there, for the most part.   

 

Solomons dude - Solomons.

That’s the 6 month battle that actually turned the tide.

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

So we're back to talking about the same old 'plz Pacific plz Pacific' as always. It's not like it hasn't been sufficiently explained that 1C are raring to go on Battle of Midway the moment that someone gets them the necessary technical specifications for the Val, Kate and Pete. If you've got it, put it here:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/106-pacific-theater-discussion-and-assistance/

 

If you don't, give it a bloody rest, will you?

[Dennis_Nedry]

18 hours ago, Enceladus said:

@Dennis_Nedry your suggestion would probably work best as a Collector map (Bay of Biscay) and would most likely be made after a Battle with Pacific Carrier Ops. such as Midway is made.

 

Compared to Midway, this wouldn't generate much revenue for the devs.

 

Perhaps, but its an interesting time period that is somewhat well known as part of the Battle of the Atlantic.

[BlitzPig_EL]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Solomons dude - Solomons.

That’s the 6 month battle that actually turned the tide.

 

I always enjoyed playing on the Solomons map in old IL2.  In fact the BlitzPigs were among a couple other squads that helped Team Pacific play test it.  Lots of memorable game play sneaking around in the Emily and bombing Henderson from altitude.

[Gambit21]

...and to clarify it was actually the battle for Guadalcanal that took 6 months all by itself. This was the “decider” Then more months moving up the Slot...Blacksheep out of Vella La Vella. Good stuff.

[Ribbon]

How about Ju88 A4mod/A17 for a collector plane that would fit BoN and some other possible theatres.

It is based on ju88a4 that we already have ingame so it would be much easier to develop, A17 being factory modified version of A4 with removed ventral gondola and added torpedos, radar and 3 crew members.

I've read somewhere there were also field modified A4 carrying torpedos.

 

Pic of ju88A4/a17mod, seems gondola is still there .

Factory ones A17 were without ventral gondola

Edited October 15, 2021 by =VARP=Ribbon